These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#1781 - 2011-10-12 16:28:33 UTC
Maria Kitiare wrote:
If EVE is not about skilling up, getting better ships, getting better mods for your ship...


EVE isn't WoW, we don't need to keep developing our characters towards a "skill tree" of any sorts.

I fly almost all cruiser-sized ships, but I have the skills to fly capital ships across the board. Why? Because cruisers are a hell of a lot more fun to fly.

If you're treating this game like there are set-in-stone "skill trees" and "bigger is better," I suggest uninstalling and going back to a game where such structure is necessary for you to comprehend fun...because you're doing yourself a major disservice by not comprehending EVE.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#1782 - 2011-10-12 16:36:58 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:
Mioelnir wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The number of supercap pilots with incredibly unreliable connections amazes me. It's a mystery how you ever managed to amass the price of a super, what with your ISP kicking you off the server every 1000 seconds or so.

While this statement might prove useful during an interview at the local tabloid, lets all get a few facts straight:

Strategic logouts happen. They happen with roaming gangs that get boxed in in some deadend constellation. They happen with wardeccers to suicide-tackle with a neutral char until the pilot with the war is logged in. They happen with supers to safe them - and while I may only have skimmed over most of the last 70 pages, I have not seen a single super pilot claim otherwise - it is currently in a lot of situations the most favorable option to the SC pilot.

Be that as it may - it is irrelevant. Protocols and game mechanics do not get tested by looking at the one intended usecase (super logging out while 50 hotiles are swarming it inside 15 bubbles gunz blazing) in which it is designed to work. They are tested by looking at ALL use cases. And the stranger the usecase, the more cornercases of different mechanics you get to overlap, the harder to look. Because how it fares in those cases is actually how good a mechanic is. And if the mechanics change is to ship logout/disconnect, examples of logout/disconnect scenarios should not come as a surprise.


It is rarely relevant if you are not in a super. Supers are the only thing that can survive for that length of time (not including certain dread and carrier fittings); if you are found during your 15 min logoff timer and are not in a supercap, you are ****** either way unless it is the difference between being found 14 mins in or 14 mins 30 secs in.



let me fix your post for you:

"If you run away successfully from PvP because you are losing, and you are found within the 15 min aggression timer, you are ****** either way."

If you have an "accidental disconnect" during combat in your super, I feel for you, I really do. And if you can present to CCP the huge number of supercapital pilots who have such bad internet connectivity that they often disconnect (and not only during combat), I'm sure they would re-evaluate the logoff timer change, just as they re-evaluated the fighter change. But if you are whining because you can't CTRL-Q to save your super when you get into a losing situation, I can only say one thing. Duh - this is EVE - and you shouldn't fly what you can't afford to lose.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Maria Kitiare
NOMADS.
#1783 - 2011-10-12 16:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Maria Kitiare
iulixxi wrote:
And by your logic what exactly were you expecting to get after you finish training for those "unnerfed" super caps? You do realise that at one point you will have all skills for that much wanted super @ 5. What is next? In your opinion?

That depends on how EVE evolves.. I do not say that when you fly a Titan, you don't need anything els.. I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..

CCP will keep adding content to the game.. In a former blog we read about new T2 mods, new ewar drones. all these things is stuff you would like to skill after. But that doesn't change, that the skill system, made by the CCP, with pre requirements for new skills, shows us that ex. carriers is a step higher the chain, than battleships.

You would still have to skill for whatever you like to fly, but again.. why would CCP even add cap's to this game, AND put their skillbooks after battleships, if they intend to make these changes?

