These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RebelGeneral
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1961 - 2011-10-13 15:33:19 UTC
Leave fighters alone, Carriers are fine in this game and anything done to make fighters do less damage is going to break the game more. Fighter bombers should have there signature radius increased to make them do less damage against sub-caps. Stop breaking things please. Leave carriers alone, by reducing fighters damage to sub-caps your going to limit what the already limited carrier is used for. Might as well just strip its drone bay and make it purely a logistics ships for hauling ships. Because by nerfing fighters this is what your creating.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1962 - 2011-10-13 15:34:02 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:


i take it your mid are sebo's and tracking comps then?

2 tracking comps, range scrips and iron. optimal is 78 +31. rail moros is the choice 90% of teh time outside a wormhole. and tbh the changes will not get me back in what effectivly is a kiting ship now


(That dread is actually all meta 2 / faction fit)

All 5s, 3x damage mods for long ranged guns (no tracking mods in atm, using t1 ammo, though it is actually economical to use faction on rev) now:

Moros - 3483 at 60+30, 1451 at 192+30
+Potential 600 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 450 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs
New Moros (1.47x) - 5120 at 50+30, 2132 at 192+30

Rev (Beam) - 3743 at 50+40, 1560 at 160+40
+Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs
New Rev (Beam) (1.1x) - 4117 at 50+40, 1716 at 160+40

Rev (Pulse) - 6222 DPS at 23+13, 2592 at 75+13
+Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs
New Rev (Pulse) (1.1x) - 6844 at 23+13, 2851 at 75+13

Range Modifiers:
1x T2 TC w/ Optimal: (1.15x)+(1.3x)
2x T2 TC w/ Optimal: (1.30x)+(1.64x)

I am liking the look of the rail, regardless of potential cap issues. (Getting good at avoiding ganked posts \o/, copy-pasta ftw)



Edit:

Sader Rykane wrote:
The fighter Nerf might be a bit much especially with the removal of the drone bay.


They retracted that change, just have yet to edit the blog.



so basicly, your using a dread fit, that yourll never see in a none wh dread fleet? as these ships are effectivly paper thin and cant hit small targets( bs and lower and now cant even kill a solo frig) and fitting blasters, that yourll never see in a none wh dread fleet.

you are right, only place now and after this change where a dread can be used liek it used to be is in a wh. but balancing them using expensive none fleet mods isnt my idea of balance. its liek compairing a t2 fit proteus with a full deadspace tengu

OMG when can i get a pic here
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1963 - 2011-10-13 15:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Demon Azrakel
Smoking Blunts wrote:


so basicly, your using a dread fit, that yourll never see in a none wh dread fleet? as these ships are effectivly paper thin and cant hit small targets( bs and lower and now cant even kill a solo frig) and fitting blasters, that yourll never see in a none wh dread fleet.

you are right, only place now and after this change where a dread can be used liek it used to be is in a wh. but balancing them using expensive none fleet mods isnt my idea of balance. its liek compairing a t2 fit proteus with a full deadspace tengu



Edited a lot of stuff in (capacitor comparison). The dread comment was just one on how I could hit at those ranges in w-space, while all other comments regarded a t2 fit dread. I will edit that post again to make it more clear.

RebelGeneral wrote:
Leave fighters alone, Carriers are fine in this game and anything done to make fighters do less damage is going to break the game more. Fighter bombers should have there signature radius increased to make them do less damage against sub-caps. Stop breaking things please. Leave carriers alone, by reducing fighters damage to sub-caps your going to limit what the already limited carrier is used for. Might as well just strip its drone bay and make it purely a logistics ships for hauling ships. Because by nerfing fighters this is what your creating.


