These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#481 - 2015-10-28 15:34:08 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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?


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

The blog only states that capital reps will be effective on fax machines (as in unbonused on carriers)- however, the current slowcats Archon and Chimera only get RR and cap transfer range bonuses, not RR amount bonuses. Will there be more changes to capital RR modules that would actually nerf slowcats?
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#482 - 2015-10-28 15:39:26 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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?


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


The blog only states that capital reps will be effective on fax machines (as in unbonused on carriers)- however, the current slowcats Archon and Chimera only get RR and cap transfer range bonuses, not RR amount bonuses. Will there be more changes to capital RR modules that would actually nerf slowcats?
[/quote]

you cant use remote reps without triage
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two
#483 - 2015-10-28 15:53:08 UTC
Could we get a Capital ship that looks like a magic carpet?

Only so that CCP Lebowski could spam local on with "Who peed on my rug?"
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#484 - 2015-10-28 15:57:34 UTC
MrQuisno wrote:
no one asked the hard question whats going go happen to "CURRENT" doomsdays removed or remain ?


Current Doomsdays will remain, but their damage is going to change.

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#485 - 2015-10-28 15:59:00 UTC
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
So, in all a lot of nice and shiney new features and functions! Did CCP mention the rough time-schedule for launching these capital-changes? Will it be an expansion or several smaller updates?



The ETA is the Citadels Expansion.

http://updates.eveonline.com/coming/spring/

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#486 - 2015-10-28 16:02:22 UTC
nospet wrote:
One big issue I am concerned about is:

With new scramble strengths and Capital Warp Disruptors & Scramblers where does this leave heavy interdictors?

Heavy interdictors were newly re-balanced and this seems like it is going to take them out of use almost entirely.



We've talked about Super-Carriers and Titans having 20 to 50 Warp Strength.
Capital Warp Disruptors and Scramblers would have simmilar warp disruption and scramble strength to the existing officer modules (-2 for warp disruptors and -3 for scramblers). We're not locked to these numbers, so tell us what you think!

HIC's with their focus point will be able to solo tackle a titan.

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#487 - 2015-10-28 16:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Larrikin
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.


Awesome post. CCP Antiquarian would be so proud!

The internal name for quite a while was 'Tenders', i.e. -

All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships.

However...Chicken Tenders...

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#488 - 2015-10-28 16:08:10 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Are freighters, jump freighters and Bowheads included in the "give them all FH/SMB, ewar changes" thing, especially the web resistance?


At this stage, no.

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

CCP Antiquarian
C C P
C C P Alliance
#489 - 2015-10-28 16:11:59 UTC


CCP Larrikin wrote:
Querns wrote:

...donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post...


...CCP Antiquarian would be so proud!...


I am!

I am so proud!

Let's all wear etymology hats! (I'm a 7 5/8s in standard comparative linguistics!)

"Singularity pilots are helpful pilots."

@CCP_Antiquarian - for immediate fulfillment of your archaic social media needs.

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#490 - 2015-10-28 16:12:32 UTC
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
Don't forget the Larrikin asking Grath if he's poor!


Awh, I love Grath. He's a bro.

His question is something that the the CSM, and Manny inparticular, have brought up. We're looking at it, but at this stage don't intend on making any changes to the cost of construction for capitals.
If we did, we wouldn't announce them at a round table where some players could get a financial advantage.

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#491 - 2015-10-28 16:23:11 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
1. Since the fighters are now in a squadron, and damage bars were replaced by remaining fighter indicators, will the effectiveness of the squadron diminish with the number of fighters lost (i.e. DPS drop and other effect strength/likelihood diminish)?

Yes :)

Harry Saq wrote:
2. Can you add tactical overlay UI circles to the vertical plane similar to the ones on the horizontal plane to aid in not getting Kirk'ed because our only frame of reference is in line with Khan's thinking?

