These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#661 - 2011-10-11 02:46:15 UTC
Velin Dhal wrote:
You have got to be kidding me ?

What exactly is this supposed to balance ?

The low SP toons crying ?

You already put the nerf to titans when you took away the AOE doomsday. Now you take away the drone bay and can't use your doomsday on non caps ?

You don't let Super carriers have anything but fighters and fighter bombers ?

Dreds lose drone bays too ?

So apparently one guy in a heavy interdictor can point you and your never getting away. You didn't nerf them, you just made them unable to defend themselves. How is that balancing ?

Half the fun of super capitals is knowing you worked your ass off to get in one and it payed off. Now you make them worthless unless you have a huge support fleet surrounding you.

Why does it seem to me that every time there is a serious update to this game now, that low SP toons get the world and High SP toons have to bend over ?

1st look at sov warfare boards and see how many capitals / super caps are on kill mails

2. why should a titan be able to pop their tackle.

3....... you know what, **** trying to explain this.

IF YOU ARE IN A FUCKEN SOV 0.0 ALLIANCE this means you will need to work together as an alliance. All this does is make it so that people not in super caps have a role, and that role is to protect their super caps.

Example - EvE dominion trailer. Sub cap fleet clears out fodder for super caps. Super caps are no longer front line assault ships. If you jump in super caps w/o good support you deserve to die, everyone should be working together to achieve a goal, not the select 1% of your alliance in super caps blobbing.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

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

Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#662 - 2011-10-11 02:48:42 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
FHM wrote:
Very nice change's ! Finally small alliances that can field 100 experienced people will be able to take their stand and push
for their own 0.0 I WIN BUTTON REMOVED

The most stupid complaints you hear about these balances answered:

1) We are veterans in this game ( Goons, PL, Raiden... ) we win every fight because we have the hardcore skill of being able to press I WIN button.

1) You are not veterans you only exist because of the I WIN button i am looking forward to High Sec mining corporations
whelping PL, Raiden, Solar, WN, Goon fleets like its no tomorrow. Veterans adapt to changes not cry about them. Saying
that most veterans will quit when having their supers nerfed shows how wrong your idea and meaning of the word: veteran
really is.

If you need to quit because you got BUT HURT and are no longer able to press the I WIN button and call your self a veteran go and do it no one will miss you Q3 2011 reported 1k super capital pilots active in EVE well that's the FAT we can easily trim.

2) Super capitals can no longer defend them selves against sub-capitals.

Another stupid argument that can be made only by a stupid person. Super capitals are slow, big and clumsy logistical
platform whit ability to counter other BIG things and should not be used for melting sub-capitals.
If you field your super your should field it to a purpose knowing full well you can easily use it. Just because you payed 18 billion or 85 billion for your hull does not mean you are granted the I WIN button.

By bye ******** and arrogant corp mates that think they are so important based on the fact they have a SC.

3) I can no longer rat in my Carrier, Super Carrier, Titan.

If you ever did that you deserve to die in it. Titans and Super Carriers are meant to be an alliance investment not a personal investment. So they should not be cost effective or give you a 200 or 360mil/h bonus they are not ratting machines and if
that is what you used them fore you need to go back and start doing L1's and learn a thing or two about the game.

4) 100 Canes can no kill a lone Super Carrier

Well ofc the outcome of that fight had to be reversed. It how it is in real life and whatever imaginary life you imagine.

5) Most common argument from Goons, PL, WN, Raiden, NC... In this topic is:

We can no longer use the I WIN button our super capital blob is dead we are about to loose super capitals on daily basis
that will be caught ratting for our extreme veteran title.

Answer: Just learn to PVP learn to play.

6) Dreads will be OP

How cuss it to hard to put a scram on it when it exits sige? Or based on fact it cant hit anything that moved at 1m/s ?
Or is it 2 hard to light a cyno from your spy alts to drop a SC fleet on them. Only thing this changed is taking the
pace of this game to a new level where you will have to respond to assaults faster.

And even if their will be OP there is a counter CCP gave you and promised to buff them. They are the ships you
so refuse to fly. You will find them under the market tab BLACK OPS finally a use for them. Have em standing by
and you have a fleet ready for rapid deployment in your sov space.

7) I trained for 6 months but SC's are useless now give me back my skills

You were aware of what you were committing to and the fact everything is viable to change in game. So if you think it was
a mistake going for a SC it is only your own problem. Also few years ago i trained for a Dread that are useless ATM
you don't see me crying for years give me back my skills.

If you cry about these changes you are possibly the 13-25 year old kid that has a ton of time to spare and grinds those
anomaly's, L4s and 10/10 DED's and logs off the second someone mentions CTA or Roam.

Holy christ you are developmentally challenged. Kindly remove yourself from the gene pool tia.

