These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tech C

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#1 - 2014-12-27 08:00:22 UTC
Capital ships are, by nature, specialized ships. In a sense, they are more like T2 ships than T1 ships. It's unlikely we will ever see T2 dreads, carriers or supers. They are as specialized as they are going to get. They touch on more areas of the game than touch them back. (So ronery.)

Presently, capital ships, except for the jump freighters, have their build requirements tied solely to t1 production, and ice for operation. The possession of sov assets mainly only impacts the acquisition of supercapitals, but the successful industrial operation of these assets only indirectly affects whether or not any of them can be constructed.

I would call for a change in capital ship component blueprint build requirements. Capital ships should need components from *every* field. That means T1 and T2 components and perhaps even some PI and even T3 parts somewhere in the process. Standard and advanced capital ship component blueprints should be unified. If invention steps are needed, they should be in the component assembly phases.

The capital class component process should be unified under the Tech C moniker to distinguish it. All those processes should be POS-tied processes, or become so in any upcoming major POS changes. Successful small gang content tied to sov assets could focus on industrial activities, which would be important if they were tied economically to strategic assets.

To that end, perhaps we need a new class of salvage loot for making capital class rigs. Maybe such loot could only be salvaged by rorquals with a special capital class salvager, since that hull is in dire need of a new role anyhow. Maybe scrap metal could get a little buff, or be exclusively accessible via salvager, eh, *nudge, nudge*?
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-12-27 08:05:50 UTC
So, now:

To build T1, you need T1 materials and a bought T1 blueprint.
To build T2, you need T1 and T2 materials and an invented T2 blueprint.
To build T3, you need T1 and T2 materials and multiple invented T3 blueprints.

After the change you'd need T1 and T2 materials with T1, T2 and invented T3 BP's to build a T1 ship?
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#3 - 2014-12-27 08:16:40 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
So, now:

To build T1, you need T1 materials and a bought T1 blueprint.
To build T2, you need T1 and T2 materials and an invented T2 blueprint.
To build T3, you need T1 and T2 materials and multiple invented T3 blueprints.

After the change you'd need T1 and T2 materials with T1, T2 and invented T3 BP's to build a T1 ship?




and wait there's more.....the materials come from very specific scenarios and salvaging. since the N+1 master don't make enough work well for themselves, after they N+1 their way to victory only they'd be able to safely have rorq's on the field to loot/salvage.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#4 - 2014-12-27 08:27:19 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
So, now:

To build T1, you need T1 materials and a bought T1 blueprint.
To build T2, you need T1 and T2 materials and an invented T2 blueprint.
To build T3, you need T1 and T2 materials and multiple invented T3 blueprints.

After the change you'd need T1 and T2 materials with T1, T2 and invented T3 BP's to build a T1 ship?




and wait there's more.....the materials come from very specific scenarios and salvaging. since the N+1 master don't make enough work well for themselves, after they N+1 their way to victory only they'd be able to safely have rorq's on the field to loot/salvage.



There's nothing stopping people from buying all of these things off the market.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#5 - 2014-12-27 08:50:59 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
There's nothing stopping people from buying all of these things off the market.

It's called everyone else in the market.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-12-27 09:27:06 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
I would call for a change in capital ship component blueprint build requirements. Capital ships should need components from *every* field. That means T1 and T2 components and perhaps even some PI and even T3 parts somewhere in the process.

Question: Where did the T3 parts for capitals come from before Apocrypha?

And I laughed when you said carriers are specialized.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-12-27 09:33:27 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
So, now:

To build T1, you need T1 materials and a bought T1 blueprint.
To build T2, you need T1 and T2 materials and an invented T2 blueprint.
To build T3, you need T1 and T2 materials and multiple invented T3 blueprints.

After the change you'd need T1 and T2 materials with T1, T2 and invented T3 BP's to build a T1 ship?




and wait there's more.....the materials come from very specific scenarios and salvaging. since the N+1 master don't make enough work well for themselves, after they N+1 their way to victory only they'd be able to safely have rorq's on the field to loot/salvage.



There's nothing stopping people from buying all of these things off the market.



We are beholden to 0.0 for moon goo by and large (good moon distribution is spotty in low sec, its usually the less desirable moons as far as I can tell) ....this would be us beholden to them as well. Not a blob hater per se (had close to 2 years in living in one blob of some kind), but I don't want to give them my entire eve paycheck lol.