They decided against the change on page 46 or something (they linked the post in the OP)

EDIT: can't seem to do quotes right...
EDIT: this fix it?
quIinn
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1964 - 2011-10-13 15:38:19 UTC
ok ccp most of the changers are kool but why nerf normal fighters there's not a problem with carrier's / fighters fighter bombers are the problem please for the love of god dont change fighters why brake somthing thats already ok as it is. LEAVE FIGHTER'S ALONE u must think to urselves right well fix this this nd this and brake this whilst were at it wtf ccp so please think about it they dont need nurfing supers needed the nurf nd dreads needed the boost carriers are fine i hope i get the point accross thanks
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#1965 - 2011-10-13 15:41:08 UTC
quIinn wrote:
ok ccp most of the changers are kool but why nerf normal fighters there's not a problem with carrier's / fighters fighter bombers are the problem please for the love of god dont change fighters why brake somthing thats already ok as it is. LEAVE FIGHTER'S ALONE u must think to urselves right well fix this this nd this and brake this whilst were at it wtf ccp so please think about it they dont need nurfing supers needed the nurf nd dreads needed the boost carriers are fine i hope i get the point accross thanks


Fighter change got retracted, I'm too lazy to look up the post, and CCP is too lazy to edit their blog, but no more fighter change.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#1966 - 2011-10-13 15:43:52 UTC
Still not too late to change their mind about fighters. Blink

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1967 - 2011-10-13 15:49:01 UTC
as someone with maxed skilled moros/nyx/erebus pilots. these changes are just so far from balanced its not funny.
some mom pilots now will just move to titans, some will go to carriers, soem will actiually stay in moms. but no one is gonna use dreads anymore than now.

its liek ccp got all the people taht dont play eve in there office, put them in a room and said, you got to say 1 thing each and we will use that to balance capitals.

there is a lot of whine about this and that, but cut through all that, there is no balance, its a bunch of rash changes by people that have never flown these ships, will never fly them and basicly dont play eve.

if you go through all 100 pages or what ever, you can pick out good ideas, better ideas than ccp from at least 1 person from eack of the alliances in game. ideas that would make more sence and be balanced.
anyhow, last post cba with this anymore, ill wait for the patch notes


OMG when can i get a pic here
Nova Soldier
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#1968 - 2011-10-13 16:33:26 UTC
I hope CCP realizes that this winter patch is critical for the future of eve. A lot of ppl are already bored of eve because right now null sec eve is ~80% controled by 2 large coalitions. While the rest try to survive on crappy moons in an eve controlled by supers.
If CCP fails with this winter patch, then i do not see a bright future no matter how many ''walking in stations'' improvements they get in eve.

PS: Make Dreads usefull again. A dread is a ship is used by everyone in eve while the supers are reserved for the few.

PPS : http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=4015923 this is what we want back.
Oscasre
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1969 - 2011-10-13 16:42:59 UTC
Quote:
Fighter change got retracted, I'm too lazy to look up the post, and CCP is too lazy to edit their blog, but no more fighter change.



Fighters changes got changed for what ?

Carriers and not Supers

Carriers and Supers ?

CCP Please clear up the confusion ...... in one statment you said the changes to the fighters for carriers is wrong but haven't
cleared up anything ?
Oscasre
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1970 - 2011-10-13 16:44:09 UTC
Quote:
PPS : http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=4015923 this is what we want back.


One side blobbing the other ... nice move
Nova Soldier
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#1971 - 2011-10-13 16:50:35 UTC
Don't look at the blob, look at the dread fleets fighting each outher.
Avon
#1972 - 2011-10-13 16:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Avon
Tippia wrote:

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.
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…




I didn't say that build requirement never change, I said they don't change "automagically".
If you are claiming that they do, or will, then you can deem me a false prophet - until then, stop being an idiot.

You actually managed to pretty much shoot down your own argument by the way.

Supercaps should have an advantage because they cost more due to their build requirement, which is set because of the advantage they should have.

Now, stop with your silly circular logic and accept that cost is a factor of balance, because, as you correctly pointed out, cost is a factor of build requirements which are decided by CCP to reflect how much "better" a ship should be.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1973 - 2011-10-13 17:10:41 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
new feedback

1. Arrow Please let dreads keep their drone bay - but have the siege module make it so dreads cannot use drones while in siege mode - similar to carriers triage mode. Idea

2. Arrow Hel is getting hit the worst and will have the lowest EHP of all the mom's please leave their hp alone and maybe look into changing the bonus from logi to something like drone rof.

3. Arrow Drone bay sizes should be able to take a full compliment of fighters and fighter bombers. 25 f / 25 FB. This will leave some versatility to moms to either assign fighters to sub caps to help them out or have a full wing of bombers for capital / sov fights.

3.a. To appease the super cap whiners that have no friends to back them up in a fleet fight.
Arrow MAKE 2 drone bays. One for fighters and fighter bombers, And another one for regular drones. large enough to accomodate, 25 light, 25 medium, 25 heavy, 25 sentry, and 25 ewar.
Now to the whiney super cap pilots --- THIS IS MEETING THE ISSUE HALF WAY, It gives you reasonable defense against subs but its not op where you can constantly throw drones out.

4. Arrow AS an added bonus to help supers carriers and others, MAYBE offer a bonus to smartbomb range or neut range.

5. Arrow Look into dread / titan tracking of turrets,

6. Arrow You should explain more in depth about hybrid changes to quell the fear about the changes it is going to receive, you already broke its poor little legs.

7. Arrow If regular carriers are going to be support ships to the supers, make sure they get some good bonuses to help defend against sub caps,
7a - small hp buff
7b - better tracking for all drones
7c - speed bonus drones ETC

8. Arrow A note to the community - THESE ARE PLANNED CHANGES AND ARE NOT YET IN STONE! Get on the test server and try it out and offer constructive help not whining and rage quitting.

9. Arrow To most of you bitter vets - We were all around before super caps existed, we were all around fighting for sov long before tons and tons of moms were fielded. MAKE UP TACTICS, Send in the subs first to distract their subs then send in the dreads and supers to take out their capitals.


1. thats actually an interesting idea
2. they said they would look at the Hel independently
3. the problem was that, in theory you can blow up the F-Bombers to mitigate the damage, but when you can keep putting them out, and keep putting them out and keep putting them out its not the same.
4. im not really seeing the help there
5. yep, titans need less dreadnaughts need more
6. CCP never does anything fast
7. Carriers are support ships period their bonuses to help defend against subcaps is a good support fleet
8. Amen
9. how quickly people forget that.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#1974 - 2011-10-13 17:51:27 UTC
To defend my point 3, The idea is if the average mom pilot has carrier 5, then 20 drones is all they can field w/o using the drone control units. This allows the mom pilot to field 20 of each while having 5 extra for back up.

Most people can agree that getting your drones shot down by rats or smartbombed is annoying as hell.

Now I like to ask the thoughts of the 2 drone bays.

A fighter bay and a drone bay as i also stated in point 3. If you have two seperate bays this will really limit how many drones moms can put out and allow them to assist in pos take downs with sentries, and help defense against sub caps.

This will retain some versatility of moms but not make them op. Instead of cutting the balls off nerf it will just be more of a kick in the balls.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1975 - 2011-10-13 18:03:11 UTC
Oscasre wrote:
Quote:
Fighter change got retracted, I'm too lazy to look up the post, and CCP is too lazy to edit their blog, but no more fighter change.



Fighters changes got changed for what ?

Carriers and not Supers

Carriers and Supers ?

CCP Please clear up the confusion ...... in one statment you said the changes to the fighters for carriers is wrong but haven't
cleared up anything ?





Go back to page one of this thread and read that post. It has a link to the post where CCP Tallest was persuaded to redact the fighter sig resolution change by reasonable arguments in this thread.

As it stands, everything is all just being discussed and to be decided for all we know. Changes aren't even on test yet, so don't get your panties in a wad just yet.

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.
John Hand
#1976 - 2011-10-13 18:15:05 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
To defend my point 3, The idea is if the average mom pilot has carrier 5, then 20 drones is all they can field w/o using the drone control units. This allows the mom pilot to field 20 of each while having 5 extra for back up.

Most people can agree that getting your drones shot down by rats or smartbombed is annoying as hell.

Now I like to ask the thoughts of the 2 drone bays.

A fighter bay and a drone bay as i also stated in point 3. If you have two seperate bays this will really limit how many drones moms can put out and allow them to assist in pos take downs with sentries, and help defense against sub caps.

This will retain some versatility of moms but not make them op. Instead of cutting the balls off nerf it will just be more of a kick in the balls.


