These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#181 - 2015-03-31 22:13:11 UTC
Carriers and Dreadnoughts were the first ships with modes - Siege and Triage, complete with model animation (limited though it was). Manny's suggestion is to expand on this concept, though I'd go one further and remove siege and triage modules and related skills altogether and simply use the mode switches to activate them. A dreadnought without a siege module is pointless anyway, so fold the ability it into the hull itself. I'd limit it to three modes though, simply to use the interface developed for t3 destroyers.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Ari Kelor
Frontier Explorations Inc.
#182 - 2015-04-01 01:03:28 UTC
Shaklu wrote:
[quote=WarFireV] The modes you could give dreads could make them fun and specialized
Anti-Capital Mode
  • Increase weapon damage by 200%
  • Decrease Tracking speed of weapons by 50%
  • Decrease max velocity by 80%
  • Increase armor/shield resists by 2%/lvl


Sub-Capital mode
  1. Increase Tracking Speed of weapons by 100%
  2. Increase Scan Resolution by 50%
  3. Increase Ship Agility and Velocity by 100%
  4. Decrease Shield/Armor boosting by 20%


And then you could have EWAR Mode, a Tank Mode, and some other ones that could be cool.. perhaps AOE Neuts, or Targeted AOE Neuts so that fleets wouldn't be able to just anchor up on 1 pilot, they would need to spread out a bit. Lots of options. Right now dreads are just too expensive and fragile to plop on the field with an enemy fleet unless you have lots and lots of them and you are either fighting capitals, or like.. dominixes.


Someone mentioned before that siege/triage were the original modes, and I agree 100%. Adding more modes in the form additional siege/triage modules with similar restrictions and more versatility gives Capitals the same strengths and weaknesses that all other t1/t2 have. That is they cannot switch on the fly without special considerations (refitting capabilities). Capitals are not t3's and should not have the same flavor as the new tactical destroyers, they should not be able to switch on the fly.

Tactical on grid power projection is what they need to be used for, and we need a reason to field them. Create a symbiotic relationship between caps and subcaps. Allow the larger ships to create a radius of ewar/neuting/damage pressure (like the gas clouds that deal damage everysecond, small damage but annoying). Make it so that similar projection fields have difficulty with overlapping and cause stacking penalties or negative feedback (one idea is that it overheats the module if too close to another one). Give us a reason to field Capitals and others will find there reason to field capital killers.

Using Carriers as ewar providers where they can project an ewar effect into a radius at limited capabilities (say 2=10-50%ish, balancing is for the devs) depending on range projection. Making it so that capitals create a type of terrain around choke points that effect everyone and they would also suffer stacking penalties. Making Carriers specialized to EWAR and other 'midslot' modules and dreads use similar 'highslot' modules will be a game changer for sure, but this thread is about changing the capital dynamics, so I feel that it wouldn't be so far out of the way to suggest this.

I would like to see a Dread being used to create a neuting effect around itself onto a battlefield, or a Carrier slowing all ships in a radius by 10%. It would bring in a different feel to the medium and large gangs in eve as they would have to be able to counter these effects, or be built to exploit them. With the cost of the fuel to run the modules and the time it would take to deploy (I would hope around 30-60 sec) this can change the way people engage each other. Blobbing would still be an issue as always, but with stacking penalties applied this can be minimized and increase diversity in fleets.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#183 - 2015-04-01 03:30:14 UTC
Whatever the decisions are about what capitals become, a capital should be an asset to a sub-cap fleet, much like a a Carrier is to a navy fleet.,

I already supported in a previous thread the idea of making capitals able to target/bombard beyond the grid they are on through sub-cap "pointers" but unable to defend themselves on a given grid without sub-cap support.

This would truly bring the capital game to a whole new level. Like sov, cap warfare can be revisited from the ground up with the experience acquired in the past ten years!

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#184 - 2015-04-01 11:57:18 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.



Um, it took me 20 sec to come up w/ 6 ways to abuse that idea. 3 are kind of funny and 2 are deffo game breaking. Being able to lock more than 3 targets and do that kind of damage would make dread blapping king and sub cap fleets would evaporate.

Being able to lock 6 targets means (with little practice) you can keep 8-10 (maybe more) targets in the locking que. Your rate of fire would pretty much be equal to the rate a few dreads can take down sub caps. This and you want them to be able to get carrier reps and cap while doing such. Eeeesh.

