[Proposal] adjusting ship stats globally and some changes to capital ships and modules


(Alessa Khan) #1

this proposal roots out from a previous thread written in the Features and Ideas section:

Objectives of the Proposal:

  • standarize the stat growth of all ships in the game to follow a proper curve.

  • make some changes the capital modules in order to ensure clear weaknesses and limits

  • open the way for ships to shine not only due to stat to size differences or tech lvls but also due to additional utility options on each size in general as complement to class utility.

  • end the complaints about carriers and HAW titans among other balance issues by shaking the metagame completely.

The Premise:

the current balance issues are fundamentally a consequence of a much larger issue which is how ship stats increase over each class size. this causes a distinct imbalance between certain classes all around the line with things like Battleships having lost prominence, Carriers, FAXes and Titans gaining such prominence that subcapitals are obligued to resort into extreme comps in order to counter them or otherwise fail miserably either due to their large amount of tank or the extreme power obtained by certain modules.

thus the proposal goes around the adjust of ship stat to ensure a well spaced stat curve along all ship sizes.

The Analysis:

i made an experiment of checking the stat changes around a sample of ships ranging from Frigate to Titan. then made a graphic of the approximate stat growth of these ships as size increased on each class. its not a totally accurate representation of the actual stat growth due to CCP’s focus on punctual increments rather than multiplication so its mostly to provide insight on what is happening for this proposal.

as you can see, the overall stat growth of Subcaps is quite tame, but then things start to go out of control. this graphic uses a Leviathan and a Chimera as samples for Capital and Super but ther’es still some crazy changes if one tries to check on Dreadnoughts for example.

the best rounded stat of this sample is Shield Hitpoints and i used it as the base for the analysis but other stats around the classes threw similar multiplications. the pattern exist somehow and subcaps follow it but capitals are way over the graph and this may be problematic.

the most direct conclusion is that this imbalance is the result of gradual changes to the game over the years but not a direct look on the global scale of progression. CCP did its best in setting the rebalances around each class and provided changes to many hulls that were unused due to the old Tier system but this isnt enoug for the current state of the game.

the old idea of looking at Subcaps and Caps/Supers as two separate things has to end and a single progression curve has to be created as complement to the rebalance of ship bonuses, roles and Tech lvls.

The New Proposed Progression:

instead of the incremental changes over ship sizes. the game would have a more direct multiplicative progression. one thing to note is that this graph doesnt includes Corvettes but the plan should be to apply the graph to all ships. its just that Frigate is more or less the usual base for these cases.

each number in the ramp represents an stat multiplication related to Frigate size however, you can still do the calculations around each direct size difference. for example, the star growth in the new system between Capital and Battleship would be 2,5.

this change would mean an increase in the stats of ships from Destroyers and up, and a reduction of Capital and Super capital stats to bring them in line. some things to take in account:

-Agility and Scan Resolution would still be inverse, with them being calculated as multiples from Titans to Frigate.

-Warp Speeds may need a revision, i like to think of Frigates getting a base speed of 7 AU/s which reduces 1 AU per size increase up to Titans with 1 AU/s.

-certain stats like Capacitor, CPU, Sensor Strength and Powergrid may provide new space for ships to add modules that were originally limited due to the incremental style used by the developers. whether this is positive or negative would have to be tested.

-its possible that some of these stats will still require to be balanced by increments rather than multiplication/division, one possible solution is to change the multiples of certain stats to 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 6 -> 8 -> 10 -> 12 rather than the ones used in the base graph.

Why change Capital and Supercapital stats?:

Caps and Supers are too common nowadays to be considered worthy of keeping their extreme stats. that could have worked in the past when the economy of the outer regions only allowed a few to be built at a time, being mostly stationed in POS towers and guarded to see their use in important fights. it took a player a long time to learn how to sit into one of these ships and the money required was usually a turnoff to many.

in the current state of EVE the economy has suffered a huge shift in material supply due to the changes given to mining ships, more importantly the introduction of the Rorqual as the ultimate mining platform. now capitals are produced and sold at prices as accesible as it is to obtain the PLEX for a month of Omega.

this, coupled to the more easily capacity for players to skill on thanks to Injectors means that obtaining and piloting a Cap or Super takes way less time than before and is quite less expensive. after all, if you can buy injectors and keep the account while also investing into a capital ship, then you’re not exactly poor.

proliferation of capital ships cannot be stopped as it happened with Pirate ships both because of the less difficult avaliability of obtaining the BPOs/BPCs and also because adding an increase of material requirements would only mean more Rorquals and players doing the harvesting of materials.

these ships are the only ones that break the system heavily (i would have to analyze Faction, T2 and T3 but they must be going around the line at least) and in order to fix this they have to get nerfed in stats, which i see as the only logical solution to offset their current proliferation.

