open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Balancing Supers - a different approach.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Arkulli Stargazer
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:43:00 - [1]
 

WARNING - Incoming wall of text on balancing supers - reader discretion is advised.

There have been numerous posts on balancing out super capitals, and as a super-cap pilot (yes, this is an alt), I would have to agree that motherships appear to be over-powered at the moment. Then again, I think titans are over-powered, as well as the current battleship alpha-strike capabilities. However, they are in the game, and swinging the nerf bat at any one area would tip the scales into another and dramatically change how Eve is played.

So what should be done? To be frank, many of the suggestions for nerfing super carriers (and titans) are unrealistic at best, and completely draconian at worse. Stripping the capability of wielding drones and fighters would totally (and some could argue forever) shift the balance of power to those able to wield large fleets of alpha strike battle ships, as there would no longer even be a need to bring a supers (or normal caps) on the field. I like the idea of a super carrier being able to wield drones (in all their varieties), fighters, and fighter bombers. A ship that costs 15 times as much as its lesser version should have some diversity, but it certainly should not be the must have in null sec alliances.

As I see it, there is really only way to balance all of this out, and that is to pick out a couple of ship types and establish them as the standard measuring stick. X number of generic battleship damage = 1 generic Super carrier. For the pure sake of an argument, lets say 250 to 1. You would do the same for titans, dreads, and carriers.

Of course, the strength of a super carrier is its ability to work in a group of other super carriers, remote repping each other. Suddenly the ratios get messed up, right? This can be partially countered if a fleet had its own logistics ships to help keep it alive, but I donít think this would really be enough. Not in the number of ships, because enough logistics would certainly counter any damage from a large wave of fighters. The real detriment to this line of logic is that there are only a few alliances in space that could field that many battleships & logisitics (you know who you are). Thus, a battleship fleet is not a realistic counter to a fleet of supers.

The real key to *nerfing* supers is to not nerf them at all, but to instead increase the damage output of dreadnaughts. By a lot. IMO, a dreadnaught should be the equal to 3 battleships *without going into siege mode*. In siege mode it should do even more (but probably not the same ratio that exists currently). Further, a dread should have itís tank increased so that it has a reasonable chance to survive for more than a minute in combat. A dread should never be a throw away ship in a fight. What would the field of battle look like if 10 dreads were the equal to a single mothership in siege mode?

The same could be the said of carriers. Can a single carrier tank the damage of a Super Carrier using fighter bombers? No, and it shouldnít, but what about 5 carriers spider-tanking? How many carriers using fighters would it take to bring down a super carrier?

Boosting dreads and carriers is really the only way to bring balance to 0.0 combat. Both caps and super caps are limited in their movement since they require cynos to get to the fight. All require dedicated training to get into, and it is reasonable for smaller alliances to bring a small fleet of dreads to a fight since they can be built in stations (and dock). For the counter balance of making dreads so much more powerful, you have alpha strike battleships. Further, it is never a good idea to take away a ships capability from the players who have spent considerable ISK and training time into it. Bumping up dreads and carriers does not do this.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.12 21:16:00 - [2]
 

The problem with boosting carriers and dreds to be "balanced" against Supercarriers is that you make carriers and dreds overpowered against subcapitals.

As it stands right now, the difference between a battleship can carrier/dred is already quite balanced. One on one, a carrier/dred will win... but should a carrier/dred come across several battleships, its survivability comes into question.

The same does not hold true for a supercarrier. If a supercarrier encounters even 25 battleships it will still hold its own against them through its massive EHP wall, high DPS ability, and can still escape in the end by being immune to almost all Ewar.

That's why the call for nerfing Supercarriers is coming so strong. They're the odd ship that's OPed.

Zarak1 Kenpach1
Minmatar
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2011.08.13 03:55:00 - [3]
 

just remove EWAR immunity from both supers and everything will be alright

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.13 06:06:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: ShahFluffers
The problem with boosting carriers and dreds to be "balanced" against Supercarriers is that you make carriers and dreds overpowered against subcapitals...

Quoted for great justice.
Originally by: Zarak1 Kenpach1
just remove EWAR immunity from both supers and everything will be alright

Solid first step for sure. PL who have almost specialised in killing the damn things beat their chest when they hit the 100 mark .. took 1-2 years!
Imagine what that number could have been if holding supers was not restricted to two ships.

Dreads could use a bit of a DPS/EHP increase, but not all that much. Supers on the other need a complete rethink as you literally need to blob to oppose them which is bad for game on just about all levels.

Shuriath
Caldari
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2011.08.13 06:28:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Arkulli Stargazer


The real key to *nerfing* supers is to not nerf them at all, but to instead increase the damage output of dreadnaughts. By a lot. IMO, a dreadnaught should be the equal to 3 battleships *without going into siege mode*. In siege mode it should do even more (but probably not the same ratio that exists currently). Further, a dread should have itís tank increased so that it has a reasonable chance to survive for more than a minute in combat. A dread should never be a throw away ship in a fight. What would the field of battle look like if 10 dreads were the equal to a single mothership in siege mode?