Add in gate travel and folks will be forming up in moros fleets to go on a roam. You can kill all sub caps AND entosis the crap out of every system as you pass. Though I normally embrace chaos, this is a bit much.


Yeah and one celestis will shut that blap dread down.


Serendipity sarcasm .


FU fleet is rather effective against boots why wouldn't they be effective against non sieged dreads? edit: moreover tracking distruperter and ECM will also work on non sieged dreads... So for all the potential blap dreads there will be more then enough hard counters... would you be able to provide a reasonable response that is not spurging with sarcasm?


Sure, splurging and sarcasm aside. A dread fleet that can suddlenly apply sieged damage w/out sieging is OP. Let's make an assumption. The 200 archon fleets of today become 4 fleets of 50 moros. Add in some reasonable support for such a fleet. Now you apply you clestis to "shut that blap dread down".

Your counter works great for the solo dread on a rampage, but for every additional moros you add to the fleet your counter becomes less effective. 20 moros vs. 20 celistis.... seems reasonable until you try to coordinate your 20 celestis pilots to spread their damps across 20 moros. Add in that larger non sieged locking que and I'll put my isk on the moros fleet every time. Add in I can clear damps by sieging and then coming right backout - try to FC 20 celestis pilots to keep them all tied down.

Add in a reasonable support fleet to deal w/ the celestis counter and I'll put even more isk on the dread fleet. Your counter looks great 1 v 1 on eft, but put it in the game against a competent FC and it's just more alpha fodder for the dreads to shred into space bits.

Any ship you use to apply a counter to the fleet can be alpha'd off the field by a single non sieged dread. If you counter the dread - it can siege, go red and re-enter the fight w/ a clean damp/ecm sheet - you miss one coming out of siege and he's blapping your counter. Your no-siege dreads would land on field holding all the good cards and chew through whatever you threw at them.

If the proposed change were to go through - I'll name the doctrine for you. Buzz Saw Fleet.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#185 - 2015-04-01 12:02:36 UTC
I would think if you keep the damage bonus when sieged, then your counter fleet is instantly screwed when the dreads siege up as you can't damp/disrupt/jam them when sieged. Luckily your plan gives them super tanking abilities while in siege. They can come out to get reps/cap OR to be able to lock more targest faster.

You would be dipping dreads in awesome sauce twice with this proposal and adding no downsides. Just not good for the game.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#186 - 2015-04-01 12:08:18 UTC
I think Dreads should have 3 modes:

1) Normal/Current T2 Sieged

2) Anti-BS/BC reducing turret sig resolution to 333 m, increasing tracking to 0.0666 rad/sec.

3) Anti-Frig, lowering sig res a bit more - to 66 m to hit T3Ds ofc, and tracking over 0.9000 rad/sec

Three buttons, works good.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#187 - 2015-04-01 13:20:22 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Carriers and Dreadnoughts were the first ships with modes - Siege and Triage, complete with model animation (limited though it was). Manny's suggestion is to expand on this concept, though I'd go one further and remove siege and triage modules and related skills altogether and simply use the mode switches to activate them. A dreadnought without a siege module is pointless anyway, so fold the ability it into the hull itself. I'd limit it to three modes though, simply to use the interface developed for t3 destroyers.

Siege and triage are so good, fun and balanced not because of ~modes~
There is another reason.
"This also means that friendly remote effects will not work while in triage mode either." - a quote from description.
Capital-sized spidertank, that's where the issue is.
Tykonderoga
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#188 - 2015-04-01 15:47:02 UTC
CCP, just make everything equal. My 100bil titan should be equal to an Ibis. It is only fair!
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2015-04-01 19:10:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Everybody here seems to keep circling the same basic concept but are ignoring the overall condition they have put the playerbase in. Alliances have been bound to camping moons, repeatedly going over the same assets in order to assess as many supercapitals as possible. The gameplay for them has ground to a hault because of their power, because of their cost, because of their name. Trying to balance the supercarrier won't work. Modes, super switching, increased abilities and new projection does not fix the underlying base that they stagnate game play because they do too much, replace too much, have no roles and cost too much. We need to define and narrow their scope and make them worthwhile to fly for the masses, not just the top players that have the backing of a alliance. We want smaller scales and more active risk of the ships. We want to be able to not need two dozen accounts worth of supercarrier sitters in order to enjoy it, or a 20 billion isk bankroll just to afford one.

We need a way to keep the value of investment the player put into the ship, but make the ship affordable, useful, and fun to play... and not a series of crying sessions because you got bated, or need a slew of titans in order to slay it.

Here are my thoughts summarized. I wrote out more but I don't want to hijack the thread.


  1. We rename the supercarrier and bring them in line with the Dread and Carrier capital class. No more super, just a capital. Lets name them Raiders.

  2. We reduce the price by 90%. Raiders should cost between a dread and a carrier (1.5 to 2.2 billion isk per Raider).

  3. Third, we give the players the value of that ship back, but not just in isk, but with hulls of the updated ship. If a supercarrier is worth 20 billion isk upon recycle, the person gains 10 Raiders, with full docking privileges. No build requirements or waiting. Instantly, turn in a decommissioned supercarrier, get 10 Raiders (of the racial ship type of the supercarrier being decommissioned).

  4. We give the ship a definitive role. The Raider is an assault style craft that uses its racial weapon/guns and Fighters/Fighter Bombers. It has its own version of a triage/siege module, except that the module increases its natural defense (added resistance, similar to the Bastion Module) and increases its offense (added damage to fighters/bombers) while active.

  5. Drop the raiders shield, armor and hull hit points down to Carrier and Dread levels. Its own defensive module will provided the extra tank in situations.

  6. Drop the immunities off the Raider Class ships. It is no longer needed.

  7. We remove all of the Raiders remote rep and cap transfer capabilities. This should stay solely in the realm of the Carrier.

  8. We remove the fleet array off the Raider and we swap the SMA's of the Raider and the Carrier (let us let the carrier be a carrier, we also keep the need for Carriers for doing equipment swaps with Raiders).

  9. We keep the models of the Nyx, Aeon, Hel and Wyvern the same for the raider. We increase the visual size of carriers by 50%, to account for its ability to carry large amounts of ships.

  10. We decommission the supercarriers (give the players a time span to dock a super, and allow them to do a immediate swap of their decommissioned supercarrier into the Raider capital (which they would get 10 of, for each supercarrier they decommission). After a time span, keep the supers ability to dock, but disable its offensive and defensive capabilities. So if someone wants to whelp a decommissioned Nyx, they can, they just won't get anything in return.

  11. The Revenant... stays a super-carrier with all of its stats and abilities. It does not get touched (Immunities included)

What you do is free a person from being solely reliant on a mega large corporation or alliance, and allow them to fly offensively, even very riskly, with a capital class ship that has a purpose and a role.

ArrowThe Carrier
A logistical defensive platform, capable of bringing a army with them and having the ability to drop and retrofit ships on the fly (you lose a ship in a fight, have the carrier drop a ship out of its sma, continue the fight before you get podded).

ArrowThe Dreadnought
A Siege platform made to break the lines and siege capitals. You want to do max damage, break a capitals rep, or take out a titan, this is what you bring.

ArrowThe Raider
A Fighter/Fighter bomber platform made to assault the field, capable of fending off a small gang of subcaps with its increased defensive resilience and fighter damage, or assault a capital fleet with its capital guns and fighter bombers.


If you lose one Raider, you are not instantly broke, out 20 billion isk, and the alliance is under no obligation to front you 20 billion isk (because they are now 2 billion), and you have at least 9 more of them to whelp before you have to worry. So you want to fly a Nyx and not be completely terrified every single time you log on, you can now. If you lose it... no big deal, I have 9 more. No need for sitter accounts for my ships, because I can dock a Raider.
No modes, no odd skills or effects... just a whole new ship type to fly.

Yaay!!!!

Alrik Issier
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2015-04-01 20:38:38 UTC
I have read the whole post and i see orginal idea, but lots of them forget this points in the process :

First. CCP say it, they dont want cap to be a condition to be able to mess with sov, wich mean that existing cap should not be able to mess with sov. (and pos will take the same road of the enthosis link)
So there is no point in trying to make modification in the current bonus of carrier, dread, super and titan to keep them able to mess with subcap in the sov system.

Second. Having a good trained toon for cap is not a trivial matter, it require a loot of training time, isk, or plex to get it. So cap should stay a important and independent thing, not nerfed version that will require more subcap escort (generating more tidi) to see some use.

Third. Cap are combat ship, and should stay combat ship and not becoming a moving station/pos, nobody will be happy if his T3 cruiser where transformed into a mining barge.

Fourth. The solution need to keept activity for all cap pilot, not just for a few in some bosting role in a fleet.