Either CCP had a change of hearts and want this game to be something els, than we signed up for back in the days.. Or CCP really listens too much to the wrong people. imho :)


Lykouleon - To give you an answer :)
- CCP made the skill tree.. Its there, its no secret.. I don't say you need to follow it to have fun. believing i said so is your mistake. the skill tree is there, right in front of your eyes when you look the the pre requirements page for your next skillbook. I didn't invent that page.. CCP made it.
So.. When i am saying that the skill tree says, that cap's comes after sub-cap's, then it is because CCP made it that way. I just observe it and write it here. If that means that CCP should quit EVE and start playing WOW, i wouldn't know.. But i hope not :)
Naradius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1784 - 2011-10-12 16:47:36 UTC
Usurpine wrote:
CCP you do it the wrong way.

If you have 3 kids, one has 4 chocolades, one has 6 and one has 7 chocolades and you need to rebalance this situation its a good way to give everyone 10 chocolades (upgrade to 10). Everybody will have same amount of chocolates and everyone will be very happy.

Instead you give the first one 1 extra chocolades, take 1 from the second and 2 of the third kid, which results in a balance but propably making one kid a little more happy but the others think you badly suck and call you that this is action is a fail.




You're dumb...obviously you also want three very obese kids.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

Officer Nyota Uhura
#1785 - 2011-10-12 16:47:58 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:
Oh and just for the records: If you lose a Supercap to "a single hic" or a very, very small gang that means:
you werent able to get some friends to come along for whatever you're doing and
you werent able to figure out why this funny fitting you got from this wiki has neutralizer on it and
you are unable to use a decent fit and
you dont know a single person who could help you organise some backup and
you were stupid enough to get your SC in a combat situation under this circumstances; then holy ******* **** you deserve whats comming to you.

Every ship in EVE has a role, every fleettype has a counter, the only ships that didnt fit into this were supercaps.
Welcome back to (space)earth.


Sirs:

Why did I have to read this thread all the way to page 32 to hear the voice of reason?
Avon
#1786 - 2011-10-12 16:56:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Avon wrote:
That's a long but terrible argument.

If a ship actually costs more to produce then it *should* have some advantage, otherwise why bother?
You're still thinking the wrong way around. If a ship has some advantage, it should to cost more. That is all. However, it does not follow from this that something that costs more has some advantage.


It isn't me that is thinking the wrong way around.

A Zealot will always cost more than an Omen because an Omen is one of the build requirements of the Zealot.
For that reason, a Zealot should always have some advantage over an Omen.

A Supercap is expensive because it requires a ****-ton of stuff to make it. If you want cost to reflect effectiveness then the build requirements need to automagically reduce when a ship becomes less desireable.

Now, as that isn't going to happen, you have to accept that cost *is* a factor for balance.
In your world it is the effectiveness of ships that dictates the cost, for the rest of us we have to follow the build requirements.


I'm not saying that a ship should be better just because you paid a lot for it, I'm saying that because you *have* to pay more for it there should be some advantage.



You know what, this whole thread is starting to remind me of the "OMG too many battleships" threads of '03.
Floydd Heywood
Doomheim
#1787 - 2011-10-12 17:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Floydd Heywood
Avon wrote:
[quote=Tippia]
A Zealot will always cost more than an Omen because an Omen is one of the build requirements of the Zealot.
For that reason, a Zealot should always have some advantage over an Omen.

An Omen has a smaller signature than a Zealot and has a drone bay, making it better in some (rare) situations.

It's funny how many people pretend that Supercaps are now completely useless, when in fact they have just become a little less useful. From reading this thread you'd think that all super pilots will have their ships replaced with Velators.

It reminds me of how many people whined when the mothership->supercarrier changes were announced. Quite a lot of people were absolutely sure that their precious motherships were going to be total crap. Well, it turned out that they in fact had gained a major buff. I hope this nerf now is actually a nerf *g*
Veranius
Pareto Improvements
#1788 - 2011-10-12 17:07:42 UTC
I can't be asked to read all 90 pages to see whether or not this has been mentioned yet, but I was just wondering that since Dreads and Titans are having their drones bays taken away and SCs are having them reduced, will Dreads and Titans have Capital Drone Bays removed from their bill of materials and will SCs have Capital Drone Bays the number of Capital Drone Bays reduced?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1789 - 2011-10-12 17:10:46 UTC
Avon wrote:
It isn't me that is thinking the wrong way around.