Yup. Splitting the drone bay to limit the number of normal drones gives supers the ability to still fight on like before. However it limits the number of drones instead of having 10k drones in there bay they will have, at most, 200 or so normal drones. Thats only 10 relaunches of drones for a level 5 SC. A few stealth bombers can wipe that out in no time flat. As a SC pilot myself, I am for this idea, as I also like to fly SB's (gotta love those little ships). SB's being a small counter to supers (tiney frig vs epic size) is a really good idea, after all a gang of SB's could feasibly take down a single SC thats alone. Torps do some amazing DPS, add that with a bomb or two to wipe out the drones and that super is prepped and ready for the slaughter house.
Yaay
ChuangShi
Fraternity.
#1977 - 2011-10-13 18:27:05 UTC
You need to still address carrier and SC remote repairing out of triage. IMO, link the range bonus to triage only. This addresses Super Carrier blobs repairing each other effectively and reduces spider tanking carrier effects a bit. Make remote repair blobs less effective b/c honestly, spider tanking and remote repairing on all levels is out of control and needs some more balance.

Take what you want from that and also fix Logistics.
Yaay
ChuangShi
Fraternity.
#1978 - 2011-10-13 18:29:47 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
new feedback

1. Arrow Please let dreads keep their drone bay - but have the siege module make it so dreads cannot use drones while in siege mode - similar to carriers triage mode. Idea

2. Arrow Hel is getting hit the worst and will have the lowest EHP of all the mom's please leave their hp alone and maybe look into changing the bonus from logi to something like drone rof.

3. Arrow Drone bay sizes should be able to take a full compliment of fighters and fighter bombers. 25 f / 25 FB. This will leave some versatility to moms to either assign fighters to sub caps to help them out or have a full wing of bombers for capital / sov fights.

3.a. To appease the super cap whiners that have no friends to back them up in a fleet fight.
Arrow MAKE 2 drone bays. One for fighters and fighter bombers, And another one for regular drones. large enough to accomodate, 25 light, 25 medium, 25 heavy, 25 sentry, and 25 ewar.
Now to the whiney super cap pilots --- THIS IS MEETING THE ISSUE HALF WAY, It gives you reasonable defense against subs but its not op where you can constantly throw drones out.

4. Arrow AS an added bonus to help supers carriers and others, MAYBE offer a bonus to smartbomb range or neut range.

5. Arrow Look into dread / titan tracking of turrets,

6. Arrow You should explain more in depth about hybrid changes to quell the fear about the changes it is going to receive, you already broke its poor little legs.

7. Arrow If regular carriers are going to be support ships to the supers, make sure they get some good bonuses to help defend against sub caps,
7a - small hp buff
7b - better tracking for all drones
7c - speed bonus drones ETC

8. Arrow A note to the community - THESE ARE PLANNED CHANGES AND ARE NOT YET IN STONE! Get on the test server and try it out and offer constructive help not whining and rage quitting.

9. Arrow To most of you bitter vets - We were all around before super caps existed, we were all around fighting for sov long before tons and tons of moms were fielded. MAKE UP TACTICS, Send in the subs first to distract their subs then send in the dreads and supers to take out their capitals.


Every bit of that is ****.. all your doing is changing why their overpowered rather than reducing their effectiveness.
Ratnose Banker
Pink Sockers
#1979 - 2011-10-13 18:39:42 UTC
lolol nerf logis because we can't get more than 4 in fleet and they only have logistics trained to 3 :DDDD
GaiusAlexander
Starcorp Heavy Industries
#1980 - 2011-10-13 18:42:24 UTC
Cronyx Ravage wrote:
Can someone explain why, exactly, it makes sense for fighters to have a hard time shooting subcaps? Theyre *fighters*, right? With a pilot inside. It would be like a Viper Mk.2 having a hard time shooting something the size of Colonial One, as far as cruisers go, a heavy raider to relate to frigates, or a frakin Basestar to relate to battleships. Making them only effective against capitals is like saying Vipers are only effective against Hiveships, Resurection hubs, or colony ships. Or a more real world example, F-16s are only effective against.... What? Something the size of an Independence Day city destroyer? (there is no real world exame for this size difference)


Yeah, I miss BSG as well...