These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Davros of Skaro
Cult of Skaro
#241 - 2017-03-07 15:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Davros of Skaro
EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE

But seriously

Exterminate

I agree with one of the posts above here that says: Why so much focus on the capital ships.
If you look at all gameplay. 90% of it is subcap if not more. Most PVE goes on in cruiser, or battleships. Most pvp goes on in cruiser and smaller.

There are a TON of ships that are absolutely inferior within their class for years, such as ships with 2 mid slots (you need at least 3 in any scenario to be remotely viable to pvp with, technically 4, since dictating range and speed is 95% of the fight)

Plus the changes (i couldnt care less about them myself) seem strange. Whats happening on capital levels is that certain groups just dreadbomb, titanblob and superblob the **** out of every small entity that tries to make anything happen anywhere. If you do not have the backup of one of these few groups, you cannot viably take out your capital. Besides, if you WERE to go small gang/ solo carrier pvp, you will get nuked by a large group of dudes almost guaranteed. And you will die and not be isk efficient.

Thats what the reality is. That's why people are so pissy. Changing fighter signature only means the carebear ratters will take a large hit in their moneymaking, people will find it harder to come up with funds to pvp in and spent more time doing pve. If anything, this will have the opposite effect on what you are trying to achieve: fun capital pvp.

People will spent less time in carriers, for the wrong reasons. I'm pretty sure the carrier is the least used capital in pvp right now, maybe after the Jump freigther (although im not sure, JF's can be pretty Op if you feather with them).

EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE my children of davros! The DALEK are coming.
Ralph Shepard
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2017-03-07 16:01:18 UTC
I guess CCP is trying to top EU in making the most stupid decisions.
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2017-03-07 16:10:04 UTC
Juvir wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Shkiki wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.


I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.



How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size?


Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists.


Well T2 fighters have resists. Its only that they have resists that are completely the oposite of what the NPC you use them against are fireing at it.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#244 - 2017-03-07 16:21:17 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Juvir wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Shkiki wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.


I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.



How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size?


Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists.


Well T2 fighters have resists. Its only that they have resists that are completely the oposite of what the NPC you use them against are fireing at it.


The one layer of HP on a fighter also seem to be bigger than heavy drones 3 combined. The resist being garbage (T2) or inexistant (T1) seems to be the actual problem. This could probably be looked into or at least confirmed by DEV if the actual EHP of a fighter is supposed to be below a heavy drone level.
Whippy Whip
WeyIand-Yutani
#245 - 2017-03-07 17:38:15 UTC
maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate

otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease
Cade Windstalker
#246 - 2017-03-07 18:02:54 UTC
Davros of Skaro wrote:
I agree with one of the posts above here that says: Why so much focus on the capital ships.
If you look at all gameplay. 90% of it is subcap if not more. Most PVE goes on in cruiser, or battleships. Most pvp goes on in cruiser and smaller.


Because Capitals just got a major rework and are still getting a lot of attention as a result. Caps really needed the rework and the results have been mostly positive, CCP are just tuning the results at this point.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
The one layer of HP on a fighter also seem to be bigger than heavy drones 3 combined. The resist being garbage (T2) or inexistant (T1) seems to be the actual problem. This could probably be looked into or at least confirmed by DEV if the actual EHP of a fighter is supposed to be below a heavy drone level.


I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident.

Besides, EHP doesn't tell the whole story. Fighters are much faster and even after these changes have a better sig than Heavy Drones.

Whippy Whip wrote:
maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate

otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease


They're not, at least at the small scale, hence these changes. A well prepared and competent enemy against a solo carrier can fairly effectively neuter him, but that gets exponentially harder if the Carrier has support. Of course as fleet fights get bigger it gets easier to remove Fighters from the field, but that's always going to be true. If fighters get too much HP it won't actually stop them from getting volleyed in large fights, it'll just make them impossible to deal with in small ones.

There's a happy medium somewhere, and I can't swear that this is it, but I've yet to see much evidence that it's not.
Whippy Whip
WeyIand-Yutani
#247 - 2017-03-07 20:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Whippy Whip
jhkl
Kagi Anzomi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2017-03-07 23:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagi Anzomi
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident..

So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#249 - 2017-03-08 00:21:51 UTC
Whippy Whip wrote:
maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate

otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease



they are already crap

if there are few enough that they are getting shot any competent FC is just jamming them
Cade Windstalker
#250 - 2017-03-08 03:33:51 UTC
Kagi Anzomi wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident..

So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months.


There's a difference between something kind of fiddly, like stacking penalties or how a bonus applies in code, and something fairly obvious like the basic HP value and lack of resists that someone very clearly sat down and wrote out specifically. There's a big difference between a bug and a defined value.

