These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Capital ship warfare and the future rebalancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#1 - 2013-10-16 15:34:30 UTC
I feel this topic needs to be created now because of the role of capitals in sov warfare and by extension their lack of use in lowsec.

In my estimation capital ships are too static. Ships like the carrier are shoehorned in to roles that aren't necessarily representative of their name. Dreadnoughts are too limited in maneuverability to accurately qualify as premier combat vessels.

The argument of caps requiring significant sub cap support is not a theory that I see as being supported by real world evidence any more. To clarify - the prevalence and proliferation of dreads especially allows them to be fielded by the dozens as we observe in battles like asakai or numerous snigg/dnd drops. Nullsec might favour battleship warfare on a cost effective basis but that does not discount the possibility of every player owning a dread. Actual rates of use are in disproportion to rates of ownership. 2 billion is not a lot of money. 3 billion isn't that steep either.

Capitals are in a sense a critical part of any nullsec power. In lowsec their use is heavily one sided. A group either has insufficient manpower or projection to field capitals with effect.. or has far too much.

Capital ships and their use is a multi tiered issue that stretches far beyond racial variations. Game mechanics built around compelling their use also have created scenarios where they will not be fielded because the associated risks of being pounced on are so high. If the projection issue were leveled off by reducing their strategic maneuverability then it would help to force an entire rethink of how their tactical powers are applied.

I feel that wormholes present the best representative example of how caps were designed to be used. kspace projection has perverted that intent to a point where often it's better to leave the caps at home than use them for effect.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-10-16 16:17:03 UTC
I don't see what you're getting at.

They're used in womrholes - mostly for escalations in larger ones also for PvP (carriers) and in null fleet ops but that tends to again be limited to carriers.

Dreads tend to flat out suck for combat use due to how they work. Dreads are rarely brought out for anything outside of structure bashes because they are lame when not in siege mode - they can't hit diddly squat decently if it's not parked there waiting to be shot while drones can chew up a lot of different sized targets.

Ok - known issues and some disagreement about your "carrier" assertions but you don't seem to be giving any mention of what "ideas" you have on addressing your points.

What suggestions did you have on how to potentially expand their use?

(oh and on the carrier topic - they are used in lowsec and are popular for "hot drops"; often, not always, 1 is used and it is pretty rare to see it in triage mode while doing that kind of stunt.)
Jasmine Assasin
Doomheim
#3 - 2013-10-16 16:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jasmine Assasin
I think what we need is something like Battleships with capital weapons, that can jump through gates.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#4 - 2013-10-16 17:01:34 UTC
Mocam wrote:
I don't see what you're getting at.

They're used in womrholes - mostly for escalations in larger ones also for PvP (carriers) and in null fleet ops but that tends to again be limited to carriers.

Dreads tend to flat out suck for combat use due to how they work. Dreads are rarely brought out for anything outside of structure bashes because they are lame when not in siege mode - they can't hit diddly squat decently if it's not parked there waiting to be shot while drones can chew up a lot of different sized targets.

Ok - known issues and some disagreement about your "carrier" assertions but you don't seem to be giving any mention of what "ideas" you have on addressing your points.

What suggestions did you have on how to potentially expand their use?

(oh and on the carrier topic - they are used in lowsec and are popular for "hot drops"; often, not always, 1 is used and it is pretty rare to see it in triage mode while doing that kind of stunt.)


Dreads do get used as intended in w-space PVP fairly often not just carriers - although its come to the point its a bit of a mugs game jumping capitals into someones home wormhole as your limited to 3 capitals due to mass constraints and they are free to bring as many as they like.

From my experience you rarely see fights like this http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=18684509 outside of w-space which is a shame.

Dreads don't need maneuverability, I do however think capitals should require far more sub-capital support than is typically seen in the game - makes me sad every time I see a super ganked all on its own with no support fleet :S
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5 - 2013-10-16 18:47:45 UTC
Couldn't we just give capitals some additional slots for mounting non-capital weapons? Imagine the Phoenix with an extra 4 missile launchers and high slots that could sport either cruise missiles or the new RHMLs. Or a Chimera with 4 launchers that could sport RLMLs or HMLs for defense.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#6 - 2013-10-16 18:57:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Couldn't we just give capitals some additional slots for mounting non-capital weapons? Imagine the Phoenix with an extra 4 missile launchers and high slots that could sport either cruise missiles or the new RHMLs. Or a Chimera with 4 launchers that could sport RLMLs or HMLs for defense.


I think that increasing the un sieged dps output of dreads would go anlong way to fixing their immediate problems.

perhaps give carriers a few extra highs so they can pull double-duty on drone support and moderate logi work?

is it time we saw capital AB modules introduced? is it time that - especially in cases like the battle of asakai - that we see capital fights occuring at much higher ranges? Is it time to make citadel cruise 1250 explosion radius and citadel torps 1700?

is it time to make fighters do 150 or even 200 dps each? is it time to make capital railguns a thing? Is it time to rework model sizes and over all capital stats?

in a perfect world. . todays super caps are what the original caps were meant to be. But how does it actually work now?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#7 - 2013-10-16 19:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Couldn't we just give capitals some additional slots for mounting non-capital weapons? Imagine the Phoenix with an extra 4 missile launchers and high slots that could sport either cruise missiles or the new RHMLs. Or a Chimera with 4 launchers that could sport RLMLs or HMLs for defense.


I think that increasing the un sieged dps output of dreads would go anlong way to fixing their immediate problems.

perhaps give carriers a few extra highs so they can pull double-duty on drone support and moderate logi work?

is it time we saw capital AB modules introduced? is it time that - especially in cases like the battle of asakai - that we see capital fights occuring at much higher ranges? Is it time to make citadel cruise 1250 explosion radius and citadel torps 1700?

is it time to make fighters do 150 or even 200 dps each? is it time to make capital railguns a thing? Is it time to rework model sizes and over all capital stats?

in a perfect world. . todays super caps are what the original caps were meant to be. But how does it actually work now?

I think the sizes are fine, but the functionality is lacking. These things should be able to somewhat hold their own against a small gang. I'm not sure about capital AB or MWD modules, just that the Phoenix needs some serious attention.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#8 - 2013-10-16 19:28:56 UTC
I was thinking capital ab to assist in differentiating caps from super caps. Also tightening up the citadel missiles would necessitate normal caps having some way to increase their speed which would then become their only real defence against those missiles.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2013-10-16 19:34:54 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I was thinking capital ab to assist in differentiating caps from super caps. Also tightening up the citadel missiles would necessitate normal caps having some way to increase their speed which would then become their only real defence against those missiles.

Yeah, that explosion radius needs to be lowered substantially.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.