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

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2011.10.10 21:58:00 - [541] - Quote Crosspost from features / ideas (welp) Sup CCP duders. I really like some of your proposed changes, and really dislike others. 1. Logoff mechanics: hell yes. Fantastic. Luv2shred logged off spaceship. :twisted::twisted: etc 2. DD Changes: a good start (though personally I think auto-1-shot megadeath weapons of any kind are just dumb and DDs should probably just go entirely) 3. Dread changes: siege cycle time, excellent. Total removal of all drones? Not really necessary IMHO. They didn't have huge bays and could only field 5 at a time, I don't see how this breaks gameplay especially given their awful, awful locktimes. 4. Fighter changes: Silly? As a person who's spent plenty of time using fighters, I can tell you that they're not exactly overpowered. They don't hit frigates and destroyers terribly well (or in the case of frigates, at all), they miss often enough on cruisers, and the only targets they're currently doing full dps to are BCs and up. Fighters already have pretty bad tracking and close / fast orbits-- changing their weapon sigs to 400 is going to render them far less useful for PvE without substantially changing how they're used in PvP (since you already pop normal drones to deal with cruisers and below in PvP rather than fighters). 5. Supercarrier changes (relates to dread changes too): I agree that supercap sub-fighter drone capabilities are literally insane right now. There's no way one should be able to sit back, sip one's mojito, and launch infinite waves of Valkyrie IIs at any tacklers on grid until all hostile tackle is dead. It's dumb. However, I think removing all SCs sub-fighter drone capabilities is similarly dumb. How about installing two drone bays-- one for fighters and bombers using your proposed numbers, and another for regular drones with, say, 250-350m3 capacity? This would allow SCs to carry one flight (20) of a variety of normal drones (say, a flight of heavies, a flight of mediums, 1-2 flights of lights and a flight of logistic / ewar drones) but would avoid the infinite drones scenario we face currently. I think this would leave solo / small numbers of SCs able to defend themselves against an unplanned tackle (say you hotdrop someone's ratting carrier in your Nyx, and just as you enter system, a hostile in a dictor happens to jump into system, sees a cyno, and warps to it) while still leaving them hosed in the case of a planned trap. Under the proposed changes, a supercarrier would be totally unable to defend itself even against a solo Eris, since unless the dictor pilot is edit developmentally-challenged /edit enough to fly into smartbomb range there's literally no way a SC could ever kill it with 400m gun-sig fighters or FB. Drones aren't that hard to deal with-- a bombing run or two or a couple of smartbombing BS would quickly dispatch 250m3 worth of drones. Leaving a 20b isk ship completely unable to defend itself against a single, 20m isk tackler seems kind of excessive, especially if the reason for doing so is "people are too lazy or unimaginative to find ways to kill 40 light drones." I think the same notion applies to dreads and titans as well-- there's no way that these ships being able to field as many drones as a battleship is unfair. Sorry. Dreads (nevermind Titans) cost 10x as much as a BS, you'd think that the inclusion of equivalent self-defense capabilities wouldn't be a point of contention, especially given that they'll be sieged much of the time anyway and their terrible, terrible scan-res will still make it incredibly hard to kill a skillful dictor pilot. 6. The Single Most Important Thing You Missed: Mother of God! The guns, they track the same! Titan gun tracking needs an adjustment. Badly. I don't know if you guys noticed or not, but DDs are currently the least of a subcap fleet's problems when attacking a Titan ball. Yes, its a pain in the ass to lose your commandships and T3s in short order to doomsdays, but what's a lot worse is when the Titans start locking up and alpha'ing all your battleships as well. I've seen cruiser-sized ships die to Titan guns, for god's sake. Compounding this problem is the fact that, on top of already excellent tracking, Titans can be tracking-linked. This doesn't make much sense given that they're immune to ewar (sieged Dreads are immune to ewar, but cannot be "remote assisted" by links, reps, or cap transfers), and it results in Titans being able to easily demolish BS / BC in fleet fights. Titan subcap demolition is as much if not more of a problem in fleet fights than supercarrier drones are, even with the current infinite drones situation. Please, please fix this problem (or at least, in the interests of fairness, improve dread gun tracking to be equivalent and don't strip Supercarriers of all their sub-fighter drones). Overall I like where these changes are headed. I think Supercaps as currently implemented are stupidly overpowered, especially Titans. I would urge you to consider not completely eliminating the defensive abilities of supercarriers, especially given the incoming 20% ehp nerf and logoff mechanics change, which I think more than compensates for their lack of killability. Infinite drones are dumb, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed a flight or two of light drones. The same goes for Dreads. I'd also consider removing DDs from the game entirely. Un-dodgeable, one-shot instagib weapons just aren't a good idea in a multiplayer game. They were a bad idea when they killed fleets with an AOE, they're a bad idea now when they kill people's fancy subcaps, and they'll still be a bad idea when they're relegated to one-shotting people's capital ships. Consider trading DDs for some other kind of useful perk / capability. Wow, :words:
