These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jeffrey Powel
Primal Elemental
MARABUNTA
#1061 - 2011-10-11 13:03:53 UTC
Nomad I wrote:
Excellent! But the Moros is getting cap problems with a high rate of fire.


+1, deacrse cap conso for XL gun.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1062 - 2011-10-11 13:04:31 UTC
mkint wrote:
you know... I cba'd to read the whole threadnaught... makes me wonder if CCP's gonna do the same thing. Usually they only read the first 5 pages, listen to only the first 2 posts of "great!" and assume everything will go fine.

Does anyone else have the feeling that CCP's gonna screw the pooch on this one somehow?


Noone blames you or anyone for not reading this whole poastfest. It's in CCP's interest to read it, however, they'd do corporate harakiri by not digging through threads like these. Ultimately it's their choice tho, so you can never be sure. P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Apollo Gabriel
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
#1063 - 2011-10-11 13:04:49 UTC
CCP Tallest,

As you add comments here, could you also update the devblog to help those just arriving.

Thanks
AG
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1064 - 2011-10-11 13:07:35 UTC

What i was trying to tell you is:

1- Nerf the ability of super using figthers?

2- all switch to carriers and the problem remaisn the same?
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1065 - 2011-10-11 13:08:09 UTC
George Holden wrote:
Might sound stupid but please enlighten me here.

Did some theorycrafting around XL guns and HICs.
A Ragnarok with 6x2500 Repeating Artillery I (my EVEHQ doesn't have the meta guns handy) with 5 Federation Navy Tracking Links fitted on an Oneiros for the bonuses gets around 0.0212 rad/sec tracking.

A Phobos being webbed with a 60% web does 99 m/s in an orbit does around 0.02475 rad/sec right? So that does already outrun the guns basically. Since the Phobos only has a signature radius of 240m (without bubble its 162m) and the guns having a signature resolution of 1000m that adds another safety buffer to it.

Since I'm too lazy right now and the world is going down here in switzerland I've plugged the ships into EVEHQ.

In a 4k orbit chances to get hit by the target itself are close to 0 (000000.1% +/-)

Now I'm pretty sure that titan won't be alone on the field so lets assume you have a fleet of remote boosted ragnaroks on the field with a decent spread. Highest chance to hit will come out at around 75% on a range of ~45km if you shoot at the Phobos sitting on your buddy titan 45km off you might actually hit.

On the other hand if the HICs are not webbed down and keep their speed of 247 m/s your chance to hit them drops to around 45% at 60km range lower if closer.

I'd say it's doable but you gotta have a decent number of HICs and DICs and might focus more towards aHICs since the lower sig radius significantly increases the chance of survival


Titans don't shoot the HICs. They DD them. Then they train their guns on your battleship fleet and obliterate them. You can look on any killboard and find numerous examples of single titans doing 75-100% of damage on BS kills.
Evil Celeste
#1066 - 2011-10-11 13:08:27 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the thing most people are against - ability to fend of subcaps. Supercaps should not be able to do it easily, you should have support fleet for that.

If you gave them just "few" drones, with remote ecm bursts, neuts and "few" drones a squad of supercaps could completely clear floor with bunch of hics that are hoping to keep at least 1 or 2 of them.

Thats why Im for completely removing fighters from scs.


lol some people just are clueless. After this patch a single dictor and bunch of frigits will be able to over a period of time able to kill a super/titan, its just insainly stupid this whole new dynamic in the winter patch.


And this is how exactly it should be!
Supercarriers must have their support fleet, if they are going solo, they deserve to die.
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1067 - 2011-10-11 13:08:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
I give up after this, you dont seem to either want to answer the question or you just dont understand.
I understand. Do you understand what the change does?
Quote:
More often than not when you DC you not able to do jack for a certian amount of time, until you either relog or have to reboot PC and then relog.
Does all of that take more than 15 minutes? If no, the change will make fuckall difference to you.


wouldnt take 15mins no, so after say disconnection from lagg it will take a good few minutes at least to reboot an relogg. Then will take some time to load grid aswell.By that time after this patch you could of been dropped 2-3 times, its for these eventuallitys im talking about.
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
#1068 - 2011-10-11 13:08:45 UTC
Yikes..The guy is not stupid ..Way to get your ass banned. Now that is stupid.

Just Another Toon wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.

The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.

Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.

Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.



You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!

Now im angry

“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,"

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1069 - 2011-10-11 13:08:50 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Aldarean wrote:

As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes.
Bomber = carriers/dreads/SC and TItan
Fighters = Bs's/Carriers/Dreads
Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC
Meduim = BC/Cruiser
Light = Frigates/Destroyers


QFT




fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone.


OK, they may be now, but tell me why they SHOULD continue to be so?

Quote:
other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs.


