These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#521 - 2015-10-29 09:41:48 UTC
Remember from the Vegas presentation the modus operandi for the high angle weapons is high ROF. Which means low alpha, which should raise the bar required for alphaing subcaps and buff logis.

With regards to ewar, I suspect that (res) damps are going to be the way vs dreads unless siege changes and EC drones on the FAX.

Personally the thing I'm most interested to see is the Phoenix, because it'll be the hardest to balance. On that basis, I expect it will still be utterly useless because of the nature of missiles treading too fine a line.
Dadrom
Black Star Rebels
Cyno.Up
#522 - 2015-10-29 10:47:01 UTC
re there any plans for carriers to use sentry like sqadrons? or is it just going to be fighter boats?. in that case how owuld that be in comparision to drone boats like potato battleship or ishtar?. or would regural drone usage change also?


Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#523 - 2015-10-29 10:53:46 UTC
I'd also like to know, are there any plans to allow the test server's (singularity) copyships command to work with supers moving forward, now that supers will be able to dock with XL Citadels?

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#524 - 2015-10-29 11:55:49 UTC
The ewar immunity should remain when in siege/triage/bastion mode. Why? Because it is not overpowered in these modes. The ships are self-tackled. Ewar immunity on Supercarriers was bad because it meant they did not have to commit. Triage Carriers (FAX's) and Dreadnoughts do have to commit. I am all about hurting slowcats and Supercarriers, but I believe this change goes a bit too far.

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

Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#525 - 2015-10-29 13:33:22 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
With the Expansion EVE Online: Citadel this spring, we will see also a full revamp of Capital ships and warfare including Supercapitals!

The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective will have diminishing returns. Instead, the individual game play will become more interactive and meaningful.

Revamped fighter gameplay will introduce completely new aspects of warfare into New Eden. New capital modules, weapons, and superweapons add more options. Ewar immunity for supers will be gone, effective remote repair only possible in Triage, refitting in space with a weapons timer a thing of the past ... and we will get a set of new Capitals: Force Auxiliaries!

Check out the blog Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins! and please provide feedback, suggestions and your thoughts!


Please remember: These are not finished designs and may change!


so will we be able to fly capitals in highsec with this new update? it was mentioned in one of the blogs (not this one an older one)
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#526 - 2015-10-29 14:24:25 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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!

No, you tell us - what is wrong with the current tackle mechanics?
It works, it's fine, no one is complaining. Yet you take it and you break it.

Nerf slowcats? Good one.
Make flying Titans more entertaining? Go for it.
Split the swiss army knife in two parts? Sounds fair.

But why are you destroying the link between subcaps and capships? What would be the role of support fleet if I can tackle and energy-neutralize with capships?

Tackling mechanics must remain as it is.
Capital neuts only create problems.
Cap-boosters are a pure cancer. Capacitor management is a great gameplay... that will only available in PVE.
5GN MWD? Dafaq are you smoking? You dont see enough of kiting in subcap fights?
Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#527 - 2015-10-29 17:29:05 UTC
The idea of capital tackle mods having similar strengths to current officer ones sounds acceptable to me if Supers are going to have 20+. I was worried about it being a lot higher. That said I'm still undecided on this and hope the conversation continues around that.

FT Diomedes wrote:
The ewar immunity should remain when in siege/triage/bastion mode. Why? Because it is not overpowered in these modes. The ships are self-tackled. Ewar immunity on Supercarriers was bad because it meant they did not have to commit. Triage Carriers (FAX's) and Dreadnoughts do have to commit. I am all about hurting slowcats and Supercarriers, but I believe this change goes a bit too far.

I'd agree with this.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#528 - 2015-10-29 17:51:30 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
5GN MWD? Dafaq are you smoking? You dont see enough of kiting in subcap fights?


Totally looking forward to oversize BS MWDs.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#529 - 2015-10-29 18:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Tiberizzle wrote:
Querns wrote:
Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful.


I disagree very much.

Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes.

Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations.

What even is full tank???

Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it?

Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch?

Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time?

Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps?

Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile?

Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive?

If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap?

Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way?

tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill"




CCP Larrikin and Team Five-O,

I quote Tiberizzle, because I identify with his point, and I'd like to expand slightly to provide 'perspective' to the goals you outlined.

