These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

First post First post
Author
Coelomate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2015-03-22 23:43:54 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Rowells wrote:
One way to nerf the carrier blob might be to give capital reps the same treatment dreadnought guns have with siege. Reduce the base despair amount significantly while increasing the triage module bonus.


This would be a bit premature. I would hardly call the ability for heavy spider tanking to be considered OP when the main situations where it was a problem (300 carriers at a sov timer) are being stripped away until they are nearly useless for Sov.


Dropping slowcats on the enemy staging system before timers come out will be a powerful strategy and result in N+1 slugfests. Until the POS revamp, POS timers will also be N+1 slugfests. And spending on constellation geography, parking at a key gate with a carrier blob could also be hugely effective in sov warfare.

It's true that the slowcat blob won't effectively bounce around winning 10 minute timers, but parking them at choke points still has a good chance of impacting the meta.

Love,

~Coelomate

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2015-03-23 00:01:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Coelomate wrote:

Dropping slowcats on the enemy staging system before timers come out will be a powerful strategy and result in N+1 slugfests. Until the POS revamp, POS timers will also be N+1 slugfests. And spending on constellation geography, parking at a key gate with a carrier blob could also be hugely effective in sov warfare.

It's true that the slowcat blob won't effectively bounce around winning 10 minute timers, but parking them at choke points still has a good chance of impacting the meta.


Eh maybe, but that's going to be a strong strategy with subs or capitals. You can camp someone into a station with 100 HAC's and 50 bombers (+ bubble support) nearly as easily as you can with 100 HAC's and 50 carriers.

It's not a problem that's specific to carriers.

POS's are more applicable, but if we take away their role in repping Sov structures, and we take away their heavy spider tanking for defending static locations, and we take away their ability to assign fighters....

What's left? Honestly. I'll still use one to rat, but gatecamping with them really shouldn't the the pinnacle of capital combat.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Vakarii War Industries
#83 - 2015-03-23 01:05:09 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Coelomate wrote:

Dropping slowcats on the enemy staging system before timers come out will be a powerful strategy and result in N+1 slugfests. Until the POS revamp, POS timers will also be N+1 slugfests. And spending on constellation geography, parking at a key gate with a carrier blob could also be hugely effective in sov warfare.

It's true that the slowcat blob won't effectively bounce around winning 10 minute timers, but parking them at choke points still has a good chance of impacting the meta.


Eh maybe, but that's going to be a strong strategy with subs or capitals. You can camp someone into a station with 100 HAC's and 50 bombers (+ bubble support) nearly as easily as you can with 100 HAC's and 50 carriers.

It's not a problem that's specific to carriers.

POS's are more applicable, but if we take away their role in repping Sov structures, and we take away their heavy spider tanking for defending static locations, and we take away their ability to assign fighters....

What's left? Honestly. I'll still use one to rat, but gatecamping with them really shouldn't the the pinnacle of capital combat.


The way we are going now carriers are becoming 3km domis, and dreads will be like the Maelstrom and Abaddon
Ari Kelor
Frontier Explorations Inc.
Eminent-Domain
#84 - 2015-03-23 02:45:38 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Coelomate wrote:

Dropping slowcats on the enemy staging system before timers come out will be a powerful strategy and result in N+1 slugfests. Until the POS revamp, POS timers will also be N+1 slugfests. And spending on constellation geography, parking at a key gate with a carrier blob could also be hugely effective in sov warfare.

It's true that the slowcat blob won't effectively bounce around winning 10 minute timers, but parking them at choke points still has a good chance of impacting the meta.


Eh maybe, but that's going to be a strong strategy with subs or capitals. You can camp someone into a station with 100 HAC's and 50 bombers (+ bubble support) nearly as easily as you can with 100 HAC's and 50 carriers.

It's not a problem that's specific to carriers.

POS's are more applicable, but if we take away their role in repping Sov structures, and we take away their heavy spider tanking for defending static locations, and we take away their ability to assign fighters....

What's left? Honestly. I'll still use one to rat, but gatecamping with them really shouldn't the the pinnacle of capital combat.


