These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#221 - 2015-10-25 18:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelira Cirim
CCP Phantom wrote:
The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective...

Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention? ShockedLol

I guess it works.

Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.

So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow. Blink

Force Aux = FAUX

Force Aux Pilot = FAP

Do not actively tank my patience.

Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#222 - 2015-10-25 18:00:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
loquacious7 wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.

This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.

new carrier fighters don't need target locks

read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers

You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting.

He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.


Actually the blog doesn't comment either way about if squadrons auto engage an area or require you to manually engage them. They only comment about them being able to be moved using the new interface. Thus my concern.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#223 - 2015-10-25 18:01:02 UTC
Jack Hayson wrote:
Querns wrote:
Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table.

Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site.

They appear in nearly all C6 sites.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#224 - 2015-10-25 18:03:08 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Jack Hayson wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out.


Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from?
I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that?

Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once.

A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts.

When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life.

Well, obviously, we know that now. CCP may have thought differently in 2009.

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

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#225 - 2015-10-25 18:05:18 UTC
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.

This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.

So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.

While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game.


capitals were never meant to be able to do pve


And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it.

At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment?

Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.


it's a battleship with a teleporter. how can you not move them? I really expected to see ccp getting rid of 10s warps and cloaking on capitals in these changes, but you guys got off easy, but somehow you're still complaining.
Baki Yuku
Doomheim
#226 - 2015-10-25 18:06:53 UTC
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.

This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.

So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.

While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game.


capitals were never meant to be able to do pve


And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it.

At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment?

Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.


Carriers no longer able to use drones is a income nerf for nullsec from 90-100m/h down to 45mil/h what that represents is the downgrade from carrier to ishtar/VNI. Not sure about you but thats a pretty steap income nerf when you concider that nullsec income is already subpar. And it certainly won't help roaming killing ratting ishtars and VNI's gets old after 10 or so. A carrier in an anomaly at least presents the chance of getting a fight out of it. Pretty sure people will now say but you can use Mauraders or faction battleships instead sure you can but you're still making less isk/h then a carrier for almost the same cost of a carrier. With not even a fraction of the chance of surivial if you get yourself tackled so ya they wont see increased usage.
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad
United Federation of Conifers
#227 - 2015-10-25 18:07:10 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.


Have you considered how bad these numbers are in terms of DPS? You're saying that with specially designed sub-capital guns a dreadnought will do less DPS in siege than a vindicator. What's the point of them?
Judas Lonestar
Stryker Industries
Stryker Group
#228 - 2015-10-25 18:09:25 UTC
Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.

I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap.
Junot Nevone
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#229 - 2015-10-25 18:09:25 UTC
What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2015-10-25 18:10:20 UTC
Lelira Cirim wrote:

Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.


I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post.

"Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do.

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

Oskolda Eriker
WH0RE SQUAD
#231 - 2015-10-25 18:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Oskolda Eriker
Judas Lonestar wrote:
Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.

I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap.

they cannot do lower dps without siege! then 3 cannons from one bs
noone turret break that rule.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2015-10-25 18:15:23 UTC
I like the ability for sub capitals and capitals to do more things to each other, but I do not like capitals being able to fit smart bombs. The only reason they do is to GTFO instead of a means to stay and engage the enemy. Capitals should still desire to have sub capitals with them as support.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2015-10-25 18:17:16 UTC
Querns wrote:
Lelira Cirim wrote:

Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.


I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post.

"Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do.

I'm always looking up the origins of words and sayings. Unnecessary etymology? I don't think so. Please, carry on. Smile
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2015-10-25 18:18:24 UTC
Junot Nevone wrote:
What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming.

To acquire the new capital components, you reprocess Rorquals. Twisted
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#235 - 2015-10-25 18:18:48 UTC
yeah what's the point in range and tank, these things are useless. let's all fly void blasters, 6k range is super practical for a fleet battle.
Drammie Askold
Hideaway Hunters
#236 - 2015-10-25 18:19:05 UTC
Although as I've yet to fly a capital I can't make any specific comments, this all sounds very interesting Smile

As the blessed St. Reptilicus said "Some days you can't get a drink on the cuff anyplace."

Jack Hayson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2015-10-25 18:26:14 UTC
Querns wrote:
They appear in nearly all C6 sites.

Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space.
Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then?
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#238 - 2015-10-25 18:27:21 UTC
Lelira Cirim wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective...

Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention? ShockedLol

I guess it works.

Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.

So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow. Blink

Force Aux = FAUX

Force Aux Pilot = FAP

:) +1 internets for this
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#239 - 2015-10-25 18:29:41 UTC
Jack Hayson wrote:
Querns wrote:
They appear in nearly all C6 sites.

Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space.
Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then?

They weren't meant to be run with capitals in them, no. Or, it was meant to be discouraged. I wasn't even playing Eve in 2009, so I can speculate at best.

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

Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ
Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
#240 - 2015-10-25 18:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Coulson
Im not a Cap pilot yet, but of many things mentioned ..I have only one or two suggestion for CCP.

The hot swapping of mods in repping carriers during combat (or anyone with a combat timer) Please reconsider that one,

1. What of the guys who carry multiple fits while traveling? if they get ambushed they are stuck with a travel fit and unable to refit to a PvP fit (IE;, using a mobile depot or friendly fleet hanger). Otherwise u have to sit and tank damage (so not to get that combat timer) until u can swap mods. and That ain't gonna happen.

2. I agree that swapping is very frustrating but its a mechanic and people learned to use it. On the other hand - I agree that it is too huge of a force multiplier... so why not just make hot swapping SLOWER? Especially if the mods are overheated (it takes time to do it in real life so why not make it so u get one quick swap (see above why that's important) after that it takes longer and longer to actually swap and online the new modules? This solves your bigger Niche issue while allowing others to still use it.

But the blog started off with this:

"Remote-Repairing Carrier & Super-Carrier fleets will be a thing of the past. The N+1 nature of these tactics encourages enormous blobs and currently the best counter is to bring an even bigger group of your own capitals. The more carriers and super-carriers you bring, the more your entire fleet can tank. Under the Citadel expansion’s capital changes, the bar to killing capitals is limited to what a single Force Auxiliary in Triage can tank. If you can kill that, eventually you can kill the entire capital fleet..."

Isn't that the same logic for bringing more carriers that is used now?, just bring N+1 Force Auxiliary's? or did i miss that u can only have one in a fleet. I know i seems like an insurmountable problem, but N+1 always wins.. truly wished there was a way to fix that.