These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
lisa 8
hirr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#461 - 2015-10-28 06:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: lisa 8
Pestilen Ratte wrote:
I have a radical idea.

How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use?

You know, so that people keep playing the game, and subscribe to it?

Just an idea.


So much I could say, but lets be polite.

Capitals as a class have not had any rebalance or attention in years, they need it pure and simple because they have reached the point where they are fundamentally flawed given all the changes in and to the game that have taken place.
People that have spent their time in training into them & spent their isk on buying and fitting them, no less deserve to have that aspect of the game looked at by CCP, than do the people that have only the desire to fly sub caps.
You do realise that the "smaller ships" as you put it, have been looked at and continue to be looked at, with far more frequency and changes implemented to them, than any other class of ships.
Please,
Stop, Think & put your brain in to gear, before saying something which only makes you look silly.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#462 - 2015-10-28 09:02:48 UTC
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#463 - 2015-10-28 09:05:48 UTC
Maksmad wrote:
Do we have more info on new skill for capital guns/modules?

If there will be capital T2 guns, it should be communicated because we will probably need capital guns @5 which not many people have. And those are lv 7 skills.

Also for citadels usage/production/management we should know in advance what new skills requirements will be.


Considering the effort in recent years to standardise the skill tree as much as possible, it's pretty safe to assume the pre-reqs for T2 capital weapons will be very similar to their smaller counterparts; requiring the preceeding T1 weapon skill to level 5 plus some decent supporting skill like Motion Prediction / Sharpshooter.

It's a pretty safe bet to start on Capital Weapon V, plus any supporting skills currently used for Large T2 weapons. That will get you the majority, if not all, of the pre-reqs.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#464 - 2015-10-28 09:21:24 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?


I couldn't agree more. Capital tackle modules is treading too much on the toes of subcap roles imo. If you're able to hold down a hostile Titan with 3-4 carriers, you don't need to be deploying fragile dictors or HICs on the field. Those pilots would then naturally want to be in the best supporting role for those carriers, which typically means dreads or force aux. The end result is a fleet consisting disproportionately of capital ships.

With the loss of ewar protection, I think the best scenario is to leave capital tackling with the existing modules they use. Typically that means faction / officer versions, some of which already have decent scramble strength which is a somewhat niche attribute at the minute anyway.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#465 - 2015-10-28 11:58:23 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships?


Well fairly obviously because it is not just cost, is it P


I think everyone more or less agrees that dreads are pretty well balanced as a class (some specific ships are questionable but the class is solid) today, they get a lot for their trade offs and those trades are fair.

I want to say "people" but I'll go with "my" instead because I'm not sure everyone is in actually agreement (and I think you're right about the escalation tears)....my concern is that the reduced DPS in the new turrets coupled with the nerfs on top of existing trade offs feels like it's tipping the scales towards too many downsides. Dreads are getting, effectively, nothing but nerfs and blap fittings rejigged.

Thus to my mind the key questions are these:

>Will the new weapons of tomorrow be superior to existing blap fit dreads? I.e. will they apply >= dps compared to existing ones?
>Will dreads have enough tank to reasonably expect to survive a siege cycle coupled with an inability to refit (either for 60 seconds, or the full timer - TBC)?

Remember that today, blap dreads can go from literally 100% gank and quickly refit if primaried - they cannot do that in the future thus will have to either compromise gank, or risk someone hitting that glass cannon with a hammer.

Certainly, smaller alliances could potentially use them to shore up pilot shortfall, in theory but in practice, are these going to...pull their weight?

In short these might be fine, but the numbers being banded around do give me concerns that they are worth the trade offs when one considers the nerfs coming with it.

I don't think the sky is falling and my concerns are at as high a level as the detail, but right now stacking up what we know the numbers seem low. Yes, there are certainly unknowns and variables but it's still worth mulling over.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#466 - 2015-10-28 12:10:51 UTC
afkalt wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships?


Well fairly obviously because it is not just cost, is it P


I think everyone more or less agrees that dreads are pretty well balanced as a class (some specific ships are questionable but the class is solid) today, they get a lot for their trade offs and those trades are fair.

I want to say "people" but I'll go with "my" instead because I'm not sure everyone is in actually agreement (and I think you're right about the escalation tears)....my concern is that the reduced DPS in the new turrets coupled with the nerfs on top of existing trade offs feels like it's tipping the scales towards too many downsides. Dreads are getting, effectively, nothing but nerfs and blap fittings rejigged.

Thus to my mind the key questions are these:

>Will the new weapons of tomorrow be superior to existing blap fit dreads? I.e. will they apply >= dps compared to existing ones?
>Will dreads have enough tank to reasonably expect to survive a siege cycle coupled with an inability to refit (either for 60 seconds, or the full timer - TBC)?