A Zealot will always cost more than an Omen because an Omen is one of the build requirements of the Zealot.
For that reason, a Zealot should always have some advantage over an Omen.
No. A Zealot has certain advantages over an Omen, and should probably therefore have a price that is above that of the Omen. One of the easiest way to ensure this is to have the Omen be a part of the materials to produce one.

It is not the price that determines its advantage — it the advantage that determines the price.
Quote:
A Supercap is expensive because it requires a ****-ton of stuff to make it.
The reason it requires a shitton of stuff to make it is because it provides advantages. They do not gain a bunch of advantages just because they sit at a particular price point.

Again: advantage determines the price, not the other way around.
Quote:
If you want cost to reflect effectiveness then the build requirements need to automagically reduce when a ship becomes less desireable.
…and guess what? That has happened previously when it became clear that the market felt the advantage bough wasn't worth the price. So that is probably the route you should take.
Quote:
Now, as that isn't going to happen
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of your prophetic abilities. Tell me: should I invest in nitrogen or helium isotopes?

Build requirements have been altered before. It will surely happen again… if it turns out that it's needed. So far, there is nothing to suggest that it is apart from a solid wall of rather unreasoned whinging.
Dank Man
#1790 - 2011-10-12 17:14:38 UTC
Do we get skillpoints reimbursed for our titan parking alts? and our Scarrier alts that no longer need about 14 mil in drone skills?
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1791 - 2011-10-12 17:18:38 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:


Every ship in EVE has a role, every fleettype has a counter, the only ships that didnt fit into this were supercaps.
Welcome back to (space)earth.


Sirs:

Why did I have to read this thread all the way to page 32 to hear the voice of reason?


Every ship in this game does have a role and every ship in this game fill that role. Including the Super Capitals. Super Capitals were made to take down other Capitals in battle. They do that very well already. What your failing to realize is that every sub Capital in this game fill their roles as well and still have the versatility to take out that annoying frig tackling it. That is why almost every sub Capital in this game has drone bays. Yet here here we are trying to throw Super Capitals and Dreds into their specific role and say "Thats all they get to do". I realized a long time ago that this thread is really not about fitting them into their specific roles. Like I said, they already do that role well. Its about people who are looking for an easier way of beating the larger alliances that own more of them. Its about the morons who get baited into hot drops by PL and -A-.

If you don't have the Super Capitals to take on the larger alliances in this game, then maybe you shouldn't try. If you don't have the numbers because 3/4 of your 2000 man alliance is either perm afk or ignores intel channels in favor or ratting and plexing, then maybe you need to look at your own alliance as the problem. Not Super Capitals.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1792 - 2011-10-12 17:22:16 UTC
Maria Kitiare wrote:
I would like to know if CCP, with this patch, is trying to ruin the "end game" of EVE Online..

I am a fairly new player. I follow the skill curve..
FIrst i go for frigates, then cruisers, then BC's and finally BS's...
Now i would go for a carrier and then a Super...

But with this patch, there would be no reason for me to skill for a super of a titan. I could simply stay with my BS's or a carrier.

So, my question to CCP would be.. IS it your attention to remove the supers and titans from the game? Cause with these changes, no new player would waste the time and isk to get one. I know i would not.. and when i watch the market these days, i see that people who already have supers is selling them off rather cheap already.

Also, even as a new player, I see why goons would love this patch, due to their huge player-base. Smaller corp's are the ones getting butt-****** by CCP since they will no longer be able to fight off the zerkswarm of sub-caps.

I really hope CCP would scratch these stupid nerfs and start balancing instead of ruining. Would be awesome since I would like to enjoy this game for quite some years ahead as well :)

Also… I want a reason to actually skill for the big ships… Give me my reason back CCP.


There is no "End Game" in EVE.

