These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#561 - 2015-10-30 15:34:38 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri 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.



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.



That's not what you said, your original statement implied, or at least I read to be that capitals should have no subcap counter.

If I drop a couple of hundred bhaals on two dozen archons, you better believe they should murder them.

If you disagree, then you can stop here and we can agree to disagree and move on. Equally if I've misread your originally quoted post then that's my mistake.

If not, then I don't think the changes are bad, I think the direction is good. Delineation of capitals roles is good. Whilst on one hand they said they are reducing EHP, they are also talking making capitals able to be much more effective at murdering subcaps. Whilst I've concerns about the precise numbers I've raised, I believe that overall direction is good. Just as your thanatos can no longer ignore 20 thoraxes, nor can the thoraxes ignore the thanatos (ship numbers and names merely for an example, don't get caught up in the details).

The direction is to move the meta into choices - sacrifices - more refined/rewarded player skill. I don't think they are in a bad direction. I also think that yourselves and PL stand to make the most effective use of these changes to boot.

The changes seem designed to bring make sure more things blow up, both subcap and cap. I'm particularly looking forward to revitalised "proper" combat carriers.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#562 - 2015-10-30 15:37:54 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
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.


Well, they are definitely making things more susceptible to blowing up - depending on how that works out, that may raise the bar required for a batphone to work.

Today, if you bridge enough in, losses are almost non-existent. Tomorrow it seems a lot like the aim is no matter what you bridge in, if the other guy has numbers stuff of yours WILL blow up no matter how much (to a point) you bring with you.

Whether that is enough to give people pause about picking up that phone or not really remains to be seen.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#563 - 2015-10-30 15:39:13 UTC
Quote:
CCP Larrikin
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?

What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity.
Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind.

You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play.

-- - -- - -- - --
Yes reducing the effectiveness of slowcats would be a good thing but removing them is not the right direction.

Want to fix the slowcat problem, remove sentry drones from carriers, use part of your proposal and introduce fighter classes.
Not 30 or 40 fighters at a time, stick to 1 flight of 12 if you like (10 would be better - 5 base +1 per level ship skill) but make that flight viable. Drone control units can be done away with.

type 1/ high dps, high EHP, good application against structures and capitals (these could be killed by type 2 fighters and subcaps)
type 2/ would be effective vs subcaps but with the drawback of lower EHP (that of a Gecko??) and vulnerable to ewar effects
type 3/ logistics fighters, they can repair all types of damage but only 1 type at a time, selected prior to launch. Enough capability to keep your buddy in his bhaalgorn repped up but not enough to rep another capital. 12 of these would be the same as what a couple of Guardians can rep. Same EHP as the high DPS fighters but with a mwd battleship sig radius.

-- - -- - -- - --
Remote repping capabilities of slowcats - create a new "bastion module" for carriers. 120 second cycle time, remote reps can only be activated while in Bastion. 60 second delay between reactivation. You can still have active fighters but your ship gets no additional bonuses whilst in Bastion. So no added local rep capability, no remote reps whilst in Bastion, means going into this mode to rep your buddy leaves you vulnerable. Bastion mode could have a very clear effect added to the ship ( a bright blue glow) so everyone knows, your vulnerable.

Nearly forgot - Refitting Fatigue / Timer. I'm no fan of fatigue on pilots but if it helps with slowcats, then; put a 5 min timer on refitting. You can refit anything during a fight but only once every 5 mins, with a visible and clear timer.

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.

Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#564 - 2015-10-30 15:52:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Quote:
CCP Larrikin
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?

What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity.
Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind.

You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play.


How is giving carriers fighter squadrons in any way removing the identity of the class? Having unique ways to control drone groups is basically the definition of adding identity to the class. The class is in a 100% drone DPS role now. It would be a massive shame if the epitome of drone technology and gameplay in Eve was to sit there in an immobile ship and hit f9 to engage your fighters or sentry drones.

Dont doubt CCP Larrikin's experience in caps either. He's flown in more capital fleets that 99% of the posters in this thread before he came to CCP, and between him and the rest of the design team I do have faith in their experience. He's not wrong either, carrier gameplay is far from engaging right now, especially if you take away their RR abilities. Fighter gameplay is limited to hitting a hotkey and maybe occasionally pulling back a drone if it starts taking fire.


Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#565 - 2015-10-30 15:57:32 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.

Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it.

Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism?

Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8
There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers.

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.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#566 - 2015-10-30 16:01:37 UTC
Sgt Ocker 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.

Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it.

Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism?

Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8
There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers.


I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account.

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#567 - 2015-10-30 16:17:53 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Quote:
CCP Larrikin
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?

What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity.
Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind.

You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play.


