These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1201 - 2011-10-11 15:07:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
They aren't universally better. There are many ships in the game that can kill them. Fleet comp is the all important here. I've watched 6 Supers have to bail on a fight because a 60-70 T2 cruiser gang would have ended up winning the fight.
…and you don't see the contradiction here?


What I see here is that instead of "balance" we're proposing to make a ship completely defenseless against that gang altogether. If the Supers get out of a fight that means you didn't have enough points. That isn't a Super cap pilots problem. I fail to see the imbalance here.
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#1202 - 2011-10-11 15:08:41 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Vile rat wrote:

fwiw I hate supercaps more than just about anybody and even I can't think of a compelling reason that they can't dock. Seems like such a little thing to free up supercap pilots from boring endless hours of guarding a pos somewhere.


ehp bricks repping a station that dock up whenever they go into low armor and get free repairs


Simple, remove free repairs from sov stations. Or would that **** off the swarm?

Its kinda like when my roaming gang is in Fountain / Delve in a cyno jammed system and some Goon / TEST guy in a carrier undocks on station, aggresses, docks at half structure and comes out with full hitpoints. Pretty gay huh?
FlameOfSurvival
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1203 - 2011-10-11 15:09:13 UTC
Why you also give -20% armor/shield/struc for Titans?
They have nearly the same EHP like a SCAP but they are still crap load expensiv :)

The Drone Bay and DD nerf is already hard enough for Titans
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1204 - 2011-10-11 15:10:57 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Lykouleon wrote:
Just to clarify, is the Orca being considered a capital ship by the changes to the DD?


Looks to me like they are referring to Rorqual and not Orca

Correct. The Rorqual is a valid target, the Orca is not



Why would a Titan ever doomsday an Orca anyways? lol.

Where I am.
Anile8er
Holoband Research and Development
#1205 - 2011-10-11 15:11:06 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Subtarian wrote:


and for the numb skulls whining about a hic or sabre tackling an SC....Its a fleet ship you shouldnt be using it as a solo pwnmobile/low sec gankathon in the first place. Once again A FLEET SHIP.


So you would be ok with carriers having their drone bays removed on this basis too then right?

I mean, I've seen people go

* Its a carrier, its got fighters, they should be useful for something

* Supers are fleet ships, they should need a fleet


So by those two logics, Carriers should also have their drone bays neutered to only carry fighters, if your carrier gets tackled by a lone frigate, you should have a fleet with you to beat it back right?


RIght?


No he can just dock....
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1206 - 2011-10-11 15:12:28 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:


Why would a Titan ever doomsday an Orca anyways? lol.


Why wouldn't you?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1207 - 2011-10-11 15:12:31 UTC
Anile8er wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Vile rat wrote:

fwiw I hate supercaps more than just about anybody and even I can't think of a compelling reason that they can't dock. Seems like such a little thing to free up supercap pilots from boring endless hours of guarding a pos somewhere.


ehp bricks repping a station that dock up whenever they go into low armor and get free repairs


Simple, remove free repairs from sov stations. Or would that **** off the swarm?

Its kinda like when my roaming gang is in Fountain / Delve in a cyno jammed system and some Goon / TEST guy in a carrier undocks on station, aggresses, docks at half structure and comes out with full hitpoints. Pretty gay huh?


who cares about the money we'd just eat the cost

or, since we get the money from repairs since we own the station, we'd refund it

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1208 - 2011-10-11 15:13:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Misanth wrote:
Only against bad subcap pilots who don't khow to a) pay attention to their surroundings, b) warp (on/offgrid) c) pulse mwd
No, against all subcap pilots, because unlike you, I don't assume that the SC pilot is an idiot and that he has instead brought a support fleet like he's supposed to.