Also, Supercaps as a general rule are not purchased by individuals to pursue their personal goals. Supercaps are usually and Alliance asset used to further alliance objectives. Of course there are exceptions here and there, but the point still stands.

After this patch you will train for a Supercap because your alliance needs you to make the sacrifice in time and character freedom, no longer to gain an "I Win button" usable in most any situation.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#1793 - 2011-10-12 17:23:02 UTC
Maria Kitiare wrote:
iulixxi wrote:
And by your logic what exactly were you expecting to get after you finish training for those "unnerfed" super caps? You do realise that at one point you will have all skills for that much wanted super @ 5. What is next? In your opinion?

That depends on how EVE evolves.. I do not say that when you fly a Titan, you don't need anything els.. I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..

CCP will keep adding content to the game.. In a former blog we read about new T2 mods, new ewar drones. all these things is stuff you would like to skill after. But that doesn't change, that the skill system, made by the CCP, with pre requirements for new skills, shows us that ex. carriers is a step higher the chain, than battleships.

You would still have to skill for whatever you like to fly, but again.. why would CCP even add cap's to this game, AND put their skillbooks after battleships, if they intend to make these changes?

Either CCP had a change of hearts and want this game to be something els, than we signed up for back in the days.. Or CCP really listens too much to the wrong people. imho :)


Lykouleon - To give you an answer :)
- CCP made the skill tree.. Its there, its no secret.. I don't say you need to follow it to have fun. believing i said so is your mistake. the skill tree is there, right in front of your eyes when you look the the pre requirements page for your next skillbook. I didn't invent that page.. CCP made it.
So.. When i am saying that the skill tree says, that cap's comes after sub-cap's, then it is because CCP made it that way. I just observe it and write it here. If that means that CCP should quit EVE and start playing WOW, i wouldn't know.. But i hope not :)


EVE does not have a skill tree that you progress 'upwards' in a linear fashion. You do not choose to train for a Battleship because it is next on the list.

In EVE you choose what ship you want to fly, or what mods you want to use. Then you train the pre-requisites. If you choose to go for ever larger hulls and so end up in a super capital, thats your call. If you choose instead to master every frigate and cruiser in the game then that is equally valid.

The game does not force you to train towards a super capital unless the game balance is skewed towards them as being the most effective ship class. This character could board one with ease, it never will because I prefer to fly Scimitars and Sabres. Flying a super is not the logical end point of the game, it is merely one option.

The issue is not the skill training philosophy 'pushing' players into supers, it is the flexibilty to apply the raw power of that class that pushes so many towards them in order to feel 'competitive'. It is right to reduce that flexibility, no other class can do so much so well.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

xxxak
Perkone
Caldari State
#1794 - 2011-10-12 17:27:53 UTC
Aequitas Veritas wrote:
zero2espect wrote:
So i think that this is page 86 of a forum thread. I know i am wasting my time because a. it's page 86 of a forum thread and b. i've been playing eve since beta and CCP have never, once, listed to any advice or comment from its fan base (ok, maybe once when zealots only had 4 guns). But at least leaving a comment will make me feel better.

It’s obvious to me that the number of players are dropping. the fury of recent blogs are designed to re-energise people into staying. Unfortunately, the changes that are listed as CCPs solutions are just ill thought through, knee jerk reactions by people so far removed from the playing of the game it makes me furious.

My preface is that the very people who have been paying subs for the last 5 years, the people who are growing tired of the game because it is broken, are being placed even more offside by these stupid changes. People who have invested millions of SP and billions of isk into capitals are being killed through stupid misconceptions about how they are used.

For me, the 15min logoffski timer would fix 40% of the issue anyway. Just by itself.

Stop capitals in missions. Just stop them.