How is giving carriers fighter squadrons in any way removing the identity of the class? Having unique ways to control drone groups is basically the definition of adding identity to the class. The class is in a 100% drone DPS role now. It would be a massive shame if the epitome of drone technology and gameplay in Eve was to sit there in an immobile ship and hit f9 to engage your fighters or sentry drones.

Dont doubt CCP Larrikin's experience in caps either. He's flown in more capital fleets that 99% of the posters in this thread before he came to CCP, and between him and the rest of the design team I do have faith in their experience. He's not wrong either, carrier gameplay is far from engaging right now, especially if you take away their RR abilities. Fighter gameplay is limited to hitting a hotkey and maybe occasionally pulling back a drone if it starts taking fire.

So controlling 4 or 5 flights of (disposable) drones at a time is appealing to you?
Where your blob exists hitting F1 might suffice, for the rest of us there is a lot more to fielding carriers.
And if Larrikins capital experience is akin your in PL, he has no idea what the average carrier pilot is faced with on the field. Thanks for clarifying that.

See, this is why PL and Goons should not have anything to say about capital balancing. Not everyone has the luxury of just hitting F1, that is something only the elitist blobs can relate to.

Try reading the whole post, it explains why my stance is where it is and a decent fix for slowcats without creating unnecessary complication. Although that would be asking too much I'd imagine, reading more than the 1st 2 lines would be too taxing - It isn't an F1 answer.

Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved.

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.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#568 - 2015-10-30 16:20:47 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved.

Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.

Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.

And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#569 - 2015-10-30 16:21:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
afkalt wrote:

The changes seem designed to bring make sure more things blow up, both subcap and cap. I'm particularly looking forward to revitalised "proper" combat carriers.


I think we do have a minor miscommunication.

We agree that significant and overwhelming Sub-Capital forces 'must' have the ability to threaten Capital groups at an appropriate ratio that is not 1:1 or even 2:1 - though I am still of the position of maintaining Capital escalation.

I think the direction is not bad, that everything proposed other than the gutting of the Carrier with the Capital Ship family, is promising and I am anticipating numbers from CCP that ultimately validate my positive view towards the goals and general proposals being proffered.

CCP's inability to adequately inform the community of 'what the problem is', and 'why it needs to be addressed/fixed' is at the heart of any misunderstanding that may have arisen. Further, not imparting to the players this will affect why one particular Capital, the Carrier, is being completely eviscerated of what makes it special and unique amongst the other Capitals leaves too much room for interpretation.

*(Sarcasm) Or should we allow Carriers to have remote ewar for target painting and ECM, and split the other remote Ewar off to Super Carriers?

Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race. And what then? Another rebalance, another evisceration to punish unintended emergent game play, and force the Players to conform with an development ideal, instead of developing around the genius of EVE players that spawned from the tools that CCP provided, and address issues by 'containment' mechanics and the introduction of adequate counters?

In my opinion, the Old Devs had it right in their approach to development, and while granted there has been some very alluring and positive proposals for features and content in this game, I dislike the New Devs style of heavy handed intervention in our emergent game play to create some 'Socialist' utopia of game design, and unnecessarily blur the line between sub-capital and Capital.

I would venture to say, that there is more than likely a school of thought among some developers at CCP who ardently believe that Capitals, especially Supers and Titans, should have never been brought into EVE Online. But if CCP is to both act, and be considered a "Care Taker" of EVE Online, then such musings have no business being given voice; let alone actually being developed upon.

I am one who believes that this game has grown so storied, that our player driven emergent game play content should not be subjected to revisionism, nor whimsical marketing proposals that are supposed to attract more players - the game sells itself, it always has, precisely because it isn't a theme park maintained by our benevolent socialist overseers who 'giveth' and 'taketh away' as they 'deem' necessary.

So yes, there are some things we will probably fundamentally disagree with, but I respect yours and everyone's opposing view points. And my positions, and opposition are intended to support the community at large by offering an counter to the prevailing 'sounds great, let's do it; and damn the consequences' voices.

Ultimately I hope these first 30 pages will push CCP to provide even greater clarity as to their perspective of why this 'level' of change is needed, why Carriers in particular are getting the shaft in this proposal, as opposed to the "Hey won't this be great?!", EVE Vegas PR reveal.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#570 - 2015-10-30 16:28:39 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race.

To put it bluntly, where the hell have you been? Eve has been an arms race to acquire as many supercapital ships as possible as long as supercapitals have been in the game.

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#571 - 2015-10-30 16:31:34 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sgt Ocker 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.

Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it.

Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism?

Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8
There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers.


I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account.

Ask Faulty, I can assure you it was nowhere near Dek. Shame your not involved with your alliance enough to know who they are helping. But then keeping tabs on the biggest blob on TQ would be a challenge, even for an active player.

