These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
Trigger Happy.
#661 - 2016-06-27 22:00:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Lol @ killboard peeking... because obviously one account is the extent of *everyone* who posts on these forums... Lol


Not posting with your main is distasteful for a number of reasons.



Cade Windstalker wrote:

Seriously though, I'll admit I'm light on practical experience with post-Citadel Carriers......
.... and all of my collected stories and experiences, I think it's pretty reasonable.


Pick one. Either you are knowledgeable about them, or you aren't. It's OK to not be, EvE is a huge game with hundreds of facets and mastering all of them is impossible.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

It also seems ridiculous, and bad for the game, that a fairly small number of Carriers can nuke things off the field, completely bypassing Logistics as a class.


And...this sort of speaks to inexperience with how crushing logi can be? Just the fact that they released Command Destroyers speaks to how much they want on grid tactics to trump raw numbers, and make positioning the most important thing. Doubly so with the logistics changes themselves. Not everything is supposed to be tanked, or just solved by adding one more logi ship. That is singly one of the most redeeming parts of the current carrier iteration is that you can't just lean on the oversized crutch of logi. Forcing varied solutions to varied tactics is the hallmark of a good game! Before, it was bring two Scimis in your roaming gang, and you can take down a ratting carrier no problem, as long as it doesn't cyno. Now, you actually have to keep your wits about rather than just overcomping logi - logi is literally far more uncounterable than the carriers currently are. I personally like a game where there is no one optimal strategy - logi shouldn't be that, and it was good that carriers set this back a bunch.

From my personal experience, people see too much logi? No fight will happen - no one wants to fight, everyone realizes there's no breaking anything, and its a net loss for New Eden. People see a carrier? Yeah, there may be some bloodied noses, but there's going to be CONTNENT! people want to dunk it. Ships explode, and it's a net gain for New Eden.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Cade Windstalker
#662 - 2016-06-27 22:35:46 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Not posting with your main is distasteful for a number of reasons.


I also didn't say that, this is the character I consider my main and my identity in-game. But it's a poor assumption at best to assume that a single character represents the sum of anyone's experience in-game.

Vic Jefferson wrote:
Pick one. Either you are knowledgeable about them, or you aren't. It's OK to not be, EvE is a huge game with hundreds of facets and mastering all of them is impossible.


How about I'll present my case and my arguments and you can take them or leave them, correct them, respond to them, whatever. Personally though I find very little value in relating my personal experiences in balance discussions. As you've pointed out, it's a big game and it's silly to assume that my experience is representative of everyone's experience or the sum of what should be considered for the balance of the game as a whole.

Vic Jefferson wrote:
And...this sort of speaks to inexperience with how crushing logi can be? Just the fact that they released Command Destroyers speaks to how much they want on grid tactics to trump raw numbers, and make positioning the most important thing. Doubly so with the logistics changes themselves. Not everything is supposed to be tanked, or just solved by adding one more logi ship. That is singly one of the most redeeming parts of the current carrier iteration is that you can't just lean on the oversized crutch of logi. Forcing varied solutions to varied tactics is the hallmark of a good game! Before, it was bring two Scimis in your roaming gang, and you can take down a ratting carrier no problem, as long as it doesn't cyno. Now, you actually have to keep your wits about rather than just overcomping logi - logi is literally far more uncounterable than the carriers currently are. I personally like a game where there is no one optimal strategy - logi shouldn't be that, and it was good that carriers set this back a bunch.

From my personal experience, people see too much logi? No fight will happen - no one wants to fight, everyone realizes there's no breaking anything, and its a net loss for New Eden. People see a carrier? Yeah, there may be some bloodied noses, but there's going to be CONTNENT! people want to dunk it. Ships explode, and it's a net gain for New Eden.


I'm actually well aware of how effective remote Logistics can be. It was one of the first T2 ship hulls I trained into and it's still one of my favorite roles to play in fleets.

