These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#101 - 2015-10-25 13:46:53 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
This all sounds awesome :D

The blog and keynote mention multiple times projecting your drones hundreds of km away, this implies to me that the 250km lock range limitation is going? Interesting...

Yes. This is also getting changed to support the Citadels as they will potentially have very long targeting ranges. This might mean there's one or two other places we'll need to poke at to prevent unexpected issues!

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#102 - 2015-10-25 13:48:58 UTC
Ilany wrote:
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?


  • Technically there's no reason why we couldn't apply the resistance mechanics to any type of ship once it is implemented. However for now it will be one of the exclusive perks of capitals.
  • Agreed
  • Hopefully not. A squadron behaves as a single item in space - it has one position, one target, one set of stats etc. Much like a grouped missile represents up to 8 missiles as one. No ship will be able to launch more than 5 squadrons (though a carrier squadron might represent 4 fighters compared to a supercarrier squadron might represent 8) and so the number of objects in space that we have to track will actually go down as a result of these changes, even if your effective deployed ehp/dps might be higher.
  • As a squadron takes damage and its 'effective fighter count' goes down, then its damage output will also be stepped down accordingly.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
#103 - 2015-10-25 13:49:37 UTC
afkalt wrote:
[quote=Mr Floydy][quote=Rek Seven]


Yes, for the price of a single dread you could get maybe 10-15 tempests at 1500 dps each.

Sure, less tanky, but....I feel the cost/benefit just isnt there.

Removing some tempests, adding one reps cap
better tank, better projection
you dont need dreads.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2015-10-25 13:50:37 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

As a squadron takes damage and its 'effective fighter count' goes down, then its damage output will also be stepped down accordingly.
[/list]



I meant to ask, are you doing anyhting with their resists/HP pool?

Otherwise, it's skewed towards EM to get the inital teeth off the field.

Omni resists?
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#105 - 2015-10-25 13:51:58 UTC
xttz wrote:
Regarding the new super-weapons; will these all be individual modules, or will there be a single "Doomsday Weapon" with scripts to alter the functionality?

Each type of superweapon will be a different module. We won't be using scripts to alter them. There might be fitting restrictions of only one superweapon at all, or only only one of each type. That is TBD

xttz wrote:
Also are there any plans to have racial bonuses for these weapons? For example, any Supercarrier can fit any Projected Electronic Warfare module, but the Hel gets a slight bonus when using the webifier variant while the Aeon will get the best performance from the energy neut.

I'm not sure if there's any plans for this yet, but it is an interesting idea.

xttz wrote:
Quote:
We understand that a lot of capsulers purchased their carrier as a logistics platform. We don't have defined plans for a transition between existing Carriers to the new Force Auxiliaries, but I can assure you it is on our radar, and we'll be announcing the transition plan with plenty of time for everyone to get ready.


Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table?

Yes that is an option. One possibility that has been raised is that on patch day, any carrier with a triage module fitted will be turned in to a force aux. But this is still very much something we want to get your input on before we nail down the final plan.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#106 - 2015-10-25 13:52:20 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.

No, the new XL anti-subcap guns will be a second type of capital gun. The existing XL guns will still be around, but will be focused on anti-cap/structure damage application only.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Monasucks
BLACK SQUADRON.
The Bastion
#107 - 2015-10-25 13:52:24 UTC
Hi CCP,

To say, most of your changes sounding promising, let me list those first:

What sounds good:
- Fleet, Ship Hangers for everyone plus refitting form dreads
- Dreads will get more used
- Finally again anti sub capital warfare
- Dedicated capital logistics
- The new Doomsday, but don't remove the old one - still let us do 3m damage to capitals if we want
- More love for the minmatar capitals

What I don't like
- No refitting in fight
○ This has been a mastery for everyone
§ Mobile depots where heavy used as well as nestors
§ This should be still in the game
§ I personal think this should still be in the game as this is a skill of its own kind doesn't matters if capital or sub capital
○ This will have another ugly side effect:
§ Capitals will get used less as you will wait out too long or even don't commit due to having the wrong fitting
§ Same goes for extreme expensive sub capital fleets with nestors and mobile depots
§ Just leave it in the game
- The energy source of the new Doomsdays
○ This will make Shield even more obsolete as their tank totally relies on energy to work
- That the old Doomsdays is gone it still should be in there, as it's a massive anti capital weapon + the new Doomsday features
- Hic's will get obsolete
- EHP Remove, they are more easy to kill with the ewar immunity gone.. Even today it's a question of 5 to 10min for those big ships to die ( calculating the TiDi and the lag out or lookigng at non TiDi fights )

Values your where asking our feedback to:
- The remove of eware immunity, I didn't like it in the past but that’s too easy. You should need at least 10-20 Falcons to make a titan blind, you should need at least 50 to 100 points to tackle it or a bubble or a hic.
- Rorquals what about those? Give them some love as well

What sounds good but I'm still curious about:
- Anti-sub capital weapons DPS
○ 1-2k DPS is to less
§ Just image what a good fitted faction BS can do as DPS many DPS as a dread.. Give it like 5k. It should still be an advantage
- New fighters
○ Still thinking how this could work in a 2000+ person fight
- The effect on shield capitals with the new logic's
○ Meaning every entity in eve has to decide to fly shield or armor and shield will not be chosen due to that it still is weaker and the bad side effects on it from the new DD. Plus you need to get two logi types in fleet.
§ Sadly I don't have a solution to it yet

Monasucks Tumblr

Twitter

"A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead."

Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
#108 - 2015-10-25 13:56:01 UTC
So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital?

And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this.

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#109 - 2015-10-25 13:59:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I'm not experienced with low sec or null sec cap warfare, just in wormholes but it would seem to me that the use of dreads will become as follows...

Small/medium groups will not field dreads to kill sub caps because if they do and they get dropped by even one hostile dread designed to kill caps, they will not be able to fight back because they will be massively outgunned.

At the other end of the scale, large groups will be able to have all their dreads fit with High Angle Weapon Batteries and have the freedom of being able to obliterate sup capital fleets and smaller cap fleets alike, through shear number superiority.
Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
#110 - 2015-10-25 14:00:06 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.

No, the new XL anti-subcap guns will be a second type of capital gun. The existing XL guns will still be around, but will be focused on anti-cap/structure damage application only.

Can you tell me What DPS have you new super anti-subcap weapon without siege? 240dps?
3x3 large cannons really?
MtyRoyal
Laryngospasm
#111 - 2015-10-25 14:00:08 UTC
"The incredibly talented and endlessly creative players of EVE Online have taken combat refitting to its extremes. "

So I don't get your aim here. You appear to be punishing the ‘Talented’ and ‘Creative’ to enhance the mediocre. Isn’t refitting with a combat timer just part of mastering the gameplay? That fact that so many caps get killed already shows that players are already compensating for the refitting on their own. I’d say kill this change.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#112 - 2015-10-25 14:01:02 UTC
Monasucks wrote:

- Hic's will get obsolete
Values your where asking our feedback to:
- The remove of eware immunity, I didn't like it in the past but that’s too easy. You should need at least 10-20 Falcons to make a titan blind, you should need at least 50 to 100 points to tackle it or a bubble or a hic.


HIC won't be obsolete. The Devblog mentions that Supers will have high warp strength (exactly as your second point says) so that HICs will still have a critical job, it just won't be vital in the same way as before.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#113 - 2015-10-25 14:05:17 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.

No, the new XL anti-subcap guns will be a second type of capital gun. The existing XL guns will still be around, but will be focused on anti-cap/structure damage application only.


But thats exactly what You are saying - In WH You will no longer need capitals, except for citadel bashing. escalations will take 5-10 times as long as it is now, no one will use them for PVP (its cheaper to get 2 BS or 3-4 T3's to get the same damage with much better application)

I think DPS on dread using those new guns need to be rethinked
Abulurd Boniface
CORE BUSINESS
#114 - 2015-10-25 14:06:27 UTC
I'm seriously pleased with these new initiatives to give more creative weapons technologies to super capital ships.

I would want to see something that's designed to take out the small fry: frigates and cruisers.

It would be an omni-directional short-range weapon for ships that are circling the super capital ship such that they can't be tracked by its weapons.

It would be glass shards [abrasive nano-silicates], they serve to shred smaller ships.

This would not be the old-style DDD burst that blew everything off of the grid. This is only to fend off the small fry. It seems rational to have that kind of ordnance intended for use against targets the main batteries cannot track.

Obviously the module that fires these shards takes up a slot that is then not available for something else. As ever: no freebies in EVE.

I want these technologies to be available and deployable in many different ways. In war having the weapon is not always the deciding factor in the outcome of the fight, it's how the weapon is used. It would be great to have weapons systems that are functional as separate entities but that augment each other when used in combination.

These ideas are very creative. I like them a great deal. Keep doing more of that, but keep in mind that you don't have to balance the ordnance used by super capitals versus frigate / cruiser class ships. You build a bigger ship precisely so that it can do more damage.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#115 - 2015-10-25 14:06:41 UTC
Dreekus wrote:
As dred pilot,
I WANT to be optimistic but without numbers all I hear is "nerf tracking and nerf dps of normal guns, add some weak guns that do max 3x dps of BS, nerf EWAR immunity while in siege, still disallow remote assistance, nerf tank"

Sorry if that sounds like whine but without numbers is not very nice. It is nice that we will get T2 modules.

I just ask that CCP will keep in mind wormholers and how they use capitals

ATM dred needs more than 30sec to target BS. What if he get jammed? Are you going to remove scan resolution penalty from Siege?
In PvP it seems you expect ppl to use ship that is 10times more expensive than BS(in Wspace this is not big problem), have 3x dps of BS but weights like 10 BS (and THIS is problem).

When adding FAX machine pls remember also about mass. It should not be heavier then carrier if you hope that ppl will use it in wormholes during offensive.

In PVE
In dev blog you said you are going to lower EHP of dreds and their current guns dps to compensate. So Dred will do less dps and tank less, are you going to nerf Sleeples Guardian to compensate?