I've had the pleasure, and at times agony, of playing EVE since 2006. Since January 2015 I have been a dedicated CapSwarm Carrier pilot. As such I've been to war in Fountain and Delve, and have worked hard to learn how to pilot a Carrier effectively. My character itself has the ability to fly even larger capitals, however, I have remained in a standard Carrier, endeavoring to master its nuanced game play and constantly evolving knowledge requirements, which has been both enjoyable gameplay, but has also made it both intriguing and challenging to play. Simply trying to manage all that information and potential fast enough to be both combat effective and capable of withstanding being primaried is no easy task.

So I'm disappointed that such a massive eviscerating nerf to the Carrier is now the development goal, rather than 'contain' this 'swiss army knife' effect by capping the number of remote shield repairs that are actually effective (similar to capping drone assist), and the like, to accomplish the same result. But it seems instead there is a lack of nuance and practical understanding of how this ship fits into Capital ship combat, with you're choosing to turn the post-Battleship/post-subcapital ship (first) Apex endgame content ship into a unimaginative giant fat XL Dominx, minus the drones.

Put simply, managing this Swiss Army Knife is not easy, and the stereotype of it being so is highly exaggerated - both time and information overload are against you, all while being shot at. But it's one of the things I have come to love about being a Carrier pilot. Flying such a demanding ship, and survive fight after fight, requires discipline and dedication. It is wrong to conclude that because Carriers can invalidate a Sub-capital fleet, that this means that Carriers require a massive nerf and fundamental redesign.

Admittedly the announced 'goals' aren't bad at all in general, in fact here is much to be lauded with many new Capital features, but I am very disappointed about one in particular - the consequences to Carrier ownership and game play itself. (Fighter changes really look promising - I simply mean the ship itself).

But rather than try to analyze and generate points to argue against specifics, I'll instead share with Team Five-O how I plan on adapting to these changes myself, as a EVE veteran player.

By gutting traditional Carrier gameplay and 'sub-capitalizing' it into XL Domi's and XL Basilisks, while enhancing every other capital ship, I have absolutely no reason to stay in a Carrier any longer, and will be moving to a Super Carrier. Now that so much of what makes Carriers what they are, is being removed, can it still be the same 'apex' ship that stands distinctly among its Capital Ship peers? My answer thus far is no.

A Super Carrier that, as has been outlined, is better than a standard Carrier in every single way, with almost none of the drawback of the 'to-be-gutted' standard Carrier; as far as is apparent.

This perception will inevitably be shared by others in large Alliances (and Coalitions), and accelerate an even more contentious Arms Race so that the new Carrier meta will instead actually be Super Carriers.

So the question I hope your team can begin to wrestle with, is how deeply do you gut/nerf standard Carriers in order to meet your goals, without triggering a mass exodus from the ships themselves to the clearly superior Super Carrier.

Because without maintaining even a modicum of Remote Rep, Standard Drones, and Swiss Army knife ability that makes the Carrier special and dynamic, veteran pilots like myself from large organizations, will simply migrate to the superior ship: The Super Carrier; leaving the unskilled/under-skilled or under-resourced enemy (or allied even) pilots to languish in Carriers. And then still dominate the grid with our vastly superior damage output and ewar specialty Super Carriers.

It's something I hope you will all discuss in-depth, because as it stands now, barring some radical walk back to Carrier goals, you'll be seeing me in a Super Carrier very soon.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Aneu Angellus
Resilience.
DARKNESS.
#530 - 2015-10-29 19:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Aneu Angellus
Really interesting changes, quite concerning however that EHP is being reduced and that RR is getting a nerf - not so much because it won't be as it is currently but more because there is no alternative to stop cap's being blapped down in extremely short order.

I've never been one in favour of a more passive mechanic in order to keep people alive which is why I am happy the RR slowcat situation is being rectified but as I stated, the lack of alternative or ability to help people stay up is now somewhat concerning.

Simply put, carriers/supcarriers seem to now effectively be taking the role of fleet support, capable of bringing pain but also for various other roles as mentioned such as webbing and scramming from a distance (a huge distance!) but even with drones having other abilities now it does not rectify the above and with FAX ships not being able to receive assistance in triage (or dreads) then something really needs to be done.

My suggestion jumps off the back of the removal of EWar immunity & the Remote ECM burst.

