These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

First post First post
Author
Fishymonster
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-10-25 11:05:38 UTC
from the dev blog you state you want capitals to be viable in most situations. in the same dev blog you strip multiple abilities from every cap.
you said you want caps to be viable in most situations, now dreads will either be a giant 3b+ immobile ship that can only do 1 thing at a time. do damage to nothing except citadels(LOL entosis), or cost about 10x that of a battleship while doing the same amount of damage as 2 of them, probably will have comparable tank as well.
you said previously that CCP would not take abilities that players have trained for away from players after theyve unlocked it. Except now you are taking away players abilities to launch drones from carriers, and taking away the ability to use triage modules since now players must train again for the ability to fit a triage module to a ship. You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that.

Another realization that many players have probably not realized is that living in sov null-sec is punished exclusively with the introduction of citadels. Who is going to get the refund on the hundreds of bil spent building outposts? does all that isk just go poof?

Why even live in sov-null if you can't dock onto your own station becuase you used your nerfed and penalized jump drive the 1 time an hour that CCP arbitrarily determined was acceptable? Why not just move everything to invulnerable, insta-dockable, permanent, always open NPC stations.

Oh well, I will definitely miss caps and living in sov null. theres just no real advantage to living there after this goes live. wont need my 5 accounts after this.
Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
ATTENTION WH0RES
#22 - 2015-10-25 11:08:29 UTC
Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Nox52
Pterygopalatine
#23 - 2015-10-25 11:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nox52
The devil is in the details. While the overall high level changes look ok to interesting there isn't much to say when you plan to rework caps so much. So for example you're changing ehp so you can use armour plates/ sheild extenders so you need to readjust dps and possibly number of slots, and then you stick in t2 versions, so we jsut don't know how it'll end up. We really need the details to comment.


Potential issues:
1) no refitting under weapons timer - this is only available to caps due to their ehp level - if you tweak the ehp - dps - reps balance the refits may not be so much of an issue, without having to resort to timers, Plus it's actually an unique and cap specific game mechanic that should be kept

2) Dreads with sub cap guns for 1-2k dps is underwhelming for the 3-5 bil cost of a dread hull - might as well bring more battleships or hacs/t3 for that effort

3) You will have the new role carriers and dreads will be stepping on each others roles.

4) Oh yes, the C5/C6 balance with cap escalations will likely be thrown out of whack - are you planning on revisiting that and tweaking?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2015-10-25 11:09:34 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Killing High WH, Thx CCP

Display some adaptability.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
#25 - 2015-10-25 11:12:48 UTC
Great ideas - it will be interesting to see how this develops and whether it can actually cause a change in null sec.

  • Will any of the mooted bonuses (e.g. ewar resist, warp strength) be available to sub-caps (obviously a lower bonus)?
  • Don't forget the Rorqual. It needs a better raison d'etre
  • Won't multiple squadrons of drones significantly increase lag?
Lord ShadowMajere
Forsaken Reavers
#26 - 2015-10-25 11:13:07 UTC
Last I checked the Rorqual was a Capital also. Let me guess once again you guys forgot it existed?
Tiberizzle
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2015-10-25 11:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberizzle
DeadDuck wrote:
Tiberizzle wrote:
Limiting capital RR to triage is not the solution to N+1 you are looking for.

This reduces all capital combat to N+1 dreads and renders every other class fully irrelevant.


Wow , you figured all that by your self after a single dev blog... you're amazing...Roll


I mean you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see where the numbers go when you propose the conditions "Focus fire capital gun DPS vs Capital local tank".

Either the logi carrier local tanks approach wrecking ball spider tank levels (we can be fairly confident they're not going to do this because it's what they're purporting to solve), the buffer tanks of logi carriers approach titan/super levels (they clearly state titans/supers are getting their buffer nerfed so we can probably assume it's not to transition it to logi carriers), the new ewar mitigates wrecking ball spider tank levels of damage (an ECM cancer dystopia literally worse than the problem they're proposing to solve), or dreads strictly dominate capital tactics in a straight-forward N+1 manner.

If you hop off CCP's nuts for a bit, read the proposals and thought about them critically I'm sure you could see it as well.

edit: The only other realistic alternative is that DPS carriers are buffed so much and dread turret DPS nerfed so much that DPS carriers strictly dominate the meta. It's fairly hard to avoid the trap of a N+1 gank and tank reduction which excludes all RR-dependent classes, the RR class, and the worse of the two cost effective DPS classes when you prohibit RR from scaling but allow DPS scaling, but the cost disparity between the classes makes it effectively impossible.
Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2015-10-25 11:13:44 UTC
Anth9rax wrote:
Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it.

Watch the Eve Vegas Keynote... ;)


Re: normal drones on carriers. From a technical perspective I can't see any reason CCP can't allow you to launch a squadron of normal drones rather than fighters? Make them controlled the same way, but miss out on some of the special abilities the new fighters will have.

Fishymonster wrote:
You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that.

Did you even read the blog?
Heavy Fighters - Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures.

That sounds like Fighter Bombers to me.... Just with a slightly changed name? (oh noes)
Jack Hayson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-10-25 11:14:18 UTC
In regards to w-space:
What will happen with the mass of capital ships?
The number of caps we can bring is severely limited by their mass and with these strong nerfs they won't be worth the mass you put on the hole to bring them.
For example Triage: Without E-War immunity you can't rely on a single Triage anymore to keep your fleet up. That would turn every engagement into a game of luck. At that point you might as well just bring a bunch of Guardians. Without the need to keep Bhaals alive from Dread fire (lol @2k dps dreads) you don't need the rep power anyway.

