These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Information Center » EVE Information Portal » New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page9495969798Next pageLast page

New dev blog: Capital ship balancing First post First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Rip Minner

ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries

Likes received: 100

#1901 - 2011-10-13 07:26:40 UTC

Ok is it just me or do alot of this changes suck for no good reason?

1.) Carriers have not been a problem for some time now why screw them over now? There much softer targets then SC.

2,) Dreads need to be able to hit other moving cap ships when in seige So slow down other cap ships alittle and inc seaige tracking alittle.

3.) Change Moros bonus to 5%dmg inc or add in a 5% cap reduction per level to Capital guns. Though it is not going to matter much as SC will still burn them down just as fast and I have no problem with that as its cap on cap action but if they fix the SC speed tanking the dreads then at least they can now go down fighting.

4.) Logoff timer this is the best change here great job. Big smile

5.) Carrier and SC new Drone bays should be renamed Fighter bay and both giving new Fighter bandwiths. Then add in a Navy dominix sized drone bay and bandwith for normal drones. I dont think that would be to overpowering for sub cap ships. This lets the logistice Carriers and SC's to field repair drones and yes other drones as well but in limited numbers i.e. at the limit of 125 bandwith.

Thoughs are just my own ideals and my hold no water. Ugh

Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.

Chanina

ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES

Likes received: 52

#1902 - 2011-10-13 07:56:11 UTC

Damian Gene wrote:

Malcanis wrote:

Damian Gene wrote:

Many people:
A rookie ship should not be able to maintain a logofskiee timer forever.

What does it matter if it does? Even unpiloted, a supercap has enough natural shield recharge to permatank a rookie ship.

Lets use a covert ops for a case example.

You are in a super, I am in a buzzard.
I happen to know that your safe is close to planet 4 and you are cloaked (I saw you on directional while you were in warp, and narrowed the band down etc.)
I cloak up and wait. I have my probes out, and off grid of you, but tuned into, say 1AU. With good skills, the moment you log, i can move the probes over to Planet 4, and scan. Then I warp to you from my SS close to Planet 4. I can get to you in far less then the 1 min before your ship goes away. I then hit you with one gun, or a nuet. Now all i have to do, is love tap you every 10 mins to insure that you do not despawn. I now wait until my corp members come home from work, my alliance form's up, everyone takes a leak, goes out for a smoke, checks Reddit, etc. Then they come in, and we kill your ship.
Or, you bump outside the POS shields, same thing, I just wait until you are outside of gun range of the POS, and give you a poke every 10mins. Hell, I could even cloak up for 9 of those 10mins (or 14 of the 15mins if i for some reason wanted to risk it)

It doesnt matter that I can not tackle you, but it does prevent you logging, and staying right where you are for as long as I'd like you to. Until downtime.
People will soon meta downtime a WHOLE lot more then they already do. Huge fleet fights timed perfectly where the target goes into reinforced, or dies moments before DT.

There are a lot of reasons why this is bad, and a lot of ways it can still be fixed. A 30min timer vs a 15 min timer would work for instance.

You should realy take a look at post number 14. Don't worry i will qout the answer for you:

Quote:

"If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression."

So no matter if you use your frig/cov ops to attack or not, if he don't have an agression counter running he will log off after 1 minute. if you get him to agression he needs to get rid of that timer. Only if he logs off with that counter active you can prevent is logoffski.

At least thats how i understand it.

Karim alRashid

Starboard.

Likes received: 208

#1903 - 2011-10-13 07:59:35 UTC | Edited by: Karim alRashid

Rip Minner wrote:

Ok is it just me or do alot of this changes suck for no good reason?

1.) Carriers have not been a problem for some time now why screw them over now? There much softer targets then SC.

Not been a problem because they were overshadowed by the bigger super-carrier problem.

The "Capships Online" slogan appeared well before super-cap buff in 2009, you should remember carrier blobs and fighter swarms of 2007-2008.

Fighters should be changed so that when fit for DPS, carriers can apply about 50-60% of their theoretical fighter DPS output to a stationary battleship (a class lower) and 100% to a moving (super)cap.

Neither changing their signature resolution to 400 nor leaving them as is is a balanced solution for all fighters.

Perhaps any changes can be postponed, but carriers should be watched very carefully in the following 3-4 months, lest they become the new battleships (again).

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

Malcanis

Vanishing Point.

The Initiative.

Likes received: 18,382

#1904 - 2011-10-13 07:59:37 UTC | Edited by: Malcanis

Damian Gene wrote:

Malcanis wrote:

Damian Gene wrote:

Many people:
A rookie ship should not be able to maintain a logofskiee timer forever.