Dr 0wnage The Dark Tribe Checkmate. 4	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:00:00 - [542] - Quote You guys are on the right track, but are missing a few things here... Super HP nerf - Reducing 20% across the board is the WRONG way to go about this! Please look at the ships individually! As it is currently the Aeon has nearly 3x the ehp of the Hel, and more then some of the titans. That imbalance will not change with a generic HP reduction. Fixing the logoff mechanic will solve much of the "theyre too hard to kill" problem. Go for a balance, not a straight up nerf! Fighters - Right idea, but wrong way to implement it. All this will do is make regular carriers that much less valuable in fleet fights. If a fighter can't hit a sub cap then wth is it supposed to hit?? Simply reduce the number of fighters supers can deploy and problem is solved. Dreadnoughts - These ships are currently combat ineffective. There are no changes here that will change that. The 5 minute siege timer will help them avoid getting dropped by supers easier, but that in no way changes their effectiveness in a fleet fight. Dreads need their HP doubled (with an increase in production cost) and need a damage bonus to specifically supercaps. A general damage increase will not work as it will make them more effective against sub-caps and other dreads / carriers. Titans - Can we say turret tracking anyone?? All in all its definitely a step in the right direction. One thing we all should consider is why do so many super pilots bring their ship to a fight? Well they can't swap to a smaller ship very easily now can they?? ;-) Is it time yet for docking rights? More wonderful ideas on doc's super balance thread here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13411
ScheenK Constantine. 10	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:04:00 - [543] - Quote MuppetsSlayed wrote: What would happen if I sat in a corp pos with an ECM burst runing? I take it everyone else there would just sit there till downtime even if they had logged off. Hitpoints on Hel shouldnt be nerfed, even with a 20% reduction to the other 3 Hels would still always be the primary. The drone bay nerf wont have the intended effect on supers since you can put 15 fighters into your corp hanger and swap out using another carrier or super in fleet. Shield bonuses are rediculous compared to armour - its most apparent on supers. Has any of the dev's ever joined a fleet with Levi bonuses applied to in a Wyvern? Unless you have 12 hours to charge yourself up it takes the rep of an entire fleet of chimeras to get the bonus armour ships get instantly. Should half a single squad of bombers really be able to completely eliminate all of the DPS from a blob of supercaps? The way i see the first fight going down after this is introduced is, supers cyno in, launch fighter bombers, a squad of bombers launch one bomb each. Then the entire blob of supercapitals go home as they dont have other drones. to bad you cant run ecm burst since you cant target inside a pos
Vaffel Junior NorCorp Security 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:04:00 - [544] - Quote Gratz to Goonswarm and allies. You have won this game.

CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 13	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:05:00 - [545] - Quote Lili Lu wrote: Lykouleon wrote: Just to clarify, is the Orca being considered a capital ship by the changes to the DD? Looks to me like they are referring to Rorqual and not Orca Correct. The Rorqual is a valid target, the Orca is not

kralz Angelus.Mortis RED.Legion 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:06:00 - [546] - Quote point and case is this: if i dont need caps to eliminate a capital ship threat to my sov i wont field them. if i cant defend my caps from sub caps effectively using weapons native to the caps themselves they are a huge liability and i will just stick to using sub caps for my goals. i just dont get the complaining i am really really lost. a small nano gang and ruin a carriers day, sabers, vaga's and drams will demolish a ratting carrier in no time, and already all those ships can speed/sig tank a carriers fighters. nerf supers a bit, buff dreads ALOT. dont kill the moros by making its guns **** the cap even more...didnt think it was possible to ruin the moros any worse...proved wrong on that point yet again... these nerfs will affect the market hugely as well. i wouldnt be suprised if prices of everything from jump fuel, minerals and pos's all the way to bpo's and jump freighters drops hugely, i know personally my 35 billion isk investment in cap bpo's is wasted now. who the hell is gonna fly/and loose a carrier...so who is gonna buy one. the fighters patch makes regular carriers worse them worthless. cant hit pos, much less damage on sov structures, cant hit sub caps, cant rat.....ok guys only bring ur carriers out to rep stations. thats why u spend 1.5 billion isk on ur new archon, for a really shiney big, slow, station repair service. triage carriers ftw.... if this patch goes live as proposed i know of 6 accounts that will be unsubbing immediatly, eve has never been and should never be a noob friendly game, grow up or go home. roll big and heavy and stay in empire, dont fly what u cant afford to loose...and the logs show nothing u wont be getting reembursed we(the gms) are sorry for your loss.
