These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#341 - 2015-04-17 22:02:25 UTC
add supercarrier skillbook..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#342 - 2015-04-18 06:33:06 UTC
Professor Maddoc wrote:
Just a question, i dont pretend to know anything about this but it interests me none the less. oh an im newb so go easy on me plz lol

Why doesn't CCP just stop players being able to produce these ships and replace them? introduce some sort of new tech, maybe drop from these new Jove battleship with doomsdays, reverse engineer or somein to a whole new tech lvl of battleships ect that replaces the current super training?

I mean if these ships are "broke" why fix them? just replace them much like what is being done with sov, but replace them with ships that ppl who currently fly these ships will be excited to fly.

Im no pretending to know anything as u can tell, just a question :D


Because there would be an exodus of accounts from eve unlike CCP has ever seen if they ever did that...

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#343 - 2015-04-18 08:11:15 UTC
This goes directly against the sandbox, but what if Supers and Titans needed a component that was dropped by, for example, Drifters? The drop rate could be directly controlled by CCP, which puts an upper cap on how many ships can exist at any one time.
Mario Putzo
#344 - 2015-04-18 14:22:53 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:
This goes directly against the sandbox, but what if Supers and Titans needed a component that was dropped by, for example, Drifters? The drop rate could be directly controlled by CCP, which puts an upper cap on how many ships can exist at any one time.


Balance through scarcity is the same as balance through cost. In fact making them easier to acquire actually reduces their dominance factor.





MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#345 - 2015-04-18 15:44:59 UTC
I came up with this idea back in 2011... perhaps ccp can take some of the ideas and make them work for regular capitals.

http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1520907

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#346 - 2015-04-18 16:52:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Mario Putzo wrote:
Rawketsled wrote:
This goes directly against the sandbox, but what if Supers and Titans needed a component that was dropped by, for example, Drifters? The drop rate could be directly controlled by CCP, which puts an upper cap on how many ships can exist at any one time.


Balance through scarcity is the same as balance through cost. In fact making them easier to acquire actually reduces their dominance factor.


Regarding scarcity I had this thought: Leaving the construction of Titans as is, but adding one component - a Nexus-type chip, that would only be obtainable from Fleet/Navy/Federation military installations, which could either be an event-type scenario, or a complex-like spawn with rate of, say, 20 per year (arbitrary value).

We used to have a lot of GM-led events back in the day.

But the ship has sailed for such interesting mechanics. Pirate

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#347 - 2015-04-18 19:19:55 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
Professor Maddoc wrote:
Just a question, i dont pretend to know anything about this but it interests me none the less. oh an im newb so go easy on me plz lol

Why doesn't CCP just stop players being able to produce these ships and replace them? introduce some sort of new tech, maybe drop from these new Jove battleship with doomsdays, reverse engineer or somein to a whole new tech lvl of battleships ect that replaces the current super training?

I mean if these ships are "broke" why fix them? just replace them much like what is being done with sov, but replace them with ships that ppl who currently fly these ships will be excited to fly.

Im no pretending to know anything as u can tell, just a question :D


Because they are not broken?

Incorrect. Take another guess.
If capitals are fine as they are, why do you think CCP removes their core role?
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2015-04-18 21:40:22 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Professor Maddoc wrote:
Just a question, i dont pretend to know anything about this but it interests me none the less. oh an im newb so go easy on me plz lol

Why doesn't CCP just stop players being able to produce these ships and replace them? introduce some sort of new tech, maybe drop from these new Jove battleship with doomsdays, reverse engineer or somein to a whole new tech lvl of battleships ect that replaces the current super training?

I mean if these ships are "broke" why fix them? just replace them much like what is being done with sov, but replace them with ships that ppl who currently fly these ships will be excited to fly.

Im no pretending to know anything as u can tell, just a question :D


Because they are not broken?

Incorrect. Take another guess.
If capitals are fine as they are, why do you think CCP removes their core role?


They didn't remove their core role, but thanks for playing.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#349 - 2015-04-18 21:50:39 UTC
The core role of dreads was structure bashing, and one of the main roles of carriers is to repair said structures. Both jobs are obsolete after Fozziesov.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#350 - 2015-04-18 22:10:29 UTC
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#351 - 2015-04-18 22:41:28 UTC
Why should a 5km battlewagon have its tanked and dps nerfed to that of a subcapital? They would be little more than glorifed dominis and megathrons
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#352 - 2015-04-18 22:45:10 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
The core role of dreads was structure bashing, and one of the main roles of carriers is to repair said structures. Both jobs are obsolete after Fozziesov.


Not only this one or it's just you whe never use both other than structure wars.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#353 - 2015-04-18 22:46:37 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#354 - 2015-04-19 01:00:53 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes.

Why do you say that?
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#355 - 2015-04-19 01:52:30 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes.

Why do you say that?


Maybe because your suggestion sounds redicoluos?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#356 - 2015-04-19 02:05:32 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes.

Why do you say that?


Maybe because your suggestion sounds redicoluos?

Maybe an explanation?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#357 - 2015-04-19 20:41:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Agree with this man. On more than one occasion. Blink

Twelve times the DPS of a battleship for a sieged dread - that figure they came up with out of nowhere, and it all escalated from there.

Instead of rebalancing structures after the establishment of the capital ship concept, in effect they scaled everything up, the epitome of which was to change the anti-blob role of Titans to 420swagy0l0n0scope for the myriad of cap ships that there were now.

TL;DR 6 years later, and back to 2008 levels of player activity here we are. Roll

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#358 - 2015-04-20 03:27:22 UTC
Nifty idea:

TItan bridges do not induce jump fatigue (only the 5 minutes between jumps timer) and distance is restricted to anywhere in the constellation.

Makes having/deploying a titan during sov stuff a Very good idea, also puts said titan at risk, which means putting support fleet (carriers/supers) on grid also, which makes it possible to counter w/ your own capitals so your sub caps can win the sov flags.

Cedric
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#359 - 2015-04-20 08:43:39 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Professor Maddoc wrote:
Just a question, i dont pretend to know anything about this but it interests me none the less. oh an im newb so go easy on me plz lol

Why doesn't CCP just stop players being able to produce these ships and replace them? introduce some sort of new tech, maybe drop from these new Jove battleship with doomsdays, reverse engineer or somein to a whole new tech lvl of battleships ect that replaces the current super training?

I mean if these ships are "broke" why fix them? just replace them much like what is being done with sov, but replace them with ships that ppl who currently fly these ships will be excited to fly.

Im no pretending to know anything as u can tell, just a question :D


Because they are not broken?

Incorrect. Take another guess.
If capitals are fine as they are, why do you think CCP removes their core role?


They didn't remove their core role, but thanks for playing.

Arrogance instead of arguments - PL at its finest.

Continued work on engaging and balanced roles for Capital Ships will be needed in the future, especially as some of their current roles in structure shooting are de-emphasized in Phase Two. - CCP Fozzie
Replace euphemisms with real talk and you have my words exactly.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#360 - 2015-04-20 09:27:02 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.


Agree with this man. On more than one occasion. Blink

Twelve times the DPS of a battleship for a sieged dread - that figure they came up with out of nowhere, and it all escalated from there.

Instead of rebalancing structures after the establishment of the capital ship concept, in effect they scaled everything up, the epitome of which was to change the anti-blob role of Titans to 420swagy0l0n0scope for the myriad of cap ships that there were now.

TL;DR 6 years later, and back to 2008 levels of player activity here we are. Roll


Sounds like Siege mod issue not the ship class.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP