These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#721 - 2011-10-11 04:52:02 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Was the SC ever intended as a ratting platform?

Was the SC ever intended for solo ganking?

You will no doubt have a hard time finding support for that position.



Intended for? Who gives a flying **** what was intended-- the ships' statistics and capabilities made them an excellent ratting platform, and a decent (if risky) platform for solo ganking other capitals.

There are very few ships in EVE that have a limited set of uses (industrials, dictors, and dreads are about the only ships I can think of that don't regularly get used for purposes other than the ones they were "intended for"). If I buy a battleship, I can fit it for fleet PvP, solo PvP, or PvE. Same with a BC. Same with a carrier, etc, etc. What's your problem with the idea that people want to continue using ships for purposes you don't consider appropriate? I'm not going to tell you how you should or shouldn't be able to use your Megathron, so stop suggesting you ought be able to dictate to me how I should use my supercarrier.


I agree
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#722 - 2011-10-11 04:52:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Velin Dhal
Nephilius wrote:
Just real quick...

Velin Dhal wrote:
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.


This is self-entitlement. Read it, and understand that. Don't think you are special because you did something different than everyone else, because they did something you don't agree with. It isn't your game, or Goons, or NC or BoB or whomever the hell you think. It's everybody's game and we all know that these big azz ships are fielded in stupid numbers to tip the tide because it's easier that way.

Now, I'm not going to pretend I know alot about the mechanics of Carriers, Dreads, Moms, Super Caps or anything like that. I don't, so alot of these changes are just a tad bit over me. The logoffski mechanic getting fixed is easily the best thing, and I can see everyone pretty much agrees to that. Here's where I have to go into unfamiliar territory, and I am really going to just touch on one thing.

The whole Super Cap and Sub Cap thing seems to be more realistic if the Super Caps cannot own the Subcap ship classes with impunity. We're talking about gargantuan ships that were really designed to take on other gargantuan ships and large structures. Wiping the board clean of subcaps seems to me to be a broken mechanic. I'm not speaking of DD devices, I still believe that those should probably sterilize the battlefield of both sides. As far as subcaps taking out a Supercap, yeah, it should be possible, but you should need immense amounts of firepower to do it too. If it takes a 100+ Canes or Megas, then that's what it takes. It's not going to happen in a few minutes, nor should it. It should be possible, but only with coordination. Likewise, a Supercap should not enter the battlefield without subcap support, that would be stupid. Ultimately, it should be tactics versus tactics, not who brought the biggest or meanest ship.

I get the feeling that CCP is trying to make these monstrosities matter again, to make them special, something that isn't an everyday thing, but a commitment to a cause. A supercap should really be a last resort, or at the very least, the cornerstone of an assault. But no assault would be complete without fleet support, and I really see that CCP is trying to steer the game back in the subcap direction. I remember when a supercap being fielded or a DD device being used was something special, a Breaking News report that everyone read because it didn't happen everyday. But when it becomes commonplace, there's nothing special about it anymore. It's like hearing Tiger Woods won yet another championship, it's not momentous or awe inspiring, it just becomes meh.

Overall, I'm seeing alot of the big alliances pretty peeved about all this and it tells me that it's probably a good thing for the game. I think it will make people think twice about gratuitously throwing these ships on the field with an overriding sense of invulnerability. I hope it will make them special again, and therefore actually have some meaning once more.



I do like your post. As opposed as I am to this change this was very well written. One thing I want to talk about here is your last paragraph. All in all, its not true. I watched a -A- fleet with 6 or so supers in it get attacked by a Black legion fleet with nothing but Scimitars and Munnins. Guess what. The -A- " I win" Button didn't work. These ships are not over powered and can be destroyed with the right fleet comp.

Also regarding the self entitlement thing...yeah your damn right. I most certainly do feel entitled to the things I've worked hard to get. I may or may not have a super but what matters is that what I have I earned. I have the right to feel good about that.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#723 - 2011-10-11 04:55:28 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Not every supercap pilot uses their ship in a blob context. If you're dead-set on stripping SCs of the little defensive capabilities they currently have (being able to field light drones) rather than simply reducing their drone bay sizes to 250-350m3 (which is the solution I think offers the best balance between the current "infinite drones" situation and SCs being utterly defenseless against any potential tacklers), then can you at least add in some logistical support perks to compensate?