I agree with most of what the OP states, and in this quote particularly. the only change I would make to the thinking is that instead of a dreadnaught being the equivalent of 3 BS which they already are, ballancing them in terms of Supers.

A dread is worth on average 1.5B a super is say 18b both tech2 fit. so I would suggest making a fight between 10-12 dreads and 1 super a close fight.

Also discussing much the same topic with a corp mate, one of his ideas was to make a triage carrier (only in triage mode) able to rep a dread (only in seige mode) that way 5-10 dreads with a couple of triage carriers would have a chance agains a super. the super would then have to chose between killing the reps or the DPS.

Very good Idea and post. I hope CCP takes notice


Heretic11
Posted - 2011.08.13 06:36:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Heretic11 on 13/08/2011 06:57:25
Edited by: Heretic11 on 13/08/2011 06:55:54
Edited by: Heretic11 on 13/08/2011 06:55:07
I agree with OP. But another solution is to use similar methodology to WH's. That is, limit the Mass of the fleet to an arbitary value. Therefore, you will be limited in the number of SC's and Titans you can field in a fleet. This may also be used to shut down systems where there are large numbers of players to help with lag. Limit the mass allowed into the system to a set value, once reached, the gates shutdown. When players get killed, new players are allowed onto the field.

This does a number of things:

  1. You must plan your fleet composition carefully as if you have too many SC's etc, you do not have enough mass left for support making the SC's vulnerable

  2. planning OPS has a lot of importance as first on field gets the advantage of most mass available before it tops out

  3. this also creates side fights in neigbouring systems with support fleets from both sides waiting to jump into main fight system, therefore giving the opportunity for more, lag free fighting

Zarak1 Kenpach1
Minmatar
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2011.08.13 22:16:00 - [7]
 

you getting too fancy with the changes. K.I.S.S.

remove the ewar immunity and lets see what its like from there on.

imagine what you could do with a gaggle of lachesis' dealing with the titan blob dispatched to one shot your dreads

all of the sudden its a completely different picture being painted as the dreads slowly punish those dirty filthy super blobs

Heretic11
Posted - 2011.08.14 06:45:00 - [8]
 

I fail to see how allowing ewar against 10+ titans and 30+ SC's will make one bit of difference - your still gonna get owned!

Rendaw
Posted - 2011.08.14 07:35:00 - [9]
 

Cant they just make the cost of running these ships a serious effort, turn them into a ship that a corp needs to work hard to maintain, turning them into flagships of the fleet, not the entire fleet itself.


ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.08.14 08:50:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Rendaw
Cant they just make the cost of running these ships a serious effort, turn them into a ship that a corp needs to work hard to maintain, turning them into flagships of the fleet, not the entire fleet itself.




The problem with this is that cost has RARELY been something that mitigates the production and use of a ship. If a "maintenance cost" was created for supers, yes... production would slow down... but once "lines of supply" have been established (which is easier to do when you're in a large corp/alliance with an innumerable amount of peons to do the "tedious stuff") then it ceases to be an issue and production will go back up.
Instead, it'll just become more of an issue for smaller corps/alliances to get enough funding/resources to get and maintain the hardware they need to establish themselves in null-sec.

My vote is with others in taking away Ewar immunity for supercaps... or, at the very least, make it so that a bunch of normal ships (not just one) can "hold down" a supercap using more conventional means (give supercaps +10(?) natural warp strength?). Once that is done we can see where to go from there.

Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.14 08:54:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Heretic11
I fail to see how allowing ewar against 10+ titans and 30+ SC's will make one bit of difference - your still gonna get owned!

Problem with the immunity is that you can reliably drop those supers on a subcapital fleet with practically zero danger .. only HIC's and Dictors can tackle them so if things go awry you clear them and jump.
If on the other hand immunity was removed, anything and everyone could tackle them and apply stuff like damps, TDs etc.

How do you think the 10+ Titan's/30+ SC's would fare against a 3-400 mixed sub-capital fleet if they didn't have that insanely powerful safety net?

freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
Posted - 2011.08.14 23:25:00 - [12]
 

You idea isn't bad at all but it isn't what we need. First of all, the main problem is the cost of supercarriers. They are too cheap for the performance they give; It's almost titan like so it should have a similar cost. On another note, supers are built through a special process that costs a lot of effort and isk so I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be special. There are forces to be reckoned with and play an important part in sov warfare.

Dreads on the other hand are meant to be glass cannons and also depend on supers for support because the last time I checked, dreads pushed out the MOST performance for their price.

P.S. It's not advisable to compare ships based on the number a certain entity is able to field them. Small alliance or not shouldn't affect the way ships should be because the bigger alliances can always blob in greater numbers which is acceptable and fair.

Arkulli Stargazer
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:58:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: freshspree
You idea isn't bad at all but it isn't what we need. First of all, the main problem is the cost of supercarriers. They are too cheap for the performance they give; It's almost titan like so it should have a similar cost. On another note, supers are built through a special process that costs a lot of effort and isk so I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be special. There are forces to be reckoned with and play an important part in sov warfare.

Dreads on the other hand are meant to be glass cannons and also depend on supers for support because the last time I checked, dreads pushed out the MOST performance for their price.

P.S. It's not advisable to compare ships based on the number a certain entity is able to field them. Small alliance or not shouldn't affect the way ships should be because the bigger alliances can always blob in greater numbers which is acceptable and fair.


Dreadnaughts should not be glass cannons.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:15:00 - [14]
 

  • Reduse supercarrier and titan hitpoints (I'd say 20-30% less hitpoints).

  • Remove the ewar immunity

  • Replace with high eccm strength, scan res, lock range and give +10 Warp Core Stabilization

  • Reduce super carriers drone amount bonus to the same as a Carrier

  • Double the damage on fighterbombers as that is what the supercarrier should be good at

freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:16:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Arkulli Stargazer
Originally by: freshspree
You idea isn't bad at all but it isn't what we need. First of all, the main problem is the cost of supercarriers. They are too cheap for the performance they give; It's almost titan like so it should have a similar cost. On another note, supers are built through a special process that costs a lot of effort and isk so I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be special. There are forces to be reckoned with and play an important part in sov warfare.

Dreads on the other hand are meant to be glass cannons and also depend on supers for support because the last time I checked, dreads pushed out the MOST performance for their price.

P.S. It's not advisable to compare ships based on the number a certain entity is able to field them. Small alliance or not shouldn't affect the way ships should be because the bigger alliances can always blob in greater numbers which is acceptable and fair.


Dreadnaughts should not be glass cannons.


Then why should we fly any other ship apart from 1.5bil dreads that already deal super cap dps when they become the most effective ships in game. A titan imo should deal about 20k dps without dmg mods after diminishing returns is applied to it's performance/cost ratio.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:07:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: freshspree
A titan imo should deal about 20k dps without dmg mods after diminishing returns is applied to it's performance/cost ratio.


You're a goddamn idiot. They already deal a lot more DPS than sieged dreads. With their doomsdays and all 6 guns, they already deal 10000+ DPS. Why the hell should they do any more? They're already overpowered as it is.

Sarahs Sister
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:41:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Sarahs Sister on 16/08/2011 11:45:30
Originally by: Pinky Denmark
  • Reduse supercarrier and titan hitpoints (I'd say 20-30% less hitpoints).

  • Remove the ewar immunity

  • Replace with high eccm strength, scan res, lock range and give +10 Warp Core Stabilization

  • Reduce super carriers drone amount bonus to the same as a Carrier

  • Double the damage on fighterbombers as that is what the supercarrier should be good at



This is by far the most useless idea i have read here. I am not a super capital pilot yet but and not sure if i ever will be but the whole thing about a Super carrier and a Titan is that there immune to ewar, super carriers are "drone flagships" why take away how many they can use? Now i agree the FB do more damage then they should so reduce there damage by 5-10% and leave the ability for the super capitals to take a beating.

The ideas suggested here mean that smaller corps/alliences cant ever get these or feild them cause they die to fast and their big investment is lost. any way that my 2p...

Arkulli Stargazer
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:45:00 - [18]
 

Titans need more work than supers. Their original design was to combat massive zergs, and due to their implementation code (and the coding in the game), caused more lag than anything else in the game. The current implementation if the doomsday makes it even worse, since the titan can only blast 1 ship every 10 minutes or so. CCP went from 1 extreme to another.

IMO - The doomsday should have the same functionality as bombs, (or maybe slightly larger). Adjust damage output as necessary, but make the blast impact the same amount of area, but centered on a specific ship. I have additional thoughts for titans, but will make a different thread for that.

Arkulli Stargazer
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:02:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Arkulli Stargazer
Originally by: freshspree
You idea isn't bad at all but it isn't what we need. First of all, the main problem is the cost of supercarriers. They are too cheap for the performance they give; It's almost titan like so it should have a similar cost. On another note, supers are built through a special process that costs a lot of effort and isk so I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be special. There are forces to be reckoned with and play an important part in sov warfare.

Dreads on the other hand are meant to be glass cannons and also depend on supers for support because the last time I checked, dreads pushed out the MOST performance for their price.

P.S. It's not advisable to compare ships based on the number a certain entity is able to field them. Small alliance or not shouldn't affect the way ships should be because the bigger alliances can always blob in greater numbers which is acceptable and fair.


Dreadnaughts should not be glass cannons.


I should have added a reason why this they shouldn't be glass cannons. Back before the redesign of supers, there were actual tactics around the use of dreads and carriers. Now they are treated as throw away ships (or only used for ratting/logistics). That is a shame, and bumping up their durability and damage would be a step into making them viable once again in fleet fights.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only