Introduce additional modules (High slot) on top of the ECM burst that are capable of affecting:-
Cap Regen
Shield Resistances
Armor Resistances
Tracking
ECM
Sensor Strength/Range

There should be modules on each side of this that increase/decrease the above. These modules should effectively deploy an AoE type bubble (warp disrupt bubble eg) of quite a large range (to counter fast ships also) with a cooldown that ensures active gameplay but also the ability to react to situations - 60 seconds would be a good place to start.

Introduce an "ECM Nuke" type module for Titans also that can effectively hard-reset a grid and remove all effects whether positive or negative.

What this effectively allows is carriers to counter what may be a difficult situation with survival. They can turtle within their own cap regen/shield/armor res bubbles while throwing out tracking disruptors/ecm/sensor damp fields against enemy caps or typical ships. The reason for the low CD is to allow them to chain between a group in order to keep up on enemy nano-ships.

Titans become a force-breaker within this which allows them to effectively nullify a situation which presents an alternative to countering an enemies force with the opposite type of bubbles. It also brings titans into fights more.

A more active type of gameplay from the large immobile beasts that are cap-ships would be a huge leap forward in cap-warfare and I firmly believe the above would be a great step in the right direction.
Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#531 - 2015-10-29 20:19:12 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
*snip* big post of interesting perspective *snip*


Nice post. I hadn't even looked at things from that perspective. Based on what we've see there appears to be little reason to fly a Carrier when you can fly a Super Carrier bar cost. Which we know isn't an issue for some and shouldn't be used as a balancing argument (although it can be to some degree...)


If you compare other classes of ships that have bigger/smaller brothers there are pros and cons. Take Cruisers vs Battleships. Battleships hit harder and tank better, but Cruisers have the agility and can potentially apply the damage better.

When you compare the Carrier to the SuperCarrier, it seems the SC will do everything it's little brother will do, plus have the projected E-War. Yes the Carrier is likely more mobile - but not to a point where it makes a blind bit of difference. Once Citadels appear, being trapped in a Super won't be a issue, you'll just be able to leave it in station - taking away the one downside that has always been apparent with supers.


CCP - What are you plans for making Carriers appealing vs Supercarriers?
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#532 - 2015-10-29 21:12:01 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
.................... plans for making Carriers appealing vs Supercarriers?


At the very least; unless nerfed even more, the Carrier will still make a very useful 'suitcase' for pilots that can still dock at mere 'Large's'.

Meanwhile the pilot can train for a Super, whilst saving up for one, and still be relatively useful!

That's not to say I don't agree, but a 2b carrier is much cheaper than a 30b Super.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#533 - 2015-10-29 21:16:01 UTC
peaSTAR wrote:
coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE


Actually that is another issue with combat refitting I didn't even think of - but true:
CCP tries to solve way too many problems with timers lately.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#534 - 2015-10-29 23:05:46 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

It's something I hope you will all discuss in-depth, because as it stands now, barring some radical walk back to Carrier goals, you'll be seeing me in a Super Carrier very soon.
Having to agree with a member of one of the most risk averse groups in Eve is painful.
Unfortunately he is right. Once you gut carriers and introduce defenseless Force Auxiliaries as logistics (stupid name for something that is ultimately the most vulnerable ship on the field, "Primary Everytime" is more accurate) you turn capital warfare into something for the largest, elitist, richest groups only.
The only way FAX become a valid class of ship is if they cost the same as a Guardian and one of them can rep like 20 Archons

The only thing I disagree with is his liking the new fighter changes - I don't see how having to control up to 5X as many, disposable fighters, is at all appealing. Multiple flights of up to 12 disposable fighters spread around a battlefield - Welcome back TIDI every time capitals land on grid.

And of course of the largest risk averse group in the game getting more supers is really going to create more content.



This is Eve - It is about getting dank risk it all fights - Not the risk averse biggest fleet wins, multiple option, intense micro management shite your planning.





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.

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#535 - 2015-10-30 00:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
I would like to point out that I said that the Fighter changes look promising, as opposed to that I like them.

Semantics to be sure, but truth be told, many a feature CCP has proposed that didn't work out the way it was supposed to and needed to be heavily adjusted (despite the community having told them so in advance) - Jump Fatigue and Troll-ceptors come to mind.

