These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#501 - 2015-10-28 19:03:47 UTC
Destoya wrote:
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.


I am inclined to suggest that all capital guns and missiles become one size - no more short or long range guns. Then give Dreadnoughts and Titans three modes:

1. shorter range (effective range from 0-50km), higher ROF, lower alpha, higher tracking, ineffective against subcapital ships
2. Longer range (effective range from 50-250km), lower ROF, higher alpha, ineffective against subcapital ships
3. HAW mode - effective against subcapital ships (i.e. As effective as the equivalent Large weapons before modules are applied), approximately 2400 DPS before modules and ammo

As with current Dreadnoughts, the new ships would still be largely ineffective unless they were in siege. Titans would still have an advantage, not only from the Doomsday devices, but also from the ability to apply their damage without going into siege.

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

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#502 - 2015-10-28 19:23:08 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 :)


Your still comparing apples to pears Larrikin.

Slowcat carriers (The triageless bane of eve apparently) could also be:
1) Alphad
2) Jammed / Damped
Just like all existing sub capital logistics. Its all a matter of numbers. Bemoaning EHP when the damage of sub caps / caps scale much more than EHP does, is a mute point.

Just force all sub capital logistics (including your new shiny t2 logi frigates) to go into triage to use remote repair modules. I anticipate the nerd rage will be the stuff of legend.

Why you persist in failing to see that triage can have its uses, but it must not be forced et mass at all.... is beyond me.

Go on. level the playing field and force sub caps to use triage to rep anything. Balance that nerf with the application of damage mitigation to all ships. Put the changes on Sisi for feedback and then come back here and tell me if you think its a good idea. I dare you.

Capitals must be allowed to repair out of triage (even if it isn't as effective as in triage and without e-war immunity). Then the game design will be on par with sub caps and no class meta will be superior to the other.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
Goonswarm Federation
#503 - 2015-10-28 19:30:29 UTC
Ann Davenport wrote:


Nid pilot here. What is surviving a fight like?


Ty for being a Thanatos meat shield. Which illustrates the point, currently Archons and Chimeras are hell to kill, so we blap Nids then Thans, and then pick then lower numbered of the 2 left. This means bringing a Nid or a Than is basically suicide on fleet battles. Which was one of the key points cap pilots had about needing capital balance, but instead we are just going to see a whole new ship class that is nearly useless.

Why do I say this FAX is basically useless, simple. If it is the only logi for a cap fleet, and can only receive self reps, then all you have to do is alpha the 10-30 off the grid and now each fleet is totally w/o logi support. Why do I say each fleet, because both fleets will be doing the same thing, alpha the guy in triage. Before you know it both fleets are w/o any reps and it is a bloodbath, or it would be, but instead we are going to see the fleet with the lowest number of FAX either not engaging or killing tackle and jumping.

You are doing nothing to make a cap fleet battle interesting, the new DDs are cool looking, but why fit those when each Titan can just DD a FAX and ensure victory. If cap logi doesn't work something similar to subcap logi, or have some way of being able to defend each other, then it's just a matter of N+1 DDs and Dreads to win. Yes carriers will be part of that math, but until we have a better feel for the numbers, I omit that area.

So are you planning to balance FAX to be what 400% stronger than a combat class cap tank, or are we going to see cap dmg fall 400%? I ask this because if a FAX is the ship cap fleets are to base their entire support and tanking on, then it better be huge compared to all the others.

I better get something for being completely gimped from all damage and the brunt of an entire capital fleets focus. Either give me a huge tank and self rep bonus, a 30 sec Triage cycle, reps based off the current model with Triage being a boost, rather than a must. Unless we see things like this, caps are going to be in a worse place.
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
Goonswarm Federation
#504 - 2015-10-28 19:40:08 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:


Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness.


When has this ever happened?

I can recall plenty of times when a handful of drama queens made wildly hyperbolic claims that some skill had been nerfed into uselessness, but I don't really recall it ever happening.