More than modification what is needed here is a new goal for cap fleet, a new reason to exist, a new thing to do and a thing that only them can do!
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#191 - 2015-04-01 21:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Phoenix Jones wrote:
...
We need a way to keep the value of investment the player put into the ship, but make the ship affordable, useful, and fun to play... and not a series of crying sessions because you got bated, or need a slew of titans in order to slay it.

Here are my thoughts summarized. I wrote out more but I don't want to hijack the thread.


  1. We rename the supercarrier and bring them in line with the Dread and Carrier capital class. No more super, just a capital. Lets name them Raiders.

  2. We reduce the price by 90%. Raiders should cost between a dread and a carrier (1.5 to 2.2 billion isk per Raider).

  3. Third, we give the players the value of that ship back, but not just in isk, but with hulls of the updated ship. If a supercarrier is worth 20 billion isk upon recycle, the person gains 10 Raiders, with full docking privileges. No build requirements or waiting. Instantly, turn in a decommissioned supercarrier, get 10 Raiders.

  4. We give the ship a definitive role. The Raider is an assault style craft that uses its racial weapon/guns and Fighters/Fighter Bombers. It has its own version of a triage/siege module, except that the module increases its natural defense (added resistance, similar to the Bastion Module) and increases its offense (added damage to fighters/bombers) while active.

  5. Drop the raiders shield, armor and hull hit points down to Carrier and Dread levels. Its own defensive module will provided the extra tank in situations.

  6. Drop the immunities off the Raider Class ships. It is no longer needed.

  7. We remove all of the Raiders remote rep and cap transfer capabilities. This should stay solely in the realm of the Carrier.

  8. We remove the fleet array off the Raider and we swap the SMA's of the Raider and the Carrier (let us let the carrier be a carrier, we also keep the need for Carriers for doing equipment swaps with Raiders).

  9. We keep the models of the Nyx, Aeon, Hel and Wyvern the same for the raider. We increase the visual size of carriers by 50%, to account for its ability to carry large amounts of ships.

  10. We decommission the supercarriers (give the players a time span to dock a super, and allow them to do a immediate swap of their decommissioned supercarrier into the Raider capital (which they would get 10 of, for each supercarrier they decommission). After a time span, keep the supers ability to dock, but disable its offensive and defensive capabilities. So if someone wants to whelp a decommissioned Nyx, they can, they just won't get anything in return.

  11. The Revenant... stays a super-carrier with all of its stats and abilities. It does not get touched (Immunities included)

What you do is free a person from being solely reliant on a mega large corporation or alliance, and allow them to fly offensively, even very riskly, with a capital class ship that has a purpose and a role.

ArrowThe Carrier
A logistical defensive platform, capable of bringing a army with them and having the ability to drop and retrofit ships on the fly (you lose a ship in a fight, have the carrier drop a ship out of its sma, continue the fight before you get podded).

ArrowThe Dreadnought
A Siege platform made to break the lines and siege capitals. You want to do max damage, break a capitals rep, or take out a titan, this is what you bring.

ArrowThe Raider
A Fighter/Fighter bomber platform made to assault the field, capable of fending off a small gang of subcaps with its increased defensive resilience and fighter damage, or assault a capital fleet with its capital guns and fighter bombers.


If you lose one Raider, you are not instantly broke, out 20 billion isk, and the alliance is under no obligation to front you 20 billion isk (because they are now 2 billion), and you have at least 9 more of them to whelp before you have to worry. So you want to fly a Nyx and not be completely terrified every single time you log on, you can now. If you lose it... no big deal, I have 9 more. No need for sitter accounts for my ships, because I can dock a Raider.
No modes, no odd skills or effects... just a whole new ship type to fly.


Moar ship, moar ship types!

Last thing this game will get is more ships/shiptypes. Not until the current mess is fixed, which it won't be. Big smile

But give this Raid3r a 25000% smartbombing range bonus... Yes, that'll be balanced, it's a Rank x14 skillbook - Must have ultimate power. Death to all frigates, cruisers and battleships. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง

The game is gyrating between Cruisers and Caps Online, wish it'd return back to being Eve. Roll I'm hopeful, however, because this year's expansion(s) decide the fate of Eve: Please the minority and continue the stagnation, or revitalise New Eden with new and dynamic conflict generation system, which doesn't envision cap blobs as the meta-set-in-stone.

Oh, you guys are discussing how to scale down capitals down to realistic & reasonable levels to fit the new upcoming gameplay? Carry on. Blink
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#192 - 2015-04-01 22:16:26 UTC
I'm not opposed to a form of mode swapping. But I don't think turning carriers into T3 tactical carriers with an innate mode swapping ability is appropriate. More concerning is that some of your proposed bonus sets are insanely OP.