Why heavy and sentry drones cannot be used by carriers against BS?


heavys and sentrys do minimal damage against a bs. where as fighters will damage a bs.

if you change fighters that much, you may as well just turn carriers into big haulers.

im aslo fine with sc's being able to defend themselves to soem extent v bs's. thsi stil allows that.

fighters currently are balanced. why do you want to change that?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
#1070 - 2011-10-11 13:09:39 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Titans don't shoot the HICs. They DD them. Then they train their guns on your battleship fleet and obliterate them. You can look on any killboard and find numerous examples of single titans doing 75-100% of damage on BS kills.


They mostly only DD hictors in real emergencies, generally a well-fitted armor titan can kill a hictor just with guns, maybe with some assistance from target painting / webbing / tracking link action.
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1071 - 2011-10-11 13:09:42 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the thing most people are against - ability to fend of subcaps. Supercaps should not be able to do it easily, you should have support fleet for that.

If you gave them just "few" drones, with remote ecm bursts, neuts and "few" drones a squad of supercaps could completely clear floor with bunch of hics that are hoping to keep at least 1 or 2 of them.

Thats why Im for completely removing fighters from scs.


lol some people just are clueless. After this patch a single dictor and bunch of frigits will be able to over a period of time able to kill a super/titan, its just insainly stupid this whole new dynamic in the winter patch.


And this is how exactly it should be!
Supercarriers must have their support fleet, if they are going solo, they deserve to die.


Pure stupidness.
Grytok
KL0NKRIEGER
#1072 - 2011-10-11 13:10:27 UTC
Good start ...


... but don't stop now and remove jumpbridges, sovereignity and high-end-moons to make 0.0 interesting for small alliances again. Supercaps and all this stuff is only a problem because of the sov- and moongoo-system.
Aldarean
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1073 - 2011-10-11 13:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Aldarean
Amanda Redman wrote:
Just design a super dreadnought. Something to hunt SC and titans with.



Maybe not a Super Destroyer, but along that path.

But maybe to increase Dreadnaught usage, have the ability to fit a Carrier scram... Here me out.

Yes, it is ridiculous that a HIC should be able to tie a SC/Titan down. Even normal carriers.

The power to hold down the ship, could be directional proportional to the size of ship.

A HIC shouldn't have power to hold that size of ship, without some major draw back (Dont know right now).

So making SC/Titan immune to normal Scrams and HIC Bubbles, but susceptible to a new Capital scrammer. Specific to Dreadnaughts, or other Capital class ship.

Balance, SC/Titan would have a get out clause for sub-cap engagements. But could still be held down by a specific setup.
Evil Celeste
#1074 - 2011-10-11 13:12:01 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
Evil Celeste wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the thing most people are against - ability to fend of subcaps. Supercaps should not be able to do it easily, you should have support fleet for that.

If you gave them just "few" drones, with remote ecm bursts, neuts and "few" drones a squad of supercaps could completely clear floor with bunch of hics that are hoping to keep at least 1 or 2 of them.

Thats why Im for completely removing fighters from scs.


lol some people just are clueless. After this patch a single dictor and bunch of frigits will be able to over a period of time able to kill a super/titan, its just insainly stupid this whole new dynamic in the winter patch.


And this is how exactly it should be!
Supercarriers must have their support fleet, if they are going solo, they deserve to die.


Pure stupidness.


If you are looking for solopwnmobile yes. If you are loking for balanced pvp enviroment with alot of variety, then its best way.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1075 - 2011-10-11 13:12:35 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:


This isn't COAD, its not a place for propaganda and posturing-- its a place to discuss the future of gameplay. I would hope that people wouldn't just vote the party line on every issue here.


No its not COAD, but it is very clear to see that the changes that many of the Goons, a majority player base of lower SP/ new players no offense, have pushed for are on the plate for the patch.

Ganthrithor wrote:


I'm mostly for these changes (I think supercaps are broken and killing gameplay) but there's just one particular point on which I disagree (that the total removal, rather than limitation of, drones on supercarriers is unnecessary). I'm not going to argue that this is necessary just because Mittani says I should, or because I think it would benefit our alliance (which I think it would, since we tend to be more subcap than supercap heavy).


I 100% agree that Supercaps are broken in EVE and I have been posting to that effect for the last 18 months. However I 100% disagree that the changes to supercaps presented by CCP are the fix.

Perhaps being able to dock a supercarrier should be put on the plate if CCP really see's these changes as the way forward. Essentially they are telling a player that you have to fly a ship that can do one thing only and unless you have a sitting toon you are trapped in that ship.


The minute you let motherships dock, the arguments is going to go about to remove the ewar immunity, and suddenly the motherships is not a supercap anymore. Supers should never be able to dock, and should be ewar immune. However, ewar immunity currently doesn't work the way the name suggests it does. Supers should be unable to benefit from friendly remote abilities (including remote reps), but they should be immune against all ewar (including neuts).

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

50K khouri
Doomheim
#1076 - 2011-10-11 13:13:26 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
This Devblog pleases gaga.

EDIT: Regarding fighter bombers, it seems that the Super Carriers will still be the most powerful anti-structure weapon in an alliance arsenal. Would it be better if the fighter bomber's ability to attack sovereignty structures was removed?


