These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Caneb
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2011-11-11 12:21:45 UTC
Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.

We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants.
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#202 - 2011-11-11 12:33:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
CCP Tallest wrote:
Update:
* 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


1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ?
After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp.
If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.

2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ?
Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V.
Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)

You shouldn't try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.
freed0m rus
Iris Covenant
The Gorgon Empire
#203 - 2011-11-11 12:36:03 UTC
shields slaves, as well as a-type invuls is a bad idea. just deny slaves for capitals, just like crystals. thinner supers = more kills = more fun, amirite? :)
Razzor Death
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2011-11-11 12:43:04 UTC
Aragote wrote:
clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go...



Poor babbi Raidendot a bloo bloo bloo
LacLongQuan
Doomheim
#205 - 2011-11-11 12:48:49 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:

1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ?
After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp.
If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.

2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ?
Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V.
Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)

You should try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.


^this

dont give shield slave, dont make deadspace invul. shield and armor are fine as it is. remove the passive recharge on shield, make invul passive, then we'll talk about shield slave
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#206 - 2011-11-11 13:12:07 UTC
LacLongQuan wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:

1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ?
After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp.
If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.

2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ?
Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V.
Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)

You should try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.


^this

dont give shield slave, dont make deadspace invul. shield and armor are fine as it is. remove the passive recharge on shield, make invul passive, then we'll talk about shield slave


and why not? why should only armor tanks have a implant set that gives them a MASSIV boost in ehp while shield tanker only get a implant set that is useless in pvp.. and a shield slave set will not break shield tank supers because their hardners (invus) need cap its impossible to fit a shield super passiv the same way you do with armor so dont complain.. also trying to compare faction invus with eanm's is retraded! why? one needs capacitor to work the other not.. plus the bonus res passiv armor hardner and eanm's get from skills do not stake so if you take staking into account right now Faction invu vs A-Type EANM should be about equal with the differnce that invu will need cap to work..
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#207 - 2011-11-11 13:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
Baki Yuku wrote:
and why not? why should only armor tanks have a implant set that gives them a MASSIV boost in ehp while shield tanker only get a implant set that is useless in pvp.. and a shield slave set will not break shield tank supers because their hardners (invus) need cap its impossible to fit a shield super passiv the same way you do with armor so dont complain.. also trying to compare faction invus with eanm's is retraded! why? one needs capacitor to work the other not.. plus the bonus res passiv armor hardner and eanm's get from skills do not stake so if you take staking into account right now Faction invu vs A-Type EANM should be about equal with the differnce that invu will need cap to work..


The problem is that a shield slave set and deadspace invuls would kill the effect from the nerf. You'd end up with Wyvern with 70m or 80m ehp when even the 55m EHP of an Aeon where already considered too much...

The stats we have now are about 43m ehp for Wyvern and 53m ehp for Aeons. If you increase the Wyvern ehp by 56 percent as the slave does you end up with a Wyvern thats soo much better than the other SCs that its absurd.

A high grade shield slave would kill the balance more than the current armor slave sets do.
And it would be just another boost for Supers.

And seriously, Capacitor might be a consideration for Invuls on Drakes, but not on Supers.
And since you'd fit 500m+ Invuls only on large/expensive ships, capacitor is an inadequate balancing measure.
Levistus Junior
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#208 - 2011-11-11 13:25:30 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
And all this wankerizing about Motherships getting nerfed... get a grip.

Motherships will still be the equivalent of high-DPS dreads, with excellent damage projection (that even follows its targets in warp for Pete's sake), Remote ECM Burst, no siege mode to worry about, and 10-30x the EHP of a Dread (can't be DD'd in one shot by Titans) with massively improved resists.

Seriously. How is that in any way bad.


Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve:
-about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too)
-about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP
-you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers.
-dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#209 - 2011-11-11 13:33:44 UTC
Levistus Junior wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
And all this wankerizing about Motherships getting nerfed... get a grip.

Motherships will still be the equivalent of high-DPS dreads, with excellent damage projection (that even follows its targets in warp for Pete's sake), Remote ECM Burst, no siege mode to worry about, and 10-30x the EHP of a Dread (can't be DD'd in one shot by Titans) with massively improved resists.

Seriously. How is that in any way bad.


Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve:
-about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too)
-about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP
-you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers.
-dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).



All these things wont work because the limiting factor in EVE are people.
If you have 100 Supers in Fleet you cant replace them with 1300 Dreads for Obvious reasons.
ATTAKowl
Standard Issue Strategic Action
#210 - 2011-11-11 14:27:06 UTC
Armor tanking capitals have already dominated for over 5 years right? Sorry, but I think you all had your fun, its time for this game to evolve. Stop being afraid.

Shield tank is the future!
Bring on the 'crystalslave' implants!
Time to collect the tears of Nyx and Aeon pilots.

PS, why do so many people in this thread think the Crystal set currently works on capitals? You are shting up the feedback.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2011-11-11 14:28:44 UTC
I think a nice ballance to the restartable 15 mins agro would be the same thing for people on gates and at stations.