Tefeyel Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:06:00 - [547] - Quote Vereesa wrote: As a capital pilot with a dreadnought and a max trained battle carrier rusting in lowsec I was glad when I saw that CCP was rebalancing supers. the logoffski mechanic changing is great, really. that was half of what makes the supers broken, mixed with their high EHP. Nerfing both is excessive. All you need is a ibis popping a civilian rail into the side of a logged cap and its not going to dissapear so you have all the time in the world to kill them. Pretty sure a decent bs/cap gang could take them apart pretty quickly as long as they have someone agressing each ship (hell one ship could warp from logged ship to logged ship resetting the timers with a HIC watching local to see if anyone's logged on and tackle them if they do). Oh noes, you wouldn't be able to hotdrop solo with your supercap on random subcaps or subcap fleets with no risk whatsoever. Don't log off in space with aggression, just log off in a POS? Cloak if you have no POS? Wait for aggression to come off? Get a subcap support fleet?
Sakaali Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:07:00 - [548] - Quote CMUX wrote: Quote: Of all the dreadnoughts currently in existence, the versatile Moros possesses perhaps the greatest capacity to fend off smaller hostiles by itself while concentrating on its primary capital target Nope! Also, are you going to remove the Capital Drone Bay requirement from Dreads and Titans manufacturing? Good question
H3llHound Nex Exercitus Raiden. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:07:00 - [549] - Quote @CCP: Will the loss of 20% EHP also come with an adjustment to the respective supercarrier BPO's, thus make them use less components? As it happened with removal of the clone bay
Peter Powers FinFleet Raiden. 20	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:08:00 - [550] - Quote hello, first of all, i welcome most of the changes proposed, however there are a few details that are kinda off. a) removing non-fighter drones from supercarriers, while that might seem desireable, its a bad choice.. non-fighters dont have too much of an impact to real fleet fights, since they are deployed there rarely - however it totally kills alot of the npc stuff you can do with a SC while that might sound desireable to a few, its simply unfair - if you are stuck in one ship that cannot be changed, you should have a bit of variety in the things you actually can do. Either you allow a set of drones to be kept (just limit the amount of fighter/fighter bombers to one set of one type (+ a hand full of spares), so you can either have fighters or bombers in that category, but still regular drones OR allow supercarriers to dock. b) the nerf hits all supercapitals the same way, which means you do not take the current imbalance between shieldsupers in account. there is a reason why the more successfull alliance all are full armor with the supers, and thats simply because armored supers are superior to shield supers - since you are actually looking at the supers balance NOW would be a good time to get shields back in line with armors. besides that +1 on the changes (IF you manage to take the concerns i mentioned into account)

Fiberton StarFleet Enterprises BricK sQuAD. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:09:00 - [551] - Quote So when can I get a GM to put my aeon in an outpost so I can refine it ? Should I start my petitions now ? Supercap ratting ship is no longer so Yo I need to refine it. :) Yes I am serious. Thanks while it lasted.
GreGh Rakrot Rionnag Alba Northern Coalition. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:12:00 - [552] - Quote Ganthrithor wrote: good stuff Basicly what he said, changes in right direction although some arent really needed imo and there are some other tweaks needed. POS guns need buffing, they need this even know with 10 min siege now with 5 min cycle there is even less chance any dread will ever be in danger of getting killed by POS. Moros needs capacitor rebalanced if these changes go through. EHP nerf isnt really needed since it was only problem because supercaps were unkillable when they logged off, with new log off mechanics it doesnt really matter if it has 20% EHP more, it will die. Fighters nerf isnt really needed either, or at least not so drasticly. Removal of drone bays on SCs, you dont need to remove it completely its a bit too much. Just give them ALOT smaller drone bay where you cant field endless waves of drones.
buck herrick 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda 2	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:14:00 - [553] - Quote omg, omg, omg. coupled with the 'other' changes yet to be announced in full detail, this is just spectacularly awesome-sauce. i wish i hadnt sold my other toons, oh well, lets see how this plays out then i may try to buy them back.
kralz Angelus.Mortis RED.Legion 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:17:00 - [554] - Quote ecm burst is omni directional mod, not the projected ecm burst of a super carrier.
