These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1141 - 2011-10-11 14:06:43 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

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.


Not at all, they can do 900+ dps, which is pretty good for a damage to a ship a class lower. This damage is
almost TWICE the damage a bonused drone BS can do to another BS.



a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs
wardens is 450 dps, im tickling a bs
fighters is 1250 dps im killing it at last

OMG when can i get a pic here
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1142 - 2011-10-11 14:07:39 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
It seems to me that CCP intends for caps and super caps to be anti-capital ships and or structure grinders. Which is well and fine if that role was truly niche for them but as I see things now that isn’t the case. There seems to be no requirement to field caps as things stand now and in fact I can now see them as a liability in some cases.

For example if a 100 man subcap fleet fought a mix of say 70 subcaps with 30 caps would the mix fleet be at a disadvantage in light of these changes to caps? If the 30 caps are no threat to the sub caps faced against them, then that means the battle now depends mostly on the 70 subcaps which are outnumbered and hindered in mobility by being tied to the cap fleet they are defending

Correct me if I am wrong in that assumption but that is how it looks to me. I agree that caps should not be fielded without support . But other than seeing them having the ability to shave off time to reinforce a structure, I am not seeing the advantage of them. Especially if a pure subcap fleets can engage mixed cap fleets more efficiently and safely than having your own caps in to the mix if they are equal in numbers?





u might have a valid point there. perhaps making the dps of sieged dreads increase more than they do at present while hitting structures might make it worth deploying dreads and supporting carriers but if dreads dont actually get a dps increase buff then the game will soon end up whelpcane/hellcat online.......as there would be no reason to fly anything else

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Furb Killer
#1143 - 2011-10-11 14:07:43 UTC
Ztrain wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
It will be interesting to see how these changes play out, and I look forward to many more balancing devblogs in the future.


Don't know don't care. After reading the cap ship nurf blog I have reacquired 8.7 gig of HD space for more useful purposes. I remember when Supers were fun, then they took away the end game. See you all in the new Star Wars.

Z

Rage quit because plebs can hurt your 'end game' ship best rage quit.



My subscription runs out in 12 hours, but that is because I simply cannot find fun anymore in eve (as in, how much time do you spend pew pew, and how much time grinding or using eve as a glorifed chat client with horrible fonts?). Not something as stupid as people being able to violate my space ship even though I have an older char. Hell that is the entire definition of what eve used to be about. Before all the vets became whiney little bitches.
Dirala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1144 - 2011-10-11 14:08:30 UTC
Make a different Type of Drone Bay. Fighter Bay for example. That way its easier to balance Supercarriers and Carriers.

The Fighter Bay can only hold fighter Bomber, and fighter. Where the normal Drone Bay can hold the rest.

Than make a Drone Bay on a Supercarrier like 100m³ big, so a SC can at least defend itself against some lonely ships.
But the small Drone Bay would make it impossible to put more than 5 Heavy Drones or Sentries in.
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
#1145 - 2011-10-11 14:09:56 UTC
Okay I think I'm ready to reply.

Supercarrier changes:

Okay this nerf is a bit severe reducing them to a very specialized role. They may become like dreads of old. As such they need to be able to dock it's just unfair to make someone dedicate to sitting in one with this very limited role.

If I had a suggestion to improve I would add a small sub cap drone bay that can hold regular drones but just a very small amount. Maybe twice what a domi could carry.

Fighter changes:

Well I saw were some of this was being backed off of so that might be okay.

Dread changes.

Like the reduced siege timer. Worried the Moros will be overpowered compared to other dreads particularly the Nagflar. Though I read they are reviewing the matari caps.

Titan change.

I think the removal of the drone bay may be a bit to much.

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1146 - 2011-10-11 14:10:27 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:

a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs


Never type again.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1147 - 2011-10-11 14:13:03 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:

a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs


Never type again.



lol thats the number eft says. what should it be to kill a bs with a rep?

OMG when can i get a pic here
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1148 - 2011-10-11 14:13:51 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
lol thats the number eft says. what should it be to kill a bs with a rep?