Perhaps you want CCP to go the whole hog and completely remove Super Carriers. read the post below yours it might bring you up to speed.
Mezmeriza
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1077 - 2011-10-11 13:14:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mezmeriza
The problem wasnt so much that dreads were a bad ship, it was more that titans can one shot them and a super can drop a dread within 2 mins.

If you have 100 dreads and the enemy cynos in 25 titans and 75 SC, those dreads are dead and the Supers probably wont get killed. Reason being that the 25 titans DD 25 dreads in the first few seconds and then the SC get remote repps while beating the poo out of the remaining 75 dreads who are stuck still and cant recieve reps. Those dreads will still be lucky to kill a single SC, probably even after this nerf.

1- The Titan DD needs to really make more sense as a single shot like that really messes it up. Having the titan rooted stop still to the spot for 10 mins after the DD is a step forward.
2- The problem is that fighter bombers should be reduced to just shooting structures for high damage. Against capitals, the DPS total of all 20 bombers to be about 25% of a single sieged dread's DPS so they CAN kill capitals, but not as the primary anti-capital ship they are currently.
3- The SC is a CARRIER. Removing the drones it can carry is just dumb. Yes they can engage subcaps atm, but then so can every other ship in game. Now, changing the mechanics of carriers to have a Drone bay AND a Fighter bay would be more sense. Carriers get Fighter bay space for say 10 fighters and then say 2000M³ Drone bay. SC get a Fighter bay to hold 25 Fighter/FB mix but only a 250M³ Drone bay.
4- Removing drones from Dreads is an ok idea, but still kinda stupid as the dreads should have some sort of defence, even if its just a 25m³ drone bay for 5 scout drones. Not enough to defend against a BS fleet but enough to just get rid of that little annoying noob ship that keeps turning up.
5- Changing the Siege and Triage module to allow the capitals to move REALLY slowly ie 10M/s and cannot warp to change them from being static so that reduces the damage of FBs would be a start/ possible solution so the tracking of FBs could be solved.
6- The lag the fighter bombers produce should be countered by increasing DPS of FBs but reducing no. of FBs that can be deployed from say 20 to 5, turning them into heavy fighters if you will. The Hp of the FB should be quite low as theyre all about DPS not armour, so a small ship can slap them about if needed.
7- Fighters shouldnt be touched. TBH, theyre just right for what they are.
8- I'd have left the log off as it was, but reducing the EHP of the SCs was a good idea. Having such a large buffer is why the log off was used so easily. If the log off is being increased, then 30 mins should be the max since the usual CCP trick is to nerf something or increase it so much that it has to be nerfed AGAIN by the next patch. Small increments instead of big **** ups.

Just a couple of ideas for people to tear to pieces.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1078 - 2011-10-11 13:16:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
wouldnt take 15mins no, so after say disconnection from lagg it will take a good few minutes at least to reboot an relogg. Then will take some time to load grid aswell.By that time after this patch you could of been dropped 2-3 times, its for these eventuallitys im talking about.
By that time before this patch, you could have been dropped 2-3 times.

The changes makes zero difference in this regard. None. Zilch. Nada. Not the slightest bit.
This change kicks in after you've been logged off for more than 15 minutes with aggro, nothing else.

There are three scenarios at play here, so let's go through them before and after the patch:

1. You disconnect (willingly or not) without aggro.
Before: after 1 minute, your ship disappears.
After: after 1 minute, your ship disappears.

2. You disconnect (willingly or not) with aggro, and relog asap, within 15 minutes.
Before: your ship remains on the field for 15 minutes, but you log in before it disappears.
After: your ship remains on the field for at least 15 minutes, but you log in before it disappears.

3. You disconnect (willingly or not) with aggro, and do not relog asap.
Before: your ship remains on the field for up to 15 minutes, and then disappears.
After: your ship remains on the field for at least 15 minutes, and doesn't disappear until 15 minutes after it last got aggro:ed.


You are worried about cases 1 and 2 — neither of which generates any difference whatsoever before and after the change.
Kahrnar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1079 - 2011-10-11 13:16:57 UTC
Removing drones period from Supercarriers just made them a huge hunk of scrap metal...I guess the next thing to do would be to remove the ability to have ammo in your cargohold...just load guns and when ur done ur done.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1080 - 2011-10-11 13:19:00 UTC
Ciryath Al'Darion wrote:
Psymn wrote:
Guys, your super caps are no longer solo pwn-wagons. If my baddon gets tackled by a dram theres nothing i can do about it either. Thats why i bring people who can.

I empathise with the folks complaining here that they will have to change their strategy. But any change that encourages inclusion of a wider range of ships in an engagement has to be a good change, right?


How would you feel about the change if you were unable to dock the said baddon and change into usefull ship?


Or if said Abaddon didn't have a dronebay that could field light drones. Or if it couldn't use stargates. Etc.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.