Scrap Metal Reprocessing
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
Goonswarm Federation
#505 - 2015-10-28 19:54:21 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps



1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range.


that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500.


Also note that dreads will likely not have that 1M hp after the changes and if they do it is cause of using extenders and plates, thus loosing other options.

the fact still remains, a stationary target, doing the DPS of 2 max DPS T1 BS, or 1 faction BS, is a bit weak. Yes a Vindi can hit 2.4k DPS, with a much weaker tank and shorter range. That Vindi also will have mobility and the option to fight at it's optimal, where the dread is stuck where it is.

So for 3B I get to be locked down with better tank and for 400M (2x BS) I get to dictate range and leave if it goes bad. Doesn't sound like a solid argument for nearly equal DPS. Especially when we know that the "better HP" of the dread is going to be much lower than it is now.

Tiberizzle
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#506 - 2015-10-28 20:13:04 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

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? :)


Dreadnaughts don't have any maximum damage they can deal. Whatever primaries you call will be shot by all your friends in Dreadnaughts. Every dreadnaught added to the fleet increases the total damage of the total fleet.

I fully expect nobody with a head that's not full of **** masquerading as brains will ever drop 100 triage or the carrier/super/titan fleet to justify such large triage numbers because when capital DPS scales and capital tanks do not it takes only a pathetic few minutes of simulation time for a dread fleet to clear the field of all triage and start working on the vastly more expensive supers and titans.
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
Goonswarm Federation
#507 - 2015-10-28 20:18:39 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.


While I agree, HIC points should kill jumping through gates, I don't think that HICs are being as devalued as it seems. I can get a HIC moved 10LY with relative ease in some constellations that a cap just can't compete with. Look at Delve to Fountain, the caps have to basically take the exact same gates for the most part, others also exist. This means HICs have value as a first or second responder for tackle, they also can reach out at better ranges. You will have to slowboat ~10 caps to hold down the Titan that was trying to sneak out of range, or the HIC can rush in and grab him well before others. HICs will also still be able to lock down entire blobs in a single bubble, which far out weighs any focused points.

Trying to say that HICs/DICs are going to be devalued is completely false, all the cap points are going to do is make the HIC/DIC pilots jobs a bit easier.
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
Goonswarm Federation
#508 - 2015-10-28 20:36:27 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? :)



Does CCP actually do the math on this, or do you just toss out guesses and assumptions? I say this becausewe have done the math, and quite simply you are wrong. There is an upper limit, where no matter what reps you are receiving will aid you. The Imperium was at war with N3, "kings of the slowcats", which they used with impunity. Thus we had to do the math and find the counter, which we did, and guess what it is nowhere near as high a number as everyone likes to say. Now because we are the "Evil Blobbers" we built in a large redundancy number to make up for bad alpha dmg and server ticks, and even then we could alpha 2 slowcats per volley.

So please before you repeat bad math, and even worse logic, do remember that no amt of reps will save you if you take more dmg in a volley than your hull can allow. This is how it works with subcaps and with caps alike, thus why FCs always take a few shots at the opponents line ships before deciding if they need to kill the logi or just alpha the DPS ships.
Valterra Craven
#509 - 2015-10-28 20:48:00 UTC
Asuka Solo 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 :)


Your still comparing apples to pears Larrikin.

Slowcat carriers (The triageless bane of eve apparently) could also be:
1) Alphad
2) Jammed / Damped
Just like all existing sub capital logistics. Its all a matter of numbers. Bemoaning EHP when the damage of sub caps / caps scale much more than EHP does, is a mute point.

Just force all sub capital logistics (including your new shiny t2 logi frigates) to go into triage to use remote repair modules. I anticipate the nerd rage will be the stuff of legend.

Why you persist in failing to see that triage can have its uses, but it must not be forced et mass at all.... is beyond me.

Go on. level the playing field and force sub caps to use triage to rep anything. Balance that nerf with the application of damage mitigation to all ships. Put the changes on Sisi for feedback and then come back here and tell me if you think its a good idea. I dare you.

Capitals must be allowed to repair out of triage (even if it isn't as effective as in triage and without e-war immunity). Then the game design will be on par with sub caps and no class meta will be superior to the other.


Not only this, but if the goal is to alter their imbalance, why are you taking such a heavy hammer to the mechanic when you guys have been dancing around balance changes like the ishtar? Here's a good first step instead. Nerf slowcat reps to max guardain reps. Doesn't kill the mechanic completely but should negate some of the slowcat bit you are trying to curb.
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
#510 - 2015-10-28 21:28:47 UTC
Problem:
Slowcats are bad, must of New Eden would agree.

Solution:
Split carriers into a combat and aux platforms.

That seems like a fair solution.

So why the desire to go even farther and nerf this even more with limiting remote reps to triage only? Do dreads only do DPS in siege? Oh wait, they do dmg but just a lower amount of it.

There needs to be balance in both damage output and reps. Currently RR is much better than dmg because damage suffers from falloff and tracking. This is being addressed, and that is good.

What you are proposing those is moving from the balance you are about it instate with RR falloff, and then push that to where RR becomes not only less effective, but downright useless.

Please explain why I would bring a fleet of:

100 carriers, 100 dreads and 50 FAX

Knowing the FAX are nothing but meat shields, have basically zero DPS application and will take (guessing here until we know real numbers) all the incoming fire with next to no way to defend against it (local reps only are a joke).

or

250 dreads

Whelp the enemy FAX faster and then rip through the enemy fleet. Dreads do to siege have to self rep as it is so lets make the meat shield be a DPS based one rather than one that serves no point. Leave 10 FAX in a safe of in station and have them play the old repairing games of before.

FAX are going to relegated to either useless or off grid repair stations you warp to for a quick fix. Carriers are going to end up being FAX guards, for fast clearing of tackle and as aux support for the dreads doing all the fun work.

So basically, you are taking the lost dog that dreads have become and making them the entire focus of cap fleets, adding in a small bit of use for supers, and giving Titans a bit of variation. All the while making carriers less valuable to both fleet action and general purpose areas. Then to top it off adding a new capital that has basically zero usefulness in a combat arena, other than to die.

This is beyond poor planning, this has the looks of complete contempt. Either that or your teams started tossing out these ideas and they all sounded great, with no one taking the time to look at all the changes, but proposed and in testing.

Making RR be completely centered on Triage, having no ability to get remote assistance, be subject to EWar, have a smaller EHP then current, and be locked into place, unable to refit for 5 minutes. Do the math, this is a zero sum equation, there is absolutely zero chance for a pilot to survive, even small level engagements. Engagements that should rely upon skill and pilot ability are still going to be death for FAX pilots.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#511 - 2015-10-29 01:09:13 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


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.


Well, you can get an Archon with 2 x T2 Aux nano Pumps repping over 46,000 DPS in Triage. Which is basically two Moros. We have done some PYFAggotry based around ANP Archon / 2 blap phoenix / Vindi / Hyena gangs for wormhole small gang work based on the extreme application blap of cruise Phoenix, and the need solely for a stronk Triage carrier supporting one actually effective webbing boat (which is all you need) with a cloud of hyenas for TP sig bloating.

But if you're talking nullsec, the FAX will want to have some pretty diabolically huge active tanks. As the guy said immediately above, alpha is a thing in cap fights when the cap fights get that large. Assuming, of course, that dreads are used.

The logic holds true - why bring a FAX which cannot do any DPS and cannot active tank more than a Dread in siege, when you could just bring another Dread or carrier?

C5 wormhole cap brawls are a better model for this than nullsec slowcat blobs (assuming your objective of nerfing slows works). No real fights happen in nullsec where large numbers of dreads and triage carriers get dropped onto field against other dread and triage carriers (because of slows). In wormholes, when the batphnes start ringing and evictions happen, you do get 5 a side, 10 a side or even up to 20 a side cap fights using triage carriers and dreads.