What does it matter if it does? Even unpiloted, a supercap has enough natural shield recharge to permatank a rookie ship.

The trouble is that you seem to think the scenario you describe is a "problem", where as I think it sounds like excellent gameplay. If you, the brave and skillfull covops pilot have managed to determine that I, the lazy and foolish titan pilot, keep using the same safespot to log off in while there's a hostile in local (instead of using a different safe each time or just using a safe POS) then you absolutely deserve a chance to kill my Titan and I absolutely deserve to risk losing it.

15 minutes is easily enough for a smallish gang to kill off any other logged off ship except a supercapital. Your argument seems to be ontological: what is, should be. Supercaps are able to evade destruction by logoffski, therefore they should be able to evade destruction The whole reason for the change is to ensure that any ship who logs off with aggro to an active pilot won't disappear until that pilot has killed it or has given up trying to do so, and that's exactly how it should be. Why should supercaps get any special treatment here?

Leaving aside the implicit assumption that lone covops pilots can spawn an arbitrary number of friends at need, wheras Titan pilots are :foreveralone:, your worry about downtimes is overblown. Fleet battles are determined by pilot availability, which is determined by timezeone. I suppose Australian//NZ supercap pilots will derive some theoretical advantage from this, but that's matched by the real disadvantage of having 20-40 minutes chopped out of their play time every day. I am relaxed about this.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016


Karim alRashid Starboard. Likes received: 208	#1905 - 2011-10-13 08:02:18 UTC Malcanis wrote: Damian Gene wrote: You are in a super, I am in a buzzard... [a scenario follows] The trouble is that you seem to think the scenario you describe is a "problem", where as I think it sounds like excellent gameplay. QFFT Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

Le Cardinal

ECP Rogues

Likes received: 12

#1906 - 2011-10-13 08:10:12 UTC

So much talk about the Hel. Fix ALL the shieldsupers. EFT warriors here keep comparing Shieldtankers and armortankers and it looks pretty even on paper, but when shieldtankers jump into a battle they loose a very large portion of their shield. Now someone choke up a good argument for why that is fair. The amount of armortanked supercaps compared to shieldtankers alone is a very good example of this.

This has been adressed by people for years and never been properly fixed.

LordSergey

Noboby

Likes received: 1

#1907 - 2011-10-13 08:12:34 UTC

Well... I think CCP trying to reach to only one goal by balancing supercarriers... its reduce the profits!! not for pvp just one thing players cant using supercarriers for hunting with sentry drone /You talking that supercarriers hard to kill its rediculous of course small gangs 5-6 people cant if they not using supercapitals but big gangs on capital ship and supercap ship make it easy they don,t need 15 minutes /What the 15 minutes logoff?? Supecapitals ships almost all using in alliance war when you talk about pvp and what you want to say that during this massive war player want to go log off ??No!!! Say the truth CCP want reduce the profits from hunters! not for pvp!


Karim alRashid Starboard. Likes received: 208	#1908 - 2011-10-13 08:14:50 UTC LordSergey wrote: Say the truth CCP want reduce the profits from hunters! Of course, read the last QEN, it's more than hinted there. Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos

Malcanis

Vanishing Point.

The Initiative.

Likes received: 18,382

#1909 - 2011-10-13 08:15:46 UTC

LordSergey wrote:

Well... I think CCP trying to reach to only one goal by balancing supercarriers... its reduce the profits!!

Yes, the soaring subscriber numbers and skyrocketing PCU due to the dynamic and diverse strategic situation in sov 0.0 certainly do seem to argue that CCP shouldn't fix what aint broke. Good observation there, sir.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016


LordSergey Noboby Likes received: 1	#1910 - 2011-10-13 08:20:34 UTC 1 I think is coming one day when EVE online will be game only for CCP not for players if they won't listen the players!

Shadowsword

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 129

#1911 - 2011-10-13 08:27:30 UTC

Mioelnir wrote:

The real core problem is not that supers are designed as cap killers. Giving subcaps better odds is all fine, but subcaps are not the designed weightclass in which to engage in. The problem is that no other capital is actually designed to fight capitals - short story short, fix broken dreads.
Siege weapons were fine in the days of RMR and served their purpose while sov was linked to POS. Newsflash, that's history. POS are engaged to annoy your enemy, force fights and flush a few isks into your wallet. They are an opportunity target now, not a tightly regulated core game mechanic.

