These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#541 - 2015-10-30 11:41:43 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.


Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield.
While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't.

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

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#542 - 2015-10-30 11:42:34 UTC
afkalt wrote:
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.


This. Capitals as an apex force were a shadow hanging over EVE for many years, and were a huge factor in the formation of large coalitions. As Fozzie said on the o7 show last night, having a whole class of ship that can't be interacted with by many players is a bad idea.

Subcaps, capitals and supercaps all need to be a threat to each other in some way, or the best way to victory becomes "bring the most of X".
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#543 - 2015-10-30 11:49:33 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield.
While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't.


Can you confirm how the existing capital functions/modules not yet mentioned are being treated? Specifically:


  • Use of warfare links on capitals (plus the built-in Titan fleet bonuses)
  • Capital local reps
  • Drone Control Units
  • Clone Vat Bays (at best a niche module for over a decade now)


Are these all being reviewed / removed / revamped alongside all the new toys?
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#544 - 2015-10-30 12:28:50 UTC
It is very hard to say whether these changes are good or bad till we start to see some numbers. Overall most of these changes hinge on the new fighters actually being good. If they suck, like fighters do right now, then it will all be really really bad.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#545 - 2015-10-30 12:30:32 UTC
xttz wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield.
While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't.


Can you confirm how the existing capital functions/modules not yet mentioned are being treated? Specifically:


  • Use of warfare links on capitals (plus the built-in Titan fleet bonuses)
  • Capital local reps
  • Drone Control Units
  • Clone Vat Bays (at best a niche module for over a decade now)


Are these all being reviewed / removed / revamped alongside all the new toys?


They are :)
Capital Local Reps will be re-balanced based on the new HP and change in capital RR mechanics, along with having Meta, T2 and Faction variations introduced.
Drone Control Units don't make a lot of sense under the new fighter squadron mechanics. We've got some ideas, but nothing we're willing to announce yet.
As for the others, we're looking into them but don't have anything to announce yet.

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#546 - 2015-10-30 12:45:51 UTC
Larrikin, are siege changes on the table? Limitations & duration specifically.

Also, is the warp core strength thing limited to supers only? I think it would make caps using gates much more interesting and viable (as well as a cheeky BS buff if it dropped to them)
Kendarr
Infinite Violence
Trigger Happy.
#547 - 2015-10-30 13:05:58 UTC
You have put some interesting changes forward and for the most part I like them all. It is going to be good seeing everyone adapt to the changes.

I presume that we will see all the existing ship and role bonuses alerted on capitals/supercapitals? any idea on when we can see the stats etc of these?

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#548 - 2015-10-30 13:20:05 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Capital Local Reps will be re-balanced based on the new HP and change in capital RR mechanics, along with having Meta, T2 and Faction variations introduced.


I'd like to take this opportunity to say two things:

  • Capital ancillary armor repairer
  • Capital ancillary shield booster
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#549 - 2015-10-30 13:23:39 UTC
xttz wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Capital Local Reps will be re-balanced based on the new HP and change in capital RR mechanics, along with having Meta, T2 and Faction variations introduced.


I'd like to take this opportunity to say two things:

  • Capital ancillary armor repairer
  • Capital ancillary shield booster


I anxiously await the upcoming dominance of the Mjolnir Rage Citadel Torpedo, CASB Phoenix. The Leviathan can come too, I guess.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#550 - 2015-10-30 13:28:31 UTC
Also, a rename for capital-sized missiles might be in order. "Citadel" meaning both these and the structure seems inappropriate in TYOOL 2016.

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#551 - 2015-10-30 13:35:12 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
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.


The slave set alone on that Guardian is 2b or so. Although the pilots pod is very likely to survive given :lowsec:
That said, the Triage Archon puts out considerbly more reps than the Guardian. Slave up the Triage pilot and I would argue your point about which gets alpha-ed out is probably moot. Especially if there are Vindi webs on the field, that Sig on the guardian won't save it at all.

Again, its going to depend very much on the situation. In some cases, guardians are going to be the better choice (mobility being kinda important for a bunch of fleets), in others Triage. Bring the right tool for the job.