  • A 5% HP bonus/lvl on top of a 4% resist bonus? There is no ship in the game with such a huge EHP bonus.
  • 10% drone dps, tracking, and speed per level, (no EHP bonus?) on top being able to field 10 drones before Drone Control Units? If you think the Ishtar is OP, this will be far worse. Its an effective 15 drones with the pre-nerf Ishtar tracking bonuses.
  • Warp Disruption Field Generators on carriers? You want carriers to be able to fit and use the same equipment as a HIC? All while having significant bonuses to all EWAR? Who needs HICs or recons when you have a carrier?
  • The mobility mode bonuses to jump range and fatigue are a blatant attempt to roll back the capital mobility nerfs introduced in Phoebe.
  • The amount of effort required to do all this would be a massive undertaking. I honestly can't see CCP devoting that kind of effort for one ship class.


Mode swapping can be done much simpler and easier by removing some of the hull bonuses and moving them plus some of the sane proposed bonuses to new high-slot modules, 1 for each mode. They should be active modules, limited to 1 active at a time with your suggested 5 minute cycle time. Then you have he option of fitting which ever module(s) you want.

There's your mode switching, Because active modules, they are vulnerable to neuts. And there would be a trade off for fitting all 4. You won't have a bunch of utility highs for reps, cap xfers, or drone mods. Or you could just fit one and use the rest of your slots to fit appropriately.

The obvious abuse case would be refitting off of another carrier or mobile depot. But you can do that already. And the long cycle time means you can't switch at the first sign of trouble. This allows time for counterplay.


And as long as we're talking about supers and titans, remove EWAR immunity. Make buffs to the related stats so that they are very strong vs EWAR. But not immune. Really high sensor strength, warp core strength, locking range, etc.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#193 - 2015-04-01 22:28:38 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Carriers and Dreadnoughts were the first ships with modes - Siege and Triage, complete with model animation (limited though it was). Manny's suggestion is to expand on this concept, though I'd go one further and remove siege and triage modules and related skills altogether and simply use the mode switches to activate them. A dreadnought without a siege module is pointless anyway, so fold the ability it into the hull itself. I'd limit it to three modes though, simply to use the interface developed for t3 destroyers.

Siege and triage are so good, fun and balanced not because of ~modes~
There is another reason.
"This also means that friendly remote effects will not work while in triage mode either." - a quote from description.
Capital-sized spidertank, that's where the issue is.

It certainly is, and I'd love to see remote repping stacking-penalised as well (in an earlier post I suggested replacing the bonuses carriers get with fighter-sized logi drones too). I was simply pointing out that modes existed before t3 destroyers came along.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#194 - 2015-04-02 04:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Galphii wrote:
Manny's mode idea has some merit - sacrifice some abilities to gain bonuses elsewhere.

If you put it like this: "tradeoffs are good", then I have to agree - it is good indeed.
But it has nothing to do with the original poster's idea.
Playing tradeoffs is already there, and it's accomplished when you fit your ship. Like, you have to use low slots to increase mobility, thus you have to reduce you armor tank or DPS.

OP is just suggesting unnecessary mechanics that addresses none of the crucial issues. And the issues are:
- capitals are designed to hold the grid, and holding grid is useless in fozziesov;
- certain spider-tanking setups cannot be destroyed no matter what (slowcat carriers survived through B-R5 even).
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2015-04-02 05:59:03 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Whatever the decisions are about what capitals become, a capital should be an asset to a sub-cap fleet, much like a a Carrier is to a navy fleet.,

I already supported in a previous thread the idea of making capitals able to target/bombard beyond the grid they are on through sub-cap "pointers" but unable to defend themselves on a given grid without sub-cap support.

This would truly bring the capital game to a whole new level. Like sov, cap warfare can be revisited from the ground up with the experience acquired in the past ten years!


The thread you posted has some good ideas. It does remove all the game play beyond land on grid assign and wait. This is well and good if you just want to be an F1 monkey but letting the capital pilot personally choose what targets to attack sounds a bit more fun, be it through a cool new strategic view of the solar system letting fighters warp about kind of like an RTS. or by way of receiving all locked targets by its scout. This also shouldn't remove drones from capitals and stop them being used in missions, there is no reason for this nerf. It could potentially bring the ratting dreads some new options. I think the Titan could be a bit too abused in that situation though.