The main reason the in space aggression was put in place was because supers could just log and had soo many hit pints in 99% of ocasions they could not be killed in time.
Are people that play station games in 0.0 with the knowledge that they can just dock up again not doing exactly the same thing. Now I'm not suggesting that if you are shot but do not shoot back you should be stuck in space, BUT if you shoot at a hostile you should not only be stuck with a 30 second aggresion timer. This times should be increased to a value that almost garuntees your death if you are caught. something like 120 seconds. possibly even up to 300 seconds.
This should also be the case on Gates, if you choose to engage that should be it. You win or Die, no more jumping through gates all the time to get to safety. If the vast majority wanted no way for supers to disengage it should be the same for all.


Sub cap pilots shouldn'y be able to have their cake AND eat it.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2011-11-11 14:42:35 UTC
I have a list of additional cap mods I'd like to see added to round them off.

Cap Armor plates/Shield Extenders
Cap Scram/Disruptor (I know officer ones have cap fitting requirements but I want regular T1 versions)
Cap Vamp/Energy disruptor.
Cap smart bomb
Cap Cap injector
Cap Stassis webifier.
Cap AB and MWD

Battle ship fleets have all these modules available to them to assist with engaging HAC fleets, why dont caps have the same modules to enable them to engage smaller ships. Before you go saying that this will make them overpowered as they can instantly cap out HACs but cant BS already do that to frigates.


wanking monkey girl
Doomheim
#213 - 2011-11-11 15:05:29 UTC
so lets move away from implants and look at the doomsday after CRUCIBLE can we have the DD mod change so its a 5m cool down time and needs less fuel to fire it 50k is still a lot so a 50% cut will be welcomed.
Axexut
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#214 - 2011-11-11 16:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Axexut
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


Finally!!!!!!

Thank you for finally putting shield supers on par with their armor cousins!!!!!!!!!!!!

To those complaining about the deadspace invuls: You armor guys have the deadspace meta 13 EANMs. We should have a meta 13 Invul. Now, if they were doing a meta 14 and didn't give you guys one . . . . THAT would be unfair.

To those suggesting that instead of shield-equivalents to slaves that CCP should just remove slaves or make them sub-cap-only: Have you seen the damage boosts on dreads and the new Tier 3 BCs????? Still have to log my dread on SISI, but hearing reports of 10k dps on a Moros.

Finally, to those suggesting that someone is going to be dumb enough to stick multi-billion Isk implants into their drake pilot: You do know we get to see implants on pod KMs now right?

Now just please give us T2 capital weapons and ammo and all wiill be right with the world!
HELIC0N ONE
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2011-11-11 17:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: HELIC0N ONE
Caneb wrote:
Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.

We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants.


I came here to post this.

There's no point taking away 10% of shield hitpoints for the shield supercaps if you're just going to give it straight back (and more!) in the form of a new implant set (which every pilot will have, because when you're spending 10s of billions on a hull you're not going to hold back on a couple of extra billion to massively boost your hitpoint total). Instead, go for parity by changing slaves from armour hitpoint bonuses to active tank bonuses.
Sigras
Conglomo
#216 - 2011-11-11 18:59:25 UTC
Svennig wrote:
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?

im saying that because it has more low slots . . . it has the low slots to waste on co-processors . . . . what else are you going to put in those slots? PDS?

I know its kinda strange that they dont have a problem fitting armor tanking mods, but thats because you cant use fitting mods when armor tanking, youre already using the low slots! when shield tanking, youre not using all those low slots so you can afford to put some co-processors on there.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2011-11-11 19:24:11 UTC
are we going to get some form of super cap gift package like last time so we can get some real tests going on these ships, or is it just all going to be lip service till the nerfs are just rammed down our throat any way?
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#218 - 2011-11-11 21:16:02 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Svennig wrote:
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?

im saying that because it has more low slots . . . it has the low slots to waste on co-processors . . . . what else are you going to put in those slots? PDS?

I know its kinda strange that they dont have a problem fitting armor tanking mods, but thats because you cant use fitting mods when armor tanking, youre already using the low slots! when shield tanking, youre not using all those low slots so you can afford to put some co-processors on there.


"To waste" on co-processors?? PDS?!? Sorry, it's becoming abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. In the lows go the armor tank and capacitor power relays. It's a capital ship, cap is life. You need it as quick as you can to jump out, or as quick as you can to run the reps as often as possible. Losing two cap mods for fitting mods is an abomination. And PDS?!?? The nid doesn't shield tank.

If you're shield tanking (as if you would with a nid) you need those low slots for Capacitor Power Relays IIs to replace the Cap Recharger IIs you lost in the midslots to the shield tank. They are never "OK" to lose, they are needed for cap mods at all times. Especially on the nid, which doesn't have the insane natural cap battery that the archon does.

Now to re-iterate: the nid doesn't shield tank.



Sigras
Conglomo
#219 - 2011-11-11 21:37:32 UTC
if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier?
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#220 - 2011-11-11 21:42:00 UTC
HELIC0N ONE wrote:
Caneb wrote:
Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.

We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants.


I came here to post this.

There's no point taking away 10% of shield hitpoints for the shield supercaps if you're just going to give it straight back (and more!) in the form of a new implant set (which every pilot will have, because when you're spending 10s of billions on a hull you're not going to hold back on a couple of extra billion to massively boost your hitpoint total). Instead, go for parity by changing slaves from armour hitpoint bonuses to active tank bonuses.

Better yet, don't change anything at all. I think changing Slaves to active tank is a terrible idea.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature