EVE Search - Sticky:New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2011.10.10 18:20:00 - [1] - Quote xxxak wrote: This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field. Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead. Can you explain (using diagrams if required) how you achieved the level of cognative dissonance needed to equate "my ship is less powerful without a support fleet" with "EVE is dead"?
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2011.10.10 18:43:00 - [2] - Quote Ale Tricio wrote: Again CCP just hoping to hold onto their new pubbie players by screwing those that have spent years earning their supercaps -3 accounts It's worth pointing out that while I did click 'like' on your post, it wasn't for the reason you think.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2011.10.10 18:49:00 - [3] - Quote I've noticed that the majority of people in favour of these changes write in nice, structured sentences with decent spelling. They tend to put forward a balanced argument and still point out where the nerfs may possibly to far, using logical reasoning. However the majority of people against the changes rite in ..... horrible brokne english... .. . with generous levels of punctuation!!!!!! and spelllling that cums from........ the facebook skool of bashing ur....... hed agnst the keybaord lol?!?!1oneoneone/ MINUS TENN HUNDRAD ACCOUNTS CCP FK UUUU Why is that?
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 15:55:00 - [4] - Quote Some random thoughts... A blanket EHP nerf across the board is a little silly. The raw HP levels are already out of balance between supercaps of different races. Reducing everyone by the same amount means we miss out on an opportunity to correct that. Solution? Adjust HP levels as follows: Aeon -20% Nyx -10% Wyvern -15% Hel - No change Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change Ragnarok +10% Supercarriers fighter bays are a little anemic. These ships are tricky and time-consuming to refit, so carrying a single flight of their only damage tool seems like a recipe for disaster. Solution? Let them carry ~30 fighters/bombers. Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available. There isn't enough difference between Capitals and Super-Capitals. Carriers have a role as support and anti-subcap ships, as escorts for Supercarriers that are now unable to defend themselves with their own drones. After these changes Dreadnoughts will still be limited in use as they're still just as vulnerable to being one-shotted as before. If you have enough titans, there will be little reason to use Dreads. Titans also remain overpowered versus subcaps. With tracking links, remote sensor boosters and enough supercarriers behind them, beating a titan blob simply comes down to having more titans. Beyond a certain threshold subcap numbers still do not matter. Solution? Three actually: 1) Doomsdays balanced on sig radius - A blanket 'no DD on subcaps' rule seems a little anti-sandbox for me. If I want to burn half my isotopes picking off Rifters, why can't I? Let's change Doomsday damage to scale on target sig radius. For example: Supercap = full damage Dreadnought = ~1mil damage (with DD Op V) Battleship = ~50k damage Cruiser = 5k damage Frigate = 1k damage It will no longer destroy ships outright (unless they're nearly dead or terribly fitted) and makes Dreads more cost-efficient at taking on Titan fleets, increasing their role. This is also great to help smaller groups fight larger ones using their insured dreads. 2) Jump 'Calibration' - Supercaps should have a delay in order to lock onto a player-activated cyno beacon. This time is based on the distance they are travelling, so while a 2ly jump might take five seconds, a jump to the full range could require 30 seconds to lock on. This has several effects. Firstly it means that supercaps planning a hotdrop need to be nearer the target, increasing the odds of them being spotted. It also increases the odds of the cyno and/or tackler being destroyed or jammed before support can arrive. Finally it gives regular capitals an increased role as 'rapid-response' capitals, able to move around faster than their larget counterparts. 3) Electronic Attack Frigates. Yup you read that right. This diminuitive vessel rarely seen outside of alliance tournaments and hilarious lossmails could use a bit more of a purpose in life. In the same way that HICs bypass the supercap immunity to tackling, EAFs should bypass their immunity to ewar. The best part about this change is that it balances itself: EAFs are already made of paper, which means that any supercap fleet with a supporting fleet of any description will be able to swat them down with ease. It provides a counter to the exponential remote-repping and tracking links of hundred-strong supercap fleets, especially when faced under a cynojammer. Plus of course it opens up an avenue for the Eve Newbie. Remember that guy? Well now he can be taking on the big boys in a few short weeks of training, helping to make a difference to that fight.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 15:58:00 - [5] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: SERIOUSLY LETS PAY ATTENTION REALLY QUICK. AN 900 MILLION ISK CARRIER CAN LAUNCH 10 WARRIOR 2'S TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A SABER BUT AN 18 BILLION ISK SUPER CARRIER CAN'T. That sounds fair and balanced and normal to everybody here that makes this game? To be very clear, I do not own a supercarrier, and do not care about them whatsoever, I'm just trying to make sure we're all working with the same amount of sanity. By the same logic, let's buff tracking on maelstroms so they can shoot down the Rifter tackling them!