The post, and my previous posts should also strongly consider an Au or Km range limit on Dreads, perhaps something in the range of 500,000km or something to keep them well off grid but close enough to the fight so the don't sit on another gate and jump to safety. It might also require a scout for every dread so to stop all dreads getting alpha on everything a single scout targets. Providing subcaps the ability to destroy scouts to remove dps from each dread should help keep it slightly more balanced. But overall I'm less of a fan of off grid dreads than off grid carriers and supers. It just seems a far harder idea to balance well, but an idea worth kicking around nonetheless. Also instead of the ideas of introducing entirely new capitals I've seen here we could just consider adding bigger diversity in XL guns to diversify dread roles. Out of sight distance, subcap killers, capital wreckers, aoe drone swatters and so on.. You get the idea. A lot of room for imagination here.

This still comes back to the Titan. Apart from drive by doomsdays, escalating a fight, and fleet projection, there isn't a lot they do. An off grid doomsday out of the blue might seem cool to the Titan pilot, but to a super pilot it'll be the biggest buff the game has ever seen and never needed. Doing this not only requires a range limit but also a proper warning to give a tackled super some time to do something about it. I say tackled, because the pilot shouldn't have to be scared of every tackle in the game ending in 3 doomsdays out of nowhere. This also could apply to the dreads if balancing is too much in favour of subcaps getting wiped clean from the field without any chance to avoid it. This reason alone probably has the most players afraid of such an idea being implemented. Perhaps the area effect should be aimed just towards the titans. Off grid shooting can very easily fall into drive by alpha damage especially if it only needs one scout for a fleet and one cyno off grid.

Not to mention there is no way of the players knowing if such a big feature can realistically be added to the game without simply bringing us back to where we were with skynet and AoE doomsdays. From looking over the faults in my own suggestions and others on here you often end up with rule-creep where there are so many individual rules for each capital class that any player looking to train for one early on has no idea what they are really getting into. And again bringing up the naming convention for these ships should better reflect their roles whatever that may be. Carriers and super carriers should really be as similar as possible seeing as they are both "carriers".

This brings back the conversations of more modes or on grid boosts and effects. My problem with both of these is that the pvp involved is much the same as it already is with subcaps and also has no real connection to the name carrier. While this I'm sure is far easier to add and then balance than the more grandiose ideas out there, it leaves much to be desired. Also the trouble with the two is that either you still get capital blobs or you reduce the required number of them to 1. 1 or a blob doesn't seem like great option to me, so further thinking is required. Breaking the fights into more grids seems preferable and into more solar systems seems optimal to me. So ideas that allow this while retaining a sense of vulnerability can be the only answer. Maybe that is possible through adding modes or on grid effects, but I find it difficult to see how. If you think keeping n+1 capitals on grid or reducing the usefulness to just 1 per side is a better idea please explain to me why.

Going back to further the discussion for off grid/out of system capitals, a thought should be given to adding fake signatures to help capitals remain harder to find, better hunter and hunted gameplay could go a long way, especially if a huge battle hinges on a scout finding the right signature or the super remaining hidden long enough to direct the battle for command nodes in their favor. Having subcaps on grid could defend you, but could also give your position away. Clearly fighters and fighter bombers should be re-balanced to take down subcaps, as without this they will have no impact on the entosis link fight.

How can you get more capitals into more deadspace pockets across more systems while making them useful in the future sov system and not breaking them for lowsec all the while adding more strategy and tactical gameplay? Carrot /stick / both?
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#196 - 2015-04-02 06:54:47 UTC
I think its a terrible idea

Mostly because as they are, caps can be a fun challenge to overcome in a engagement. What needs to happen is for them to be less force multiplying as a group. Triage and Siege are both modes but also very limiting and in the case of the dread are the time when its only useful. Each cap should have more modes but nothing innate, and is more built of the type of job the cap is being sent out to do.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2015-04-02 07:35:07 UTC
So you want to take capital ships, that can already refit on the fly to achieve more damage or more tank, a mode swap that does the same thing without the need to be in range of a carrier to refit modules. I mean because that is exactly what you are asking. Just taking an already current meta and coding it directly into the ship. And to top it off you want to eliminate the need for capitals to rely on support ships such as interdictors and hics. Even talk of dreads that can track sub-capitals.

I'm not sure what you are thinking. You say capitals should need support ships to survive, yet your entire proposal is taking powerful ships that scale out of control and although changing them - effectively making them stay in their current position at the top of the hill as king.