BS fly with reps nowadays?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1149 - 2011-10-11 14:16:59 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:

Not at all, they can d


a carrier with t2 ogre and maxed skills does 630 dps. not enough to kill a bs
wardens is 450 dps, im tickling a bs
fighters is 1250 dps im killing it at last




worth noting:

Thanatos Info wrote:
Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to deployed Fighters’ damage per level
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
Can fit Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range


normal drones do not get any bonus applied to them and fighters only get a range bonus thus crappier dps if the fighter nerf goes ahead

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
50K khouri
Doomheim
#1150 - 2011-10-11 14:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: 50K khouri
Tokino Kaalakiota wrote:




CCP fixed the real problem - changes that will primarily affect ratters who improperly use their supers.


obvious hints on how to beat supercap "blobs".

-Tokino/Lords]


So you and I dare say a few of your fellow carebears are unhappy at the "Improper" use of SC's, who are you to decide how and when paying customers use the SC's.



and as far as Blobs go and the beating thereof who in their right mind would field an SC after these proposed changes take place.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#1151 - 2011-10-11 14:18:57 UTC
Evil Celeste wrote:
Krell Kroenen wrote:

For example if a 100 man subcap fleet fought a mix of say 70 subcaps with 30 caps would the mix fleet be at a disadvantage in light of these changes to caps?


30 caps means alot of remote repair, so unless opposing fleet is able to alpha through their buffer, it is in big disadvantage.



If they where all carriers yes attached in a logi role to a subcap fleet but I was thinking of a fleet sent out to say bash a pos so it would be a bit more mixed in it's capital ship assignment. Hence why I didn't say pure carriers I said caps

And really if you are going against an alpha subcap fleet those logi carriers aren't going to do you much good.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1152 - 2011-10-11 14:20:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
lol thats the number eft says. what should it be to kill a bs with a rep?

BS fly with reps nowadays?



ive seena lot of really bad fits coming outtta goons recently so yeh its possible

OMG when can i get a pic here
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#1153 - 2011-10-11 14:21:25 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:


If your Nyx doesn't have a support fleet, you deserve to lose it.



I dont disagree, however I dont deserve to loose a 26 bil isk ship because I could not deal with a solo random tackler by myself or small random nano gang with a dictor who never set out to kill a supercap.
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#1154 - 2011-10-11 14:24:42 UTC
Furb Killer wrote:
Kahrnar wrote:
[quote=Lord Zim]

So do you fly everywhere you go with a support fleet? Give me a break No offense at all makes it useless

Well finally one of the whiners understands it. Yes you are supposed to go everywhere you go with a super with a support fleet. Just like you dont use a dread without support (well you can do it for a specific task, but if you run into some opponents you are ******).


What is the reason for bringing out the supercarriers with the support fleet? Remind me pls.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1155 - 2011-10-11 14:25:26 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
lol thats the number eft says. what should it be to kill a bs with a rep?

BS fly with reps nowadays?


ive seena lot of really bad fits coming outtta goons recently so yeh its possible

I'm not the one implying that 650dps is insufficient to drop a BS because of "a rep".

Anile8er wrote:
Shadowsword wrote:


If your Nyx doesn't have a support fleet, you deserve to lose it.



I dont disagree, however I dont deserve to loose a 26 bil isk ship because I could not deal with a solo random tackler by myself or small random nano gang with a dictor who never set out to kill a supercap.

Actually, yes, you do. You're doing something dumb by wielding a supercap solo, you deserve the risk of losing it because the other guy was better prepared than you were.

Bring a ******* support fleet.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1156 - 2011-10-11 14:29:47 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Robert Lefcourt wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Kyjaro wrote:
I can see 2 problems

- Carriers should remain deadly against sub-capitals, so give them a bonus to fighters to counter the penalty. I'm thinking about carriers ratting and the fact that carriers can be killed easily. They shouldn't have the penalty to fighters


Or they could just avoid senselessly nerfing fighters in the first place...


Oh, i see perfect sense in that. They want to prevent, that a mom can single-handedly take on fleets of every size and get away with it. This nerf will take care of the problem. To encounter a mixed fleet, you will need backup from now on.