Surely the some 4000 people in your alliance give you some sort of defensive capability.


Remember most of this nerf is to end cowboy variety super cap fights. If you want to commit them it is no longer Ginger Magician style or reckoning style.


If you want to committ to a fight and survive, you will have to rely on your FC's, you will have to rely on your alliance, you will have to rely on your friend s for victory and safety. All they are doing is putting an end to solo super cap play.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#724 - 2011-10-11 04:55:43 UTC
@Supercarrier Drone Nerf:
This looks like a good change, but seems to go a bit too far. It may be better to provide supercarriers with a limited drone bay, as has been suggested, which is separate from their fighter/bomber bay, and which would grant supercarriers limited defense against small ships. At the very least, supercarriers should be able to field a full wing of both fighters and fighterbombers (that is, one wing of fighters and one wing of fighterbombers).

@Titan/Dread Drone Nerf:
Not sure why this was ever an issue. It seems more like an attempt to reduce the amount of drones on grid. If so, please just simply say so outright.

@Fighter Nerf:
Not seeing too many issues. Sentry drones have a signature resolution of 400, so fighters should still be able to hit battleships without much difficulty.

@Logoff Timer:
Good change, provided that a ship which is caught in a bubble and does not aggress before logging off still disappears from grid after a few minutes.

@Dread Buff:
Good change. But keep in mind that dreads are still useless outside siege, and since local active tank is worthless in a fleet fight of any meaningful size dreads are still flying coffins. Also keep in mind that while in siege, a dread will have issues hitting an orbiting carrier even with remote tracking links, so it isn't really useful against capitals.

Good changes overall. Hopefully you'll be keeping an eye on their impact, however.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#725 - 2011-10-11 04:56:18 UTC
I think this sure opens the door to a potential sub-capital-brawler-cap, something that sits between a dread (out of siege) and a titan in terms of DPS and HPs, with bonuses to tracking rather than damage

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#726 - 2011-10-11 04:57:43 UTC
Awesome work, CCP.
I'm looking forward to more balancing in the future!
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#727 - 2011-10-11 05:03:25 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Was the SC ever intended as a ratting platform?

Was the SC ever intended for solo ganking?

You will no doubt have a hard time finding support for that position.



Intended for? Who gives a flying **** what was intended-- the ships' statistics and capabilities made them an excellent ratting platform, and a decent (if risky) platform for solo ganking other capitals.

So if they were not 'intended' for any purpose and only the stats allow for, you should have no reason for objecting on the basis that the changes remove possible activities.

Since they weren't intended to perform any activities anyway, so what does it matter if some become impossible to do?

Nyan
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#728 - 2011-10-11 05:08:21 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Was the SC ever intended as a ratting platform?

Was the SC ever intended for solo ganking?

You will no doubt have a hard time finding support for that position.



Intended for? Who gives a flying **** what was intended-- the ships' statistics and capabilities made them an excellent ratting platform, and a decent (if risky) platform for solo ganking other capitals.

So if they were not 'intended' for any purpose and only the stats allow for, you should have no reason for objecting on the basis that the changes remove possible activities.

Since they weren't intended to perform any activities anyway, so what does it matter if some become impossible to do?



Was it intended that 20 Battleships gank your JC in highsec and someone floats in with their hauler and scoops your 4 bil loot drop ? I doubt it. Maybe we should just take away the ability to shoot people at all. Hugs and bunnies in station walking !!!
IZZY EPIC
Best Kept Dunked
#729 - 2011-10-11 05:13:25 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
IZZY EPIC wrote:


Wasn't talking about in general, if you actaully read what I quoted.

I was talking about the first minute or two after you jump through a gate.
To deterr logg offs caused when a target jumps into a gang.
If you waited the so called stargate timer then log off which could be a simple 90 second including the 60 seconds in which your cloaked.
You disappear with in a minute. Earlier and then the agression is slapped on.