Red Teufel Blackened Skies THE UNTHINKABLES 7	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:17:00 - [555] - Quote i'm glad to see these changes. FCs will have to employ more tactics rather then bridge supers = win. and i can allready tell you how much machs will go up in price after this ;).
Diehard15 Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:18:00 - [556] - Quote Some good changes here. Fighters Increased signature resolution to 400 is too big of a nerf especially to normal carriers. A nerf to Titans using tracking computers would be nice, currently they track subcaps too well.
JP1981 Angelus.Mortis RED.Legion 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:19:00 - [557] - Quote Massive stealth carrier nerf is LAME. CCP should try making dreads truly better instead of relatively better vs now crippled carriers. Moros still sucks (even worse than before?) and Machariel prices are about to go through the roof as null-sec citizenry discover they can no longer effectively carrier-rat, nor for that matter hit anything at all of importance with their carriers. Does CCP have ANYONE in their employment capable of fully thinking through the consequences of the changes they come up with? Feels like they are run by 12-year olds.
Fiberton StarFleet Enterprises BricK sQuAD. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:21:00 - [558] - Quote Glad I liked BF3 ..9 eve accounts 135 a month....BF3 50 bucks once play the brakes off it..Sold..Thanks CCP your going to save us all some money :) Love you guys.
Kersh Marelor HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:25:00 - [559] - Quote Stupid changes proving CCP is still detached from the game and doing more of theory-crafting than looking at the issues at hand. 1. HP Nerf Just how is a super-cap too hard to kill atm? It obviously is time consuming if done with some 50 BSes, not so much when using 10 supers. Are you trying to say with those changes htat supercarriers should be generally vulnerable to some random mid sized BS gang? the reason for the HP buff was the fact everyone could kill those ships without great effort. You want those times to come back? They are easy to kill really IF you bring a proper tool to get the job done. With those changes we may go a step further and make a gift for all the gankers by making freighters more vulnerable - after all they are hard to insta-pop with 15 BSes atm, so should be changed, aye? 2. Fighters and drone bays This fighter change is a nerf to carriers really... any reason behind that other than you just not realizing what the hell you're doing? However removing all drones other than fighters and fighter bombers from SCs is good and must be done. 3. Dreads Good idea about siege module and stuff - but really doesn't fix the issue if super carriers and titans can jump in, RF the station in a few minutes and get out. Who needs dreads for that even with a shorter timer? Suggested fix: ban super-caps from locking and engaging structures making them CAPITAL KILLERS. Dreads then get the thing they are most lacking atm - a purpose. 4. Agression timer Great change - this ensures supers cannot just randomly jump in and forget about having proper sub-cap support. I think you are giving in to all the whiners willing to get a super-cap KM with their nano roaming gang and alliances not able to adapt to modern eve-warfare. I really like how you want to boost the role of sub-caps and it really must be done. But making supers easier to kill is not the way. The beatiful thing about EVE is that everything has its purpose and role. Super-caps were designed to do massive fleet stuff and killing capitals. Carriers were designed as support for capital/sub-cap fleet. dreads are damage dealers and powerhouse of the sov grabbing entity. It seems you now want to totally demolish that principle instead of fixing the areas where it went horribly wrong (supers taking dreads place, carriers/dreads becoming baits for super gangs, supers not caring about anything due to log-off machenic). So... tl:dr version: - only Fighters and Fighter Bombers on super-carriers, (20+10 for most, more for the Nyx), - supers are not able to target and punish structures (making Dreads golden standard for that job), - leave HP alone since supers should be killable by capital/super-cap/massive sub cap fleets - not random gangs, - leave Fighters alone, - maintain changes proposed to Remote ECM Burst, Siege Module, DD, log-off timers (solving the 'too hard to kill even with 4-5 supers' issue), - give the promissed new titan super weapons (yeah, some of us still remember that promise, you know).
iulixxi EVE-RO Fidelas Constans 2	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:25:00 - [560] - Quote Adapt or die people ... nerfs are needed to balance things around. Also would love an official answer to this: @CCP: Will the loss of 20% EHP also come with an adjustment to the respective supercarrier BPO's, thus make them use less components? As it happened with removal of the clone bay + a decrease in Capital Drone Bay requirements? (to be inline with the reduced drone bay) Anyone? E

Bettoesai Black Aces Against ALL Authorities 3	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:25:00 - [561] - Quote Obsidian Hawk wrote: Final thought, normal carriers should have a bonus that reduces the sig of fighters. That is a good idea.