The key thing is that triage carriers are needed to assist subs, to keep vindis, webbers and tackle alive so the dreads can blap enemy subcaps. The triage carriers are vulnerable to enemy dreads, as their local tanks are easily overwhelmed. Dreads are vulnerable to dreads, and if your own subs and carriers are eliminated, eventually other subcaps. So it's a game of rock-paper-scissors versus rock-paper-scissors. if both sides hold all three, the key is choosing what to focus on to eliminate.

So, you are basically going to be moving nullsec cap combat to this type of model, except you are basically moving carriers out to a new role of long-range DPS (or, realistically, short range DPS and capital neuts; basically gigantic Arbitrators), and replacing triage carriers with FAX.

So, in future, your RPS vs RPS fights will boil down to FAX supporting subs, carriers and dreads being DPS, and subs + carriers being tackle. Also, i guess, worth noting the blap dread will basically cease to exist, which means subs become stronger and dreads more important.

You will need your Dreads to break the FAX not to assist in breaking other capitals necessarily, but to break the subcaps.
Your carriers can break some dreads with neuts (Moros, Rev), and FAX with neuts, and do anti-subcap work.
FAX support carriers and subs, if the enemy FC decides to try winning by clearing EWAR and subcaps.
Subs will be there to try clearing enemy subs (anti EWAR/tackle), but without blap dreads existing, their real task is probably going to devolve to breaking FAX.

Who'd want to be a FAX?

Truly, the RPS dymanic of Blap Dread/Triage/Subcaps is good and interesting. Merely introducing a FAX isn't a problem; the problem comes from removing blap dreads and replacing them with HAW-armed tissue paper dreads incapable of blapping through FAX reps.

That's the future: crack the FAX or never crack subs.
Servanda
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
#512 - 2015-10-29 02:52:51 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
How will AOE damage like bombs or smartbombs work on fighter squadrons? Will all fighters be damaged or just one?



As the fightersquad are a sungle entity on the server they most likely share a common HP pool which is represented by remaining fighters. So for X damge to the squad a fighter dies. This would mean you only can damage the squad as a whole and not a single fighter in it.
peaSTAR
Doomheim
#513 - 2015-10-29 06:02:23 UTC
coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#514 - 2015-10-29 06:32:01 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...
Sorry Querns, they are not Auxiliaries per the designated role given them by CCP. They will be a front line vessel (in naval parlance)

Auxiliary is not at all an accurate name; Auxiliary, generally not on the front lines but back behind the lines doing their work in relative safety.
What CCP are planning is something that is going to be "the front line", the primary focus of all incoming DPS, with no outside assistance available.
Not that it is too much of a problem what it is called really, the only groups who could field enough of these to make them viable are risk averse blobs too scared to fight anyone who may pose a risk. (no amount of balancing or new modules can fix cowardice)

CCP again doing their best to cater for blobs, even knowing, those blobs won't fight each other but use the new toys only to ensure their victory against small targets. It really is a shame Devs are so out of touch with the game, capital re-balancing had so much potential.

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.

lisa 8
hirr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#515 - 2015-10-29 06:59:49 UTC  |  Edited by: lisa 8
Alexander McKeon wrote:
[quote=CCP Larrikin]I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms.

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.