Actually Izzy I was agreeing with you and just giving an example of what would happen if CCP stamped everyone with a 15 log off timer, aggro or not.
Not that you were promoting one.

THen secondly I stated if CCP could instead imply a 15 minute timer once you jump through a gate then that would solve the issue of jumping through a gate and logging off before you get aggro.

I am not sure how to make it clearer.


Ahh dorry my bad :)
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#730 - 2011-10-11 05:16:53 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:

If you want to committ to a fight and survive, you will have to rely on your FC's, you will have to rely on your alliance, you will have to rely on your friend s for victory and safety. All they are doing is putting an end to solo super cap play.



...Except that solo supercaps were *never* the problem in the first place. This is the point of my argument-- they're talking about breaking one, nonproblematic form of gameplay in order to fix problems with another form of gameplay (supercap blobbing). I'm just saying SCs should be left with enough drones to perhaps make a difference in solo play, but without such a mass of drones that they remain problematic in big fights.

Being able to field a total of ~60 normal drones is not going to make the tiniest difference in a fleet fight, but it might just make or break a solo engagement. That said, it's not like being able to field drones is a get-out-of-jail-free card for SCs. Even now, with an essentially infinite supply of small drones, its not like a solo SC is going to be able to fight its way out of a properly set trap. For actual, real-world examples of this, see the incidents where Dabigredboat dropped his Nyx on a gatecamp in Cobalt Edge (IRC brought a couple of dictors, tackled him on a gate, and killed his Nyx with a titan, a supercarrier, 1-2 dreads and a kitchen sink gang of subcaps), or Zungen losing a Nyx in Delve to Brick Squad (they brought a couple of dictors, he was held on the field and killed by a subcap gang). If a solo supercap can't escape a small hostile gang now, with infinite drones, I find it hard to believe that keeping a couple of flights of drones in the future will somehow render SCs broken solo pwnmobiles.

What reducing SC drone bays to a reasonable size *will* do is prevent piles of SCs in a fleet fight fielding hundreds of Ogre IIs, wave after wave, and using them to obliterate all subcaps on the field. I think this current behavior is dumb, and that supercaps shouldn't be able to prevail over subcap fleets without their own subcap support in fleet fights. Taking all their drones is totally unnecessary though.
Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2011-10-11 05:18:01 UTC
Well, this is odd... But here we go:

VERY GOOD JOB

This addresses a large portion of the problems surrounding large fleet battles. I think there will certainly always be more adjustments to be made, but this is a massive step in the right direction.

KEEP IT UP

I know you are working to show the Eve community you're ready to focus on FiS. I hope after this expansion you don't simply let it go again.

MJ
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#732 - 2011-10-11 05:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab
Velin Dhal wrote:
Was it intended that 20 Battleships gank your JC in highsec and someone floats in with their hauler and scoops your 4 bil loot drop ? I doubt it. Maybe we should just take away the ability to shoot people at all. Hugs and bunnies in station walking !!!

Reductio ad absurdum; to say that intended roles do not matter in balancing, means that nerfing the ship to be the same as a rookie ship is ok... Since there's no intended roles a rookie ship stats would be completely fine.

Nyan
Cethrie
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#733 - 2011-10-11 05:19:03 UTC
Shadoo wrote:


The ehp reduction will not work the way you intended. It will simply encourage more people to move to Titans and ensure whoever has more titans will always win the engagement since no one will want to risk third of their fleet being wiped by DDs on the first jump in.

There was nothing wrong with supercapital EHP, except it was hard to kill them in a lagged system with the logoff timer. All your EHP reduction now does is make titans even more king than before. Was this your intention?

Dronebays -- fine, but I'd consider allowing every class of a supercarrier to store one flight of BOTH fighters and fighter bombers.



I'm wondering why Shadoo has to point out that supers and titans will continue to proliferate in even greater numbers during the next year. Every ship in eve no matter how hard to skill for, how long to build will proliferate to the point where everyone can have one. Almost Every ship class you have released has done this (battleships, titans, t3 etc... etc.. ) This will make the EHP nerf even worse as the titan and super carrier blobs continue to grow. Not to mention the Hel goes from a terrible buffer, to which titan will get the KB.