Just please keep in mind that if you nerf too much wh farming another region of space will just move to incursion as source of income. What I like now about Wspace now is that after you make some preparation you get high return. We do not have luxury of just logging in and warping to anomaly to earn some isk, everything takes time and everywhere is cloaked proteus.


Waiting for more detailed devblogs to come. I am somewhat optimistic.
It's not my place to give specifics but I just want to let you know that the application of capitals in wormholes is definitely being considered alongside these changes.

We appreciate your cautious optimism! The devil is in the details of course so please continue to provide feedback as we nail down the exact stats and mechanics Big smile

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#116 - 2015-10-25 14:08:56 UTC
I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying WH pvp won't include capitals yet. We're yet to see stats and actual application from the redone carriers and we don't know how the Force Auxiliary will compare to a triage carrier either.

I'd certainly not think about Escalations right now, CCP have been intending to change the mechanics around escalation waves for some time now. I fully expect it to be shaken up around the same time this all happens.
Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
#117 - 2015-10-25 14:11:19 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:

But thats exactly what You are saying - In WH You will no longer need capitals, except for citadel bashing. escalations will take 5-10 times as long as it is now, no one will use them for PVP (its cheaper to get 2 BS or 3-4 T3's to get the same damage with much better application)

I think DPS on dread using those new guns need to be rethinked

Farming escalation you earn 10kkk isk/hour for each member of fleet without any danger. now experts from hi- null- and low- sec
tell that you. o/
Beta Maoye
#118 - 2015-10-25 14:11:31 UTC
If you make cap more vulnerable, please shorten the time of manufacturing and reduce the material cost in cap blueprint. Cap has to be more replenishable if you want more reworked cap to be deployed in the field. Cap needs to be more affordable and faster production cycle is required to keep up with the pace of higher rate of casualty.
Memphis Baas
#119 - 2015-10-25 14:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
Cool ideas; looking forward to actual implementation.

A few comments:

- Subcapital drone ships are much more versatile than subcapital gunships, but the gunships do have the theoretical chance to neutralize the droneships via destroying the drones. In a carrier vs. dread fight, will the dread be able to kill the carrier fighters? The "high angle" guns don't seem suited for this purpose.

- Currently pilots are training triage / siege skills for their dreads / carriers. Hopefully you will refund capital skillpoints so we can either re-focus on the changed roles of carriers or switch to logistics.

- For the doomsday weapons, the Sickle and Pike sound like they will be too easy to dodge compared to the penalties suffered by the titan and his fleet for firing the weapon. I would like to suggest letting the pilot also choose beam width, at the expense of beam angular velocity (i.e. wide slow moving beam (cone) vs. narrow fast beam).

- Also for doomsday weapons, your examples show only small angle swing arcs. What happens if the pilot chooses a 180 or 360 degree beam swing? If you are limiting the weapon to small arcs, what happens if the pilot shoots it (across the directions of) straight up or straight down? EVE has issues with ship rotation through the straight up and straight down directions.

- Any changes to the cyno mechanic for moving these ships? Anything to reduce the need for so many cyno alts?

- Please build help/tutorial tabs on the new UI elements. Actually, do that for all UI elements. Push the "?" button, have an Aura-like overlay slide to the side explaining common usage and buttons. A lot of this information was lost with your opportunities system.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2015-10-25 14:13:40 UTC
Tiberizzle wrote:
Querns wrote:
Tiberizzle wrote:
Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. P

You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here.

Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules.

Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense.

e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little


Jockeying for the static hull / fitting advantage can easily devolve into a stalemate which produces no content with or without a time constraint. Quite often the contesting force doesn't want the objective, they want to force a feed. They won't contest the objective for the objective's sake but instead wait until the defenders commit and they can reship or refit a hard counter, or out of spite when the defenders stand down. The defenders can't contest the objective without feeding until the aggressors get tired of waiting to be fed. In pretty much all cases, the window of contestability leaves AMPLE room on the table for this stalemate to continue for hours (POS self-repair) or indefinitely (current fuzziesov node mechanics). This isn't what I'd consider meaningful strategic depth or an engaging interaction for anyone involved.

One guy, the FC, has to familiarize them self with the full range of the ship's capabilities to call for refits before committing to static fits.

In the case of combat refitting, everyone has to familiarize themselves with some useful range of the ship's capabilities to approximate an optimal fit for their ship within the constraints imposed by being shot at. It emphasizes individual pilot skill and defuses the static fitting advantage stalemate. In some cases you can even refit to minimize a reshipped hull advantage.


I've got little sympathy for people who try to bait fights out by contesting a sov/pos objective with no intention of actually completing the contest. If there's a strategic advantage available for the defenders, who have much more at stake than the attackers, gained by abusing the intentions of the attackers, then the defenders have every right to seize it. Demoralizing the enemy and discouraging them from fighting at all is a perfectly valid strategy!

I'd agree more with the "skill" angle if refitting had some sort of cost that limited the amount of times it could be done or the efficacy of doing it. (I'm not going to bother spitballing potential "costs.")

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