Since I couldn't find the original post of this excessive comment (meaning i didn't look for it)

The so called "I win" button is something you press because your rich and have been playing this game for years. Those people probably busted their ass in low-sec and 0.0. Sorry if you sat in high-sec with your concord security blanket for your entire eve career. That is not our problem.

Also, if you think the alliances that can field large amounts of super caps can't fight without them, you have to be exceedingly stupid.
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#663 - 2011-10-11 02:50:33 UTC
Feydryn wrote:
This is one of THE worst balancing decisions I've ever seen in a games life cycle.

You have completely removed the counter-balance to "blob" warfare in one fell stroke.

Excuse me sir, but I could not help noticing that your pants are on fire. Were you aware?

Further, your nose appears to be rapidly growing. Should I call for medical assistance as well as a fire engine?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dr 0wnage
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#664 - 2011-10-11 02:51:35 UTC
Ok, this thread is growing faster then i can read it now lol

What ive gathered from reading the first 25 pages is this...

1. HP nerfs = bad. Balancing the classes amongst themselves is more important (ie the poor Hel)
2. Drone bay changes to supers is generally good, but the fighter nerf is VERY BAD!
3. Titan turret tracking is a MAJOR issue that cannot be ignored.
4. Dreads still need more love, no excuses.
5. Everything else mentioned is generally good.

CCP Tallest,

By giving every class of ship a well defined role and purpose in this game, you ensure their use. In the "before time", when there was only a handful of motherships and titans in the game. Dreads and carriers had their defined roles being that carriers killed subcaps and dreads killed caps. By introducing the SC and Titan as cap killers the dreads effectively lost their role and carriers were made largely unable to fulfill their role (which was modified somewhat to a support role w/ triage) because they simply die to damn fast to perform their duties.

The carrier can still be a sub killer if we want it to be. I personally do. One thing that can make this happen without jacking everything too much is allowing carriers to deploy fighters while in triage. Possibly even give a fighter damage bonus to the triage module? This accompanied with a 50% HP boost would give carriers the firepower and longevity they desperately need in today's fleet battle.

Dreads are the difficult fix as they currently have no viable role and the role they used to fill has been moved to a different ship. After much thought and consideration ive decided that an anti-subcap role would best fit this ship. Originally i had tried to make the dread a viable anti-cap platform when used in numbers but again, there are already two classes of ships that fill that role much better. SO, what would happen if we made dreads effective against BC and BS class ships? This can easily be done by improving tracking. Along with a similar HP buff like the carriers this would give these ships new life and a very important place on the battlefield.

With the above changes to carriers and dreads along with many of the changes you are proposing to supers we find ourselves with a very happy balance between the three groups. Subs kill supers, caps kill subs, supers kill caps.
Chosen Path
#665 - 2011-10-11 02:57:16 UTC
to give some credit to CCP
we have come a long way
#666 - 2011-10-11 03:05:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
xxxak wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
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 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!

It does in lowsec.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Thomas Abernathy
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#667 - 2011-10-11 03:08:54 UTC
Bottom line is, You may as well bring a couple carriers instead of an overpriced target. Shocked

Only the largest Alliances will EVER use Supercarriers, since they control the unlimited moon-goo isk faucet to provide supercarrier reimbursement.
So if this is somehow connected with the revitization of 0.0, you failed basic physcology.
In fact, if this logoff aggression change applies to all ships as has been stated in this post, the average player may as well forget flying caps altogether. Now everytime you logon or undock, you face a real risk of losing your cap...
And god forbid you have a bad ISP....Big smile

Since you've made the Supercarrier useless, you need to make them dockable, so they can rot in a station, instead of rotting a character that people invested a lot of time in. Cool

"Fighting CCD since 2139"

Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#668 - 2011-10-11 03:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Headerman
Not sure if this will be read, but...

To CCP Tallest:

With the recent proposed changes to Dreads (removing drones, increasing damage when in siege to 700% as well as the 5% bonus to the Moros), will this see the Moros supplant the Naglfar as the Dread with the (potentially) most DPS?

If so, why should i spend the extra time training for Projectile weapons AND a whole host of missile skills, when i could just train for Blasters and be better?

IMO the nag SHOULD be the premier DPS Dread because of the extra training time involved.

In regards to the drone bays,

- Some time int he near future, i for one would love to see dedicated drone bays on SCs. One for fighters, one for fighter bombers, one for sentries and heavies, one for mediums, one for lights, one for e-war and one for logistics and mining drones. Would be much easier to control.

But please look at the Nag and Moros DPS situation

Australian Fanfest Event

Dutch Trading Outpost
#669 - 2011-10-11 03:15:41 UTC
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!
#670 - 2011-10-11 03:19:39 UTC
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!

to quote the guy above

simply bending over to the will of a bunch os low sp new players crying is not the answers. Titans are fine, dont change them. changing the DD is pointless, its fine as it is.

wanna have less supers?