I agree with Shadoo, the drone removal is fine (except now super carriers can't actually shoot online POS towers with the removal of sentry drones). However with supers unable to dock, its not like a super carrier can easily switch to a new setup without at least 2 runs in the biggest hauler possible. I thought you guys stated things in Eve were meant to be fun, now you are just delaying either the fight or the will of the FC to deploy the super carriers.


The fighter nerf seems unnecessary, there is no reason why carriers and super carriers shouldn't be able to deploy something that works against a Battleship. You have pretty much effectively halved the damage a battleship will take from figthers. I don't see the point of that, it's not fighters chewing through battleship fleets, it's titans 1 volleying the battleships every gun cycle.
Masamune Dekoro
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#734 - 2011-10-11 05:24:43 UTC
David Grogan wrote:
i think the term Doomsday needs to be scrapped and replaced with "Anti-capital Weapon" cos it no longer implies doomsday if it cant hit sub caps too




I think it should be scrapped because there is no day in spaceCool
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#735 - 2011-10-11 05:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Was the SC ever intended as a ratting platform?

Was the SC ever intended for solo ganking?

You will no doubt have a hard time finding support for that position.



Intended for? Who gives a flying **** what was intended-- the ships' statistics and capabilities made them an excellent ratting platform, and a decent (if risky) platform for solo ganking other capitals.

So if they were not 'intended' for any purpose and only the stats allow for, you should have no reason for objecting on the basis that the changes remove possible activities.

Since they weren't intended to perform any activities anyway, so what does it matter if some become impossible to do?


Because I already spent all my EVE gold on a ship based on its capabilities at the time, you moron. I bought a ship that was capable of ratting, ganking, and being used in fleets. Now CCP are effectively saying that, effective this winter, the ship will no longer be useful for either of the two purposes I had in mind when I purchased it, yet I won't be offered a refund of the money or training time I invested in procuring the ship. How exactly is this fair?

If CCP announced that, effective next week, CNRs would no longer be allowed through acceleration gates, you don't think there'd be hordes of pubbies in Jita shooting monuments about it and crying MY NAVY RAVEN all over the forums? I'd expect you'd probably be one of them.

I'm not suggesting that supercaps should be left as they are, I think they're broken and OP and they're ruining nullsec gameplay. I'm just saying that CCP need to figure out a way to fix their effect on fleet fights without eliminating their other existing uses, which the combination of the fighter-nerf and the removal of all sub-fighter drones would surely cause.

Alternatively, CCP could offer to disappear the ships and refund ISK / minerals / whatever, plus supercap-related skillpoints if pilots choose to do so. I wouldn't have a problem with this, and would seriously consider reprocessing my Nyx (I still might keep it as a space-truck, but that's a personal preference).

I should probably mention that, if you'd ever actually owned a supercap, you would know how rarely they are used in fleet contexts, and how boring that use typically is when it occurs. Personally, I didn't spend 20 billion so that I could sit logged out 99% of the time, and spend 95% of my logged-in time either sitting in a pos or shooting structures unopposed. I bought my Nyx so that I could roll around ganking baddies when I'm deployed and making bank when I'm not. If you're going to change the ship in a way that makes it useless for those purposes, you'd better offer me a refund when you do. I'm not interested in having 90% of my isk tied up in a horrifically boring ship, thanks very much.
Jita Alt666
#736 - 2011-10-11 05:30:31 UTC
This is good.
Samanta Raiolaser
SPTC-IC
#737 - 2011-10-11 05:32:22 UTC
Dont know if I will, but I do feel inclined to stop paying 15 bux to fly one ship that should be used even less then It is today.

It would be reasonable to allow supercarriers to dock in stations as a compensation, but thats asking too much I guess as the whole point its not balancing, its make people unsub thus removing supercaps from the game.
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#738 - 2011-10-11 05:34:24 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Because I already spent all my EVE gold on a ship based on its capabilities at the time, you moron. I bought a ship that was capable of ratting, ganking, and being used in fleets. Now CCP are effectively saying that, effective this winter, the ship will no longer be useful for either of the two purposes I had in mind when I purchased it, yet I won't be offered a refund of the money or training time I invested in procuring the ship. How exactly is this fair?