Another point is that there needs to be a mechanic separating 0.0 and low-sec. in 0.0 let the big boys duke it out for the billions of moon goo and the like – jump the titans, supers and dreads around all you want. Have different rules for them – they’re fighting for sov, let them bring out the bling – max bonuses. In low sec there needs to be protection for the 3643 (or whatever) corps of 50 people or less who want to pvp without the threat of their 5 baddons, 2 megas and scorp being dropped on by 15 SCs just because it’s fun on a Friday night. Limit the amount of ships that can jump through a cyno into low sec. Prevent fleets with more than 5 caps cynoing into a system. Implement a cyno cool-down onto fleets. Halve the bonuses due to security scanning protocols in low sec. Do something. You dont need to screw supers to fix the prob.

Dreads. Halving the siege time. Perfect. Removal of drones. Stupid. It’s ~1.8b of ships before mods and now has zero defence, in or out of siege. Put the drones back and don’t try to fix lag through cheating us.

Supers. Where do I start. Forget your stupid idea with the drones. Listen, just give the super enough drone bay for 10 bombers and 5-10 fighters and halve the amount of drones able to be deployed at once. Balance this with an additional % of damage per level. Make the pilot choose between putting in bombers, fighters (cap vs bs shooting) and/or any mix of standard drones they wish – a super with 10 sentries/heavies/jamming drones isn’t going to win the next fight in delve but makes a difference to a guy bumped off a pos tackled by a hic and being bumped by 2 machs. Remove the bonuses that allow SC only fleets to remote rep each – force commanders to mix up fleets for reps. Change the ecm burst so that it uses stront so that there is a finite amount of bursting that can be accomplished. The EHP drop is there purely for SC haters – but again it’s stupid. If people are flying supercaps they’ve earned the right to have some ehp buffer. The logoffski rules provide a means that committed smaller fleets have a chance at a kill if they deserve it. I’d be happy to see that the hanger bay and corp hangers on supers be taken away so that they are pure combat ships and must rely on other jump capable ships for logistical support, amp up the fuel bay if you do this.

Titans. Remove the ability to bridge fleets or make it prohibitively expensive/limited – e.g. costs much much more or limits the number of ships similar to a wormhole (more smaller ships, few bigger ships). Fleet fight suppression is more based on the fear of massive-hostile-fleets bridging in rather than OMG 35 titans have jumped in. make the distinction between titan and super not guns but the DD and (rebalanced) jump portal. I can tell you for free that having an erebus gate camping in low sec instapowning anything with guns does not make for a fun eve (and unable to do anything because within range there are 12 supers waiting to jump in and take down anybody dumb enough to counter).

When will CCP learn that nothing good comes from BIG changes to anything. In a complex environment like EVE is, you can never understand what will happen when you make even little changes, and big changes are completely random in how they play out. Let’s be honest, CCPs record of deploying quality changes and balancing and game features is not stellar – this smells like more of the same. This whole situation came about because of a BIG change to motherships to become supers. This is like a roundabout now.

For the love of god, instead of making all these changes do 1 or 2 like I suggest, see what happens. if it’s not enough in a month do another one, then another one. Half of why we hate you CCP is that you hype up all these big changes and they never deliver what was promised. Promise less, do more small things and keep your current players happy. You may be trying to grow the game but at this rate you wont grow faster than people will leave if you keep doing crazy wholesale changes that effect people with BILLIONS invested into your universe.

I don’t have a super but I’m not on the bandwagon of NERF THE SUPERS! just because I don’t have one. I want to aspire to one day have one on this toon and the way things are going there is nothing beneficial in “wanting more” out of this game. I might as well stop producing items, buying plexes and adding value to the game and just fly ceptors and cruisers because at least when you **** them up I won’t be throwing billions down the toilet.

You’d get just as much love out of non-capital pilots if you just fixed low sec and militia and bring in some new sub-capital ships into the game.


Bump again!


Seconded!

[u]The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run.[/u]

Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1795 - 2011-10-12 17:28:00 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Shadowsword wrote:
Brambridge wrote:

Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool
Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool



That would be like a battleship pilot asking to have turrets that can turn into blasters or railguns without having to refit. Forcing the player to choose is a good thing.