You see, it's very simple: SCs are quite obviously meant to be wretched against subcaps. Not penalising the use of fighters make them not wretched. This means that they're too god against subcaps, and that is bad.
Velin Dhal wrote:
What I see here is that instead of "balance" we're proposing to make a ship completely defenseless against that gang altogether.
Yes. That is balance.
Quote:
If the Supers get out of a fight that means you didn't have enough points. That isn't a Super cap pilots problem. I fail to see the imbalance here.
If those supers are completely defenseless against that gang, it means they didn't have enough support. See? Same thing. Same balance. If you fail to spot it in one case, you cannot spot in the other either. If you want to call one imbalanced, then both are. Take your pick.
Napoleon Bonapart
Draconis Holding Corporation
#1209 - 2011-10-11 15:14:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Napoleon Bonapart
Also lol at the people saying a RL carrier is useless against smaller fleet....said carrier would just deploy jets and own smaller ships before they ever got in strike range of the carrier Pirate
Pandi V
Perkone
Caldari State
#1210 - 2011-10-11 15:14:35 UTC
Cool changes, especially that logging out can no longer save your ship, something that should've never been possible in the first place



In regards to supercarriers


I think a lot of people are forgetting that Supercarriers and Titans are supposed to be alliance assets not player assets, which means that whether you can successfully field them or not, should be an indication of the strength of your alliance as a whole in terms of manpower, resources, leadership and organizational efficiency.


Example: Lets say Denmark suddenly decides it wants to be a great naval power and builds 5 brand new aircraft carriers but because of lack of funds and manpower it doesn't build any other ships to support them. In their first encounter with the Britsh fleet, which currently only has one aircraft carrier, they subsequently get their ass handed to them. Why? Because the smaller and much more numerous British vessels would just be able to sail right up to the aircraft carriers and pound them to bits, because there were no Danish ships to protect them.

Denmark was too small and weak a nation to properly field aircraft carriers, and were subsequently thrown back to highsec because they had no business playing with the big boys (Britain).


If a major alliance of 2000 or so pilots has so few active pilots available that it's unable to muster a fleet of 50-200 subcaps to support each Supercarrier, then they should not be able to effectively use those Supercarriers.

In fact if they can't even manage to scramble together a rescue fleet for a ratting-Supercarrier in need, then they deserve to not just lose that Supercarrier, but also all of their space as well! They should be getting their asses kicked and be thrown out of nullsec and not be able to come back until they get alliance leadership that's actually able to motivate them to log on.


All in all, this change will help to bring down a lot of the paper-tiger-alliances that have around 1500 pilots, but of which 95% are inactive or alts, and only a fraction of the remaining 5% actually show up to defend their space, and does so in Supercarriers and Titans, which makes defeating them impossible, despite that fact that there are no support fleets for them to count on.

CCP Greyscale and Soundwave on power projection: http://youtu.be/_pLi1J9YrkM?t=23m38s
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1211 - 2011-10-11 15:14:35 UTC
Aldarean wrote:
Kahrnar wrote:
Aldarean wrote:
Kahrnar wrote:
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.



No it didnt they just made them more in role with there design.

Your not talking about defensive capabilities here. You talking about Offensive capabilites.

A SC should have Defensive capabilities against Sub-cap. It shouldnt have offensive capailities.

Increasing local tanking ability could rebalance



So when your fighters are gone, the fight is over....which should take a small gang about 30 seconds to do...then they can sit there and plug away til you die...its the same as running out of ammo...a ship with NO offence is useless...lol




Every fight you go into, runs that risk.

Again taking back to RL situation. A Carrier, without proper support (solo) is defensless against smaller, more mobile ships. And eventually will be taken down.

Eve is supposed to Mirror Real Life (Eve is REAL), this change will do that.

Increasing resistance, lowering EHP, and having a bonus to local repper gives you a defensive capability.

Making them immune to Sub-Cap scrammers and HIC Bubbles, increase defensive capability.

Adding a Capital HIC Bubble of some form adds balance.

How many BS should it take to bring down a SC. Cost is not a balancing factor.

Look around RL situation, the make the argument for most people that are for this "re-balancing"

Super-Carriers and Titan will still be needed. But more Tactically orientated hopefully.


Your right but your also wrong. Carriers and Super Carriers in today's navies are defenseless again faster and more mobile ships. As a hull. However, they have large amount of planes and bombers that can be launched from said hull. All with the ability to fire at those faster and more mobile ships. Leaving them far from defenseless. This is correctly mirrored in EVE by the use of drones, Fighters and Fighter Bombers. The other thing correctly mirrored in eve from RL is that enough of anything can be devastating under the right circumstances. If your looking for an imbalance in eve by putting it in the light of RL navies, then I fail to see what your trying to show me.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#1212 - 2011-10-11 15:17:03 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
Misanth wrote:
ThaWolf wrote:
Maybe instead of nerving we should rather redo the Super-carrier as a whole, after reading this thread, i think they are not fitting in the game as they are, overpowered on one hand, mainly in larger groups, and close to useless if they get nerved that way, while the character is stuck in it.