I think you overestimate the degree to which fighters (or normal drones) from supercaps play a pivotal role in fleet fights. Even if they were used extensively, fighters are not as problematic as people keep making them out to be. They can be killed. As I keep mentioning, if people bring the right ships-- smartboming BS, bombers, or antisupport BCs (speaking of fleet diversity, remember when BCs and HACs used to be fielded alongside BS?) will *all* make short work of a fighter cloud. Once the fighters or drones are cleared, the supercapitals become deadspace-fit killmails waiting to happen. They're not like titans, where the only way to remove the dps from the field is to remove the ship. If people just kept that mind when putting together a fleet, they'd probably find it a lot easier to kill supercarriers.

E: Just to be clear, however, I do think that SCs need their normal drone bay sizes drastically reduced. Infinite waves of drones are no fun for anyone.


Already posted here twice, how I killed six Fighters for a Nyx while I was alone in a Nighthawk. Somehow I wish I had frapsed it, would've been awsome to post that as a counter-argument in this thread. It might be because I'm a super-pilot myself, but when you know how Fighters function you can easily kite them around and thus completely neglegt their damage output.

Since people are being stubborn and-/or stupid, I'll give a hint: they're slow and not very agile. If you have enough speed/maneuverability, especially combined with multiple on-grid bookmarks or objects to warp to, it's not even hard to "tank" 20 Fighters in a semi-decent BC. I reccon a BS would have alot more issues tho, unless a Machariel, you'd be too slow and not agile enough. But there's the rock/scissor/paper, and the TL;DR is that my solo BC-hull was tanking a Nyx' Fighters perfectly fine. Obviously I stayed out of neut/pointrange, I could not point him anyway so even less reason to do.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Silver Kid
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1157 - 2011-10-11 14:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Silver Kid
With the speed this thread is moving I'll probably be wiped away under the endless posts but anyway.

Well my two cents are that leave Dreadnoughts their drone bay make it smaller if you must but thinking that a newbi ship with a point can hold a dread at bay is just silly, but then again I don't fly one.

Fly safe
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1158 - 2011-10-11 14:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Velin Dhal
Funny all the people bitching in here about this patch being good are corps and alliances that have nothing to do with 0.0 or the ones that can't or won't field Capitals.

My older brother has a better toy than me so lets cry and threaten to quit the game unless you get rid of it.

Here is a wake up call. I've been in and out of 0.0 in the last couple years. You know what I said the first time I got DD'd or the first time our fleet got ****** up by a large amount of Capitals ? Damn I need one of those. You know what I didn't do ? Cry and complain because someone has a better ship than me. I realized from day 1 that there are always going to be people in this game with more than I have. That shouldn't be a reason qq and attempt to get CCP to take it away from them. It should be a reason for you to bust your ass so you can have one too.

Here is another thing. This game is risk vs reward. If your an alliance/pilot that risks more for the reward then of course your going to come out on top. Your talking about changing 0.0 and the mass majority of people agreeing with this patch sit in high sec or low-sec all day and get upset because someone has more than they do. Stop trying to change ships that **** you off because you either don't have one or because you sick of walking into traps because the guy running a complex in your system has a cyno on and isn't such an easy killmail anymore.
Bloody Wench
#1159 - 2011-10-11 14:32:49 UTC
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.



From someone with less than 2 days left on fighters 5 I thank you! A LOT

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1160 - 2011-10-11 14:33:47 UTC
Fiberton wrote:
Many of them enjoy League of Legends. Wreck this game np..Work for LOL

BadBoyBubby wrote:
Most of these changes...meh.

But reducing the drone bay on supercaps to 25 fighters/bombers max? That is seriously dumb. You've already taken out all the drones. You've nerfed fighters and fighter bombers again (how people forget so quickly) on sig radius, so they can't do much to sub caps anyway. So why reduce the drone bay capacity to the point where you can't even load a full flight of each type?? Seriously, WTF????

I'll repeat the question asked so often and never answered: DO CCP DEVS ACTUALLY PLAY EVE???



I like LoL too, it's free to play and the devs are actively communicating with players and/or balancing the game, it has instant access PvP, around the clock gaming and overall it's just a damn fine game.

EVE was alot better than LoL, especially back when five-man roaming in null was still viable, when players wanted to fight and wasn't afraid of dying/losing, and the devs used to communicate with us on the forums regulary.. but we're far from that nowadays.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.