One other point, because sub-capitals do not possess a player equivalent to Titans (Drifter Battleships being the closest thing), making it awkward if not outright 'apples and oranges' to draw equivalencies between the two styles of game play. No one is going to be DD'ing your Vindicator, in attempt to control the Grid in a Sovereignty contest, to be sure.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is so much to say on this topic, so much to potentially rant about; but to stay focused:


  • How can Carriers be distinct and unique to Super Carriers, instead of simply being the T1 version of them?
  • Will Carrier Capacitor and Powergrid be rebalanced to support a Dual rep/booster fit more easily?
  • Will Carriers still be able to provide Remote Capital Capacitor effects post Citadel?
  • How can Capital rebalance be done in a way that still supports and preserves the long standing universal player practice of Alliances providing SRP (Ship Replacement Program) for Capitals - especially the soon-to-be more vulnerable Carriers and "Primary-my-fat-XL-Basilisk-arse-first" F.A.C. (Force Auxiliary Capitals)?
  • How will Insurance on Capital ships change, if at all, as these ships will be dying more? And will the current unspoken promise from since Capitals were introduced, that standard Capitals continue into Citadel expansion as is now: that if you worked towards a Carrier or a Dreadnaught, after purchase, that Insurance would always cover the hull costs 100%?
  • Will Freighters and Jump Freighters be seeing any changes (ie lowering) of their Hit Points as with Combat Capitals?
  • Will "Brain in a Box" be ready in time for the Citadel Expansion, so as to prevent forces from using the new Fighter mechanic to load grid first and then TiDi the enemy into simply "shooting fish in a barrel"? (As has been used many times through out EVE's history)
  • Will 'High Angle' Dreadnaught fits have any damage projection role at the 50km to 250km combat ranges? Or will a Sniper Rokh fleet be able to maintain a "Range Tank" barring Carrier/Super Carrier damage projection support?
  • Will there be a "High Velocity" Citadel Cruise/Torp missile so Phoenix Dreadnaught has Anti-Battleship/Sub-Cap capabilities on par with her Gun Based Dreadnaught siblings?
  • Will 'High Angle' Guns fit on gun based Titans? And any "High Velocity" Missile version fit on Leviathans?
  • Will the "Hand of God" DD [Which is ridiculous as a mechanic, because it = involuntary Player Jail, which is forever a bad game design element never used by anyone] capture Bombs, Missiles, Fighters and other non-ship objects during teleportation? (if so you need to strongly rethink Fighters not warping - at least an emergency 'return' warp)
  • When will the Capital Round Table Focus Group be assembled and given a crack at this, to help shape Citadel's Capital changes? (is this a real focus group? or a PR ploy :tinfoil:)

  • Do any of the development team on Team Five-O have experience playing/flying/fighting in Capital ships? Does the team intimately understand these ships and their game play? Or just the goals that you're seeking to achieve?
  • What metric will CCP and Team Five-O be using to determine if development goals are/will be met? (Player feedback, dead Capitals, or a Magic 8-Ball?)
  • How long will these features be available for testing on SiSi to allow for player testing feed back and possible iteration before final deployment?
  • Will large entities like Goonswarm and Pandemic Legion be invited to help 'organized' mass tests on SiSi similar to how FozzieSov was tested?



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


I would have more questions related to Super Carriers, but there is not enough information at this time to formulate any beneficial questions.

None the less, these are questions that are on my mind, and more than likely on the mind of more than a few players. It would be nice if they were at least addressed in another Dev blog, if not answered directly here.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#536 - 2015-10-30 08:27:31 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

A question for (all of) you: Do you think that being able to deploy with a guarantee that you won't lose anything is healthy/good for the game? Not even high-sec makes that promise.



So let me share my feelings, that this question is based on a fools argument CCP Masterplan; until Jump Fatigue, Capital fleets were ever watchful so as to not get dropped by Pandemic Legion (or others) either directly while operating Capitals, or as a Third Party. Why? because they could easily be wiped out by the proper counter Capital forces.

It was a deterrent that ensured either you had planned appropriately to use the largest ships in EVE, or you thought twice and undocked a sub-capital fleet instead.

When Capitals were originally created, there was a completely different meta and mindset as to why the ships were designed the way they were, how they fit within the ecosystem of EVE. However, some 'innovators' (he who shall not be named) that came after the "Old Devs', and who are no longer with CCP today, reportedly took a strong dislike towards Capitals which has thus lead us down this path to where we are being taken to today. Where we have limited jump ranges to 'contain' us, and Space Aids (Jump Fatigue) to punish us into an idle status if we are too active. But these things removed the Counter

We adapted, yet still the fear and most importantly respect of our enemy tempers acting imprudently, pressuring the need to take care in deploying Capitals for fear of a trap, counter drop that a fleet can't deal with, or becoming the victim of a Capital Hunter, etc. -- even today no one feels they are immune from being destroyed in a Capital.