So, dreads redux:
- remove the 2 target limit that was imposed on dreads because of station hugging moros pilots. supers take care of that problem all over new eden reliably and fast
- remove the remote rep restriction
- soften the tracking penalty in siege considerably
- switch the local rep boost in siege to +120/140/160/180/200% hull, armor and shield hp depending on dread level
- no warping / docking while in siege, but movement does not have to be restricted
- siege timer at 5 minutes is probably still a good idea

What do we achieve with this? We get an actual supportable, fully insured and comparatively easy to get into damage backbone for regular capital fleets that is not just breakfast any more. You will not come out of engaging a 250 supercapital fleet with a 175/75 dread/carrier fleet (again, failure to set up an unfair fight) scott free and you imho never should - but a considerable amount of supers will die, your losses will be easier to replace (isk, build time and build capcity wise) and you actually have - depending on actual fleet compositions and tactics - maybe even a shot at holding the field / forcing the retreat (wiping 250 supers with even numbers should for the time being be unrealistic I think). But this could actually generate nice combined forces fights.

As Titan proliferation increases, the doomsday will probably have to be looked at again. Then again, engaging 250 titans feels like it should hurt by sound alone, yet how much remains the question.

PS: by the way, what is it with all that 'no remote rep' nonsense. Are you all imprisoned in motsu or a 2005 timebubble? active tank stockholm syndrome?

PPS: and fix capital shield reload mechanics by making it like armor Blink

Not even a sandbox needs passive (super)capital shield tanks

I support this. Just as supers are capital killers, dreadnoughts should be able to make them pay cash for it if they get enough number. If four or five dreads focus one supercarrier, that should result in one or two surviving dreds and a dead SC. But that would require quite a bit of reworking cap dps and EHP.

Chanina

ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES

Likes received: 52

#1912 - 2011-10-13 08:43:36 UTC

Obviously this is a topic where most people have an opinion to.
Always funny are those guys telling "I think/feel that … and …! And since I'm a player I'm the majority and the majority says this is … " Big smile

Don't pretend to speak for more then your self. Thanks.

Concerning the Patch:
Generally it is a move in the right directions. Changes are needed and some will come.

Dreadnaughts:
This things should be mighty warships with state of the arte engineering in them. How is that conform with "no Drones at all"? Those are damn huge ships with a crew of some hundred peoples in it and they can't effort the space for a dronebay? Sorry that's no good idea. Specially for gallente ships drones are some kind of racial mark.
If you wanted to degrade them to some shine "hit and run" gunslingers with the only purpose of structure grinding you made it right. Else… well guess there are better solutions.

Titan:
Same as dreads concerning drones. That just don't match up with the background stories of eve and besides: if the enemy jumps in 20 or 30 titans, your least concern are the sentry drones they are dropping. The Impact on server might be something but there is no difference in that if you drop those 5 Sentries with a cap or supercap or just field some dominix BS. For that price of a titan you can sent in a lot of them if you really love the drones .

Carrier:
The fighter nerf will most likely hit those who are ratting with carrier (and earn honest ingame money) pretty hard. Fighting with T2 heavy drones? Not really an option cause they are way to slow and you will loose a lot of them each wave. Sentries? Might work but you can't align or reposition your self even with the incredible speed of an carrier.

Super Carrier:
This ships have a serious dps and thats what they are used and designed for. Making them unable to field other drones might help to reduce there variety of use cases but it is still quit unlogic. Reducing there bonus of +X drones control to only work with fighter and fighter bombers would still allow to use other drones but not those feared hords of hobgoblin II ;-)
Further more: your Fighters and FBs are manned Strike crafts. Surely you can get some more pilots on deck in such a huge ship. Other drones are operated by the ships computer and still limited in capability.

Suggestion for a return to Motherships:
S-Carriers should be able to bring in a lot of BS to the field. Like 20 or 30 in there SMAs. So pilots loosing there ship can easily reship in battle. If one gets potted in the battle he should be able to respawn "inside" the SC to choose a ship he want to launch with. That only works as long as the assign SC has ships left in it's bay.

Fighters and Fighter bombers:
The prime target for Fighters are BS or at least should be. Because for larger targets FBs should be the weapon of choice. The DPS of FBs might be reduced to get that balanced but hopefully the endless HP bashing of sov structures will soon find an end.

Malcanis

Vanishing Point.

The Initiative.

Likes received: 18,382

#1913 - 2011-10-13 08:45:09 UTC

LordSergey wrote:

I think is coming one day when EVE online will be game only for CCP not for players if they won't listen the players!

You mean that if CCP won't listen to the interests of ~2500 supercap owners instead of the ~347,500 players who don't, they'll go out of business?