The way we are going now carriers are becoming 3km domis, and dreads will be like the Maelstrom and Abaddon


Which is exactly why Capitals need to be given new purpose in the new sov system while limiting the nerf. Using different styles of siege type modules to project different effects on the battlefield is one way of doing that. Gatecamping, force projection, and anything else that forces the ships to be used in direct confrontation with the enemy will bring the caps out. It will also give the advantage to the people that have prestaged large cap fleets nearby for escalations.

Complicated is good, it is what eve is about. Think about the fitting system and how many different combinations of modules + ships there are. Complicated is why most of us that play the game stuck around, because it is a challenge and continues to be so. All I would ask is the you give the largest of ships more options to do different things than they have done in the past.
Grog Barrel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2015-03-23 03:41:05 UTC
Mahmoud Khatami Ahmadinejad wrote:
we dont need to have modes on every ship. just keep that to t3 destroyers.


^This and I would suggest to keep an eye on Asuka Solo's post. She elaborated very well on what, I would say it, should be the focus of cap development. There are some minor points which could be discussed but all in all, I think she's spot on.

I would elaborate more, but time is not on my side right now.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Vakarii War Industries
#86 - 2015-03-23 07:48:24 UTC
Caps need to be fight changes in small doses, not in blobs. For Carriers and Supers perhaps some bonuses to running links; since they can already fit them. None of the nonsense of forcing boosts on grid, the incentive to field the carrier would be links + fighters+ heavy logi. Perhaps make capital only sized links and give dreads and titans the ability to fit links that boost offensive capabilities; ie tracking speed, falloff/optimal, overheating damage reduction.


This might breathe some life into a quickly dying category of ships
Gremoxx
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#87 - 2015-03-23 11:16:31 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
Caps need to be fight changes in small doses, not in blobs. For Carriers and Supers perhaps some bonuses to running links; since they can already fit them. None of the nonsense of forcing boosts on grid, the incentive to field the carrier would be links + fighters+ heavy logi. Perhaps make capital only sized links and give dreads and titans the ability to fit links that boost offensive capabilities; ie tracking speed, falloff/optimal, overheating damage reduction.


This might breathe some life into a quickly dying category of ships


This is a good synopses.

Dreadnoughts, Carriers, Super-Carriers and Titans should be specialised weapon platforms like Command-ships. You deploy them in small numbers, within the fleet to boost effectiveness of other weapon platforms. MODE would / could support such boost within fleets, but as I have pointed out before

There should be no added value in mass deployment of Capitals, if anything, you should loose fleet effectiveness with each Capital past optimal in fleet. And perhaps, if capitals are deployed in Cap fleet you will receive negative bonuses.

I don´t want to see Caps out of the game, there needs to be role for Capitals, we need BIG toy´s or why else would we continue playing the game.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#88 - 2015-03-23 11:53:56 UTC
Hey All,

Awesome discussion so far. We're keeping a close eye on this thread (and others like it).

Moar Words Please.

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#89 - 2015-03-23 13:25:52 UTC
Gremoxx wrote:
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
Caps need to be fight changes in small doses, not in blobs. For Carriers and Supers perhaps some bonuses to running links; since they can already fit them. None of the nonsense of forcing boosts on grid, the incentive to field the carrier would be links + fighters+ heavy logi. Perhaps make capital only sized links and give dreads and titans the ability to fit links that boost offensive capabilities; ie tracking speed, falloff/optimal, overheating damage reduction.


This might breathe some life into a quickly dying category of ships


This is a good synopses.

Dreadnoughts, Carriers, Super-Carriers and Titans should be specialised weapon platforms like Command-ships. You deploy them in small numbers, within the fleet to boost effectiveness of other weapon platforms. MODE would / could support such boost within fleets, but as I have pointed out before

There should be no added value in mass deployment of Capitals, if anything, you should loose fleet effectiveness with each Capital past optimal in fleet. And perhaps, if capitals are deployed in Cap fleet you will receive negative bonuses.

I don´t want to see Caps out of the game, there needs to be role for Capitals, we need BIG toy´s or why else would we continue playing the game.