The last thing that myself or any other pilot thinks is that when they deploy in a Carrier that they are 'guaranteed' not to loose anything. To state as much shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Capital pilots of this game actually play; as well as a lack of respect for the ingeniousness of the opposing forces. As a matter of fact, most fleets the question is asked "Do we need insurance for this fleet?", because everyone goes out expecting the always real potential of a counter drop.

Now, is there a hierarchy by which targets are called? Yes - are Boots/Slowcats hard to break, damn right they are - but that was designed that way! We didn't hack the game to make it that way.

What this is about is bringing low the mightiest ships in EVE, so that sub-capitals have an even playing field - Well I'm a Capital-ist, I don't believe in this Developer assisted Socialism where players receive a 'guarantee' that you'll be able to kill a Carrier if you bring enough sub-capitals isn't EVE; this isn't Freighter ganking. If you can't muster the proper counters you're not ready to be fighting forces that can field Capitals. They are EVE's nuclear deterrent... and there's no legitimate reason they not remain so.

But you want to change the Meta, and do something 'different' with Capitals? Okay, but why does different have to mean starting from scratch? And completely re-writing the rules so as to enact the 'sub-capitalization' of Capitals??

CCP's seeming 'frustration' with the current Capital meta steams more from the organized players having gone outside the game mechanics to gather better operational intelligence, to plan Strategic and Tactical Capital Operations so as to limit the potential for surprises from our adversaries, while bringing to bare massive and devastating force upon our enemies - it has absolutely nothing to do with the ships themselves. But because we figured out how to play EVE better than you can develop it, or certain enemies can play it and are unable to bring proper counters that exist in the game, we see in response from CCP a desire to break all our hard earned toys that CCP gave us, because nerfing things into oblivion seems preferential to developing even better counters as well as creating 'containment' mechanics for features that are having either unhealthy or undesirable results.


- Void Bombs - almost never used; have the potential to be something feared by Capital Groups.
- Diminishing Return: Remote Capital Repairs - capping the repair effects similar to Drone Assist limitations so that sub-caps have their 'Socialist' chance at killing a Carrier (omg yay!)
- Timers: Do damage, or Refit, but you can't do both at the same time is totally appropriate - but making the timer so long that you essentially are disabling the ability to allow a pilot to fit a tank against a Doomsday strike (or multiple) undermines the very reason that feature exists.
- Time to Target: Bombs are the counter to clouds of Sentries, and work just fine as we speak. Simply add a recall delay so that Bombs have a chance to deal the damage intended, instead of the ability to insta-recall Sentries (as an example)
- Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS is something that needs to be enshrined in CCP's development language. And appropriate counters simply need to be improved upon.


During B-R plenty of very expensive capitals were lost, because the players themselves knew how to overcome an opposition force. They did it with other Capital ships, because sub-capitals are not the counter to Capital ship

No one want's 'immunity'. But it seems CCP does not give enough credit to its players inventiveness on how to solve these problems - and instead we are told that 'slash and burn' approaches are the only way to address the 'problem'.

Stop punishing the content creators

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#537 - 2015-10-30 09:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
I would like to point out that I said that the Fighter changes look promising, as opposed to that I like them.

Semantics to be sure, but truth be told, many a feature CCP has proposed that didn't work out the way it was supposed to and needed to be heavily adjusted (despite the community having told them so in advance) - Jump Fatigue and Troll-ceptors come to mind.

One other point, because sub-capitals do not possess a player equivalent to Titans (Drifter Battleships being the closest thing), making it awkward if not outright 'apples and oranges' to draw equivalencies between the two styles of game play. No one is going to be DD'ing your Vindicator, in attempt to control the Grid in a Sovereignty contest, to be sure.


There is so much to say on this topic, so much to potentially rant about; but to stay focused:


None the less, these are questions that are on my mind, and more than likely on the mind of more than a few players. It would be nice if they were at least addressed in another Dev blog, if not answered directly here.

Where did you get the idea I was talking about sub capitals? I never mentioned them and never referred to them.

My response was in regard to capital warfare but I do have to disagree with you (again). When in a fight vs dreads and carriers their vindicators are always primary and if CCP get their way, they will be DD'd off the field by titans.