Interesting analysis. I look forward to reading the full article in the Wall Street Journal.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

364
Tore Vest Likes received: 364	#1914 - 2011-10-13 08:48:36 UTC 1 LordSergey wrote: I think is coming one day when EVE online will be game only for CCP not for players if they won't listen the players! Think is coming one day when EVE online will feel it in their rl wallet if they won't listen the players !! No troll.

iulixxi

EVE-RO

Goonswarm Federation

Likes received: 5

#1915 - 2011-10-13 08:49:10 UTC | Edited by: iulixxi

Damian Gene wrote:

No, it doesn’t work like that mate 99% of the cases a super pilot has an alt and once it logs out the super it will keep his alt within range till super disappears.

I think a visible aggression timer would be more recommended on the proposed aggression timer changes. - this will prevent exploiting as well as giving a sense of security for the super pilot. If it logs out during a fight he knows he is fecked, if he logs out on a friendly pos without aggression then he is safe.

E

EDIT: I think you and a lot of people misunderstood the message in the dev blog (perhaps it requires some adjustments for clarity). I believe what CCP was trying to say is that if you log with aggression your timer will reset 15 mins from the last shot but if you log without aggression the timer will be unaffected – you will disappear in 2 mins. Aggression after log out (assuming you are not aggressed) again will not affect the timer. CCP is trying to prevent exploiting the log-off mechanics not to get your ship killed by another exploit 5 hours after you went to bed. Basically if you aggress AFTER super logs off it’s a bit to late … he will disappear in 2 minutes any way, you should have move faster …

Doomheim 49
Floydd Heywood Doomheim Likes received: 49	#1916 - 2011-10-13 09:18:55 UTC It was clear enough the first time. If people are unable to read or comprehend and write up enormously elaborate whines based on their failure to read a dev blog, it's not CCP's fault.

Vile rat

GoonWaffe

Goonswarm Federation

Likes received: 1,530

#1917 - 2011-10-13 09:24:55 UTC

Mongo Edwards wrote:

My .02 isk:

I personally feel that CCP messed up big when they took SC's and turned them into DPS platforms. They should have been a natural progression for a carrier/logi pilot i.e. a super logistics boat (I'm thinking in the vicinity of being able to fit 6-8 bonused capital remote reps). Also, the difference between a carrier and super carrier skill wise does not justify the abilities they have (carrier 3 to sit in one - really?).

While I like most of the proposed changes even I (who hate SC's with a passion) feel a token - seperate - drone bay of about 250-500 m3 is reasonable. I would also like to propose that if you insist on keeping SC's as DPS platforms then you make them siege to use their fighter bombers (and with this they lose the ability to be move, use normal drones, be RR'd, or to RR others). They shouldn't be allowed to siege in low sec.

Titans: I feel they need there tracking nerfed - they shouldn't be popping BS with their guns when a dread has trouble tracking a moon.

Dreads: I don't think this boost goes far enough. They need a better role, killing structures is fine and all but when they siege they are extremely suseptable to being neuted out and killed since they can't active tank with no cap. Really if a fight is expected it is better just to bring BS and carriers since the BS are useful against more ships than the sieged, tracking nerfed, dread. The Phoenix needs some love because not only is it a shield tanker in an armor tanking world but it uses Citadel launchers which are just plain bad.

Disclaimer: I live in low sec and have never been involved in a sov fight. However, SC's are becoming more of a problem for low sec with the recent upheaval in null.

I basically agree with this. I think there is a role for titans and supercarriers in this game, it's just not as direct damage platforms. They should be big ass logistics hubs that bring a unique feature to the battle instead of just 'bigger' and 'more of'.

CCP did not make a wise gameplay mechanics decision when they made the ships the way they are and they did the playerbase no favors by making them so powerful that they eventually had to be reduced. Now people are crying about their big toy that they worked hard to get being reduced in power and while they have a really valid point, they shouldn't have been put in a position where they felt they had to get this overpowered garbage to even have a chance at competing.

Tore Vest

Likes received: 364

#1918 - 2011-10-13 09:27:02 UTC | Edited by: Tore Vest

Vile rat wrote:

Mongo Edwards wrote:

I vote for only one CSM pr aliance

No troll.

Anger Management 13
Mr Management Anger Management Likes received: 13	#1919 - 2011-10-13 09:54:48 UTC 1 Quote: I vote for only one CSM pr aliance Agreed, also ban Devs from playing the game ......... they haven't got a clue anyway. No more insider information and hot-lines .......................

Sane Industries Inc. 2,037
Rakshasa Taisab Sane Industries Inc. Likes received: 2,037	#1920 - 2011-10-13 10:09:42 UTC Mr Management wrote: Quote: I vote for only one CSM pr aliance Agreed, also ban Devs from playing the game ......... they haven't got a clue anyway. No more insider information and hot-lines ....................... As long as they provide the tears, I don't give a ** what devs do in-game. Nyan**