CCP Larakkin, Would definitely like answers to the above,
especially " 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." .
Why because after thinking about the overall changes;
Under the current situation, a number of caps can mittagate overwhelming opposing sub caps & level the playing field with strength vs numbers, voiding a subcap N+1 situation.
It just feels like this aspect is being lost now, because cost and possible loss of said caps due to ehp nerfs, will out weight any decision to field them. Why on earth would anyone spend time and isk on getting into Carriers ( because of the drone changes), Supers and Titans which cost so much, yet will be far more easy to kill? The time & cost is just not worth it, taking survivability into consideration, after the proposed changes, Without any cost reduction, to counter it, people will be far more risk adverse & have little desire to even get into caps.
Isn't it also true that the whole thinking, re the repair changes is based on weakening the N+1 factor towards slowcats, but on the other hand, isn't it true, that all these changes effectively do is transfer the N+1 equation to subcaps numbers? ie bring 2000 sub caps vs said capital fleet, kill the force faxs, then kill the caps = win. Whilst at the same time nerfing the ehp of all capitals making that idea so much more viable & caps as whole in a worse position, than they are right now.
Hardly any individual group can bring 2000 people, but 1 can, so isn't these changes effectively handing them, an I win solution, instead of creating a level playing field for everyone?
Miner Hottie
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#516 - 2015-10-29 07:27:38 UTC
CCP Larrikin, can you please consider removing the restrictions on charges in the cargo holds of ships stored in a carrier SMA? Currently you are not allowed to store modules in a ships cargo hold when that ship is in a carriers SMA. The historical logic for this restriction has disappeared. It would certainly be a simple and reasonable qualit

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Shinta Kobi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#517 - 2015-10-29 08:13:29 UTC
The only concern I have now is dreads having anti-subcap capability. It sounds good in theroy for some parts but all I can see in the future is an even further decline of roams, as well as larger fleets that used to me more mobile, due to most people will just sit and spin more in stations while waiting to fly their anti-subcap dreads into a local fight. All of the other capital changes seem interesting to say the least.

I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
vikari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#518 - 2015-10-29 08:21:56 UTC
Personally I feel the image over plays the actual difference in Titan and SC EHP numbers. I look at the Aeon, Wyvern, Avatar and Leviathan, and they actually do a leap frog of EHP in their standard full tank combat setups. Aeon (42m), Avatar (43.2m), Wyvern (44.2m), Leviathan (48.8m). [Max SP, proper implants, appropriate faction/deadspace items were used.] The graph you have suggests their is a significant boost to the Titan's EHP over that of the SC's EHP.

I would like CCP to take consideration of the DPS output of the titan over the dread. Currently the Titan lacks the DPS be a fair balance of cost/risk/performance over that of a Dread. If you feel the DDs are enough to over come that, then great. I however ask you do look at the balance of Titans to Dreads and consider adding more disparity between the two class's DPS numbers. The extreme cost, and even logical pain of using Titans over that of Dreads should weigh in on this. Even with Citadel's coming, Dreads will still have an option to dock in just about all structures with Titans be restricted to the XL.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#519 - 2015-10-29 08:23:30 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:

That's the future: crack the FAX or never crack subs.



I'll take a backhanded bhaal buff any day of the week Twisted
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#520 - 2015-10-29 09:31:38 UTC
Well, the biggest buff to the Bhaal is a debuff of blap dreads, to be honest. The FAX can't rep something that gets alpha'd off the field.

So, yeah, I think if blap dreads don't exist, or even if they do and get nerfed by TD swarms (i mean, come on guys, the Missile Disruptor thread is a wake-up call), or they get nerfed and suffer TD's-MD's on top of the nerf, then all this really amounts to as a whole is a buff to EWAR.

Think about it - your cap battles go from EWAR-immune triage Archons, to FAXs which can be jammed by EC-300's and Falcons, resulting in a severe nutpunch to triage reps. Meanwhile your EWAR-immune blap dread when it FINALLY locks the subs, is now suffering stacked 10%-ish (or 20%? 30%?) TD's-MD's, SD's, plus ECM from EC-300's and Falcons. Everything gets less EHP.

if it smells like a nerf, sounds like a nerf, walks like a nerf and talks like a nerf, it's a goddamn buff to subcaps vs caps.

Which might be fine, but the question is whether this is all balanced. I guess the sooner we see these new ships and stats and see people in mass tests on Singularity, the better. My gut feeling is that FAX - Carrier- Dread - Subs dynamics are a bit skew-whiff all things considered compared to the well-understood carrier - dread - subs three-way.