So i came up with that:

New role, high end toy for all ppl who like to fly Caps, can do much but nothing Overpowered.

- Fighter Bombers will be pure Anti-Structure Weapons, bombing range 35km, anti Pos too, dmg should be like 2 Dreads

- Fighters stay like they are pre-nerv, the SCs should do Damage like 2 Carriers

- Drone bay gets nerved to 1 Bomber set 1 Fighter set and ~500m3 (yeah still normal Drones)

- SC cant use Remote repair mods, they should be only for Standard Carriers.

- ECM immunity stays

- remote ECM stays

- All SCs should be balanced to the defense Capabilities of a NYX (which i think is the most balanced EHP for SCs)

- balance production price of all SCs to the same amount

- SCs should be able to dock as a Compensation, and to make it possible that more ppl rely want to own them, so more can be killed


Agree with everything except the dock part. Supers are unique in the sense that they are a) e-war immune and b) can't dock. That's the benefit and tradeoff you get for flying one, something you accept by taking the seat, and something they should never change.


fwiw I hate supercaps more than just about anybody and even I can't think of a compelling reason that they can't dock. Seems like such a little thing to free up supercap pilots from boring endless hours of guarding a pos somewhere.


Unless you MASSIVELY nerf their EHP, I can: Docking games.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#1213 - 2011-10-11 15:17:54 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
Liranan 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.


Thank you, it's good to see you guys listening to your players, shame it takes thousands of people leaving the game for CCP to take notice.

I do think you guys shoot once again look at Selene's original MS/SC proposals. That was far more balanced than what we have today.



It was selene(DEV) and the players that made sc the pawnmobiles they are today.

I really think that nerfing the drone bay off supers is a good nerf, the figther nerf was uncalled for because it wouldn't affect scars only it would destroy carriers as a class.Whay i would like to see is to remove the ability of bombers to attack sov styructures making the dreads be the main bulk of the fleet sov in 0.0.

And to people that are saying they get massacred by Scars and figthers guess what , warp out, kill figthers or just dont be dumb enougth to get caugth by a super fleet and die due to your stupidity.


You do remember the changes that came tho?

First we had the FB introduction, which most loved but others were against. I was one of them. Seleene's argument was that it'd give the motherships a role as a damage dealer, and an incentitive to be on the combat field. There were people opposing it tho, I posted several times in those threads highlighting the stupid damage output they did. And I was testing it with one of my moms on SiSi daily.

Then we noticed how the combination of new DD and FB killed moms in seconds, in fact there was moms being volleyd by it, so we had the major HP buff. Combined with the really horrible capital reppers, this made it natural to max EHP, but the high damage from supers made this necessary too.

The longer jumprange came to complement the FB addition, to make these ships more viable to be fielded for combat, another incentitive.

Looking back, the EHP nerfs we'll get now will have to be reverted as soon as CCP realise what we did then - moms will be useless and all 'incentitives' to field them will be null and void when they die so damn easy. They need that hp. The main thing we see here is that the extra damage added was the culprit. You can also notice how that extra damage even more warrants the extended HP..

So, a reasonable way to counter the changes from then is to drasticly reduce the FB damage, perhaps even remove them altogether. Or keep them as pure anti-capital/structure weapons and leave Fighters for regular combat (make sense, and doesn't affect Carriers). The only way we could drop HP on moms without breaking them completely today, would be if the FB, DD and Titan gun damage would be reduced significantly. Else this HP is a necessity.

TL;DR the 'combat boat' and incentitives to make this ship a damage boat is the issue. I personally think that leaving it with Fighters only and a "bigger carrier" is the way to go. With the HP/Jumprange kept as is. Since CCP hates drones, another way to go is to make them all like the Revenant, less fighters, more damage per drone. Keep a limited sub-Fighter dronebay. Ta~da, suddenly you have the bigger swiss-army-knife-Carrier with the necessary HP boost, but without the stupid damage output. And CCP gets less drones, like they want!