No no no you see if you spend a lot of money on a ship, you shouldn't have to do things like fitting the right tools for the job, or anything else which requires a functioning brain.


Yeah, cause all super capitals can dock and change fitting (it just 100k m3) in station. That is just a silly arguement.

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

KB Eretic
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1796 - 2011-10-12 17:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: KB Eretic
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.

Why? If you will give bonus to carriers as "-14% Fighter's Weapon signature resolution per level", then carriers with a carrierskill level 5 that will be actually a small boost.

Now:
Fighters from Carriers: 125
Fighters from Supercarriers: 125

Will become:
Fighters from Carriers: 344/288/232/176/120
Fighters from Supercarriers: 400

PS: Sorry for my English.

fixed
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1797 - 2011-10-12 17:31:01 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
Maria Kitiare wrote:
iulixxi wrote:
And by your logic what exactly were you expecting to get after you finish training for those "unnerfed" super caps? You do realise that at one point you will have all skills for that much wanted super @ 5. What is next? In your opinion?

That depends on how EVE evolves.. I do not say that when you fly a Titan, you don't need anything els.. I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..

CCP will keep adding content to the game.. In a former blog we read about new T2 mods, new ewar drones. all these things is stuff you would like to skill after. But that doesn't change, that the skill system, made by the CCP, with pre requirements for new skills, shows us that ex. carriers is a step higher the chain, than battleships.

You would still have to skill for whatever you like to fly, but again.. why would CCP even add cap's to this game, AND put their skillbooks after battleships, if they intend to make these changes?

Either CCP had a change of hearts and want this game to be something els, than we signed up for back in the days.. Or CCP really listens too much to the wrong people. imho :)


Lykouleon - To give you an answer :)
- CCP made the skill tree.. Its there, its no secret.. I don't say you need to follow it to have fun. believing i said so is your mistake. the skill tree is there, right in front of your eyes when you look the the pre requirements page for your next skillbook. I didn't invent that page.. CCP made it.
So.. When i am saying that the skill tree says, that cap's comes after sub-cap's, then it is because CCP made it that way. I just observe it and write it here. If that means that CCP should quit EVE and start playing WOW, i wouldn't know.. But i hope not :)


EVE does not have a skill tree that you progress 'upwards' in a linear fashion. You do not choose to train for a Battleship because it is next on the list.

In EVE you choose what ship you want to fly, or what mods you want to use. Then you train the pre-requisites. If you choose to go for ever larger hulls and so end up in a super capital, thats your call. If you choose instead to master every frigate and cruiser in the game then that is equally valid.

The game does not force you to train towards a super capital unless the game balance is skewed towards them as being the most effective ship class. This character could board one with ease, it never will because I prefer to fly Scimitars and Sabres. Flying a super is not the logical end point of the game, it is merely one option.

The issue is not the skill training philosophy 'pushing' players into supers, it is the flexibilty to apply the raw power of that class that pushes so many towards them in order to feel 'competitive'. It is right to reduce that flexibility, no other class can do so much so well.


Very well written and while I do agree to a point, I don't think we should be removing all flexibility from them. There are other ways of solving this issue than CCP has proposed. A smaller drone bay and a penalty to normal combat drone damage or a limit of 5 combat drones in space, while keeping fighter and bombers untouched I think would work well enough. The EHP nerf is a good idea but only on a ship by ship basis because lets face it, the Hel is already ****** enough.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1798 - 2011-10-12 17:38:28 UTC
Maria Kitiare wrote:
iulixxi wrote:
And by your logic what exactly were you expecting to get after you finish training for those "unnerfed" super caps? You do realise that at one point you will have all skills for that much wanted super @ 5. What is next? In your opinion?

That depends on how EVE evolves.. I do not say that when you fly a Titan, you don't need anything els.. I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..

CCP will keep adding content to the game.. In a former blog we read about new T2 mods, new ewar drones. all these things is stuff you would like to skill after. But that doesn't change, that the skill system, made by the CCP, with pre requirements for new skills, shows us that ex. carriers is a step higher the chain, than battleships.