If you can't tell the difference then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you without teaching you how to code first.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#251 - 2017-03-08 05:13:41 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Kagi Anzomi wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident..

So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months.


There's a difference between something kind of fiddly, like stacking penalties or how a bonus applies in code, and something fairly obvious like the basic HP value and lack of resists that someone very clearly sat down and wrote out specifically. There's a big difference between a bug and a defined value.

If you can't tell the difference then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you without teaching you how to code first.



from what i understand the low/no resists were added so frigates could do enough dps to overcome the passive recharge. maybe rather than backing resists into the fighters we can lower the recharge bonus of the FSU and add a small resist bonus
Kagi Anzomi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2017-03-08 06:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagi Anzomi
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Kagi Anzomi wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident..

So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months.


There's a difference between something kind of fiddly, like stacking penalties or how a bonus applies in code, and something fairly obvious like the basic HP value and lack of resists that someone very clearly sat down and wrote out specifically. There's a big difference between a bug and a defined value.

If you can't tell the difference then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you without teaching you how to code first.

When someone came up with the HP and resistance stats, do you think they were working in a vacuum? To have any semblance of balance such stats need to be determined after taking into account applicable bonuses and expected speed/sig tanking ability. That relies on bonuses calculating and applying correctly (which they didn't during testing or for nearly a month after deployment, 7 months for FSU regen), fighters maintaining the expected speed (again, wrong till well after deployment) and possibly orbit range (changed in a later patch). There's also the fact that fighters can't be repaired like drones and only have to take 1/9 of the total HP before one dies. In short, fighters are a mechanical and balancing nightmare, so even if someone entered the current stats for a reason, they might have been intended to work out differently than they did.

As for that difference you were talking about, I've been coding for 13 years so I'm sure I'll understand your explanation.


Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

from what i understand the low/no resists were added so frigates could do enough dps to overcome the passive recharge. maybe rather than backing resists into the fighters we can lower the recharge bonus of the FSU and add a small resist bonus

Even with 5 T2 FSUs on a max skilled Thanatos I can break the passive regen with three Heavy Assault Missile launchers on a Legion. That's under 300 paper DPS, only about 80 of which applies. For months FSUs actually had a penalty to regen rate that offset the increase from extra shield capacity, and no one even noticed.
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#253 - 2017-03-08 08:06:50 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.


Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#254 - 2017-03-08 11:14:02 UTC
Axhind wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.


Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed.


On your first two-and-a-half points I can only agree.

But it's not being removed - it's being made more difficult - which should have the intended effect.

Yes, I will also be one of those affected, but I understand why it's being done. Hyper-inflation is bad. Printing money is bad - I just wish the BoE and our silly Chancellor(s) would get that too........ Roll

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#255 - 2017-03-08 11:32:27 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Axhind wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.


Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed.


On your first two-and-a-half points I can only agree.

But it's not being removed - it's being made more difficult - which should have the intended effect.

Yes, I will also be one of those affected, but I understand why it's being done. Hyper-inflation is bad. Printing money is bad - I just wish the BoE and our silly Chancellor(s) would get that too........ Roll


From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.

I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#256 - 2017-03-08 15:01:22 UTC
Axhind wrote:


From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.

I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.



You must be doing it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGlPBrWCA

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5y298o/just_ran_a_haven_in_a_carrier_on_sisi_without/

The worries about carrier ratting are misplaced, nothing bad is really happening here.
Cade Windstalker
#257 - 2017-03-08 15:18:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Axhind wrote:


From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.

I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.



You must be doing it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGlPBrWCA

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5y298o/just_ran_a_haven_in_a_carrier_on_sisi_without/

The worries about carrier ratting are misplaced, nothing bad is really happening here.


I mean, the skill ceiling is apparently being raised, which might be a bad thing if you multibox or don't like paying attention, but overall no this is not the carrier ratting apocalypse.
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#258 - 2017-03-08 15:33:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Axhind wrote:


From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.

I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.



You must be doing it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGlPBrWCA

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5y298o/just_ran_a_haven_in_a_carrier_on_sisi_without/

The worries about carrier ratting are misplaced, nothing bad is really happening here.


Yea I've seen that on our forums too. Single mistake or missed command and blap 4 fighters dead (last wave rock haven). It will be doable but seems a bit excessive.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#259 - 2017-03-08 15:57:46 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Axhind wrote:


From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.

I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.



You must be doing it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGlPBrWCA

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5y298o/just_ran_a_haven_in_a_carrier_on_sisi_without/

The worries about carrier ratting are misplaced, nothing bad is really happening here.


I mean, the skill ceiling is apparently being raised, which might be a bad thing if you multibox or don't like paying attention, but overall no this is not the carrier ratting apocalypse.


Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#260 - 2017-03-08 16:14:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Axhind
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.


Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.

There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.