Remember that today, blap dreads can go from literally 100% gank and quickly refit if primaried - they cannot do that in the future thus will have to either compromise gank, or risk someone hitting that glass cannon with a hammer.

Certainly, smaller alliances could potentially use them to shore up pilot shortfall, in theory but in practice, are these going to...pull their weight?

In short these might be fine, but the numbers being banded around do give me concerns that they are worth the trade offs when one considers the nerfs coming with it.

I don't think the sky is falling and my concerns are at as high a level as the detail, but right now stacking up what we know the numbers seem low. Yes, there are certainly unknowns and variables but it's still worth mulling over.


See, I can agree with you, because you pose reasonable questions. I too am curious to see how well and how far a new Dreadnought applies damage to subcapital ships, when compared to a blap Dread. Without CCP posting any real numbers, however, this is mostly just speculation.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#467 - 2015-10-28 12:25:58 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?


Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question.

Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling?

Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#468 - 2015-10-28 13:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
Will this balance pass include reviewing the existing barely-used capital modules? The obvious candidates here are:

Drone Control Units
Local reps
Clone Vat Bays*

*special bold highlighting for a module that has been pointless for a whole decade
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2015-10-28 13:18:03 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?


Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question.

Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling?

Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules?



It does devalue HICs quite badly.

However if they altered HICs to block not just capitals but subcapitals from using gates, you'd quite possibly never see me in another hull, ever again.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#470 - 2015-10-28 13:30:08 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?


Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question.

Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling?

Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules?

I think (as often happens) you missed the point.
Right now if PL (or any one of the few super groups) want to drop their blob on someones super, they need support ships to hold it down - Once this unbalanced mess comes into effect, they won't need the support ships. Their overwhelming strength in supers can freely operate without need for subcap support.

Of course the biggest group is always going to win - Which is the exact same reason this should never happen.

Giving the elitist groups elite tools is a big kick in the ass for everyone else.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#471 - 2015-10-28 13:35:23 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Once this unbalanced mess comes into effect, they won't need the support ships. Their overwhelming strength in supers can freely operate without need for subcap support.

Of course the biggest group is always going to win - Which is the exact same reason this should never happen.

Giving the elitist groups elite tools is a big kick in the ass for everyone else.



What happens when a 200 man NPSI bomber fleet cynos in? Those supers start to die, because they can be tackled by bombers too. Support for supers isn't going anywhere.


The change overall is good (ESPECIALLY if it cascades down to BS hulls), just HICs need a little love to compensate.
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#472 - 2015-10-28 13:56:05 UTC
Not sure if this has been addressed, but if new EWAR fighters are being introduced does this mean we will see the current EWAR drones relooked at? Because currently the only EWAR drone people use are ECM drones. Webbing drones don't do enough, target painting drones don't provide a decent sig bloom (the actual mod is better), and I don't think I have ever seen anyone use neuting drones.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#473 - 2015-10-28 14:14:31 UTC
afkalt wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Why should it?
To make sure the side that has more capships always win?


Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question.

Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling?

Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules?



It does devalue HICs quite badly.

However if they altered HICs to block not just capitals but subcapitals from using gates, you'd quite possibly never see me in another hull, ever again.


HIC's are the new HAC's - the rest of Eve just has not caught on to that fact quite yet. They are seriously awesome. They are my primary PVP ships these days.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#474 - 2015-10-28 14:19:54 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Why should supercapital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question.

Serious answer - because they are strategic assets.
In case you lose them, reimbursing takes a lot of time and efforts (isk-wise or whatever). Most probably, your current war campaign will be finished before they are fully replaced.
On the other hand, losing subcap fleet is merely a tactical defeat, and most probably all pilots will have new ships for the next timer. Or even reship during the fight!
This is a meaningful difference, I like the way it works, and I prefer it remains like that.

FT Diomedes wrote:
Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling?

Maybe they should.
But this must be a well-considered decision, made after a thorough discussion.
Not a gimmick like it is presented in the devblog.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#475 - 2015-10-28 14:50:59 UTC
Darirol wrote:
hand of god doomsday:

basicly you could warp some smartbomb battleships in a perfectly scattered blobb of enemy ships, use the doomsday and a few seconds later you have 50 or 100 enemy ship right on top of your smartbomb squad.
with like 10 smartbomb battleships you could basicly "pipe bomb" enemy fleets.


does it work that way? iam not sure how the warm up phase works and if it is possible to escape the doomsday. depending on this it could be kind of broken or just fine.


The titan pilot can't select where the ships teleported by the Hand-of-God (or is that Hand-Of-Bob?) Class Doomsday will go, thats random :)

So I'm not sure how the smart bombing battleships could take advantage of it?