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 16:13:00 - [6] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: CynoNet Two wrote: By the same logic, let's buff tracking on maelstroms so they can shoot down the Rifter tackling them! No, its more like "Lets remove drone bays on BS so they need a support fleet to ward off interceptors" Not only do Supercarriers not need to travel home alone through gates after a long fleet fight, but they have their own tools available to help break tackles in the form of neuts, smartbombs and ECM bursts. Sure they're not a 100% guarunteed method, but neither is carrying EC-300's in a Maelstrom. Plus there is also the problem of where to draw the line. Five Warrior II's will not scare off any competent dictor pilot, he will just warp out and return before the bubble expires. Give the supercarrier the ability to fly twenty of those warriors and you suddenly have a scaling problem in fleet fights, with 1000 drones being assigned to one FC supercap to swat down tacklers as they all load replacements from their CHAs. I don't think it's unfair to ask people to bring along an escort carrier or use a friendly starbase when moving around a 20bn+ ISK ship. Hell, chances are you have a cyno ship that can fit some kind of weapon.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 16:20:00 - [7] - Quote Velin Dhal wrote: CynoNet Two wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: CynoNet Two wrote: By the same logic, let's buff tracking on maelstroms so they can shoot down the Rifter tackling them! No, its more like "Lets remove drone bays on BS so they need a support fleet to ward off interceptors" Not only do Supercarriers not need to travel home alone through gates after a long fleet fight Super Carriers do not jump through gates. At least know what your talking about before you start talking. I stopped reading after this because I assume you don't know anything about Supers. Double negatives are tricky business!
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 16:31:00 - [8] - Quote Velin Dhal wrote: Tippia wrote: Velin Dhal wrote: Super Carriers do not jump through gates. At least know what your talking about before you start talking. I stopped reading after this because I assume you don't know anything about Supers. Maybe you should actually read what he wrote before you start assuming such things, especially if you try to correct him by saying the same thing he didGÇª When the first sentence of a post is wrong about the most basic mechanic of how a ship works and with all the post here to read, why exactly am I going to waste time reading any further ? Posting this again because it's hilarious. Velin Dhal wrote: CynoNet Two wrote: Not only do Supercarriers not need to travel home alone through gates after a long fleet fight... Super Carriers do not jump through gates. At least know what your talking about before you start talking. I stopped reading after this because I assume you don't know anything about Supers.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 16:37:00 - [9] - Quote Aurora Egnald wrote: The whoe "Balancing" could be solved by keeping the supers ability to launch regualr drones and buffing dreads in ehp,resists, cap and reducing the cap/cpu of capital turrets on dreads therefore returning dreads to viable capital killer letting the dreads get back into the game more effectively. Instead of screwing the sc pilots at the behest of the poor and envious. Sorry to disappoint you brosef, but I own an Erebus, Leviathan and Aeon. I build several supercaps a month for people. I'm neither poor, nor envious and I still want that drone bay nerf. Every ship should have a weakness, and right now Supercarriers with swiss-army drone formations backed by titans do not. They counter everything.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 16:51:00 - [10] - Quote Velin Dhal wrote: Funny, I have 2 alts that fly Supers. How many do you have ? Not to mention that before you bash someone for apparently not understanding mechanics of this game you should look back at all your posts about how balance is destroying the usefulness of ships you probably can't fly in the first place. He's mostly bashing you for not understanding basic sentence structure. But if you haven't spotted it in the last 2 pages with three people pointing it out, I doubt you will now. Please, tell us more about how many supercaps you own and how that helps with your English reading comprehension!