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#1214 - 2011-10-11 15:19:24 UTC
Vile rat wrote:

fwiw I hate supercaps more than just about anybody and even I can't think of a compelling reason that they can't dock. Seems like such a little thing to free up supercap pilots from boring endless hours of guarding a pos somewhere.


I actually said before the details were out in the public, that the way CCP can apologize supercarrier pilots for nerfing them too hard is to allow them to get docked.

That would be the only reason why they should be allowed to dock, CCP agreeing that the ship class is without use and is better to be mothballed in station than having supercarrier pilots go inactive.
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1215 - 2011-10-11 15:19:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Velin Dhal wrote:
What I see here is that instead of "balance" we're proposing to make a ship completely defenseless against that gang altogether.
Yes. That is balance.


Apparently balance is anything you personally want it to be. From your own words, leaving any ship that isn't a sub cap a piece of **** is balance. lol to that.
Dirala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1216 - 2011-10-11 15:21:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dirala wrote:
Well, unlike Carriers and Dreads, you cant store a Supercap in a Station. So you are saying, you should only log in when there is a support fleet ready?
Yes. Bring the right tool for the job. Without a support fleet, the SC is not the right tool.


Indeed, but "everyday life" in eve not only consists out of huge battles. Eventually you have to login your SC to do other stuff than hotdropping fleets with a big support Gang. Like moving the ship somewhere. Especially because you can't simply eject from the ship.

Tippia wrote:
Dirala wrote:
I totally agree with the nerf, still the Supercarrier should have at least a little tooth against small ships. So that he is not completly helpless against a small gang of say 5 ships.
Why not? If it encounters a small gang of, say, 5 ships, it will survive long enough for the support fleet to get there and wipe the floor with those ships.


The support fleet has to get rid of the attacking 5 ships. Cause the SC can't do anything really.
Thats what I'm saying. It's completly useless against smaller ships. I agree, that the super should not be able to take on a 20man fleet singlehanded, but with ..say 20 light Drones... its at least able to do something against a couple smaller ships.

When it comes to big Battles, thats all fine, cause the role of a SC is not to kill small ships. But 20 lights wont do you any good in a medium to big fight.
Hentes Zsemle
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1217 - 2011-10-11 15:22:01 UTC
WhiteSleeve wrote:
Stupid forum. had it all nice and neat. Guess now I'll have to put in the TL DR version.

All Capitals should be monsters of the BattleSpace. Taking away ...


Not really, Dreadnoughts are more like this.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1218 - 2011-10-11 15:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
SERIOUSLY LETS PAY ATTENTION REALLY QUICK.


AN 900 MILLION ISK CARRIER CAN LAUNCH 10 WARRIOR 2'S TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A SABER






BUT



AN 18 BILLION ISK SUPER CARRIER CAN'T.


That sounds fair and balanced and normal to everybody here that makes this game?

To be very clear, I do not own a supercarrier, and do not care about them whatsoever, I'm just trying to make sure we're all working with the same amount of sanity.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Rhaegor Stormborn
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1219 - 2011-10-11 15:22:39 UTC
I would like my 12 million SP in drones on my Nyx pilot back which are now completely worthless. With subcap nerfs a pilot can switch out into another ship and still get use out of your drone skills. My Nyx pilot will not be able to due so.

It is only fair for CCP to let us change these skills around. They can nerf the ships all they want, and that is totally cool, but the wasted money on subscription fees and time for skills which can't be used at all is pretty crazy.

This is especially true considering most of us bought a 2nd account, paid sub fees for a year or more for our SC pilot accounts, and are now stuck in the ship with skills trained for that specific ship.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1220 - 2011-10-11 15:23:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Velin Dhal wrote:
Apparently balance is anything you personally want it to be
No. In this case, I used your definition: bring the wrong thing and you're screwed — balance.

What's so strange about that one ship being completely defenceless against that gang? It's outnumbered, it didn't bring the right stuff to deal with the situation, and it didn't have the situational awareness to gtfo while there was time. Being completely defenceless in that situation is entirely appropriate.
Grath Telkin wrote:
That sounds fair and balanced and normal to everybody here that makes this game?
Yes. The 18bn SC is the exact wrong tool for the job.

A 50M BC (fititngs included) can sleep through L4 missions and complete them with ease. A 300M Exhumer (fittings included) cannot. Why? Because the exhumer is the wrong tool for the job.