Main Changes to Capitals in that Context:

Carriers, FAXes and Dreads:

these ships will still go on the same roles they have right now. but, each one will have its own version of the siege module. the NSA, Triage and Siege modules would all be variations of the same theme and used by each capital for different things with similar stats between them, save for a few key differences. NSA would provide FAXes with sensor bonuses to make them resist against disruptors, Triage would provide Carriers with more survivability but would no longer give logistic bonuses, Dreads would have extra scan resolution thanks to reworked Siege Module.

Titans and Supercarriers:

compared to the ships above these classes dont really have something breaking them internally. they are still keeping their role of Anti-Capital and Anti-Structure. however, the weapons they use may require a revision to ensure they cannot apply to anything smaller than a Battleship even with application modules (save for the Doomsdays because it would make them useless then).

the main forte of Titans and Supercarriers would be the utility they provide to the whole fleet along with the tools to face against ships of the same size as them and at least down to Battlecruisers.

Changes to Capital Modules:

compared to ship stats i dont think modules are up to follow the same format. in fact, i think they already do but i would have to do the research on it. however, one thing is certain, Capital Modules would require a rework in stats to fit with the new Capital Ship stats or they would be unusable.

this opens a new oportunity. if Capital Modules are watered down to fit with the new stats, then it will mean certain of them could fit on Battleships with proper fitting constrictions on the ship for other things. but this isnt the main goal. there’s something else.

if the stats of HAW Weapons and Fighters get reworked by this change, it would mean a proper limitation for capital ships to engage all but the larger targets. the proper adjustment to it should be such that Capitals can only hit up to Cruisers if using application mods, whereas Supercap would only get down to Battlecruisers.

an optional addition to this would be to make Titans unable to fit HAWs. and make them only to fit anti-capital guns. but this may be unfair compared to Supercarriers.

Possible Side Effects:

the most punctual would be that the whole metagame would shift massively. it may negative to some but once the numbers are properly adjusted, many classes would find new strengths and weaknesses to exploit and people would adapt properly, much so compared to what the current system does by revising each class one by one.

Structures would probably need a look too taking in account what will happen to capital ships. but yeah with every ship getting stat changes this would mean certain siege comps got buffed. still, a revision of Structure damage and tank would be beneficial to cope with ships.

The Future of the Progression:

standarizing the stats could open field for a new look on ship balance which is looking at each size utility. i’ve already made a look on it with Capitals by making the Siege Module a standard of all 3 classes.

ships in the subcap line do have something similar already with MJD being the most basic example but this system could be expanded around all down from Titans to Frigates. each ship size having an added functionality apart of its stats and the role it can do, the only issue i find with this is that CCP has tried to tie these modules towards T2 instead of providing bonuses for these modules inside the T2 line.

im not advocating for all frigates to use ADCs, Destroyers being able to Boosh or Battleships being able to activate Bastion because in most cases those modules are too specific and powerfull for general use by non specialized ships. rather, each of these sizes could have a general module that provides utility to the ship class or the fleet in general and whose T2 versions can only be used with greater proficiency by specialized ships.

Final thoughts:

this change will be massive, and i expect people will not probably like it but all the other options regarding the current issues try to catter to old comments like “nerf X” or “revert Y” and stuff like that. there has to be a cleanup of stats for all ships in the game in order to properly balance everything.

we cannot keep going with this system or otherwise the game will get more polarized into only a few compositions. rounding up and adjusting stats will lead to changes into a lot of hulls and will open new oportunities to exploit, perhaps will bring new compositions but at least the overall power will be decided not by the stats but how the bonuses and the synergies with the modules go.

there’s a lot that can be taken from the graph like Destroyers will get slightly tankier and will probably be able to fit some cruiser modules, or that Battlecruisers will be the middile ground of the progression, or that Battleships will probably be way more tankier than how they are atm. it all roots down to how will the stat changes play out.