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2015-10-28 14:53:56 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Darirol wrote:
hand of god doomsday:

basicly you could warp some smartbomb battleships in a perfectly scattered blobb of enemy ships, use the doomsday and a few seconds later you have 50 or 100 enemy ship right on top of your smartbomb squad.
with like 10 smartbomb battleships you could basicly "pipe bomb" enemy fleets.


does it work that way? iam not sure how the warm up phase works and if it is possible to escape the doomsday. depending on this it could be kind of broken or just fine.


The titan pilot can't select where the ships teleported by the Hand-of-God (or is that Hand-Of-Bob?) Class Doomsday will go, thats random :)

So I'm not sure how the smart bombing battleships could take advantage of it?



What happens to targets which cannot move if they are hit by this, by the way? Or targets which wouldn't be allowed to warp?

So I'm thinking specifically entosising ships and active cynos but also bastion (mostly for completeness).
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#477 - 2015-10-28 14:54:00 UTC
Izmaragd Dawnstar wrote:
I'm by no means a capital expert, but since I'm mostly flying logistics, the force auxiliary would probably be my next choice.
I'm okay with separating carriers and logistics ships, but restricting remote reps to triage only is a dangerous thing to do. If we consider the subcap version, it's basically if the guardians flying around would be unable to rep other guardians.

I understand that you're looking to reduce the effectiveness of "slowcats" and "wrecking balls", but this is probably a bit overboard.


I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms.

A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc.
An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar.

Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :)

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#478 - 2015-10-28 15:00:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Quote:
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...assuming you can stay alive and keep them tackled (smile)
So does this mean, only 1 Force Auxiliary can be active in a capital fleet at a time?
How many capitals is it expected 1 force auxiliary capital in triage can rep?
What is to stop the largest groups from having multiple Force Auxiliary ships on standby to jump in as each one dies?
Or more likely, stop them fielding multiple small fleets each with its own.

Or is the wording in the blog just very vague and meaningless?


I should have gone into more detail on the devblog.
Current Triage Carriers have a maximum they can tank. Somewhere in the 20-40k DPS range. If your facing a group of 100 triage carriers, assuming you have enough DPS to kill a single triage in a single cycle, you can eventualy kill the entire group of 100 triage carriers.
Current RR Carriers (also called Slowcats) don't have any maximum they can tank. Whatever Slowcat you primary will refit to maximum resists, while all his/her friends will repair that Slowcat. Every slowcat added to the fleet increases the total tankability of total fleet.

We fully expect that large groups will have multiple Force Auxiliary ships, in some cases 100's of them, but the fleet won't ever be completely unkillable.

Clear as mud? :)


Quote:
Force Auxiliary Capitals will also have Fleet hangars Ship hangars, and refitting abilities to all their fleet mates like any other capital.
Isn't this a little pointless if your adding no refitting during aggression timers?[/quote]

There are plenty of times you refit outside of combat. Also you can wait the 60 seconds (in combat) and refit then.

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Valterra Craven
#479 - 2015-10-28 15:02:42 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Izmaragd Dawnstar wrote:
I'm by no means a capital expert, but since I'm mostly flying logistics, the force auxiliary would probably be my next choice.
I'm okay with separating carriers and logistics ships, but restricting remote reps to triage only is a dangerous thing to do. If we consider the subcap version, it's basically if the guardians flying around would be unable to rep other guardians.

I understand that you're looking to reduce the effectiveness of "slowcats" and "wrecking balls", but this is probably a bit overboard.


I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms.

A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc.
An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar.

Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :)


Right, but forgive me if I wrong, but while the EHP is different, the Triage archon also loses all mobility for a period of time, and it also doesn't gain that ewar immunity unless its in triage.

You had the balance right before. If you want substandard reps and a gtfo card, then you use "regular mode" If you want improved reps and ewar immunity then you have to commit to the whole triage cycle and lose mobility. I don't see how this was out of balance?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#480 - 2015-10-28 15:12:30 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Izmaragd Dawnstar wrote:
I'm by no means a capital expert, but since I'm mostly flying logistics, the force auxiliary would probably be my next choice.
I'm okay with separating carriers and logistics ships, but restricting remote reps to triage only is a dangerous thing to do. If we consider the subcap version, it's basically if the guardians flying around would be unable to rep other guardians.

I understand that you're looking to reduce the effectiveness of "slowcats" and "wrecking balls", but this is probably a bit overboard.


I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms.

A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc.
An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar.

Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :)


Right, but forgive me if I wrong, but while the EHP is different, the Triage archon also loses all mobility for a period of time, and it also doesn't gain that ewar immunity unless its in triage.

You had the balance right before. If you want substandard reps and a gtfo card, then you use "regular mode" If you want improved reps and ewar immunity then you have to commit to the whole triage cycle and lose mobility. I don't see how this was out of balance?



You're missing his point. Triage was and IS balanced. What was broken, was captial reps OUT of triage, when you have enough.

So they're killing un-triaged capital reps.