These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#181 - 2011-11-11 00:06:01 UTC
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
All we really need are passive invulnerability fields, balanced to not replace their active counterparts obviously.

Yes, and while we're at it, let's add active omni-hardeners for Armor too, and take away shield recharge, and we'll have successfully removed all interesting differences and trade-offs between shield and armor forever. Good plan.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#182 - 2011-11-11 00:08:04 UTC
I think he might really believe that if CCP were to introduce Cormack's Modified Supercharged Adaptive Nano Membrane, an active and overheatable 50% omni-resist armor hardener it won't get fitted to supercaps because its active.

So sad.
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#183 - 2011-11-11 00:09:33 UTC
And about the supercap "nerf".

Like posters said before, I don't see how this is much of a nerf. 20% HP nerf is nothing really. Badly fitted Aeons and Nyxes have 50m EHP, which is 30 times that of a dreadnought, while maintaining the same DPS with a better projectability (they can actually leave/reenter the field/enter a pos).
They also have Ewar-immunity, which is a pretty big blow rendering them invulnerable against the majority of subcap fleets (as if EHP wasn't enough).

Basically we're still looking at a ship that has 30 times the tank of a dread (~15 times with T2 mods), the same DPS of a dread and Ewar immunity for only 5 times the cost.

It's ridiculous that people count in the price they pay for their supers.
No, supers don't cost 15b hull, they cost 10b in minerals, plus a few hundred mil for POS fuel and BPCs. You paying 4b extra should not be a reason to make them stronger. You fitting 5b worth of deadspace mods and T2 rigs shouldn't make them stronger either - nor should a 3b slave set.

Want to balance supercarriers? They cost 5 times as much as a Dread, so give them 5 times the tank of a dread. Hell, even 10 times. That would be a proper fix.
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#184 - 2011-11-11 00:10:54 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
I think he might really believe that if CCP were to introduce Cormack's Modified Supercharged Adaptive Nano Membrane, an active and overheatable 50% omni-resist armor hardener it won't get fitted to supercaps because its active.

So sad.

You make no sense at all.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#185 - 2011-11-11 00:12:20 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
If you are ANYWHERE near where there is a fleet of those subcaps- even 8-10 of them, you should not be alone in your super or yes, you will die.

Saying it's not fair to pay 15b ISK for them to be vulnerable to losing offensive capibilities is stupid. It's scalable to saying you shouldn't lose a Vindicator to a Dramiel but you still can if you fly it like an idiot.



Just thought I'd drop by to point out that this is literally the worst analogy I've ever seen. Vindicators *can't* have their primary offensive capability blown up. Also, Vindicators carry 90% webs and have a big drone bay, both of which give them great potential to kill smaller, lesser ships (another thing supers can't do now). Vindicators are an awesome example of a ship that, in exchange for large sums of money, is extremely powerful and capable of handling a diverse set of combat situations. Other than that though, great analogy.
Sigras
Conglomo
#186 - 2011-11-11 00:46:59 UTC
What about instead of making a slave set for shields, why not just make the crystal set work for cap ships . . . It may make the chimera a bit crazy but think about it . . .
Jazz Styles
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2011-11-11 01:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jazz Styles
The Hel has always suffered from the lowest EHP of the supers. How about not nerfing it's shield HP at all, and keep the wyvern at -10%?. Also, who puts a remote rep on a supercarrier... (perhaps change its bonus to something useful, like fighter/bomber speed).

My two cents on the super nerf: Reducing their hitpoints isn't really going to help much, since they roam around in massive blobs anyway, usually with triage carriers on support. The real issue was the amount of damage they can put out vs dreadnaughts that are stuck in siege mode (i.e. insta-popping them). If you want dreads to be used more, the DPS of supers needs to be reigned in a bit.

Consider, if you will, reducing the bonus from 3 extra fighters per carrier level to 2, which will also reduce lag issues as well.

Edit: I think it really comes down to how much power you want to put in the hands of one pilot. ISK is not a restriction on how many of these things can be fielded by an alliance, so reducing supers by a given percentage of their current strength is a good way to mitigate their power (reduction of hitpoints and dps would cover it).
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2011-11-11 02:49:17 UTC
If CCP goes ahead and gives shield supers everything:

- shield "slave" implants
- instant full shield bonus from gangboost on session change
- deadspace invulns

They will be absurdly overpowered compared to armor supers. Armor supers do not have the "active module" version of the invuln/eanm, and do not get passive regeneration to their tanking layer. The Caldari supers will combine HUGE EHP -- much larger than armor supers -- with incredible passive tank (even in a pure EHP tank fit).

CCP is in serious danger of swinging supercap desirability too far to the shield supers instead of striking a balance.

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Nightshade's Redux
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#189 - 2011-11-11 03:25:49 UTC
Good step forward here, fixing the things we've been asking to be fixed for years.

Removing the drones from SC's, while it hurts, itsnt such a bad thing. Id wish you did the same to Carriers, or implemented Drone / Fighter only bays for them as well, and limit the massive number of drones they carry.