Who gives a **** if a capital has -25% EHP for a couple minutes if it can swap into ULTRA FORTRESS! You even have the modes that do not involve offensive, still sporting fighters. Why bother going out of defensive mode if you can still reach critical mass in alpha'ing enemy ships? Why bother bringing support ships to tackle things if your carriers/capitals can do the job just as well without worrying about dying? Why bother with specialized electronic warfare ships that are sub-capitals when bringing a capital can do the job?

Let me give you an example: Why do fleets bring Proteus as tackle specialized ships instead of the Arazu/Lachesis that has better tackle range? You know why. Because the EHP of the Proteus allows it to survive on the battlefield of N+1 far better than the Arazu/Lachesis.

Null battles is a game of numbers. Each side has a combined total EHP and alpha strength versus the other side who is EHP and alpha. If you do not bring enough alpha to kill an enemy ship before reps land - YOU LOSE. Sans a lucky bomber run or picking up the Batphone - YOU HAVE LOST in the first couple seconds. Why bother sticking around if you can't break any tanks? Meanwhile the other side is picking off your ships left and right further compounding the issue.

As long as the targeting system in EVE stays as it is with no form of line of sight, not much will change when it comes to EHP and Alpha meta. There most certainly won't be some arbitrary limit on how many people each side should bring, nor should there be.

Sure modes on capitals where it transforms and has different pretty colors sounds appealing, but it does little for the goal of making capitals interesting, cool to fly and a force multiplier for sub-capitals. I mean ****. Looking at your new version of the Archon, why in the hell would I bother bringing anything else? It can do everything still, just like the ones we have now.

I know not blindly rallying behind you is kinda unpopular because your Manny, everyone loves Manny. But... so be it. Sure you know a lot about how to use and abuse capitals, but you fall colossally short on trying to accomplish any of the goals you cited that CCP Seagull and CCP Fozzie stated.

I pray that you and others are able to read this long post and see it more than, "Oh it's some Brave scrub who is mad PL helicopter caps all over them" because it is far from it. I'm just really struggling to understand how you think this proposal will solve any of the current issues or fulfill anything that CCP has stated. Another thing, you keep bringing up Phoebe and a thread you made prior to it with ideas and wave it around like you inspired the entire thing. I read it and did a lot of digging and the only thing in your list of ideas that I see with Phoebe is capitals being able to take gates. Hardly a new and revolutionary idea as it has been mentioned many, many times over the years. So tell me, why do you keep bringing up Phoebe as a personal accomplishment? Please don't hate me, just trying to understand what I missed.

TL;DR: Your proposal does nothing to fix any of the current capital issues or any goals stated by CCP. In fact it has a high chance to make things worse.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#198 - 2015-04-02 09:05:53 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Null battles is a game of numbers. Each side has a combined total EHP and alpha strength versus the other side who is EHP and alpha. If you do not bring enough alpha to kill an enemy ship before reps land - YOU LOSE. Sans a lucky bomber run or picking up the Batphone - YOU HAVE LOST in the first couple seconds. Why bother sticking around if you can't break any tanks? Meanwhile the other side is picking off your ships left and right further compounding the issue.

As long as the targeting system in EVE stays as it is with no form of line of sight, not much will change when it comes to EHP and Alpha meta.

Great post, you're spot on!
EHP vs alpha meta is the plague of large scale fight. Capital ships with their enormous EHP only emphasize this problem.
But the remedy may not be in "friendly fire" (if I understand your words correctly). Inducing some sort of diminishing returns on remote reps could very well fix the situation.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#199 - 2015-04-02 09:15:48 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Null battles is a game of numbers. Each side has a combined total EHP and alpha strength versus the other side who is EHP and alpha. If you do not bring enough alpha to kill an enemy ship before reps land - YOU LOSE. Sans a lucky bomber run or picking up the Batphone - YOU HAVE LOST in the first couple seconds. Why bother sticking around if you can't break any tanks? Meanwhile the other side is picking off your ships left and right further compounding the issue.

As long as the targeting system in EVE stays as it is with no form of line of sight, not much will change when it comes to EHP and Alpha meta.

Great post, you're spot on!
EHP vs alpha meta is the plague of large scale fight. Capital ships with their enormous EHP only emphasize this problem.
But the remedy may not be in "friendly fire" (if I understand your words correctly). Inducing some sort of diminishing returns on remote reps could very well fix the situation.


I still think that logistics repair and cap transfer has become true cancer.

Used to be times, when tanks were local - Much more dynamic fights developed with often unpredictable outcomes.
bonkerss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2015-04-02 09:41:03 UTC
Shaklu wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
(...)Dreadnaughts: Oh dreads Sad. Their primary function is going to be phased out. They do have two fall back functions that will need to be amplified, the ability to kill other capitals and the ability to kill subcap. I purpose that they are given two different siege types. One more suited for attacking capitals the other more suited for attack subcaps. It would also be a good idea to lower their manufacturing cost.
(...)

Dreads could keep mostly the same role that they have now, just dialed towards capital and Battleship engagements. Give them slightly better tracking, perhaps a capital combat mode and a sub-capital combat mode. Give them more agility to be able to maneuver on field, but keep carriers as slow cumbersome things.

If you boost up the Battleship EHP and dps by 2x, then the counter to battleship fleets instead of fast cruisers (that have equivalent tank and dps right now, but are smaller and faster) would be either another battleship fleet, or dreads. It would be a basic escalation tactic, but in smaller numbers theoretically. If Battleships were boosted up to be something like 15-20% of a dread as far as EHP and DPS, then they would still have issues with cruisers as far as dps projection using large guns, but their tanks would be able to hold unless you had BS/Dread gang fall on them.

Right now, it seems that there is a more or less linear projection of ship power from frigate to cruiser, but then it stops.

This is what I see in fleets and videos:
Frigate < T2 Frigate < Destroyer < T3 Destroyer < Cruiser < T2 Cruiser = T3 cruiser = Battlecruiser = Battleship
and then WAAAAY up above and beyond, you have Dread > Carrier > Supercarrier > Titan

There's a huge gap between Battleships and capitals that could be filled if you simply made battlecruisers and battleships more resilient and harder hitting, and brought dreads down a bit (especially in price)

Cruisers (T2 mostly), battlecruisers and battleships are all basically identical as far as DPS and tank, except obviously smaller, faster, cheaper ships are better. If they re-balanced the curve more linearly from frigate to dread, possibly reducing the cost of dreads to be closer to 1.5-2 bil fully fitted, then you would see them as a viable option on field against battleships.

The modes you could give dreads could make them fun and specialized
Anti-Capital Mode
  • Increase weapon damage by 200%
  • Decrease Tracking speed of weapons by 50%
  • Decrease max velocity by 80%
  • Increase armor/shield resists by 2%/lvl


Sub-Capital mode
  1. Increase Tracking Speed of weapons by 100%
  2. Increase Scan Resolution by 50%
  3. Increase Ship Agility and Velocity by 100%
  4. Decrease Shield/Armor boosting by 20%


And then you could have EWAR Mode, a Tank Mode, and some other ones that could be cool.. perhaps AOE Neuts, or Targeted AOE Neuts so that fleets wouldn't be able to just anchor up on 1 pilot, they would need to spread out a bit. Lots of options. Right now dreads are just too expensive and fragile to plop on the field with an enemy fleet unless you have lots and lots of them and you are either fighting capitals, or like.. dominixes.

I came up with that targeted aoe neuts idea while I was typing, and I think I should elaborate on how awesome that would be. Dread-only modules of different EWAR types that hit a ship and all ships within, say, 3k - 5k of that ship. This would make dreads suuuper important in large fleet engagements, and make pilots actually have to... pilot while in larger fleet fights. You could just keep at range ~10k or whatever, but then you could just web the leader and the rest come to a standstill, or target the following blob.. or perhaps dreads could even have a ship tractor beam module that would simply drag ships forcefully towards them. Having AOE modules that do ECM, Neut, Sensor Dampening or some others but only allowing say 2 modules per dread.. maybe just keep it at 1 so more dreads will drop, would kill the blob fleets and spread out the combat much more. Logistics would still be okay because there are usually few of them and they can orbit the fleet or whatever, but combat pilots will need to be significantly more spatially aware.

Anyway, went on a tangent there, but yeah, if you evened out the EHP and DPS of battlecruisers-dreads and gave dreads a bit more maneuverability and some unique ewar modules, they would get used frequently. Oh, and make dreads cheaper!

Increasing scan res on both carriers and dreads and putting them in a support/combat role against fleets and not specific targets like structures or capitals would also be a perfect platform for fleet commanders to sit in the middle of a battle and direct the troops. Like someone said before, the ships are so huge, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have fantastic computer and scanning equipment on-board.


dreads DONT need a subcap mode! just fit a web