Bo-ho, cry a river or a nile.

And remember kids; don't buy what you can't afford to have nerfed.

Ganthrithor wrote:
If CCP announced that, effective next week, CNRs would no longer be allowed through acceleration gates, you don't think there'd be hordes of pubbies in Jita shooting monuments about it and crying MY NAVY RAVEN all over the forums? I'd expect you'd probably be one of them.

You can barely afford a titan and then try to mock me as a poor mission runner? lol

Learn to live with change, else you'll always be the failure you are.

Ganthrithor wrote:
I'm not suggesting that supercaps should be left as they are, I think they're broken and OP and they're ruining nullsec gameplay. I'm just saying that CCP need to figure out a way to fix their effect on fleet fights without eliminating their other existing uses, which the combination of the fighter-nerf and the removal of all sub-fighter drones would surely cause.

Yes you are, you are suggesting they be left as they are.

Nyan
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#739 - 2011-10-11 05:42:22 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
Was it intended that 20 Battleships gank your JC in highsec and someone floats in with their hauler and scoops your 4 bil loot drop ? I doubt it. Maybe we should just take away the ability to shoot people at all. Hugs and bunnies in station walking !!!

Reductio ad absurdum; to say that intended roles do not matter in balancing, means that nerfing the ship to be the same as a rookie ship is ok... Since there's no intended roles a rookie ship stats would be completely fine.


What I'm saying is that just because a ship can do something it was not intended to do doesn't mean that it should have its ability to do it removed.

On a different note :

I see a lot of people thinking this update is a step in the right direction. I fail to see how. Your taking ships that work perfectly fine and making them crap. The basis that this is going to change anything is absurd. From my standpoint, this is going to screw over smaller alliances with super caps and the big alliances aren't going to hurt at all. In the end, not only are they going to lose sov that they once could protect and now can't, they're going to lose ships that costs billions of isk. Having the money to replace them or not is beside the point. Your forcing 0.0 combat into a path where either your in a massive alliance with thousands of people, or you don't hold space because the big guys will just give you the boot because your supers are worthless because you can't field a 500 man support fleet. So instead of these guys hot dropping you with Supers, they'll just find a new way to **** you off by bashing your sov units and costing you a fortune for a system they have no intention of holding. At least with Super caps the way they are, you can defend yourself as a small alliance effectively.

There are so many logistical problems with this update that it suprises me this is happening at all.

I would really like CCP to reconsider this. If this is what the CSM is promoting then I have definately lost my faith in them to speak for this community. I think as everyone can see this is a split issue and while it has its perks, it also has its massive downsides. I don't think its fair of CCP to promote a change based on an issue as divided as this one. I think at least one DEV needs to sit down and discuss this with the community a bit more. Not the CSM. The REAL community. The people on the forums. Posting in here.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#740 - 2011-10-11 05:46:28 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Bo-ho, cry a river or a nile.

And remember kids; don't buy what you can't afford to have nerfed.


Um, ok. Don't mind me when I nationalize your bank and confiscate all your wealth. Guess you shouldn't have worked for what you couldn't guarantee wouldn't be nationalized, sucker. Deal wiz it.

Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

You can barely afford a titan and then try to mock me as a poor mission runner? lol

Learn to live with change, else you'll always be the failure you are.


I'm suggesting that, like 90% of EVEO, you're probably not qualified to speak on the subject of supercap balancing. If you don't own or even interact with the types of ships and gameplay in question, your opinions on the subject aren't all that valuable.

I'd also like to point out that I have no problem with change, as long as those affected have an opportunity to avoid being r aped by it.


Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

Yes you are, you are suggesting they be left as they are.


I'm not sure how suggesting their drone capacity be reduced from ~1750 to 60 counts as "suggesting they be left as they are," but by all means feel free to explain your logic to us.