Yeah. Heady days 
It’s ‘wild and crazy’ ideas like these that CCP completely lacks in this day and age. Some might even call ideas like those innovative. Now, it’s just about turning knobs and buttons none of us common folk are deigned intelligent enough to understand. Maintenance mode, indeed.
1 Like
Atleast its a change in the right direction. Sadly far from what i had hoped for. Its not enough by a long shot
Heard about this rebalance, came in expecting this would enable large groups to roll over the smaller groups for content, was not disappointed to see my worst fears realised yet again. I am very disappointed in you doing this, medium structures need a buff not a nerf.
This is an example of why the CSM with its block nullsec votes is so bad for Eve. They just demand easy content all the time that suits their N+1 style of play, well not even that, because with this they can just park a solo Dread on a structure and sit all pretty and nice. Talk about a stupid change.
They talk about content, but for small groups it is all about being able to hold despite the odds against them, the content is them being there and holding on, it is hard enough as it is, but you will make it even harder, seriously I really don’t understand CCP games designers, are you really that unaware, do you think having a few beers and a good relationship with these people is worth the loss of content for others?
Having been in big alliances I know how important FC’s are, I also know that it is a big struggle to motivate the line members to attack structures, you already added a core to increase the attractiveness of such attacks, which in my opinion was a bad move for hisec. There are strategic reasons to attacks structures.
One of the things I keep seeing is corps in major alliances are looking to increase their own income so they look to develop moons away from the core area. It results in decent small fleet combat. Most of the defenders setup their structures to deal with Capitals, so they do fight with fleets. Because it is corps trying to do this on their own apart from when ops coincide it is decent fun content. And beneath the notice of bloc FC’s, they have no idea that this is really happening.
@CCP_Aurora this is really important, to maintain these areas smaller entities have to have a hard outer shell then the desire to keep fitghting, if you make that initial outer shell easy because bloc FC’s want easy content you destroy a whole tier of content which is below their line of sight. Please think about this again.
Now this gets me big time:
They know how to play the game, it is not just to bore them to death though it is a part of it. But it is to fight when they can, and then harry the hell out of the people who move in. And you are making it so much easier to just move in, why? Because you find dealing with structures boring, that is your entitled bullshite coming to the fore, and there was I thinking you were better than this.
Sorry Brisc but listening to big bloc FC’s and their need to keep line members active and involved is not a reason to start changing things which appear to me as being in a decent level of balance at the moment, even though I think medium structures are too weak.
The group I am residing with are exactly that, they are gritty, scrappy and punish the complacent big guys. And you just made it so they get walked over in the initial stage easier with these changes, seriously? Small fleet combat is a really good part of Eve and to create it you need small groups.
OK, this sounds salty but evacuation plans will now have to be put in motion for certain assets because if it becomes just a dread and a drop fleet it is just too easy, and I had only just settled in. I was actually enjoying being back in nullsec too, thanks guys for ruining my game play yet again.
NB. I am sorry to have been a bit strident here, but I want to see more small groups in nullsec not less and in my opinion these changes will do just that.
3 Likes
Are you sure those stats are correct though? It says on the zkill you linked that less than 400 ships have ever been killed by T2 PDS. I feel like that’s pretty far from accurate. I’m pretty sure I’ve counted for a dozen with a mis-click before, and I’ve hardly done any gunning.
A cursory look at structure kills shows the majority having the structure with maybe not even the gunner character taking the kill.
For example: Loki | benjyfishy | Killmail | zKillboard
Obviously needs a deeper dive, but I’d be hesitant to take those zkill numbers as accurate or indicative of anything other than structure killmails being weird.
Okay, that’s a fair point out regarding the actual KM generation. But even when you go in and start looking at those KM’s by structure type, a quick measurement with the mark I eyeball suggests that structures capable of fitting a PDS are killing ballpark a hundred ships a day across the half dozenish structure types that can fit them. Obviously there’s some variance for when people are actually on campaigns to burn structures down or a major fight goes on on one of these structures, but that’s requiring a gunner to take the chair and press the button and be there engaging with the ship(s) in space in some capacity, however limited or not that may be. That also doesn’t really distinguish what weapons system it is that killed the person, whether it was the bombs, the missiles, PDS, w/e.
If that’s what we’re advocating nerfing something into the ground over, then we probably need to get on nerfing missions into the ground because the Serpentis alone kill a mark I eyeball measurement comparable number of ships on the average day.
Well, it’d only show the PDS as the killer if it gets the killing blow… and given what we’ve learned about smartbomb damage from the Operation Enho fiasco, it’s likely that it would need to get the kill on the first tick of the PDS, and after that, it’s just gonna list the citadel as the weapon.
to piggyback off of this, going for a fully anti-cap focused astrahus on TQ right now, with full t2 anti-cap neuts, full t2 launchers, t2 missile precision rig, two t2 painters, maxed structure missile skills, t2 structure fighters, you get the below.
23.7k dps, roughly, neutralizing 24k GJ per 30 seconds. seems significant, right? indeed, this CAN melt a buffer dreadnought in 1-4 minutes depending on resist profile and exact fit, but… buffer dreads aren’t brought to structure bashes really. And, you’re paying more than 4.6b. the cost average shown is off by about 500mil if buying this fit entirely from market, in jita if you bought this, you’re looking at 5.1b roughly. oh wait, forgot the quantum core! 5.7b… Note, that this is a fit optimized to be max applying its DPS to capitals on grids. IT will hurt the ■■■■ out of carriers that hit grid within range, maybe even, somewhat, FAXes by disrupting them being able to keep up their entire shtick of repairs and self-rep together, but not so much dreads.
okay, right now, cost of dreads on market is between 1.5-4b for hull, not including fit… contract prices are a bit higher it seems, so we’ll put them about on parity cost, though I do know there’s some fits that breach 10b easy.
pulling from Arrendis’ statement about active tanked dreads
so, our DPS difference for a max damage, max application astra vs the solo rep siege dread, is a disparity of about 4.3k dps, okay that’s significant, not insurmountable, but requires a minimum committment of about 3 optimized damage battleships, or four armageddons to force the remainder of cap out and to stay out. Right now, that’s not insane to do for a smaller group, it still represents a notable investment, but doable.
Now, lets move onto the proposed changes, pulling the same astrahus fit, directly to SiSi
for the same 5.7b investment, you’re now sitting at 17.2k dps, but same energy neut amount. This means that, sure, you could still invest 4 geddons to finish neuting the guy out, but also means that they’re more likely to have more people to hand behind a cyno, because if you want to actually break the tank directly, you’d have to undock 10 damage optimized battleships, minimum, or escalate your own dread for the purposes. which, for smaller groups, while it can be done, is more cost intensive to be sustained, and makes it much less likely to be done, as chances are greater that the hammer will be waiting to bash their skulls in because they have to escalate larger, making them more readily droppable by the group bashing with the solo dread.
@CCP_Aurora , if you could please communicate this particular specifics of information on to the appropriate people related to structure work, as well as Capital Balance it would be appreciated.
If it’s already been considered, then I apologize for wasting my breath with raising concerns.
Addendum: all math assumes Superheavy torps being used, at max possible application to regular caps, which were the only way to reach 23k dps in the first place. If we use XL Cruise, the disparity is even worse
13 Likes
Excellent work and shows the issue so completely.
2 Likes
With the latest update to the Test Server, it appears that the structure changes go in with the next patch.
Looks like the Standup Flak Round I Blueprint won’t be released in advance.
Is this the case?
1 Like
I guess the gameplay of big bloc FC’s wins the day then…
I asked my friends if they had seen the coming changes and the humour came in:
They will have anti-defences, lock enemy ship, fire missile, missile hits you…
Push this button and lose 1000 ehp.
Well at least we can laugh.
On reflection, this is more likely to be CCP finding a role for dreads more than anything else…, which is why they are ignoring game balance completely.
Here’s to hoping they won’t “forget” to release it for a week or two like with the last two blueprint releases.
Maybe third time’s the charm.
Don’t worry. They’ll be back in 6 months proposing people aren’t allowed to dock or something so everyone else can’t keep denying them content.
2 Likes
Current plan is to release the blueprints in the next major release, and then turn on the ammo requirement about 2 weeks later, to give you time to get the ammo built and moved. Ammo is just enabled on Sisi for testing at the moment.
1 Like
having missed this in the initial pass with my focus on the XL missiles and pressure against capitals…
I… hm, this bit regarding the bomb launcher gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, generally, I get that it can be a massive pressure tool to apply, and limiting that opens attacking options, but on the other, a total removal also makes mediums, again, even more vulnerable than they already were, but in different way that the other change, which is… concerning.
I’m not sure I agree with this particular change to the bomb launchers in limiting them to larger structures only.
I don’t have specific math to apply to this one, like I did with my posts about the XL missiles, unfortunately
2 Likes
Alright, trying to do some practical math related to the bomb launchers, currently on SiSi and on TQ. Starting with TQ numbers, we’ll have both a fit with only the bomb launcher(which is not affected by any rigs, or damage mods), and one that’s a practical t2 fit setup to counter subcap fleets which includes a launcher. Unfortunately, its difficult to get specific applied damage in functional setting numbers on TQ since I don’t have a lowsec astrahus with bomb launcher to hurl at a small group of battleships so this one will remain practicalized paper math for TQ numbers. If anyone can doublecheck these in practical action setting, please do.
alright, first we have the bomb launcher only astrahus, fitted with a t2 bomb launcher and heavy bomb. As it currently stands, that’s a bomb every 48 seconds, with a damage spread of 30km applying, roughly 95% to 100% of its damage to a battleship fleet, assuming said fleet is standing still, and no application bonuses from a target painter or structure web. that damage, is about 10560 raw, equally spread between the four damage types. okay, that’s a good bit, especially applying in an area, but only being applied almost every 50 seconds not including travel time… and, that’s damage before resists. Many sieging battleship fleets, which the proposed changes are stated to be aimed at assisting0, what’s the health pool of your average sieging battleship build? Currently, assuming a properly fit to be able to catch reps by a logi wing, you’re looking at on average, 150-220k ehp for battleships… with a minimum resist spread that’s already effectively halving the bomb damage against its primary defensive layer, so in effect, less than half of the bomb’s stated alpha makes it through before accounting application, so… for simplicity and practicality’s sake we’ll say… 5k damage every 48 seconds assuming t2 bomb launcher and heavy bomb, spread across a 30km area yes, but still hardly turbo pressure on a fleet that’s setup to hit the structure to begin with.
Alright, that’s not a practical use case fit though, is it? So, here’s a t2 anti-subcap astrahus on TQ, right now.
alright, so… that’s a number… so, about 5.7k dps, with a rough alpha of 17k, not including fighter burst alpha, but workable for our purposes. twin target painters can increase the application on two of the battleships in our expected sieging fleet, and a web can slow one for additional application as well… but not particularly amazing, considering a good chunk will be eaten by resists either way, again, roughly half for purposes of simplicity due to resists.
Now, you’re sitting at an astrahus worth 6.3b including core before you even calc fighter costs, and t2 fighters are roughly 25m per, so for each full squadron tack on an additional… 225m roughly. okay, the focus is still our bomb launcher though, right? right now, your bomb launcher, in tandem with the rest, is pressuring, but not overpressuring a fleet designed specifically to push against it, because most line battleships have a minimum 50% resist at lowest on their primary defense layer, be it shield or armor… how is this massively pressuring the fleet?
In practice, someone with a wider experience foot print please I ask to provide some insight here.
While writing this, I failed to account that the launcher is being fully removed from all M-set structures, and so can’t actually get SiSi numbers for an astrahus with bomb launcher, so instead, just going to unplug the bomb launcher from the TQ fit, and you get, roughly, the same effect, albeit more fitting room for an extra neut and other mid-slot options.
alright, simulating the change with the removed structure bombs, more than halved alpha strike capability, but somewhat higher flexibility of fit… which… I don’t think is a good trade off.
As it were, I feel that removing the bomb launcher from the medium set toolbox is a grave error, that doesn’t really change the situation that most battleship fleets are already setup to curtail the effectiveness of the bomb launcher due to their strong health and resist profiles, doubly so now after Bolstered Bulkheads and the rollback of some of the Surgical Strike resist nerfs, so removing that additional pressure capability from the medium size range is… not really doing anything but making them harder to defend, especially at smaller scales where its already difficult to contest without equal or greater fleet sizes.
Yes, my focus is primarily on the M-set size range, as that’s where I have the most experience and skill defeneding and assessing.
For your, and the various teams associated review @CCP_Aurora .
The changes at the larger scale make some amount of sense, but again, to the detriment of the smaller scale, which NEEDS to be considered when making these changes.
I am fully aware that larger structures get a rate of fire bonus to the bomb launcher, making them much stronger pressure tools there.
Edit: Currently compiling foritzar numbers, since a friend suggested I should, since its more applicable to do comparison currently, will make it as a separate posting
6 Likes
Would have liked to see all point and web capabilities removed from citadels so that support ships are needed for tackle, but otherwise nice changes.
I would also suggest increase the lock time so that a frigate warping in and out does not insta die its a structure not an interceptor.
Wow. It took 6 days, not 6 months.
Depends how many devs are still there working on eve and not another game.
At this point, why even put defenses on these things. Just make them a box in spaced that you can store things. You put fuel in it, to guarantee asset safety.
Seriously structures are just hilarious terrible already. The fact a t1 frigate can survive fighting on an astrahus with minimal logistics is a joke. POSs were scarier than these things, and cost less than half the price.
The only people complaining structures are too “strong” are the same ones complaining they can’t take on a carrier in a 3 man t1 cruiser gang. It’s irrelevant arguments. Anyone who does minimal preparation for a structure has all the cards in their hand. They know the fitting (which can’t be changed after attacked) know the timers (which can’t be altered for 30 days) and won’t attack till they have perfect setups. The only time structures even kill people is solo roamers who don’t even know someone can man the structure.
5 Likes