I'm also a big fan of anything that increases complexity of play at the tactical level, and I do like the changes to RR range, the introduction of MJDs, and the Command Destroyers. I'm also looking forward to Command Links being brought on-grid and being turned into a positional ability as well.

That said though, I don't think any ship type should make another redundant, and that's very much my worry with the amount of alpha Carriers are currently able to put out towards sub-capital targets, especially Cruisers and Frigates. Logistics may be extremely powerful but they don't invalidate DPS ships on their own, and certainly not through base mechanics. They need other ships to function effectively and teamwork is something I am almost always fine with, hence why I keep arguing over TPs and Webs and how that lets you get back most of a Carrier's application against most ship classes.

There are also some fairly solid counters to Logi in the form of Sensor Damps and ECM, and while I'll admit that gets back towards my point about specialist anti-Carrier fleets, remote repair is much more ubiquitous than Carriers (a single ship class). If you bring ECM and Sensor Damps and don't run into a gang with Logi they're still quite useful, and if you do they give you a very effective counter.

As for Carriers vs Logi, that's a fair point. I've been in some of those fights and while I personally had fun I know walking away without much dying leaves a sour taste in some people's mouths. That said, I think there are enough existing counters to Logi that don't completely invalidate them as a class, which is basically what being able to easily nuke things off field does to Logi.

As for Carriers, I should have been a bit more clear that these are things I am worried about happening with the state of the game if things stayed as they are. It's very rare that something comes around and people get immediately sick of dealing with it. That tends to happen over time as what used to be a fun challenge (how can I break this gang's Logi-tank?) turns into a chore (ugh, they have how many Guardians?!?). If Carriers get left in a position where they can just stomp all over everything more or less on their own my worry is that that will put a damper on sub-cap use and smaller roams in general, as what was a fun challenge for some players turns into "Ugh, not this **** again" to the majority.

So I guess my question to you is, at what point do you think a Carrier should *need* support to really be effective? Personally I think they should more or less require it period even at the small gang level, but we clearly disagree on this point at least somewhat, I'd like to figure out where you think Carrier balance should land in numbers rather than "I like it where it is now" because that encompasses a lot of invisible things inherent to your experience that I can't see.
Yabbiy
Salty Intent
Aggressively Average
#663 - 2016-06-28 04:58:44 UTC
I really don't understand why you're doing this to carriers :( Carrier's are not going to be able to do anything at all. You gave them a place in eve, i went out and bought some and have been flying them, and now your just taking them away because people are upset that a ship worth 2 billion isk can kill their 10 million isk destroyer in 1 volley. What ever happened to risk vs reward in eve.

Fighters were not even that hard to kill in the first place, and god forbid your enemy had logi or a single jamming ship of any kind, my fighters cant even beat through 2 thalias right now or withstand a single griffin between all 3 squadrons. But that's good, i can't just go around solo carrier, i need support, and theres a counter to me, two counters actually. Not to mention Dreads. Come on guys Cry

RIP Carriers
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#664 - 2016-06-28 06:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Cade Windstalker - Repeated the same old rhetoric... ...

Pedantic, is about the only word I can think of here, without getting insulting. (which I go to great lengths not to do, even when replying to someone who so obviously blurs the lines between fact and fiction)


My biggest bug with these nerfs - There will be a lot less solo carriers to kill. Those who continue to use carriers for gate camping, will have/need support making them harder to kill. Those small ship, small gang players who complained about being alpha'd by carriers are likely to find the going far tougher once carriers have support that can insta lock, point and web them.

Carriers couldn't (or shouldn't) have been judged as OP in fleets (there hasn't been enough time to gather that type of statistic). Any statistics influencing Devs decisions here would have to be deemed very incomplete.
The meta is too new for Devs to have enough valid information to justify these all these nerfs at once.
I don't know what Devs motive for this knee jerk set of nerfs was but it certainly wasn't metrics or statistics.
Using "balancing" carriers as the objective - The NSA was too strong, change it, then allow a reasonable amount of time to gather relevant information (2 or 3 weeks is not long enough) before making any other changes.