So to follow the current rants about carriers
Ending the gap between Cap and Subcap and a revision of ship size progression
(Beast of Revelations) #2

TLDR - Nerf big ships even more, and buff small ships even more. Make sure so-called “nano-gangs” get their preferred playstyle buffed even more, at the expense of other ships, players, and playstyles. Make sure “big ship haters” keep getting their nerfs to big ships they hate (like they did with battleships some years back), which in turn buffs the small ships they like. Make sure people who fantasize about being an X-Wing pilot in Star Wars get to solo and blow up their imagined Death Stars easier.

Also, there is no such thing as a “proper power curve” that ships do follow, must follow, etc. It is a figment of some people’s imaginations, and even if there was such a curve, and assuming the OP’s curve is correct and takes everything into account that should be taken into account (it doesn’t), there is no reason that capships should follow it vs. being a different type of ship placed off the curve. Furthermore, assuming there is such a curve, and assuming the OP’s curve is correct and takes everything into account that should be taken into account (it doesn’t), it assumes that there would not and could not be other ships between battleship and capship (some kind of “bigger than battleships but smaller than capships” ships) that could either be imagined there now, or placed there in the future, which would mean that capships are already in their proper place.

What about the ridiculous amount of skilling it takes to get into capships (NO, NOT EVERY PILOT USED SKILL INJECTORS TO GET INTO THEM - I DIDN’T)? Do you have a reimbursement proposal for that? What about the exorbitant prices capships cost? Do you plan to bring those down?

In short, nothing is wrong with capships, sorry your nano-gang gets dropped on in lowsec, sorry you aren’t entitled to just roam wherever you want and kill anything you want, anytime you want, with impunity and no losses. Proposal has no merit, and I say no.


(Alessa Khan) #3

so you’re not assuming the graph cannot be arranged in case CCP comes with the idea to finally add an intermediate between BS and Caps (even when it seems the community doesnt really like the idea from the multiple threads that have come and gone in the forums).

and the rest of the comment is just ranting without any kind of actual argument about why capital ships should be out of the graph.

in short, 0 feedback on the matter, just no because “reasons”.


(Beast of Revelations) #4

You have no idea what the community likes. The vast majority of the community doesn’t read or post on these forums, or any other forums. You are a small squeaky minority with a power and a loud voice far exceeding what it should be.


(Alessa Khan) #5

i dont fly nanogang and i’ve never been attacked by a capital ship in that matter. but im still sure that the method of balancing in this game has proven ineffective for some things and a revision should be done.

if you’re feeling personally attacked because “muh capitals need to be top power because of requirements” its not my problem. i added some proposed adjustments to capitals in order to provide some extra kick even when their stats get cut. but yet you complained.

the change is just on base stats, it doesnt move anything with ship bonuses. or what they can get with modules which i think is proper to keep. would this destroy the power of capitals? i dont think so. and even if that was the case, then the graph could be just upped up in terms of multiples.

reducing material costs is a good idea in fact. just that i didnt consider it when posting. reducing Titan and Super carrier requirements to what Dreads and Carriers consume atm would be the proper concession. Carriers, Dreads and FAXes would probably be just 3 times the material requirements of a Battleship.

but i would have to check on the blueprints, this is just an estimate. but its fine, now the skill requirements, im not sure if that can be fixed. yeah there could be some reimburse or something.


(Alessa Khan) #6

a little update for the proposal:

this is a new variation of the graph using Corvettes as the basis.

why Corvettes? because they are like the most basic stat sample and they are low enough in power to be considered the entry lvl compared to frigates. the inclusion of them as the base multiplier provide a massive change on the stat reconfiguration of everything in a much more balanced manner. in some cases this will lead to ships being less powerfull than before but as always, the graph isnt supposed to rig every stat and depending on what entails each race it would probably mean certain personal ship adjustments.

things to note:

  1. this doesnt mean that Corvettes will suddenly become the most agile ships in the game, rather, some of their stats would be multiplied for frigates. an interesting change however could be making them the ones with the highest warp speed after Shuttles and Interceptors (5,5 then give Shuttles +1 AU/s to balance it out). they’re no good at anything else so why not giving them at least that so one doesnt feel like a snail travelling around.

  2. frigates may loose some edge and the benefits would grow towards large vessels albeit capital ships would still have much lower stats compared to what they have today.

  3. EHP of all ships across the board would get changed, and depending on how they struggle certain ships would receive specific stat buffs.

  4. these are the base stats solely, no changes to skill bonuses, resistances or the like. only some of the main attributes.