Love the Shield Slave set idea, as long as they make it exclusive to Capitals, and or nerf shield recharge to compensate for it so we dont end up with massive passive tanks on Drakes / Nighthawks etc. Add in the bonus' change, and the A-Type Invul fields, and we may see the tables turned, with armor falling out of favor for shiled SC's.

Removing the EW immunity is far too much of a nerf. You need to have to put in some effort to kill a SC, and not just let some T1 fit kestrel tackle you, and you being unable to do anything about it.

So, who's selling a Ragnarok?
Ressiv Arac
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#190 - 2011-11-11 05:27:37 UTC
With double digit super-captials and triage carriers on the field, dreads need to be able to lock up more capitals at once, and switch targets quickly.

The Moros used to have a 50% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per skill level, and in the time of Dragon dreads could dock in siege. This made the Moros a terror of lowsec station games. A Moros could lock up a half dozen aggressed subcaps, pick one, disrupt, web and kill it. All while being in siege with a rep running, and if things got too hairy they could just de-aggress and dock. Players called out for nerf . Dock in siege was fixed, and dreads in siege got nerfed to 2 targets in Revelations II.

With no doomsdays in lowsec, Neuts, sensor boosters, a damage control II and 6x Reinforced Bulkheads II things were still bad. 3.7M EHP is hard to chew through over an aggression timer. In Dominion the Moros' drone bonus was cut from 50% to 20% per level, a 57.1% drone DPS nerf.

However soon the Moros will no longer have drones at all. The days of 250% bonus-ed Orge IIs sitting on an undock are gone. All the reasons for the Max Target Siege Nerf are gone.

Buff max targets in siege.
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#191 - 2011-11-11 05:31:08 UTC
pmchem wrote:
If CCP goes ahead and gives shield supers everything:

- shield "slave" implants
- instant full shield bonus from gangboost on session change
- deadspace invulns

They will be absurdly overpowered compared to armor supers. Armor supers do not have the "active module" version of the invuln/eanm, and do not get passive regeneration to their tanking layer. The Caldari supers will combine HUGE EHP -- much larger than armor supers -- with incredible passive tank (even in a pure EHP tank fit).

CCP is in serious danger of swinging supercap desirability too far to the shield supers instead of striking a balance.


Shield supers only need to be fixed once. Giving them a smaller nerf to make up for lacking these things, and then adding them anyways will lead to problems. I couldn't care less which option is chosen, but doubling them up is brain damaged.
Aequitas Veritas
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#192 - 2011-11-11 06:35:52 UTC
How about letting the scs dock now? Theres absolutely no reason to force a character to be stuck in one any longer...
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#193 - 2011-11-11 08:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Svennig
Vincent Gaines wrote:

I don't think I've ever ran a full rack on my Chimera. I've run 3 CSTs before and can run 2 stable 3 in triage stable (it's been a long time since I've done it). In reality, while the other 3 carriers can fit a full rack, they don't use it. In my highs I usually run 2x CST, CET, and a smartbomb. If I know I'm doing a POS rep even as a suicide I would still only run a max of 3x CSTs CET and triage.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.


Except for the fact that you SHOULD.

You're confusing cap stability and fitting issues. A four rep archon isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four rep chimera isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four shield rep nid, the reppiest of carriers, is impossible without fitting mods.

If a carrier fleet is repping armor (incapped mods say, or the armor cycle of a sov structure) then the archons SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the chimeras can transfer cap to them to do so.

If a carrier fleet is repping shield (POS say, or shield cycle of a sov structure) then the chimeras SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the archons can transfer cap to them to do so.

Now, we bring in the nidhoggur. It's not the chimera or the archon - it has no bonus to tank. It's more vulnerable on the field. But it's got a super rep bonus. It should be the king of reps. It should be better than either the archon or the chimera at repping, right? I mean that's what it's for? But while a four armor rep nid is possible with no fitting issues, a four shield rep chimera needs TWO CO-PROCESSOR IIs to do it. Two fitting mods.

This is just wrong.
Sigras
Conglomo
#194 - 2011-11-11 09:20:05 UTC
#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . .
#2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup

That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU
Sigras
Conglomo
#195 - 2011-11-11 09:21:55 UTC
Aequitas Veritas wrote:
How about letting the scs dock now? Theres absolutely no reason to force a character to be stuck in one any longer...

#1 youre not stuck in it, you can dock it in a CSMA
#2 no, because you can then use it to RR a station and let them get you to 50% hull, then dock, repair for free and undock again ready to go . . . . we dont need invulnerable supercarriers RRing a station that they can just dock in.
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#196 - 2011-11-11 09:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Baki Yuku
CCP Tallest wrote:
Update:

Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.

Supercarriers
* All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)

Shield supercapitals
* Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly)
** New values should be 90% of current TQ value

Naglfar
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Nidhoggur:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +30000 PG
* +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

Hel:
* 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
* +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)

XL autocannons:
* +50% falloff

Titan tracking issue:
* "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.


I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.

* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump.
* Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue
* XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity
* There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
* There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor
* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules


What the **** is with this ******* forum it eat my post once again this is bullshit really ******* fix that!

While I fully endorse Deathspace invulnerability fields there comes a problem with that invulnerability fields are activ modules so you will have the ability to overheat to gain burst tank ability while being primed in a fight.. to make up for that Armor deathspace EANM's should get a slight % boost across the board..

Also the Hel... that change does not adress the real problem of the hel which is you can't get her resistances anywhere near that of an nyx/aeon due to missing medslots to fit for resistances. But I guess we will have to see how that works out with the new Deathspace shield invulnerability fields. But you should keep an eye on that and if needed remove one lowslot while adding one medslot..

Naglfar more keep is nice but I'd go for some more drastic things like changing the bonus's on the ship itself! Why? Because of the nature of the Naglfar as a dual weapon platform right now for it to be useful for more then POS shoots you'd have to fit 2 types of damage mods as well as Tracking enhancer/tracking computer to counter the speed tanking issue with carriers and supers which is ******** by the way.. So my suggestion would be to remove the 5% Damage bonus for projectiles while adding a 7,5% Tracking per level bonus that would remove the need to fit tracking enhancer/computer, fix the speed tanking issue and in turn free up slots for tank/capacitor.. Sure it would remove 25% of the projectile DPS but it would also make the Naglfar the best sniper dread in the game.. giving it a unique role.. I'd even concider removing the launcher hardpoints alltogther while adding another turret hardpoint.. but thats just me:)

Leadership/implant/module changes are awesome... really this will make shield fleets a real option on larger scales..
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#197 - 2011-11-11 09:45:47 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
I like what I see.

Would still prefer the hel to switch to armor, since a logistics-hub supercarrier using a different tanking type than nearly everyone around it is such an obvious, expensive lynchpin.


Similarly, it would make sense to switch the Chimera, Phoenix, Wyvern and Leviathan to armour tanking, because of the lack of shield capitals and shield RR. This would also solve the entire shield-regen and Crystals/Slaves problems.

Or, maybe, you could actually solve the absurdity of three armour carriers and one shield one, by switching the Nidhoggur back to shield. It was a pretty stupid change to make in the first place and was significantly contributed to the dominance of armour on the capital level
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#198 - 2011-11-11 09:47:23 UTC
Sigras wrote:
#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . .
#2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup

That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU


Yeah, but the thanatos doesn't have a rep bonus. It's like if the thanatos had a bonus to fighter damage but not enough bandwidth to fly all 10.

The other carriers don't need fitting mods to function in their role. The archon doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The chimera doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The thanatos doesn't need a fitting mod to be able to utilise its fighter bonus. Why are you saying it's OK for the nidhoggur to need TWO fitting mods to utilize its bonus in shield, when it's already able to do it in armor without ANY?
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#199 - 2011-11-11 10:00:07 UTC
Svennig wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:

I don't think I've ever ran a full rack on my Chimera. I've run 3 CSTs before and can run 2 stable 3 in triage stable (it's been a long time since I've done it). In reality, while the other 3 carriers can fit a full rack, they don't use it. In my highs I usually run 2x CST, CET, and a smartbomb. If I know I'm doing a POS rep even as a suicide I would still only run a max of 3x CSTs CET and triage.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.


Except for the fact that you SHOULD.

You're confusing cap stability and fitting issues. A four rep archon isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four rep chimera isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four shield rep nid, the reppiest of carriers, is impossible without fitting mods.

If a carrier fleet is repping armor (incapped mods say, or the armor cycle of a sov structure) then the archons SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the chimeras can transfer cap to them to do so.

If a carrier fleet is repping shield (POS say, or shield cycle of a sov structure) then the chimeras SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the archons can transfer cap to them to do so.

Now, we bring in the nidhoggur. It's not the chimera or the archon - it has no bonus to tank. It's more vulnerable on the field. But it's got a super rep bonus. It should be the king of reps. It should be better than either the archon or the chimera at repping, right? I mean that's what it's for? But while a four armor rep nid is possible with no fitting issues, a four shield rep chimera needs TWO CO-PROCESSOR IIs to do it. Two fitting mods.

This is just wrong.


Well I've to agree here.. because fitting 2 Co-Processors is not an option that amount of tank or cap you lose while doing that is absurd! This talk about the nidhoggur having 2 extra lowslots anyways is stupid because you can not compare chimera with nidhoggur thats plain stupid. +10% CPU is what would make the nidhoggur work in most cases sure a few will still need a Co-processor but thats okey because in some cases even a chimera needs one.. so its only fair!
SuperBeastie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#200 - 2011-11-11 10:19:17 UTC
local and remote shield reps have BROKEN cpu requirements

if you want to fit a full rack of remote shield reps & a local rep it would take 1175 cpu and 450,000 power grid

142% of the chimera base cpu and 100% of the chimera base power grid

if you want to fit a full rack of remote armor reps & a local rep it would take 275 cpu and 875,000 power grid

44% of the archons base cpu and 112% of the archons base power grid

[center]SuperBeastie's Third Party Service My in-game Channel is Supers Third Party[/center]