Problem is, CCP's release cycle of, "add it ready or not", has side effects and allowing Devs to fix (balance) one thing before moving onto something else is just not in the program. Nerf it into the sewer, or just leave it as an opt in (new map, probe and scanning for example) is really not very professional.
Best direction for CCP now, would be to stop adding new stuff until what is already in the game is working as it should be. Using a professional approach and relevant (accurate) information would make Eve a so much better game to play.


And please devs not liking OP - You are kidding right?
-- - -- - --
"By my own admission", I never said carriers would still be able to kill things, as they do now. In fact they will not be able to kill anything as they do now. These nerfs will ensure carriers are far less useful in small gangs, even more so in a fleet situation. Having to use 3 or 4 carriers with support to kill a single subcap, is not balanced. 300% increase in exp radius and 40% reduction in damage isn't seeking balance, it is a direct, deliberate and unnecessary nerf.

Carriers have been treated harshly by Devs here and it will be a long time before they get another look at - Unless it is to further nerf them due to some minority group whining loudly enough.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
Trigger Happy.
#665 - 2016-06-28 06:30:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
So I guess my question to you is, at what point do you think a Carrier should *need* support to really be effective? Personally I think they should more or less require it period even at the small gang level, but we clearly disagree on this point at least somewhat, I'd like to figure out where you think Carrier balance should land in numbers rather than "I like it where it is now" because that encompasses a lot of invisible things inherent to your experience that I can't see.


Carriers are 100% fine as they are and CCP are catering to crybabies. Not taking it back. The balance team really needs to try and embrace playstyles and philosophies that are sophisticated and complex, not nano conquers all, always.

It's already the case that a solo carrier is a giant target and not a real threat at all. They already need support to be anywhere near peak effectiveness. But every wanna be rockstar in an untanked syfi can't deal with the threat that a mistake may cost her or his ship vs a carrier, and demands she or he is given free access to free kills care of nano-supremacy. It is good there are real threats, varied and interesting, to make ship choice and tactics varied. Caving to sensationalism over maintaining good game design just frustrates me. Yes - it took a few weeks to understand them. It takes some lossmails and some thinking, which enthusiasts should relish doing. I'd much rather take a kill that I earned by outplaying the other side on the field, rather than just collect carrier kills where they cannot fight back...and carriers are losing the ability to fight back.

Slow cats were horrible for the game, but they were a natural progression of the excesses of jump drives and spider tanking. People quickly realized that the only place carriers were useful was when you had 15 or more...ish. Now that carriers' viability is vanishing on a small scale, we may be regressing to only seeing capitals in very large numbers, which again, is terrible for building and interesting and varied meta, and really makes the game thoroughly unappealing for people who specialize in capitals - it was amazingly refreshing that capitals could contribute to everyday fleet operations. This takes the spring out of the step of content creators. It's a great game experience for newbies to see and take down capitals...this just isn't going to happen when they are being made hangar ornaments for once a year type deals rather than something actually useful.

It's nauseating to think that carriers, which have shaken the meta and been as brisk, enervating, and effervescent as a good breath mint are being tossed in the rubbish bin, but the Svipul, which has had a far greater, sustained effect on ruining diversity and the meta, is unchallenged, and unchanged. EvE is largely fun due to the depth and breath of the ships in the game: gutting carriers like this is basically draining the lake of the rich pvp ecosystem, and replacing it with a toxic svipul factory.

Grrr balance.


Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Saleya Blackheart
I've no Idea
#666 - 2016-06-28 08:52:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I believe making them apply poorly to anything but a slow moving Battleship is kind of the point. If you want to apply well to Cruisers and Frigates use your Support Fighters or bring other players in Support Ships.


I know your post was some time ago but please bear with me.