You would still have to skill for whatever you like to fly, but again.. why would CCP even add cap's to this game, AND put their skillbooks after battleships, if they intend to make these changes?

Either CCP had a change of hearts and want this game to be something els, than we signed up for back in the days.. Or CCP really listens too much to the wrong people. imho :)



Eve does have a vast skill tree. Pruning one branch back a bit doesn't kill the "end game" of Eve, if there is such a thing. It merely brings the tree back into balance and harmony rather than letting one get too big and actually become the end of the tree itself.

In less metaphorical terms, Cap ships are a tool for a purpose. They are not intended to be the ultimate swiss-army knife solution suitable to all purposes that every linear-thinking player should desire. They are one of many options. Other options include black ops, hacs, recons, command ships, T3 ships and more. All of them have similar if not heavier subcap requirements than do capital ships.

Don't focus on the biggest ship just because it's there and then insist it should be the best ship. It should be the best ship for it's purpose, but it won't be the only best ship there is.

If one ship was better than all the rest in all cases, why would anyone fly the others?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1799 - 2011-10-12 17:38:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Great changes overall, BUT the drone changes are all wrong.

Supers will still be able to burn through structures and caps like there is no tomorrow. Fighter bombers (FB) will see no change to their a) numbers deployed at a time, b) dps, and c) EHP. The super will still dominate sov wars, cap battles, and even battles against BS with large numbers of fighters on BS, while the carrier remains vastly inferior toward supers. Large FB EHP makes attacking them very difficult .. recall, deploy, recall, etc..

Plus, carriers are hit equally hard as the supers with the fighter nerf.

We need fighters to remain as is, and the super bonus per carrier skill to fighters to be reduced instead. I propose the bonus be 2 additional drones per level, and the fighters remain as is. I also suggest the same 20% reduction in FB EHP as for the titans, supers, etc. I like all the other changes, as they seem to make quite a bit of sense.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#1800 - 2011-10-12 17:47:28 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Maria Kitiare wrote:
iulixxi wrote:
And by your logic what exactly were you expecting to get after you finish training for those "unnerfed" super caps? You do realise that at one point you will have all skills for that much wanted super @ 5. What is next? In your opinion?

That depends on how EVE evolves.. I do not say that when you fly a Titan, you don't need anything els.. I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..

CCP will keep adding content to the game.. In a former blog we read about new T2 mods, new ewar drones. all these things is stuff you would like to skill after. But that doesn't change, that the skill system, made by the CCP, with pre requirements for new skills, shows us that ex. carriers is a step higher the chain, than battleships.

You would still have to skill for whatever you like to fly, but again.. why would CCP even add cap's to this game, AND put their skillbooks after battleships, if they intend to make these changes?

Either CCP had a change of hearts and want this game to be something els, than we signed up for back in the days.. Or CCP really listens too much to the wrong people. imho :)



Eve does have a vast skill tree. Pruning one branch back a bit doesn't kill the "end game" of Eve, if there is such a thing. It merely brings the tree back into balance and harmony rather than letting one get too big and actually become the end of the tree itself.

In less metaphorical terms, Cap ships are a tool for a purpose. They are not intended to be the ultimate swiss-army knife solution suitable to all purposes that every linear-thinking player should desire. They are one of many options. Other options include black ops, hacs, recons, command ships, T3 ships and more. All of them have similar if not heavier subcap requirements than do capital ships.

Don't focus on the biggest ship just because it's there and then insist it should be the best ship. It should be the best ship for it's purpose, but it won't be the only best ship there is.

If one ship was better than all the rest in all cases, why would anyone fly the others?


Link me one ship that has more requirements than getting into a Super Capital in both actual skills that have to be trained and training time required. Black ops would be the closest because of the high navigation skills and BS 5 but I don't even think that beat out the training time to fly a Super. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.