Alexander McKeon wrote:
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.

I think this is a good idea.

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

[list=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?
  • This is a good point. I'll pass it on to Team Game of Drones who are the ones working on Citadels. I know they are looking at doing some clone work for WH's, but I don't know what the scope is.

    Alexander McKeon wrote:
  • 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.
  • Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together?

    Alexander McKeon wrote:
  • 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.
  • Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging thats bad?
    I think you have an interesting point. I don't think making carrier gameplay less engaging is the answer though. Do you have any suggestions?

    Alexander McKeon wrote:
  • 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.
  • It comes down to balance.
    Currently, any changes we make to XL weapons on dreads, we need to look at the effect it has on sub-cap blapping too.
    For example, we can't buff the tracking of XL weapons without buffing sub-cap blapping.
    By splitting these weapons up into dedicated Anti-Capital and Anti-Sub-Capital systems, we can separately balance them.


    Alexander McKeon wrote:
  • 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?
  • They are being considered, yes.

    [quote=Alexander McKeon][*] When coming up with new numbers for capitals, will they be balanced against the current...

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

    DGDragon
    Sons of Black Rise
    Siege Green.
    #552 - 2015-10-30 13:57:43 UTC
    How about bill of materials for capital manufacturing?
    Same or change?
    Sgt Ocker
    What Corp is it
    #553 - 2015-10-30 14:18:34 UTC
    xttz wrote:
    afkalt wrote:
    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.


    This. Capitals as an apex force were a shadow hanging over EVE for many years, and were a huge factor in the formation of large coalitions. As Fozzie said on the o7 show last night, having a whole class of ship that can't be interacted with by many players is a bad idea.

    Subcaps, capitals and supercaps all need to be a threat to each other in some way, or the best way to victory becomes "bring the most of X".

    Thing is, bringing the most of X will not change under any rebalancing CCP do (current proposed changes encourage "bringing more of X"). That is up to players and as most groups are risk averse little kiddies who won't undock unless they know they will win, either by their own dominating numbers or the size of their batfone network -

    The answer to
    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.
    is; Not at all but there are groups who do play solely this way, "healthy for the game", is not their concern. For them it is not about good fights and they would never consider "what is good for Eve",, it is all about winning with as little risk as possible.
    No it isn't but that is exactly what you will be handing the rich dominating groups.
    We win because we can simply field more than you can - Is the worst type of ship balancing.

    Even going so far as to limit RR capabilities only reinforces the need for ever larger forces on the field, so again panders to the blob mentality.

    There is so many ways to make capitals viable for any group who chooses to use them (and take the risk of doing so) but CCP seem to want to turn the whole thing into something so over complicated, it will take a masters degree and a bottomless wallet just to fly a carrier .

    -- - -- - -- - --
    Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them?
    As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.



    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.

    Munseventy
    Kikutech
    #554 - 2015-10-30 14:27:19 UTC
    sorry don't know if this was ask but how is the cap change going to work in Tie-Dye.
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #555 - 2015-10-30 14:27:42 UTC
    Quote:

    Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them?
    As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.

    I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.

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

    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #556 - 2015-10-30 14:35:36 UTC
    Querns wrote:
    Quote:

    Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them?
    As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.

    I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.



    It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to.
    Kassasis Dakkstromri
    Wildly Inappropriate
    Goonswarm Federation
    #557 - 2015-10-30 14:58:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
    afkalt wrote:
    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.



    That is your opinion, which I disagree with.

    And despite inaccurate claims of 'whining', as opposed to providing counter balance feedback, if CCP wants to turn Capital ships into giant Sub-capitals and blow PR smoke about it being a Buff; then I think I've paid my dues to call a 'spade a spade'.

    'Escalation' in Null Sec PVP exist for a reason, it has always existed. A 100 man Battleship gang should never EVER be able to take down a 100 man Carrier group. Allowing otherwise, makes the entire existence of Capital ships worthless and redundant. Nothing more than a giant **** waving exercise.

    Iterating a 'light touch' toward Capitals that allows a 250 - 500 man Battleship Gang to give a 100 man Carrier group serious pause is absolutely appropriate.

    There are ships, and fleet compositions that are simply not counters to an opposing force.

    Simply stating the current state of affairs, that Sub-Capital is not a Counter to Capitals, and personally holding that belief as correct does not make it "...just flat out fundamentally wrong:". That with Fleet v. Fleet fighting there is a historic segregation that exists between Sub-Capital and Capitals, and the 'Counter' to Capitals on grid is an escalation of Capitals.

    Sorry but your stereo typical 250 man TryHard Alliance of 3 Carriers and 2 Dreads and 245 Sub-Capitals should not be able to control the Grid vs. a 250 man Capital Group.

    Just as we have a hierarchy of Skill point capabilities, we have a hierarchy ... a 'pecking order' of things a up and coming group needs to have in order to play in the deep end of the pool.

    If you remove this segregation, as seems to be being attempted, then you remove the motivation and incentive to ever develop a organized Capital Group in an Alliance.

    I think if we could have simply frigate spammed our adversaries into submission, we wouldn't have the (assumed) largest Capital force in EVE.


    But hey, if Developer Socialism is your thing, then by all means - I just happen to fundamentally disagree.

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

    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #558 - 2015-10-30 15:20:04 UTC
    afkalt wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    Quote:

    Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them?
    As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.

    I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.



    It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to.

    I think if you stay out of Placid and Aridia, you do alright.

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

    Destoya
    Habitual Euthanasia
    Pandemic Legion
    #559 - 2015-10-30 15:22:05 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    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.


    Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield.
    While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't.


    Are high angle guns really enough to change things though? To me, HA guns seem fairly weak from the stats alone. You quote HA guns as being 1-2k DPS on a dread. On a titan I'll be generous and call that 1-1.75k (moros does 35% more damage than a erebus, naglfar 14% than rag, etc). Again, it's about the value that the slots hold. I just can't imagine that basically doing the damage of two battleships or T3s will be more valuable than the utility that 10+ slots give you. Even with 5 titans on the field (more than most if not all alliances will ever field at the same time except under exceptional circumstances), you're looking at a paltry 5-8k DPS with the tracking of battleship guns. In circumstances where an alliance decides to drop their 120 billion isk citadel warmers they are going to have a sizable subcap fleet, and 5-8k DPS is not going to be a significant addition to the DPS of the main body of the fleet.

    I want to point something else about the viability of guns on titans too. You straight up lose two thirds of the EHP on an erebus by fitting damage mods in the lowslots instead of armor hardeners, for example. That was a big loss but not the end of the world when combat refitting was a thing because you could refit hardeners and overload if someone dropped a titan blob and tried to go for the one-shot kill. It currently takes ~25-29 other titans to kill an erebus with their doomsdays if the erebus overheats his hardeners. With damage mods fit that number drops to only 7-9, which is still a lot but suddenly attainable for many groups. Frankly, you'd be crazy to risk some very marginal supcap damage over tanking 3x as much with your 115 billion isk ship. HA guns without damage mods are going to be even more underwhelming on titans. The damage gap between a dread and a titan grows to 110-140%. Again going off the 2k damage ceiling from the dev blog, that's in the 750-900 DPS range which is just plainly terrible.


    I think that the argument that titans dont have to siege to use guns is fairly weak as well. Doomsdays render you unable to move for 60s and unable to jump for a full 10 minutes. I would say that penalty is at least equal to not being to move for 5 minutes. As for being able to receive reps, I'd venture that if the situation is escalated to the point where dreads are dying through their EHP and local tank in under 5 minutes, the DPS of HA guns will not make a meaningful difference in winning the fight.
    Circumstantial Evidence
    #560 - 2015-10-30 15:26:37 UTC
    afkalt wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. .....
    I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.
    It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to.
    Love my batphone. Hate the other side's batphone. Don't really know how to "fix" that, it's human nature + metagame.

    Would bringing the "damage mitigation" concept down to the level of individual capitals, help? Note: I think it could seriously prolong fights where the new primary targets = meatshield = FAX ships are in play, addressing one concern about Dreds fit for max Alpha swatting them aside... the amount of damage mitigation (scaling) could be adjusted per ship, however.