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 8	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:26:00 - [562] - Quote Fiberton wrote: Glad I liked BF3 ..9 eve accounts 135 a month....BF3 50 bucks once play the brakes off it..Sold..Thanks CCP your going to save us all some money :) Love you guys. :)
Kalissa Sacred Templars RED.OverLord 1	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:28:00 - [563] - Quote I'm pretty much in support of the changes made, I own both a SC and Titan and I think they're a generally good change. I would still encourage CCP to do something about the shield bonus on the Levi as it's quite obvious the armor tankers have a huge advantage as they get their extra HP instantly while the Levi had to charge up the shields to their full capacity plus once you jump to a new system you're back to square one and have to begin again. Also I would have gone a little further and made it to SC's could use Fighter Bombers ONLY. This would have made it unnessessary to change the fighters stats and wouldn't have nerfed Carriers. Still hoping to see the spool up timer things for jump drives make an appearance soon too.
Giimlee Firebirds Song Firebird Alliance 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:29:00 - [564] - Quote re-balancing the capitals is needed i do agree with you on that however the ways in which you (ccp) have chosen to do so are crap. first and for most super caps do have a bit of an excessive hp and the only way to effectively compete with them is to use the same class ship to combat them making it possible to kill one with sub-capital class ships does need to happen however taking away their ability to defend them selves against the sub-caps by removing their smaller drones will lead to the same current issues that plague the dreadnaught. secondly the Dreads do need a fixed fixing them in the proposed manner also makes them defenseless against sub-caps which is further hindered by only being able to target 2 targets in siege mode and compounded by the fact that once in they are committed until all enemy ships are destroyed or they are. considering the dread class ship can not hit a sub cap with their weapon systems currently taking away their drones will only make it worse and they will still sit on the sidelines under used for the time to come as they will be easy prey for any sub cap fleet. As for the Moros the proposed rate of fire bonus will only further make the ships cap unstable as the hybrid weapons use capacitor to fire effectively taking one of the best dreads and making it the one of the worst. as everything including super capitals will be able to speed tank them until the capacitor is empty at witch time the ship will be easy prey. while the titian class ships can hit a battleship class changing the super weapons to not hit anything but a capital class ship makes sense. removing its drone bay will also leave them utterly defenseless to a sub-cap fleet. this is all further compounded by the fact that once warp/jump scrambled by a heavy interdicter an entire capital fleet could be killed by a fleet of t3s with out being able to fight back ...... now how is that smart? are you trying to loose subscriptions? while i do agree that they ships should be kill-able removing their ability to fight or fend off lesser ship should be there other wise whats the point of having one? if you cut too deep into the hp and the ability for super capitals to fight then they will be no more than a trophy ship and no longer used in the game in which case you might as well let them back into high sec and able to dock them there so they can be just that all they well be after those changes An over grown Trophy
Usurpine Galactic Defence Consortium United Pod Service 10	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:30:00 - [565] - Quote CCP you do it the wrong way. If you have 3 kids, one has 4 chocolades, one has 6 and one has 7 chocolades and you need to rebalance this situation its a good way to give everyone 10 chocolades (upgrade to 10). Everybody will have same amount of chocolates and everyone will be very happy. Instead you give the first one 1 extra chocolades, take 1 from the second and 2 of the third kid, which results in a balance but propably making one kid a little more happy but the others think you badly suck and call you that this is action is a fail. I dont know exactly if this now balance it out, but what i see is, you nerfed fighters, which is a nerf to all carrier pilots and you didnt buff dreadnoughts enough, but they badly need a buff and you heavily nerfed supercapitals, more then necessary to make them sort of pos decoration. You nerfed the end game reward of people who played eve for more then 4 years and invested hell of time and isk into something they really liked. you already nerfed titans weapons in the past and now they again are nerfed. You are listening to the wrong people ccp, i would call this populism and not a good way to rebalance ships. I cant tell you how to make it right in detail but this way imho and obviosly is a fail. CCP, please, you can do that better. Just listen to what people tell you and make the right and psychological good decision. This is wrong.