Unless you foresee a major rash of careless carrier ratting in low sec to add some serious competition to this market. And pirate crews crapping rorq's out in bulk to take advantage of this.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#8 - 2014-12-27 20:04:18 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:



We are beholden to 0.0 for moon goo by and large (good moon distribution is spotty in low sec, its usually the less desirable moons as far as I can tell) ....this would be us beholden to them as well. Not a blob hater per se (had close to 2 years in living in one blob of some kind), but I don't want to give them my entire eve paycheck lol.

Unless you foresee a major rash of careless carrier ratting in low sec to add some serious competition to this market. And pirate crews crapping rorq's out in bulk to take advantage of this.


We can't easily balance things to the needs of individual groups, and must look to the larger portrait. I would favor looking at very common materials from moons the way we view tritanium today. Although it is very commonly available, it becomes the logistical burden simply because of the vast need for it. If anything, I'd say demand for all common moon materials is far too low. Increase the value of these, and the value of holding space goes up across the board, rather than in just a few places. If we are substituting costs, we are simply moving some of the revenue away from ore and ice bots, and over to other sectors of industry. I'd like to see Tech C around 50% T1 and <50% T2 by value. Any other few percent could be from CCP's imagination.

CCP will have to help out by making POS management a more easily disbursed tasks in alliances with more granular role control, and making silos a little more generous for time allotments to come up with the low level materials in bulk. In addition, ice mining contributions are onerous and mainly favor unfun, player-avoidant or bot content. These are also a valid target for input substitution. Non-POS mobile deployables would be a nice, less-tedious alternative.

While it *is* important that CCP incorporate small gang content for sov harassment at some point, sooner rather than later, it is also important that the things we fight over are connected economically to the things used to fight. It's important from a balance perspective as well as from the narrative of player motivations. Making sov empires economically vulnerable to the depradations of roving bands of upstarts in subcaps is critical to undermining their ability to field caps and eventually take or hold that sov.

It is even possible that if more of our paychecks went to moonholders, some portion of it would also make its way into the hands of those who acquire or defend them. Being a mercenary is not an economically easy task in EVE, since so little is really on the line for most potential clients. Even being a line member in most large organizations tends to be a thankless task. SRP is an ugly thing, where people are rewarded for failure more than success, but it's a symptom of most alliances operating on a shoestring budget and having a bottom-up income stream.

I understand that the arc of history in EVE tends towards pessimism, but when looking at new challenges, we have to look for ways to suggest opportunity for more players.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2014-12-27 20:20:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Komi Toran wrote:
And I laughed when you said carriers are specialized.

Carriers feel more like T3 tbh, as in: some stuff minority of ships in EVE can do (while having many of those functions slapped onto one hull at once) plus having very good base stats.

Meh, semantics.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2014-12-27 20:25:13 UTC
Currently building capitals is the bridge step between T1 and T2 for industrialists they get you used to building components while still using T1 minerals



and no i don't mean building whole ships most pilots normally start building T2 ships before capitals i'm only talking about components


it also gives intermediate leveled industrialists a place in corporate production when they may not have science skills

so overall -1 as the only reason for this change is because you think that because in your eyes they are more speced to one role that they need T2 and T3 mats

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#11 - 2014-12-27 20:48:10 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Currently building capitals is the bridge step between T1 and T2 for industrialists they get you used to building components while still using T1 minerals



and no i don't mean building whole ships most pilots normally start building T2 ships before capitals i'm only talking about components


it also gives intermediate leveled industrialists a place in corporate production when they may not have science skills

so overall -1 as the only reason for this change is because you think that because in your eyes they are more speced to one role that they need T2 and T3 mats


I wouldn't object to having some of the modules require only T1 processes, or T2 components without utilizing invention. However, that may not be tidy enough for CCP. The only reason I favor invention dice rolls at the component level instead of the finished product level is because it is less common for players to construct capitals in batches, or in the kind of volumes where constructors can figure in statistical probabilities to the failure rate.

CCP could also easily draw a line between modules and hulls. I doubt we'll ever see the need to have T2 capital modules as it wouldn't bring about good gameplay, at least in the near term. There is also the matter of charges to address. I would prefer to see a kind of Tech C ammunition, but tedium is not my style without opportunity.

In fact, I would like to see more charges for all modules, especially capital modules. The more charges we require, the more we limit field longevity, and the more we impose maintenance or operating costs on ships, especially large ships. Imposing them on small ships isn't terrible either, as it obliges them to be dependent upon bulkier supply ships in the fleet. Harassing an army's logistics is just as important as going up against their main force. The Battle of Salamis is an ancient example of the importance of this.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#12 - 2014-12-27 22:34:29 UTC
Removed an off topic post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department