  5. Warp Speeds could follow the current disminishing patter but a bit more flexible with larger ships. like 5,5 (Corvettes) -> 5 (Frigates) -> 4,5 (Destroyers) -> 4 (Cruisers) -> 3,5 (BC) -> 3 (BS) -> 2,5 (Capital)-> 2 (Supercapital)

  6. ship agility is still problematic, the problem is that it ends in MWD lvls of speed in the Frigate and Corvette ends of the graph, so it will have to remain with current stats.

for example, lets take the shield hitpoints growth from the Ibis and apply the multiples for larger caldari missile boats.

Ibis -> 200 HP
Kestrel -> 400 hp
Corax -> 1,000 HP
Caracal -> 2,000 HP
Drake -> 4,000 HP
Raven -> 10,000 HP
Phoenix -> 20,000 HP
Leviathan -> 40,000 HP

a change like this would apply to all ships across the board with Faction, T2 and T3 receiving their owns pecific revision.

possible changes to the curve:

  • swap the multiples for Frigates, Cruisers and BCs to 2.5, 12.5 and 25 respectively to approximate stats to whate they had before in order to keep a more or less even scaling.

  • marking the growth from Shuttles to larger Hauling ships but is tricky because the jump is way more steep. Shuttle 2 -> Industrial 5? -> Freighter 100-200, this â– â– â– â–  would be easier if there was more spread amoung these ships.

  • mining ships can be easily included if one counts 2 -> 10 -> 50 -> 200 (Mining Frigs ->Noctis/Porpoise/Mining Barges -> Orca/Bowhead -> Rorqual) but may be inaccurate. most of these non combat ships require a more direct revision for their position in the curve.


(Do Little) #7

Eve has roughly 300 ships, each with thousands of possible fits and each pilot has a unique combination of skills, implants, boosters and experience. The only practical way to achieve any semblance of balance is empirically - analyse the data, buff ships/classes that are underutilized and nerf ships/classes that are overutilized. That seems to be the path CCP has chosen - since buffs tend to be more popular than nerfs, we get power creep over time.

I question whether capitals should be able to apply damage effectively to sub capital ships - it would be a lot more interesting if they needed escorts to survive.


(Alessa Khan) #8

that’s precisely why this proposal exist. buffing and nerfing ships is good and all but if there’s not a base from which to measure all things across the board then things will grow into disorder.

the idea is to make a a revision of all the stats of all the ships in the game. and do a general adjustment based on their size, then later make adjustments based on their role, then based on their tech lvl.

but all of them would have to be on the range of a general power curve to ensure changes dont go into exaggeration. with only a few numbers being changed.

as for the capital dilemma. i dont think those ships should be banned from targetting subcaps. what has to be done is limit the accuracy of their weapons to such a degree that they can only hit the largest of them. this means BCs and Battleships solely, but only with application modules/tackle.

and at the same time give those large subcaps some buffs thanks to the curve to ensure they size increase provides some value to them. being able to fit some capital mods in battleships for example is one of the changes of this proposal, this due to reduction of capital ship stats and balancing the requirements of capital modules to fit. it may not be exactly possible but i think the curve would achieve that to a degree.

and even if capitals are only a fraction of how they were in terms of power. they would still have some compensation changes. higher Warp Speeds, access for siege modules on each of the 3 base capital classes. Titans and Supers still have the same bonuses, nothing has changed in that regard.

in fact, someone commented on material or skill costs. now that those ships arent as high in power, they could receive reductions in material costs and in the time it takes to learn them (with proper compensations). the only downside is that i dont know how would that follow in the material requirements of the other ships. it would bring the prices down further that’s for sure, a nerf to industrialists, i think.


(Anderson Geten) #9

You should learn to use log scale on graphs.


(Fluffy Moe) #10

Dude, chill out, don’t worry, CCP will do this or something else and then they will come up with another way for you to stay ratting @ 3bil / hr. Cuz nullzec … Cuz CSM … etc. etc.

Your buddies have CCP as their bitches, so don’t worry, you won’t suffer.


(Alessa Khan) #11

indeed, but i think linear is much more fitting for balancing purposes. well, not exactly linear, its more like an exponential function. it’s been a long time since i worked on graphics tbh.


(Beast of Revelations) #12

You’ve got me all wrong. I’m not a member of a big nullsec cartel. I’ve been mostly a solo player during my EVE career. It doesn’t mean I want useless capships whose only purpose is to shoot other capships or structures.


(Anderson Geten) #13

log scale is exactly the representation of the multiplication, that is x cm you multiply by base^x