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.11 20:14:00 - [11] - Quote Velin Dhal wrote: Tippia wrote: Velin Dhal wrote: Hardly No. Very really. It doesn't particularly matter that you can counter them with other things GÇö the best counter up until now has been N+1 SCs, because of their ability to go toe-to-toe with both the tanking and the damage output. This will no longer be the case. Quote: Here is a novel idea, introduce a new ship or rework the titan to be Super Cap killers. It's not novel. It's the same deeply flawed GÇ£bigger is betterGÇ¥ kind of thinking that has brought us to the necessity of this change. It shouldn't be the titan GÇö it should be the Merlin. Oh I think I see now. Since you can't drop one of your own, no one should. Understood. I started writing a very precise post with lots of math. It was all about what would happen should a fleet with 250 supercaps invavde a system (this has happened before). The post covered exactly how many sub-capitals it would take to beat their ewar-immune remote repping and counter them, while losing 75 ships to doomsdays every 10mins and attempting to replace their losses at a typical rate. As a bonus I planned to include a rough prediction of how long this would take on a time-dialated node (since a current node would not support this many ships in a stable manner). But then I realised that you would just skim over it, misinterpret a few sentences then post about how you have more supercaps than everyone else and they're only jealous of you. So instead I wrote you this post: neener neener ur ships is gettin' nerfed lawl
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:35:00 - [12] - Quote Le Cardinal wrote: A 20B endgame ship shouldnt be able to hold at least a few drones to fend off a dictor? lol. How somone could say thats a sane thing to do is beyond comprehension. Lets go further: Remove drones and offensive capabilty of interdictors and HICs: "Destroyer-class/Cruiser-class vessels, designed to pull other vessels out of warp." What are you talking about? The only HIC or Dictor with any kind of drone bay is the 5m-¡3 on the Eris, able to carry a single light drone. They do have a token offensive capability inherited from the Tech 1 version of their hull, but generally this isn't a threat to anything more than a pod or hauler, which is one of the targets they're intended to hunt solo. They can't however kill capital ships solo, they need support for that. Inversely, Supercarriers can still kill capital and super-capital sized targets using their offensive capability, which is exactly what they're designed to hunt. They now need support to kill sub-caps, which is how it should be. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove drones from majority of BS: "They have after all a designated role as well. Dont like it? bring support" BS often have to travel through gates to get home. They lack ewar-immunity and as such it's pretty fair for them to be able to fight off the weakest tacklers. Even with the drone bay they still have very, very little chance against an Interdictor or HIC, if you want to compare them to supercaps. Supercaps always take the direct route home. The very nature of capital travel means that another friendly entitiy will always be involved in their movement, either an armed starbase with a beacon or a cynoship. You can use anything you like as that cynoship to protect the supercap. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove all offensive capability of Cap-Industrial SHips and Mining barges: "Dont like it? bring support. Its industrial ships. Barges and cap industrial ships do not have ewar-immunity, ranged ECM bursts, or the ability to run large neuts/smartbombs without compromising their fit. This point is moot however as they're clearly not intended to be run without a support fleet already. Your argument is circular and redundant. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove mining abilities of Cap-industrial ships. They are supposed to be industrial platforms, not solominers ". The ability to run 5 mining drones is clearly game-breaking. Please provide less ridiculous examples. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove ability to fit EW modules on ships not designed for it: Dont like it? Bring proper support. Using ECM on an unbonused ship is about as effective as using Fighters against a sub-capital. The option is there in both cases and scales quite well. The key point that most people whining about drone bays seem to be missing is that a token dronebay will never, ever protect a supercap from a competent dictor pilot. No amount of drones is going to be popping that bubble placed outside of smartbomb range. This results in an issue of scale: A lone supercap will need many drones to defend itself against tacklers - 5 mediums just won't cut it against a dictor pilot who drops a bubble, warps out and back in then cloaks before it's time for the next bubble. Unless the supercap has enough drones to nuke it in a few seconds, that dictor will hold him forever. So what happens if we give it enough drones to do that? Sure a lone supercap becomes able to shake off a lone tackler. But then we get 10, 20, 50+ supercarriers in fleets who are suddently also able to shake off 10, 20 50+ dictors. Not accounting for scale is how we got into this mess in the first place. Supercaps are the deathstars of EVE. They bring all the extreme firepower, but you should still need escorts to keep the X-Wing from the exhaust port.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.12 21:07:00 - [13] - Quote Gesina Kouvo wrote: @CynoNet Two some ideas are good some of them will actually change nothing in today's scenario. Let me explain myself: Quote: Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change Ragnarok +10% Ragnarok has the best tracking out there, you can actually track a frigate, an increase in HP will make it by far the best of all titans. Actually capital blasters have the best tracking of all capital guns, but I'll humour you here: A quick EFT shows that if you take: a standard MWD flycatcher, moving at 2,480m/s with 570m sig a Ragnarok with 3 officer tracking mods and Drop boosters and feed it with a Scimitar with 4 tracking links at max skills The Flycatcher will take a maximum of 320-360dps at a range of 80-120km. Below 70km damage drops to under 50dps. If I remove the tracking links, the Flycatcher needs to drop its transversal below 40% of max speed to be hit by the same rate of DPS. If the pilot is smart and fits an Afterburner instead, he cannot be hit below 250m/s transversal. tl;dr - a Rag can hit very bad dictor pilots at the other end of the field if they stack every possible tracking bonus available. I didn't bother doing frigates because they're even smaller. Gesina Kouvo wrote: Quote: Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available. And this will change the actual blobing-with-supers scenario how exactly? You will simply jump 200 SC (like you do now GÇô objective) (with 5 x DCU fitted) and 50 triage carriers for remote-rep and NOTHING will move on grid, kill everything GåÆ go home. It's funny to read that some guys are bringing the GÇ£blobGÇ¥ card out front when now they are the ones that blob GÇª with supers GÇª :) Carriers become the weak link in that fleet. Triage-focused carriers typically compromise their tank for cap stability. There are several options to easily take them out, including coordinated Doomsdays, your own supercap DPS, and even typical subcap fleets can alpha them. Also if the drone bay size is balanced around giving spare bombers to pilots who do not fit DCUs, but denying them to those that do we get another effect. A DCU-heavy supercarrier fleet throwing all of its bombers in the same general direction becomes much easier to be defanged by enemy AoE weapons and finds that it suddenly can't replace its full DPS.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.13 07:09:00 - [14] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Quote: Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos Thats the direct quote. If the Thanatos can launch regular drones, the Nyx should be able to, since its built off that design. Here's another quote you may like from 2 years ago: Aurora Ominae wrote: Emits a gigantic antimatter field over a wide area, capable of obliterating everything in its path. Note: you will be unable to jump for 10 minutes after activating the doomsday device. Man it's almost as if CCP adjust the background details to match the game, rather than the other way around! Tore Vest wrote: Pyro Tsu wrote: Yet another change that does not affect players living in HighSec. Only a minority is living in Nullsec and WHs! Do care more about the majority please! CCPgoons are not interested in little things.... like fixing hybrids. They want to "fix" supers so goons can take over 0.0 with their hurricanes Excuse me sir but that is completely untrue. We want CCP to fix hybrids and supercaps so we can take over 0.0 with our Thoraxes.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.