Please, no. I did not train to fly Carriers and Dreadnoughts so they could be a glorified on-grid booster (that's why I trained Command Ships V!). I trained them to destroy stuff or save stuff. A pile of hostile Dreadnoughts used to mean someone was serious about fighting you. You fought them or you lost your space. Then Supercapital proliferation happened and Supercapitals gutted the role that Dreadnoughts held. Now, CCP appears to be throwing the baby out with the bath water and removing 90% of the reasons to fly these iconic ships.

Dreadnoughts are siege weapons. You commit them to the fight and tear down the enemies' walls and towns. That is their primary role. That should remain their role. The more of them you bring, the faster you tear down walls. Yes, they are also great against Carriers, if you have something to hold them down. Yes, under the right circumstances - with maximum skills and support - you can kill battleships with them too. That's fun, without being game breaking. Dreadnoughts - as a class, not individually - are just about perfect.

Carriers, on the other hand, are broken. If you took away Supercarriers, this would be immediately obvious. The ability for a capital ship to use subcapital weapons (Drones and especially sentry drones) is incredibly broken. Especially when combined with the ability to continue remote repairing at 50+ kilometers. Carriers should have to commit to the fight. A Triage Carrier is an awesome difference maker in a brawl, without being too overpowering. Triage comes with a great risk and a great reward. Please expand on that, CCP.

In the next year, please find a way to make battleships the line-of-battle they should be. Find a way to make Capitals and Supercapitals have a fun and relevant supporting role in that fight.

On 3 April, I'll be celebrating my eighth Eve birthday. I won't actually able to play Eve because I'll be deployed in my country's service. I will, however, be subscribed and continuing to train. The reason for that is that I think CCP is savvy enough to deliver on some of their promises regarding the new direction this game is going with structures. I am not entirely hopeful - this year's decision to resub was the hardest it has ever been. This idiotic Trollsov, where you don't need to commit to a fight to destroy towns, makes me want to vomit. The things I've seen about removing fleet warp don't look very promising. And so on and so forth... But I can say this much, next year, I'll be thirty-seven. I have a house, kids, dog, and a career. Devoting time to something with the depth of WoT is not an option. Continuing to take part in a rich world of empire building and meaningful losses is worth it to me. Please don't screw this up, because I'll have to spend more time and money reloading and shooting (my other expensive hobbies) if you do. And my wife hates that almost as much as she hates my "dirty mistress" - Eve.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Ben Ishikela
#90 - 2015-03-23 13:45:59 UTC
Someone asked the UI-Panel at fanfest if there could be a systemwide overview for users of warfare links and such.
The commander could see/have access to information of every grid a pilot of his fleet/wing/squad is present. Make this accessible via the newmap by zoomand/etc. Also optional new additional overview windows for this. Get information instead of pure number boni!
If this would be implemented, it could be a desired gameplay feature for capitals also. Although Skynet was aweful. The ability to engage in multigrid warfare was pretty thing (if you are the guy who does it). So why not rework it and bring it back in a stable and well thought about way.
==> that brings me to the Idea:
.Make Capitals able to fight broadcasted targets even when they are not on the same grid.
.Range of Capital weaponry in measures of AU.
.(also awesome in addition to capitals that behave like structures that can use services and carry pilots around with them. that can then undock to defend&attack on its grid. supers=dockable. gates can shoot over several AU, when controled. (this would help defend valuable systems & attack them))
.Make capitals use some form of warfare links like the above.
.Make Valkyrie-Hangar a fittable station service that can be fit to capitals. that connects the two games. payment for successful logged in valkyrie-mercenary-jump-clones. (instead of capital drones as player controled npcs)

Concerns: too safe! --> if they agress make them appear on system-overview(warpable) for everyone. (lore: energy output too great to hide)
Concern: ninja Doomsday from off-grid would be so imba --> yes why not its awesome. but as in concern number one: titan should die after that if he has no backup. Dreads could shoot it down over several AU range, before it can jump again.
Concern: Dreads would control the whole system and be unkillable --> give them so little tracking that they are not suitable for ongrid warfare at all. (implication maybe: battleships for defence of capitals ongrid needed)
... and many concerns more!

Implications i'd like:
==> warfare links are useful and active Task again.
==> multigrid warfare for more cooperation and teamwork required.
==> multigrid -> less serverload.
==> feel like a little but meaningful guy in a big game again, when i support a capital fight.

I dont even know if the above is a thing i want personaly. As its so far away i cant imagine the outcome.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

Kazon Necht
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#91 - 2015-03-23 17:28:54 UTC
I've read a lot of this forum topic, but not all of it. Many of the discussions are good and some very well thought out. I like some of the ideas that are being discussed, but I'm not sure I like the idea of modes. I appreciate that the only ship with a mode right now is the T3 destroyers, and I like that they are unique that way. I can see, in the future, T3 cruisers being revamped to go to modes instead, and as a T3, I totally agree with it. On caps, I don't.

I do think that caps should have roles. Right now, I see carriers as being used to repair damage to other ships and structures. With the upcoming changes, I suspect carriers won't be used as much for structures. So as far as roles for each, here's what I think:

Carriers:
Role: repairing ships designed to help others in the fleet stay alive, longer.
- Remove ability to use fighters.
- Stick to bonuses to sentry drone damage
- Stick to bonuses to local and remote rep amount and distance.
- Can use Triage Module

Super Caps:
Role: Repairing ships ships with additional bonus of helping DD with fighters
- Remove ability to use drones other than Sentries or Fighters
- Bonuses to rep amount
- Allow subcap ships, to a certain amount, to dock within the ship (including pilots). I'm not sure how to balance this properly, but it would allow Subcaps to be deployed out of a super upon it jumping into a system. Subcaps do not take the jump fatigue penalties.
- Can use Triage Module

Dreads:
Role: Attack
- Leave them as they currently are, more or less.

Titans:
Role: Massive transports and doomsday weapon boats.
- Allow carriers, perhaps a max of 5-10, to dock with the titan and be jumped into a system of some sort for deployment. Again, this requires some coding and balancing, and I'm not sure what that would look like. Again, carriers would NOT take jump fatigue during these jumps.
- Doomsdays remain as is, with perhaps some balancing.

These are just some ideas. I look forward to people's thoughts on how this provides a role for each and allows them to be used differently and specifically.
Coelomate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2015-03-23 18:05:16 UTC
Kazon Necht wrote:

Dreads:
Role: Attack
- Leave them as they currently are, more or less.


Dreads only really work because there are structures to shoot - giving them a threshold-level purpose and creating an ecosystem surrounding that role (caps/supers can shoot structures and also respond to other caps/supers shooting structures or positioning to threaten structures). It's fundamentally predator/prey dynamics - something has to drive conflict and get them into space.

Once structure shooting is gone, the whole ecosystem will be incredibly strained if not outright collapse. If the caps aren't on the field to shoot structures, other caps aren't joining the field to shoot them or support them. If the caps don't need to cross the galaxy to threaten sov structures, they won't get get caught and shot at while moving, and other cap fleets won't be watching and hunting and repositioning around them.

Dreads and supers desperately need a new role. If all they do is counter other caps, the only winning move is not to field them in the first place. Triage and slowcats, particularly under the command node system with its emphasis on mobility, won't be enough to underpin the cap/super ecosystem.

Love,

~Coelomate

Kazon Necht
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#93 - 2015-03-23 18:10:31 UTC
Coelomate wrote:
Dreads and supers desperately need a new role. If all they do is counter other caps, the only winning move is not to field them in the first place. Triage and slowcats, particularly under the command node system with its emphasis on mobility, won't be enough to underpin the cap/super ecosystem.

I understand what you are saying here. If the new role of a dread is to blap other carriers, then perhaps there needs to be changes to siege modules, allowing for better tracking so that they can be on field to attack subcap fleets in engagements.

I appreciate that other roles are needed. I do. But starting with a definition of those roles will make it so much easier to figure out what each ship should receive in terms of bonuses, nerfs, buffs and the like.

Good points though.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#94 - 2015-03-23 18:15:10 UTC
Here's a couple of random ideas from the sov / structure threads that link back into capital ships:

With Entosis Links being used to contest and disable structures, what if supercaps could board and conquer them? This would save deploying a new structure and allowing existing upgrades to remain to some degree. Of course it would still be possible to take sov without supercaps; this is just an optional extra part of it.

Titans could potentially generate wormhole-like effects in a local area. This could be used to buff friendly ships or negate hostile ones.
Thoric Frosthammer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2015-03-23 18:34:21 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:




I get what you are saying. But effectively you are asking CCP to say " Hey I have two good feet , I can make my feet better if I just shoot one of them". Instantly alienating part of your customer base doesn't sound like the best of business models.


We don't have two good feet in the eyes of the developer. We have two feet that keep having their toes clipped off because CCP can't figure out a proper balance. Can they get these ships down to an acceptable level of offense and defense? I'm sure they can. Can it be done while maintaining some semblance of value for the money? I don't think so. What kind of offensive and defensive power should ships that cost 15x and 25x the cost of their capital counterparts be capable of?

I know it would alienate those players who have been lulled down the path of the supercapital only to have it ripped out from under them. But whether it is overtly ripped out from under them or slowly made irrelevant over years, that segment of the playerbase should be equally pissed with having basically lost a big ticket item in terms of cost as well as training time.

Hey, give it another try to make them into something relevant. And not just relevant on a ship by ship basis, but relevant given the proliferation we have witnessed in terms of ships and pilots. Sadly, I think we'll be back talking about this again in a year or two. Any changes coming will not be the final solution for these ships and this will be yet another effort at kicking the can down the road. That sounds defeatist, I know; but sometimes mistakes just need to be owned up to and difficult decisions made.


I agree with Dirk here, in a sense.

Based on what we've seen so far, there aren't a lot of roles left for capitals in the new sov/structure system. I don't think that what there is will probably lend itself well to these sort of changes you are proposing.

Capitals, in their current form, and in the numbers we're used to seeing them, seem to be on the way out in the new meta. If that is in fact CCP's goal (and I have no idea, I have yet to sign my super sekrut squirrel papers) then I personally would rather they find a way to rip of the bandaid and cushion it with some way to recoup at least part of people's investment in time and skill points and ISK. I don't see how you can have a "slow" death of capitals under this new system, they will just mostly be useless appendages.

I don't think a fleet command ship produces any reason to have more than a few supercaps, under Fozzie's proposal. It also isn't an especially compelling mechanic. Moreover, in a system that literally attempts to do away with and split up large battles, slow moving capital blobs are just not a terribly useful mechanic. I almost don't think there is a way you can pay down this "past design debt" without angering the current owners.

I know they don't want to say this to our face, but at some point it might be better to just accept it on their part, because I don't see how you get from here to there with making supers and capitals useful, and still have the game they are currently outlining as their goal. I don't think this proposal does it either.

They might have to go to something radically different, that has an effect on gameplay but simply has nothing to do with direct combat. Perhaps make supers sort of an anchorable temporary structure similar to the other structures that gives some sort of bonus, or creates an area for repair/refitting or shields similar to the current pos shields. Let them defend themselves while anchored. Something. They'd play a role, it would be good to have them, people wouldn't feel quite as ripped off. That's an off the cuff suggestion and I don't hold it out as a for sure GoodIdea (tm). But I feel like that may have to be the direction they go. That still leaves very limited roles for dreads and regular carriers. I honestly as I sit here have not had enough time to pick my brains for a good direction for them given what we now know however.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2015-03-23 18:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Kazon Necht wrote:
Carriers:
Role: repairing ships designed to help others in the fleet stay alive, longer.
- Remove ability to use fighters.
- Stick to bonuses to sentry drone damage
- Stick to bonuses to local and remote rep amount and distance.
- Can use Triage Module

Super Caps:
Role: Repairing ships ships with additional bonus of helping DD with fighters
- Remove ability to use drones other than Sentries or Fighters
- Bonuses to rep amount
- Allow subcap ships, to a certain amount, to dock within the ship (including pilots). I'm not sure how to balance this properly, but it would allow Subcaps to be deployed out of a super upon it jumping into a system. Subcaps do not take the jump fatigue penalties.
- Can use Triage Module

Dreads:
Role: Attack
- Leave them as they currently are, more or less.

Titans:
Role: Massive transports and doomsday weapon boats.
- Allow carriers, perhaps a max of 5-10, to dock with the titan and be jumped into a system of some sort for deployment. Again, this requires some coding and balancing, and I'm not sure what that would look like. Again, carriers would NOT take jump fatigue during these jumps.
- Doomsdays remain as is, with perhaps some balancing.


Just wanna point things out that may help you out.

Carriers were about on grid support of other capital vessels and structures. This included not just remote repairs, but drones capable of combating sub capital ships. Balanced by horrible lock times out of triage and vulnerability brought on by entering triage.

Super's lost their ability to use "sub-capital" drones a long time ago. They are entirely reliant on fighters and fighter bombers now. Their remote repair is horribly lacking combated to normal carrier hulls as they cannot fit triage. They have been delegated to sov structure grinding and combating other capitals. This is due to the range of Fighters and Bombers not allowing them to assist with POS bashing outside of handling modules such as EW/guns.

Titans are not fine, if they were you'd see them fielded. They are the super weapon platform which can be out shined by a super's flight of bombers. They bring with them a doomsday which is cool an all, but hardly worth fielding even in cases which would call for them. They simply don't have the firepower or bonuses that warrant the price tag and need a complete revamp. As for players docking, I recall CCP saying there were massive problems with this on their end due to the titan not actually being a structure and it's capability to move/jump so it never happened. I wouldn't mind seeing an ability to repair off a titan/super - if the player trying to repair had no active combat timer that is.

Dreads are fine in the current system due to their range and damage. Else like titans, their damage is out shined by supers even when sieged vs other capitals.






Personally I see a few problems, one of which I know is a very touchy subject but with the upcoming changed to sov must be considered.

First, titan's firepower needs to easily be 5x what it currently is OR offer substantial boosts to fleets under them to uphold their price tag. I'd suggest looking towards offensive bonuses. Command ships and off grid T3s handle the defensive bonuses just fine. Allowing for significant offensive boosting will help going about coaxing titans out from the pos shield and increased firepower vs the capitals that threaten their safety will go a long way.

Second, unreasonable expectations of players. Personally I find that carriers are perfect right now and fulfill their role to the letter. Spider tanking has the exact same weakness sub-cap spider tanking does - Volley. Which is why people complaining about it is laughable. The problem comes with players attempting to fight on a capital level with sub capitals and expecting to make an impact without having to follow proper escalation. If you were to field 50, hell 20 dreads vs those 100 carriers, their spider tank wouldn't save a soul. Why should capital level logistics be brought down to a level in which sub-caps can compete??? Why even use capitals with their 10x price tag if their tanks could be so easily overcome?
A single capital caught out is easily killed by a small group of bombers, as all local capital repair modules are slow and/or cap heavy. However, if the enemy brings a fleet of capitals you should have to play the game and bring something to overwhelm their logistics. If that means your little alliance can't compete with that yet, then that means you are not ready to take their sov. Find another area of space out of range of their capital arm and build up your ranks until you can.

Third, damage application of dreadnoughts. It's abominable right now, which was acceptable for the age of structure grinding as those pilots with them knew exactly what they were to be used for. And knew well enough that if a capital fight broke out it would be the super's killing other caps. So what I suggest here is a once over of the siege mechanic's bonuses specifically in relation to tracking/explosion velocity and damage so they (specifically the phoenix in relation to exp velocity) can apply their damage to moving capitals.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#97 - 2015-03-23 18:59:38 UTC
Thoric Frosthammer wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:




I get what you are saying. But effectively you are asking CCP to say " Hey I have two good feet , I can make my feet better if I just shoot one of them". Instantly alienating part of your customer base doesn't sound like the best of business models.


We don't have two good feet in the eyes of the developer. We have two feet that keep having their toes clipped off because CCP can't figure out a proper balance. Can they get these ships down to an acceptable level of offense and defense? I'm sure they can. Can it be done while maintaining some semblance of value for the money? I don't think so. What kind of offensive and defensive power should ships that cost 15x and 25x the cost of their capital counterparts be capable of?

I know it would alienate those players who have been lulled down the path of the supercapital only to have it ripped out from under them. But whether it is overtly ripped out from under them or slowly made irrelevant over years, that segment of the playerbase should be equally pissed with having basically lost a big ticket item in terms of cost as well as training time.

Hey, give it another try to make them into something relevant. And not just relevant on a ship by ship basis, but relevant given the proliferation we have witnessed in terms of ships and pilots. Sadly, I think we'll be back talking about this again in a year or two. Any changes coming will not be the final solution for these ships and this will be yet another effort at kicking the can down the road. That sounds defeatist, I know; but sometimes mistakes just need to be owned up to and difficult decisions made.


I agree with Dirk here, in a sense.

Based on what we've seen so far, there aren't a lot of roles left for capitals in the new sov/structure system. I don't think that what there is will probably lend itself well to these sort of changes you are proposing.

Capitals, in their current form, and in the numbers we're used to seeing them, seem to be on the way out in the new meta. If that is in fact CCP's goal (and I have no idea, I have yet to sign my super sekrut squirrel papers) then I personally would rather they find a way to rip of the bandaid and cushion it with some way to recoup at least part of people's investment in time and skill points and ISK. I don't see how you can have a "slow" death of capitals under this new system, they will just mostly be useless appendages.

I don't think a fleet command ship produces any reason to have more than a few supercaps, under Fozzie's proposal. It also isn't an especially compelling mechanic. Moreover, in a system that literally attempts to do away with and split up large battles, slow moving capital blobs are just not a terribly useful mechanic. I almost don't think there is a way you can pay down this "past design debt" without angering the current owners.

I know they don't want to say this to our face, but at some point it might be better to just accept it on their part, because I don't see how you get from here to there with making supers and capitals useful, and still have the game they are currently outlining as their goal. I don't think this proposal does it either.

They might have to go to something radically different, that has an effect on gameplay but simply has nothing to do with direct combat. Perhaps make supers sort of an anchorable temporary structure similar to the other structures that gives some sort of bonus, or creates an area for repair/refitting or shields similar to the current pos shields. Let them defend themselves while anchored. Something. They'd play a role, it would be good to have them, people wouldn't feel quite as ripped off. That's an off the cuff suggestion and I don't hold it out as a for sure GoodIdea (tm). But I feel like that may have to be the direction they go. That still leaves very limited roles for dreads and regular carriers. I honestly as I sit here have not had enough time to pick my brains for a good direction for them given what we now know however.




I respectfully disagree. Capitals and Supercapitals should be on the front lines in the thick of it. PVP needs to be diverse and dynamic for too long its been bring X , Y , Z comp. That is boring and uninteresting. Seeing a battlefield where tanks , kiters , snipers , brawlers , juggernauts & ewar can all exist and are relevant makes for an exciting prospect. I think the way to go is to tone down the overall power of capitals and supercaps but give them a multitude of abilities. Seeing capitals that can fight subcaps but are inherently weak when doing so would be awesome. Or providing huge bonuses but trading off offensive and defensive traits to do so. Or coming in like the hand of god in their traditional role and laying waste to other capitals.


Scaling is always a issue no matter the ship class. Let me tell you fighting new player groups like Brave Newbies when they bring 500 ewar frigs its a scaling problem. 500 Dominixes as were 500 Maelstroms and so on and so on. So removing capitals from the Battlefield will not solve Apexforce/N+1 issues at all. I think people get fixated when envisioning the future based off how things are instead of how they could be.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#98 - 2015-03-23 19:10:10 UTC
I don't have time to do a full write up at the moment on my thoughts with regards to carriers, but to keep it rolling here we go.

At this point the biggest problems that seem to come from carriers and Supercarriers is their ability to repair when out of Triage, as well as to deploy weapon systems that are very effective against BS sized targets and larger.

To deal with weapon systems make it so they can't field subcap drones, fighters and larger only please. Also reduce the base tracking on fighters by 10-30% now that they are affected by DDA's and omni's.

To deal with the repair issue and stick with the mode theme (though at this time I'm not sure I'm a fan of it):

Change the Repair Range on Capital Repairers and Cap Transfers to 500 km.

Each mode should last 10 minutes.

Triage Mode:
1000% bonus to Capital Armor/Shield repairers/cap transfers range (note, this only affects capital sized repairers, zero bonus to smaller repairers so people don't just stick large reppers on them).
Unable to receive remote assistance (no remote sebo's, reps, etc.).

Combat Mode:
resists/fighters/etc.

Travel Mode:
reduced fuel usage/Align speed/cap recharge rate?



On a separate note I think it would be worth shifting Supers to having X amount of warp core strength (6-10?) so that they can be held on grid in lowsec by more than just scripted points.
CompleteFailure
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2015-03-23 21:40:29 UTC
I think the mode idea has a lot of merit, I'd like to see this further fleshed out for all caps/supers. That said, I'm a little concerened that, with the release of the T3 dessies, and then applying the same concept to capitals, that we'd be setting a precedent of "Problem? Add modes!" I'd rather see unique solutions to unique problems. That's not to say that modes aren't the right solution for capitals, just that it may not be the right approach for something else later on down the road.

Proposal aside - the way I see it, post-Fozzie sov, all capitals will still have a role, albeit in a more limited fashion than they currently have, except for supercarriers. Dreads will still be optimal for shooting POSes (at least until the structure changes drop) and can effectively blap battleships, carriers will still have triage and be effective in combat against most sub-capitals in general, and titans will still be able to bridge and drive-by DD stupid unwary capital pilots. Supers, on the other hand, will be entirely relegated to escalating to counter other capitals, and that just simply won't happen enough to incentivize people to train into and buy them. This isn't a huge problem for existing owners, but anyone that is in the middle of training for one may all of a sudden find themselves training for something that no longer makes sense for them to train. I think some sort of repurposing needs to happen at the same time that Fozzie sov drops, or very shortly thereafter (next release, not 2-3 or more after) to let supercarriers keep some sort of relevance.

I like what I've heard so far about giving them some sort of on-grid boosting role, but at the end of the day, if they can't effectively blow sh*t up, they just don't hold much appeal for me, and won't for a lot of people I know. I got mine because it's a big bad*ss motherf***ing ship, and dammit, I want to kill all the things with it! Leaving significant damage application out of the equation for supercarriers is, for me, a deal-breaker, and I'd probably end up selling it and unsubbing that account, frustrated that I just spent ~2 years training a dedicated alt for it (subbed with real money, not PLEX), on top of the ~35 bil ISK I spent on the hull and fitting itself.

I do think that some aspects of supercarriers are too strong. The ewar immunity needs to be removed, as well as the inability to be pointed through conventional means. I'd like to see those abilities removed, along with the logi bonuses they currently have (leave that role to the carriers). That said, I do think large ships like supers and titans should have sort of a semi-immunity to these things, so that 1-2 small ships can't completely screw it, but a decently sized gang can. Give supers a natural warp strength of like 10-20, plus naturally high resistances to all forms of ewar, similar to the high sensor strength they currently have. The idea here is highly resistant, but not completely immune. Then, depending on what's proposed, add the fleet boosting roles. Give them substantial buffs to drone damage application, and room for plenty of backup drones in the drone bay. The number of drones in space at a time should not change one way or the other. I'd also like to see the introduction of T1/T2 capital-sized mods for points, scrams, webs, TP's, smartbombs, neuts, etc. with greater range/strength to make the class stronger through fitting options rather than only direct buffs to the hull itself.

tl;dr - Modes are an interesting idea, but need to be fleshed out. Make sure supercarriers still have some kind of role post-Fozzie sov.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#100 - 2015-03-23 23:10:56 UTC
No caps in highsec.

The Tears Must Flow