Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There are several threads that all have narrow scopes, but in reality all are tied together, so I wanted to plop a discussion about them in one spot.

Cruiser (mostly Ishtar) thread:
[Scylla] Ishtars
Battleship thread:
Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0
Capital thread:
Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

These 3 topics, while they could be fiddled with individually, are very tied into one another as far as overall game balance. They are the 3 ship classes at the top of the game, and they don't have the best relationship right now.

Summary:

Cruisers and Battleships are too close together as far as their role in combat, where capitals are so far ahead of all other ships that it almost feels like a different game when they are used.

Cruisers, especially the T2 and T3 variants, have evolved significantly over the years, and when you only look at the progression of T1 frigates up to T3 cruisers, there is a pretty decent scale as far as their power, and their cost. When you look at T2 cruisers through T2 battleships the line bottoms out, however. Then there is a huge gap of many different important statistics like HP, DPS, Cost from battleships to capitals, and again to supercapitals.

The progression from T1 frigates to T3 cruisers looks something like this as far as their power in combat and their price:
T1 frig < T2 frig = Destroyer < T2 Destroyer = T1 cruiser < T2 cruiser < / = T3 Cruiser

The progression for ships from cruisers to capitals effectively are just 3 groups with huge gaps between them:
-T2 Cruisers through T2 battleships are highly comparable* as far as DPS, EHP.. though the larger ships do still cost much more.
-Carriers and Dreadnaughts basically even, but the difference to Battleships and their cost is huge.
-Supercarriers and Titans at the apex, but generally useless against anything smaller than a planet and ludicrously expensive.

End Summary

So! What to do about this?

Well, structure grinding is going the way of the dinosaur, and most people couldn't be happier. This, however leaves the old capitals with nothing to shoot at. That is, unless you make something to shoot at.

The HUGE gap between battleships and capitals can simply be shrunk (in both directions). Primarily in a slash to the DPS capabilities of caps/supers, and the PRICE of caps/supers - so people will actually bring them to fights. Secondarily in a buff to Battleships to get them to be more like.. well, Battleships.

Battleships are, frankly, pathetic right now. They have weak tanks and huge signatures coupled with moving at turtle speeds means that they have a much worse effective tank than fast moving, small cruisers. At the moment the tank EHP numbers are basically the same as cruisers. They don't do much more damage then T2/T3 cruisers either, and they can't hit cruisers because they're frikkin tiny and super fast (especially the Ishtar, which is actually using Battleship weapons.. wtf). If, however, Battleships were buffed up in ONLY HP and DPS, then they would sit where actual battleships should. Cruisers would then have trouble killing them, but also.. it would be a great target for capitals!

Capitals are designed to do damage to stationary targets with looaadds of HP. Well those are going away, so now the dps numbers just look like bragging (Carriers not so much, we'll come back to them). So if Battleships are actually given a buff, then dreads/supers could be used against them effectively by lowering their dps to more realistic numbers and increasing their tracking to be able to hit something smaller than a stationary asteroid. Capitals would also need their scan resolution increased to compensate, and let's be honest.. if I had a mobile station, I think I'd splurge a bit on some sick computers and a few radar dishes.

Carriers are fleet support boats, much like.. well, Carriers. They could be the capital logistics, much like they protect actual battlegroups in real life with a protective umbrella of planes. This, however, leads us into another discussion: Logistics.

Right now you have a frigate logistic ship, a "cruiser" logistic ship, and the carrier. Frigates use small reppers, carriers use capital reppers, and let's stop kidding ourselves: T2 logistic cruisers are battleships. If cruiser logistic ships were designed to only use 800mm plate and medium reppers (you know.. the medium, cruiser size ones..) and you made an actual battleship a logistics ship, then there ya go: Frig logi, Cruiser logi, BS logi, and Capital logi.

So, in conclusion, you make a simple 1:1 scale ratio for base stats from T1 frigate all the way up to Titans, and have specialized ships with specialized roles that can be exceptions to that scale. This would create a nice foundation for the sandbox, with the tweaking of modules allowing differences, instead of simply one overpowered ship over another.

tl/dr quick list

• Buff Battleships HP + DPS
• Dreads, Supers, Titans: cheaper with more realistic damage
• Keep logistics to proper ship size (cruisers, we're looking at you)
• Keep Shield extenders/Armor Plates to proper ship size
• Add logistic battleship (to replace those silly cruisers)
• Design base stats of ships on a 1:1 scale on HP, DMG, Speed, Signature, PRICE

P.S. Frigates should only be able to use small drones, Cruisers medium, Battleships Heavy/sentry. Just like frigates can only use small guns, cruisers medium, and BS large. I think this is pretty self explanatory. (Ishtars shouldn't be smaller, faster Dominixes, duh)

*Edit

Yes, I have read the posts, and commented in them This topic is designed to look at the broader picture instead of a microscope on those individual topics.