Capital warfare right now in Eve is based on who has the biggest group on batfaone.
It has the potential to be so much more but CCP don't want to upset PL and Goons + half of nulsec (their risk averse friends).

PL and Goons+ is possibly the worst aspect of Eveonline as they don't go out looking for fights, they go out looking for easy victories. Risk free content is not PVP.
Ask the guy who lost his Titan in Querious the other night who had PL called on him. Ask Faulty how he felt chasing an 8 man gang with a 43 man fleet while guarding 4 dreadnoughts for Darwinism last night.

You mention CCP failures to get it right.
You forgot to mention the debacle lovingly called Fozziesov, which ended up only further entrenching the largest blob in Eve.
Fatigue is not much of an issue alone, the issue is, you can't get to a bloody fight to start with and the large group who spend the time staging supers and capitals become unassailable because they hold superior numbers (they won't stage anywhere they might encounter opposition).

You want CCP to invite PL and Goons to test upcoming changes to capitals - Show them you want to be involved, use your power against each other, show CCP their efforts will amount to something. While ever the 2 largest groups avoid conflict with each other, CCP has no right including you in the changes - In fact, you should be Excluded from the testing, all balance changes should be made to enable the smaller groups (PL and Goon's prey) to counter your fleets.
Nice pipe dream (blob warfare reduced) - CCP is so afraid of the mega groups they would never do anything to hurt them.


On your points that should be concentrated on;
> They are the T1 version and should be
> Of course not - that is what the Fax is for
> No, why would they need to - Or, Yes but unbonused
> Screw the mega rich alliances that hand out caps like candy. Capital SRP should never exist, let the risk averse SRP whores pay for their own and see just how many you get in fleet.
> Insurance doesn't cover 100% of any ship - Now you want !00% insurance AND SRP (and we wonder why so many eve players don't undock)
PS, Goons should be providing their own insurance for its pilots not asking for hand outs from CCP ( I suppose you do really, 200% SRP is better than any insurance - sad that members have to be bribed to login and fight)
> Seriously? Freighters and Jump Freighters already took a huge hit in EHP and as most are easily killed by gankers in highsec why should they be debuffed again because other capitals are losing effectiveness. (you sound like the Atypical Goon troll, I thought better of you)
> Of course not, don't you listen to what Devs say - Brain in a Box is still a long way from usable (early testing). CCP make balance changes to reduce the amount of drones on field, then want to give carriers 5 times as many in system at once - Pure logic there, TIDI here we come.
But then; CCP is well known for releasing unfinished, poorly tested additions to the game.
> The damage projection cited for carriers and supers is absurd - Disposable flights of Fighters is absurd, unless Carriers and Supers have unlimited capacity drone bays, in which case, again, only the largest, richest groups will ever be able to successfully field them.
> Probably but it won't be effective
> "High Angle" what a stupid name - but more than likely. Who is going to fit their titan so it can only hit subcaps? In fact, who in his or her right mind wants to fit any capital so it is only effective vs subcaps - Stupid ideas reign here.
> Agreed "Hand of God" DD, another really stupid name and an even sillier concept. (why would you need fast return warp for fighters? CCP has already said they are disposable - You just leave them there and wait a couple of mins to launch some more)
> Capital Round Table? Yeah sure invite a bunch of players from the elitist dominating groups in to discuss the best way to use their new found abilities against any smaller group who tries to play the game.
> Probably not and if they do it will have been in one of the elitist groups so not all that valid when it comes to overall balance.
> Same metric as always - The one that shows their changes are good. Just look at the jump range fatigue metrics, they show success because more capitals are getting killed - They fail to mention most aren't getting killed in fights but ganked on move ops.
> As short a time as possible, they will still be writing the code the night before release.
> For Bobs sake, I hope not.

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.

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#538 - 2015-10-30 09:59:44 UTC
Sayod Physulem wrote:
peaSTAR wrote:
coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE

Actually that is another issue with combat refitting I didn't even think of - but true:
CCP tries to solve way too many problems with timers lately.

But if you dont make a timer - players will find some weird workaround.
They should've set a timer for dropping ore out of cargohold. Would've put an end to that sick jetcan mining that broke the game.
:sarcasm:
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#539 - 2015-10-30 10:08:07 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:

>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"

Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#540 - 2015-10-30 11:26:10 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


We do :)

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