Lili Lu 7	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:33:00 - [566] - Quote Disclaimer to start <- Cap pilot, not a Supercap pilot. Still gonna comment because I killed supercaps and was killed by supercaps. That is qualification to comment. Seems like a set of decent nerfs to me. Supercaps online had to end. As to fighter nerf being stealth carrier nerf, so what. You can still field them or other drones to fend off subcaps, it's just that you will have to decide what drones are appropriate. Fighters against supercaps and other caps; Heavy drones or sentries against a BS blob; Medium drones against . . . Carrier blobbage not an available (if less effective) step down tactic, might have been a worry by CCP as to why they nerfed fighters for carriers as well. Regardless, I think the real consternation being voiced here is that carrier fighters will no longer be anom clearing machines. Seems ok to me. Always struck me as stupid to bring capitals into anoms. Plenty of BSs or other subcap whether solo or with second account repping that can clear anoms. Titan tracking or remote tracking receiving at least does need a nerf as well. Good to see that Tallest is "considering" it again for the upcoming rebalance patch. Shield hp whinage? As a Nidhoggur pilot who could theoretically be in a Hel I'll say I don't care. This mechanic affects all shield ships of all sizes. On the flip side you see plenty of shield fleets. Shields do get passive regen. Shield transfers operate at beginning of cycle. Two things armor lacks. This issue has been haggled over at many levels of ships. The answer has always been that the tanks are different. Active shield implants exist but no active armor rep implants, differing hp boost, differing cap efficency, shield boost amps but no armor, shield regen but armor does not regen etc etc. Nothing new here. Having a differntial nerf would necessitate a wholesale change to the tanking mechanisms for all ships. I don't blame CCP for not addressing the issues here. If, and I say if, it were to be viewed a problem, it would be one hell of a game alteration to take on and not miss some unintended consequences. All in all it seems like a good set of nerfs. Naked supercap blobbage will disappear. Subcaps and regular caps will have varying importance again. WIth the supercap proliferation it had to happen. I'm sure lots of people will come up with the next preferred fleet tactics and I doubt supercaps will be relgated to not or hardly ever being used (unlike some other ship classes such as eaf and af). Oh, because your ship cost so much in comparison it should remain op. Sorry nope. The consolation for those unhappy is that this process of balancing will never end. Some day you may get a re-buff. Relax, you had a pretty long ride as op. Adapt to the change.
Abinadi9 NerdHerd Intrepid Crossing 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:34:00 - [567] - Quote CCP, What will happen with the BPOs? Will capital drone bays be needed for the dreads and titans after the patch?
Daedalus II Helios Research Combat Mining and Logistics 48	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:40:00 - [568] - Quote Usurpine wrote: CCP you do it the wrong way. If you have 3 kids, one has 4 chocolades, one has 6 and one has 7 chocolades and you need to rebalance this situation its a good way to give everyone 10 chocolades (upgrade to 10). Everybody will have same amount of chocolates and everyone will be very happy. And next time you give them an additional 5 chocolates ending up in 15, and then 20 and then 30 and then all of a sudden you have 3 very fat kids with diabetes that can't even get out of their beds. How is that good?
Akara Ito Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:40:00 - [569] - Quote Giimlee wrote: while the titian class ships can hit a battleship class changing the super weapons to not hit anything but a capital class ship makes sense. removing its drone bay will also leave them utterly defenseless to a sub-cap fleet. this is all further compounded by the fact that once warp/jump scrambled by a heavy interdicter an entire capital fleet could be killed by a fleet of t3s with out being able to fight back ...... If you would explain how a T3/Subcap gang can kil lets say 20 Supers with an average ehp of 30m (600m ehp) before the supers can get reeinforcements from their supportfleet ? If you deploy your supers so far away from your support that they have none effectively you deserve to lose them. Its like saying that a frigate gang could destroy a BS fleet because they can shot the drones and BS cant do anything against them then...
DeadEye One Up2-NoGood Intrepid Crossing 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 22:40:00 - [570] - Quote I guess this is going to be like everything else CCP does with the game. They are going to start chasing people off the game. Why would anyone both training these ships anymore. They won't even make a decent paperweight.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.