Make them harder to build


For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

Di Mulle
#671 - 2011-10-11 03:19:44 UTC
kralz wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
People who buy obvioulsy unbalanced stuff because of the unbalanced **** in the stuff should stay quiet. You ought to know that it is going to be balanced sooner or later.

HAAAA ur smoking crack bro. people who fly broken lame stuff are stupid for wasting time to train it.

people who train to fly stuff that is awesome actually LOOKED INTO WHAT THEY WERE TRAINING...only to have years of training ruined because lame ass loosers very much like youself who cannot hang with some super cap pilots ruining their day

1st time i got hot dropped i laughted i died so fast...and decided THATS HAT I WANNA DO with MY life. cuz it works
its mean
its moral jarring to know that i can drop 26 million hit points on u and **** ur skull off with 20 fighters and u cant do nothing about it.
people do whats effective. and people who cant do it like me cry about it.

still i challenge CCP to not be ******** and nerf carriers like they intend. and i challenge u to try and get one. u might actually like not being a looser.

An epitome.

You just explained, very effectively, why supers needed to be nerfed. Like a 1,5 years ago. Why are you asking for other explanations, you have already mastered one ?
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
#672 - 2011-10-11 03:21:58 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
ToXicPaIN wrote:

with what weapon can a Titan and a Dread now fight vs. Sub-Caps ??

The awesome weapon of a buddy in a ship that can hit those targets.

Or, you know, you can fit a large or medium gun on your dreadnought, as those were designed to attack those targets. /me hides from the rain of rotten tomatoes.

Why not.. A BS does more damage then a non sieged dread.

Dreads are still going to be useless. They do crap damage against structures and no damage against anything that is moving. Oh wait.. When Dust actually arrives they will be useful for planetary bombardment. Maybe. (Not holding my breath)

Take away the ability for fighter-bombers to shoot structures. Then no one will use them either.

A moros without drones.. that's just sick.

Remove the ability for a single super to jump into a hostile POS and act with impunity. POS scrams and disruptors should stop anything from warping.

Everyone hates POS warfare. Give Dreads a damage bonus to structures. Make them worth while again.
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#673 - 2011-10-11 03:23:25 UTC
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!

I think CCP Tallest is investigating a tracking bonus to x-large weapons, i got my fingers crossed for that Smile

Australian Fanfest Event

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#674 - 2011-10-11 03:24:59 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.

By "More interesting types of combat" you mean "can make a carrier a paperweight by shooting its weapons"

When I can shoot the guns off of other ships it will be interesting too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

State War Academy
Caldari State
#675 - 2011-10-11 03:26:52 UTC
After reading the proposed changes and the objective to change the way Capitals work.
Perhaps it is time to take some lessens from the real world.

Carriers and Super Carrier are dependent on there fighter screans to protect them.
What about giving us more control over the Fighters and Drones.
ie - ATTACK Targets Drones / Fighters / Bombers.

Then a enemy fleet would warp in and try to take out your capitals.
You can launch Fighters from a normal carrier with an objective to kill the SC's Bombers before they kill your ships.
Effectively it would be a NPC battle after the first command freeing up the players to deal with other things and just have fun.

Could this be done.
Smarter AI on the drones would mean less clicking by the players and reduce lag.

Aurora Egnald
#676 - 2011-10-11 03:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Aurora Egnald
This is all about screwing the high skill pilots over period. Apperantly CCP is now practicing in game welfare in favor of the lower skilled/isk poor pilots. Looks like thay are really tryin to ruin this game in favor of their newest product world of darkness that caters to the twilight crowd.
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#677 - 2011-10-11 03:32:53 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.


If you dont log your ship in a safe place it should be at risk. The only reason to keep this in the game is to allow people to avoid combat when they are caught off guard.

Lets be honest, 99% of the time its not a person actually crashing, its lame ass pilots trying to save their ships off line.
Legacy of Tyr
#678 - 2011-10-11 03:38:41 UTC
I like all the changes I see, except for the Fighters change.......... Why do regular carriers get the nerf as well?Just seems to me regular capitals need some attention, in a positive manner, Not just Dreadnaughts.
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#679 - 2011-10-11 03:41:04 UTC
Stealthiest wrote:
How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?

As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?

I mean really!!!!!

Yes, really. DDing frigates and cruisers is bullshit and you know it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Pleasure Island
#680 - 2011-10-11 03:41:46 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
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.

Aw, so no fix thus far for jump-in -> Logoffski. What if logging off within a minute of the conclusion of the session change timer activated the 15 minute timer for remaining in space?

This is a good point, it's pretty annoying having a freighter pilot jumpthrough unscouted realizing there is small gang waiting for him.
And he simply loggs out to save his ship!?! Pretty lame exploit to game mechanics for his mistake.

You want cap fleets to commit to the fight?

well make pilots commit in general too.

Make jumping through unscouted have a risk, because Log off should not be a get out jail free card in this situation.

Ccp what is your thoughts on this?