This is bad reasoning. If carriers are supposed to be anti-fighter crafts, how would they be able to hit fighters at all if (in your opinion) they should just be able to hit slow moving battleships?
You are contradicting yourself.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#667 - 2016-06-28 09:21:06 UTC
Look the bottom line is your carriers, which are defenceless against other capitals have no right to apply their special ability to subcaps without a linked huginn in its pocket at all times. This is because it is a "capital" and thus somehow outside the normal rules whereby a ship can be fitted to do $ROLE well and where support is a bonus, not a requirement.

Furthermore, it is preposterous to suggest that carriers are designed to be anti-subcap. This is clearly just players projecting their desire for a solowtfpwnmobile and has nothing to do with the fact that is all they can actually do. /s
Anthar Thebess
#668 - 2016-06-28 09:25:44 UTC
CCP current carriers are solution for the bad logistic ship design.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#669 - 2016-06-28 11:09:29 UTC
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(
Robertina Palazzo
#670 - 2016-06-28 11:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Robertina Palazzo
Can we at least get light fighter regular damage buffed since you know....

they nerfed missile salvo burst by a huge margin AND application as well?

or will that get nerfed too because frigates cant kill carriers easily enough again?

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Look the bottom line is your carriers, which are defenceless against other capitals have no right to apply their special ability to subcaps without a linked huginn in its pocket at all times. This is because it is a "capital" and thus somehow outside the normal rules whereby a ship can be fitted to do $ROLE well and where support is a bonus, not a requirement.

Furthermore, it is preposterous to suggest that carriers are designed to be anti-subcap. This is clearly just players projecting their desire for a solowtfpwnmobile and has nothing to do with the fact that is all they can actually do. /s


solopwnmobiles generally win vs equal firepower.

and an isd removed a post when i pointed this out(lol), but HAW weapons and light fighters are indeed meant to combat subcaps. Period. That is their sole reason for existence (and sorry mr isd for pointing this out again, but it's the blooming truth).


PS tldr; HAW weapons are made for smaller targets. So are light fighters. They are easily countered by minimal effort and that's something that shouldn't be bitched into nerfs, but played around like every other tactic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#671 - 2016-06-28 12:04:38 UTC
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Nikel Ivanovich
#672 - 2016-06-28 12:06:29 UTC
thank you for the fact that with every new update makes more and more of our ships useless and not interesting Evil
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#673 - 2016-06-28 12:10:55 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.



Yeah but it is a hardcoded limit. Some battleships CAN meet the fitting requirements.
ApolloF117 HUN
Puritans
We want your ISK
#674 - 2016-06-28 12:19:05 UTC
Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast?
Robertina Palazzo
#675 - 2016-06-28 12:42:51 UTC
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast?


Small ships can never be nerfed because big ships should be easy to kill because "i want muh killboard loot"

or something.
ApolloF117 HUN
Puritans
We want your ISK
#676 - 2016-06-28 12:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ApolloF117 HUN
Robertina Palazzo wrote:
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast?


Small ships can never be nerfed because big ships should be easy to kill because "i want muh killboard loot"

or something.

Blin... forgot this one, we're still playing frigate online. Where is Hyde? That's why we voted for him, to do something about the situation.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#677 - 2016-06-28 13:42:18 UTC
Too Much Fighter nerf!
Marcin Ichinumi
Perkone
Caldari State
#678 - 2016-06-28 13:43:13 UTC
Too Much Fighter nerf!
Anna Faquarl
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#679 - 2016-06-28 13:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Anna Faquarl
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
Robertina Palazzo wrote:
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast?


Small ships can never be nerfed because big ships should be easy to kill because "i want muh killboard loot"

or something.

Blin... forgot this one, we're still playing frigate online. Where is Hyde? That's why we voted for him, to do something about the situation.


He actually supports the carrier nerfs. He's in bed with the frigate menace now after getting his seat on the CSM Shocked
Anthar Thebess
#680 - 2016-06-28 13:46:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.

You can get enough power grid to fit capital or a plate.
1600 Plates are battleship size yet people put them on cruisers.