I can understand not wanting to clutter up posts.. so posting off-topic in those particular threads to talk about how the different ship types compare is what this thread is designed for.

I like all of it upto the PS part... I'll have you know i own a wolf fitted with medium autocannons...

It's not very good but it LOOKS AWESOME with those massive turrets...

You do realize those are all cruiser weapons, right? With the exception of the Sentries, which are variable sized weapons?

And that it's ONE weapon, on an UNBONUSED hull. And that BS's typically carry more raw weapon hardpoints than cruisers?

How the serious **** was that picture supposed to support the ridiculous statement "t2 Cruisers through t2 BS are basically the same in EHP and DPS"?

Any blanket statement that can look at a Eagle and a Paladin, and declare them "Basically the same" is not even remotely based in reality.

Err, the graph shows how crazy the idea of sentries being classified as medium weapons is.

All of those guns are large guns..

As far as unbonused, well duh. The whole point is making the foundation stats on hulls and weapons in the right place, then building upon that via ship bonuses etc.

Right, I agree. I made that point in my monologue. The graph and stats are mostly saying "The Ishtar shouldn't be able to use sentry drones, they are battleship class weapons". The Ishtar is the most easily pointed to ship for my argument, while other ships aren't really applicable.

My point is to make the foundation curve of ships even, then have specialized ships break off from that graph, like the Muninn. It sacrifices a bit of tank for damage in it's bonuses.

And no, not all cruiser and battleship damage is super close together, but in cases of some T3 cruisers, and ships like the Ishtar they come out very close to BS. Some BS aren't even used anymore because they are just not very good, especially up against the powerful cruiser fleets.

This thread is not needed, because Ishtar thread got unstickied.

Problem solved. vOv

And here is where everyone should stop reading since the rest is now based on a false premise. The actual progression goes like this:

t1 general > empire faction > pirate faction

special frigate snowflake case or commonly known as tech2 boat between empire faction > pirate faction

t3 general (currently not but is going there) swiss-army knife all tech2 classes.For all subcapital ships.

What we can see here should make it clear that pirate faction is the top end line of performance and can be viewed as the best of all classes.

Cruisers are kinda flexible right now. I think they need to be making more choices between damage amount and damage application. It's the damage projection & application which should make them effective at anti-support. Some other tweaks to mechanics affecting small ships in web/neut range to increase viability would be welcome, and also serve to promote the role of retinues in fleets based around flagships rather than massed narrow doctrines. Most cruisers would be better differentiated in anti-support roles by tracking bonuses or explosion velocity/radius bonuses rather than range or damage bonuses. The advantages of damage application bonuses needs to be noticeable, and not overshadowed by webs, neuts, and target painters.

The use of battlecruisers can be improved by giving them the flexibility that cruisers enjoy. Allow them to beef up on damage output while also retaining damage projection. Mainly make them give up damage application to maintain tanking or high damage. Any changes, like nerfs to oversize prop mods, or extra range buffers would help them to counter basic and advanced cruisers. Abandoning damage application modules should be essential to going up against same sized hulls with equal efficacy.

The really heavy ships need better ways to take advantage of their bulk and high mass. For example, what if bomb damage were negatively affected by ship mass even as it is positively affected by ship size? MWDs might partially cancel out, but the main role of the bomber in effecting damage against blobs would remain intact. If need be, the damage resistance of bombs could be increased to make up to 10 bombs viable per wave, simplifying fleet management.

Other advantages of mass might be innate web resistance. Radical surgery to the web might include having it affect agility or base align time rather than base speed. That in turn would go back to the first point of making anti-support with high damage application even more needed in a fleet, or for anti-support roles.

Keeping small ships agile in a furball is much better than the current regime of oversized tanking. It allows them to dodge ships not suited for taking them, while allowing them to die quickly to ships that are properly setup for anti-support roles. To that end we need to increase the importance of modules that affect drones in this regard. There should be modules which turn drones into anti-support systems, and modules that make them do reasonable damage against larger targets. This essentially makes drone bays a fitting opportunity cost instead of just a swiss army knife.

I'm well aware that svipuls, sabres and confessors are de rigueur. However, I am also aware of the high utility of T3 and AB HAC gangs.

All in all, I'm not sure I understand the aim of your critique. How do you see increased opportunity costs in role selection having an impact on relationships between hull sizes?

Personally, I have no stake in what ships people choose to fly, only in the manner in which they interact with other ships. I think it's important that chains of predation be robust, and that jumping links can be problematic for the chain links being jumped.