[quote=Harry Saq]3. Can we get color fill and line brightness controls to help us customize the tactical overlay so it is not always so bright?

4. Can we customize the placement of the distance indicator circles according to preferences such as setting our own intervals (say every 5km instead of 10km) and have "always on" settings for weapons range spheres of our liking (like a UI checkbox or something)?

5. When we detach and move the camera from our ships, can we have the tactical UI center on our squadrons/drones, or centered on the camera, or any spot of our choosing? Would it be ridiculous to have that tactical overlay added instead of replacing our current (or maybe even a different color so we know that is not our ship's tactical UI but our floating one)?

These are all good ideas, I'll pass it on to Team Psycho Sisters!

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#492 - 2015-10-28 16:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
How are fighter resists/shield/armor/hull going to work? Are you reviewing these? Going to just a straight up HP pool of omni resist?

The fighter blob with members dying doesn't lend itself to the triple layered HP style we currently have.

Also what happens if they are bombed does the unit take Y damage, or members*Y damage ?

What about ewar? All jammed out, or a partial DPS loss or something in the middle? Ditto webbing them.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#493 - 2015-10-28 16:42:50 UTC
How will AOE damage like bombs or smartbombs work on fighter squadrons? Will all fighters be damaged or just one?
Alexis Nightwish
#494 - 2015-10-28 16:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
I'm super stoked about the capital changes because they're mostly in line with what I wanted capitals to be!

One thing I will say though is that Siege, Triage, and Bastion must NOT generate a weapons timer on their own. There is no compelling argument for why simply being in a different mode should prevent refitting. If you wish to prevent ships from docking or jumping through a gate (which was the original reason for a weapons timer), use another mechanic. For example, infini-pointed capitals cannot use stargates. Utilize something along those lines.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#495 - 2015-10-28 16:46:15 UTC
It could trigger a weapons timer when the module deactivates. That's an acceptable workaround (to me).
Alexander McKeon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#496 - 2015-10-28 17:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander McKeon
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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 :)
I'm looking at a low sec Guardian fit right now that has over 300k omni EHP with HG slaves. It costs ~1.4b on top of the implants (no purple, lots of blue), but you know better than to under-estimate how much people will spend on ships to get a pvp edge. Unlike the fleet auxiliary, it can also receive remote ECCM / r-sebos which can largely negate hostile e-war, and that triage carrier is probably easier to alpha than a 300k EHP Guardian with a frigate-sized signature.

Along those lines, could we please have a serious look at the interaction of various implant sets and capitals? If Slaves end up affecting armour Auxiliaries and there is no comparable set of shield, that has a significant potential to skew the meta. The same goes if Crystals were suddenly able to affect shield ships. Balancing EHP with the assumption of slaves might make the nullsec meta shield heavy, and balancing without thinking about them will make the lowsec meta very armour heavy since every cap pilot living there likes 'em.

Oh, and here's a few other questions for good measure:


  1. CCP is removing the swiss-army knife nature of supercarriers and appears to be grooming them for more of a 'flagship' role with powerful abilities, while removing incentive to field them by the dozen. Given this, there are a great many supercarrier pilots who might wish to fly other ship while retaining the ability to put their super into combat at need. In light of how dependent supercarriers often are on high-value implant sets, could we please get a more elegant clone-swapping solution (perhaps only to other clones in the same citadel) so that I can fly Triage in a clone with 3% implants, then swap over that evening to my super clone to support a major offensive?
  2. Has CCP examined elementary probability theory in connection to ECM and the loss of e-war immunity for siege / triage? It's very easy to get a large number of rolls against a triage carrier with a dozen cruisers fielding ECM drones, and you only need one success. They spoke about giving very high e-war resistance, but I feel that warp disruption and ECM/TDs/Damps should be examined separately rather than lumped together.
  3. Given how complex the new carrier fighter interface appears to be, my conclusion is that flying one carrier and nothing else could offer fun gameplay which rewards player skill... but that multiboxing them in PvP could be prohibitively difficult. The problem I see with this is not one of one player no longer being able to fly a fleet of carriers, but rather of how difficult it might be to fly a carrier and subcap alt; given an inability to multibox and how caps are often kept in reserve but not committed, I see many chances for blue-balled capital pilots who would of previously been able to participate on a subcap alt but can no longer do so because they must commit to their carrier.
  4. More of an open-ended question to CCP; what about the current state of Dreadnoughts as employed against subcaps do you find problematic, and why does it seem necessary to prevent well-supported capitals from applying damage to subcaps? While a useful tool, blap dreads do not appear to be significantly harming the current pvp metagame. This sort of coordination between capitals and subcaps creates interesting gameplay and has significant implications for fights in WH space.
  5. With a decrease in EHP, there could be far fewer 'supers tackled, form up to save them' operations, which can often spark larger fights (such as Asakai) because the capitals might well be dead before help could possibly arrive. Are viable active tank options for supercapitals being considered at all?
  6. When coming up with new numbers for capitals, will they be balanced against the current state of capitals, current state of subcaps, or both? This question is aimed primarily at the degree to which subcapital DPS has crept upward in the last several years, while capital dps hasn't to the same extent. Where does CCP see the appropriate ratio between capitals and subcaps with regard to EHP, DPS and cost lying? I know Grath already touched on the cost point, but the question of balance between 100b worth of capitals and 10b worth of subcapitals is one that should be considered, or capitals won't be worth the potential loss.
  7. Have the implications of high-alpha weapon setups (Citadel Torps, 3500mm Howitzers) been considered with regards to the new fleet auxiliary ships? If the anti-capital DPS of capital weapons is reduced far below current values to compensate for reduced EHP, then the utility of capitals as weapons against other capitals becomes questionable. Likewise, if damage numbers are not significantly reduced but EHP numbers are, the elimination of supers as logistics platforms functionally immune to non-DD based alpha makes this a very significant consideration. If X arty nags can reliably break Fleet Auxiliaries, then capital fights might well turn into rather uninteresting (and expensive) attrition matches where the skill or tactics of the players becomes less relevant.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#497 - 2015-10-28 17:11:07 UTC
Are you going to give titans a reason to use their guns? You commonly quote titans as having a role of a supercapital version of a dreadnought, but currently the guns are incredibly underwhelming. Against subcaps you might as well be shooting wet paper towels unless it's a battleship MWDing at zero speed, and against caps the effective range just isn't enough to do any significant amount of damage compared to the doomsday.

In the future with new doomsdays as well as capital tackle mods and neuts, I struggle even more to find reason to dedicate 6H/2-3M/3+L slots to use guns that do, in a best case scenario, barely more damage than a dreadnought. I'd really rather you just remove the guns altogether and focus the role of titans to their doomsday, ganglink, and bridging capabilities. This would give space for a supercarrier-priced superdreadnought that I feel could really make use of the guns.
Luke Lamarr
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#498 - 2015-10-28 17:17:24 UTC
I am assuming you have a way to prevent titans from using the DD to teleport ships that are inside a POS shield?

Twisted
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#499 - 2015-10-28 18:38:43 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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.


Awesome post. CCP Antiquarian would be so proud!

The internal name for quite a while was 'Tenders', i.e. -

All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships.

However...Chicken Tenders...

Yeah, when I think of "tenders" I think of the train car that holds its fuel (coal, oil) and the water that fuel turns into steam to drive the engine. It is technically the lifeblood OF the train, but it's still a bit of a stretch. "Auxiliary" specifically evokes a "mental flavor" of a thing that tends to damaged things.

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

Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#500 - 2015-10-28 18:46:45 UTC
Luke Lamarr wrote:
I am assuming you have a way to prevent titans from using the DD to teleport ships that are inside a POS shield?

Twisted


That is quite simple - there are no POS shields without POSes P