Then there is cap escalations... what will you do with them?
With the normal Dread guns not applying damage to sub caps and the other alternative being 2k dps dreads I don't see how running them with caps would still be viable.
Don't get me wrong: I don't worry about my source of ISK (there is plenty of that elsewhere in w-space) but more from a hunter perspective. Less uses for caps means less opportunities to blow them up.
Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
ATTENTION WH0RES
#30 - 2015-10-25 11:15:13 UTC
Querns wrote:
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Killing High WH, Thx CCP

Display some adaptability.

adaptability?
today group of capitals with support can fight against good t3 fleet with logi jams neuts damp
after all. you just die.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#31 - 2015-10-25 11:15:23 UTC
The new tactical overlay looks awesome. A pity to limit it to caps, though. The principle looks relevant to practically all drones.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2015-10-25 11:16:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Firvain
Ilany wrote:


  • Won't multiple squadrons of drones significantly increase lag?


Code things its one entity so you actully have less actual drones on the field and thus less lag
Servjen
Giant Industrials
Center for Digital Chemistry
#33 - 2015-10-25 11:17:16 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:
The question I have is, will you let them into highsec (to assault those pesky large and XL citadels)


I was asking that myself to.

This is where I put my signature, right?

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2015-10-25 11:19:17 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Querns wrote:
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Killing High WH, Thx CCP

Display some adaptability.

adaptability?
today group of capitals with support can fight against good t3 fleet with logi jams neuts damp
after all. you just die.

Yes -- you may need to come up with some new tactics.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Maxxor Brutor
Borderline Procurements
#35 - 2015-10-25 11:20:26 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Killing High WH, Thx CCP


Plz, we'll adapt. Current farming mechancis are silly anyways.

On a side note... it's sad to see even CCP writing "hangers" :p
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#36 - 2015-10-25 11:21:00 UTC
After watching the Vegas Stream and seeing these it actually makes me want to train into a cap for once. Carriers now look like interesting gameplay vs just a larger drone boat. I can't wait for the new skills to drop and this to arrive.
Carneval
Bohemian Veterans
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2015-10-25 11:22:30 UTC
Carriers get fighter squadrons... Guys, seriously, I dont want to play another World of Warships carrier gameplay style. It should be EVE Online, not a bad copy of another game.
Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
ATTENTION WH0RES
#38 - 2015-10-25 11:23:10 UTC
Maxxor Brutor wrote:
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Killing High WH, Thx CCP


Plz, we'll adapt. Current farming mechancis are silly anyways.

On a side note... it's sad to see even CCP writing "hangers" :p


and we lose another half of wh corps
why (3xlarge cannons)x3 slots have dps without siege less than a cruiser?!
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#39 - 2015-10-25 11:24:02 UTC
Jack Hayson wrote:
In regards to w-space:
What will happen with the mass of capital ships?
The number of caps we can bring is severely limited by their mass and with these strong nerfs they won't be worth the mass you put on the hole to bring them.
For example Triage: Without E-War immunity you can't rely on a single Triage anymore to keep your fleet up. That would turn every engagement into a game of luck. At that point you might as well just bring a bunch of Guardians. Without the need to keep Bhaals alive from Dread fire (lol @2k dps dreads) you don't need the rep power anyway.

Then there is cap escalations... what will you do with them?
With the normal Dread guns not applying damage to sub caps and the other alternative being 2k dps dreads I don't see how running them with caps would still be viable.
Don't get me wrong: I don't worry about my source of ISK (there is plenty of that elsewhere in w-space) but more from a hunter perspective. Less uses for caps means less opportunities to blow them up.


Mate, this won't be your issue, quick reshipping of the enemy will as they mentioned clones coming to wormholes at the Vegas event.
Moe Lesture
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2015-10-25 11:26:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Moe Lesture
--- DOOMSDAYS ---

Not every sickle doomsday needs to be a racially colored laser... The Vegas crowd audibly boo'd when you mentioned this.

Take for example this crude picture I made: http://imgur.com/68KAXYe

I took inspiration from the shock rifle in Unreal Tournament.

--- FORCE AUXILIARY CARRIER ---

Force Auxiliary is a terrible name. Sorry. The Vegas crowd sounded generally displeased with the name.

Why not make it follow the same naming scheme we already have? Examples:

Heavy Assault Frigate
Heavy Assault Cruiser

the new logistics frigates would be called Logistics Frigate (please dont give them a dumb name too)
Rename Logistics to Logistics Cruiser
Rename Force Auxiliary to Logistics Carrier / Logistics Capital / Support Capital / anything but FORCE AUXILIARY

OR don't name them at all... The tech I frigates and Tech I cruisers don't have special names for their ewar and logi hulls.

--- HIGH ANGLE WEAPON BATTERY ---

More than 2k DPS... It's a capital class vessel... I don't "krab" in W space so this isn't a "cry wh nerf" response.

--- TACTICAL OVERLAY ---

Considering the tactical implications of the doomsdays and squadrons, i would add bearing and elevation indicators to the tactical overlay. Obviously everyones overlay will have an identical North, regardless of system so people can relay coordinates.

sig here