Oh as for the Supers, yeah we've had PL on our doorstep for months - They are quite proficient at killing a lone procurer with 3 supers and a titan (just a tiny bit of overkill from the bored blob elitists). Seeing gate camping supers and titans was common place for a few months there. Knowing you can't be contested leads to some doing the absurd.

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
#572 - 2015-10-30 16:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Nearly forgot - Refitting Fatigue / Timer. I'm no fan of fatigue on pilots but if it helps with slowcats, then; put a 5 min timer on refitting. You can refit anything during a fight but only once every 5 mins, with a visible and clear timer.



This is something I could personally support with almost no change - I don't know if 300 seconds is the right number, but this idea only applies a time penalty after taking the action, as opposed to a weapons timer that penalizes you from the outset.

As they say: "The punishment should fit the crime."


A weapons timer, as currently proposed, makes it a crime to even be in a Carrier. Whereas the idea by Sgt Ocker is only punitive if you refit while in your Carrier.

As I type I am really taking a liking to this idea - well done sir!


*[Belated though: Like Jump Fatigue - the more you refit, the longer you have to wait to do it again is important for something like this, as opposed to a flat 5 minutes.]

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#573 - 2015-10-30 16:40:31 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Querns wrote:
I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?

Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account.

Ask Faulty, I can assure you it was nowhere near Dek. Shame your not involved with your alliance enough to know who they are helping. But then keeping tabs on the biggest blob on TQ would be a challenge, even for an active player.

Oh as for the Supers, yeah we've had PL on our doorstep for months - They are quite proficient at killing a lone procurer with 3 supers and a titan (just a tiny bit of overkill from the bored blob elitists). Seeing gate camping supers and titans was common place for a few months there. Knowing you can't be contested leads to some doing the absurd.

That's not a location.

I am part of a very large alliance, which is part of a very large coalition. I don't keep tabs on the activities of every pilot. That would be a fool's game. Portions of the alliance also operate under OPSEC, so I may not even have access to know what they're doing. Not to mention that I have no idea who "Faulty" is.

Delegation is a hell of a drug.

Regarding supercapitals, their main weakness, as a player without the means to counter them, is that the hulls can't easily be passed from player to player. Put known supercapital pilots and cynoing hotdroppers on your watchlist and track them using locators.

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#574 - 2015-10-30 16:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race.

To put it bluntly, where the hell have you been? Eve has been an arms race to acquire as many supercapital ships as possible as long as supercapitals have been in the game.



With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate. And pilots that are completely happy and content in Carriers will abandon them for Super Carriers.

That is the case for me personally, and it's relevant to remind others of this eventuality.

Which of course bodes the question, in order to keep this on topic, as to whether CCP has taken this possibility of an accelerated arms race into account? Or taken a position akin to Troll-ceptors*, and deny it will be a problem until their metrics tell them otherwise?

Carriers should remain interesting enough for pilots to want to stay in them and play them, as opposed to a consistently progressive 'tech tree' style perspective. Doing so helps mitigate any acceleration of the Capital 'arms race' from my point of view, save for those that personally decide to move to a Super.


*(Told you so, btw)

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#575 - 2015-10-30 16:58:44 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.

How can you accelerate from maximum?

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#576 - 2015-10-30 17:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.

How can you accelerate from maximum?


Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier.

And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse.

I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining.

Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent.

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

Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#577 - 2015-10-30 17:13:18 UTC
As Carriers will not probably need: DCUs; RRs; or perhaps even Cap Tfrs...

As they won't need to target things, however, cloaks are very viable.

Why not let them have an otherwise possibly underused local defence weapon against the 'smaller' things - like giving them Turrets and Launcher slots that can fit HAWs?

Or perhaps Capital Smarties?

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#578 - 2015-10-30 17:15:12 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.

How can you accelerate from maximum?


Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier.

And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse.

I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining.

Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent.

You can only "encourage" folks so much, frankly. We do what we can. The fact remains that supercarriers should be purchased as early, as quickly, and as often as possible.

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
#579 - 2015-10-30 17:17:01 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
As Carriers will not probably need: DCUs; RRs; or perhaps even Cap Tfrs...

As they won't need to target things, however, cloaks are very viable.

Why not let them have an otherwise possibly underused local defence weapon against the 'smaller' things - like giving them Turrets and Launcher slots that can fit HAWs?

Or perhaps Capital Smarties?

There will be fighter squadrons that will be better at shooting subcapital ships.

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#580 - 2015-10-30 17:19:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.

How can you accelerate from maximum?


Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier.

And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse.

I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining.

Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent.

You can only "encourage" folks so much, frankly. We do what we can. The fact remains that supercarriers should be purchased as early, as quickly, and as often as possible.



As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.

On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier.

And people tend to move in groups - so when a moderate sized group migrates to the Super Carrier solely because the Carrier has been gutted, others won't want to be left behind and will follow that trend.

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