These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2015-03-22 07:43:58 UTC
Kiagon Fiero wrote:
When considering new roles and uses for SuperCarriers and Titans their current build costs are too restrictive. Very few organizations can afford to use and lose them even with current incomes, and rental incomes will likely be shrinking soon. This means they are only used sparingly or in overwhelming numbers.

Accept the fact that "proliferation" has already happened and embrace it. Revamp their roles so they are used in combat regularly and die all the time. Reduce their build costs significantly. Imagine supercarrier hulls cost maybe 3-4 bil and Titan hulls 7-9 bil. This would open up a new spectrum of roles in fleet combat previously thought impossible. True, it would reduce the exhilaration in killing one, but at this price point they would be dying in actual combat much more frequently. At their current price point the only possible role they can play in combat is a role where they have an astronomically small chance of actually dying. Also, Sov holders wouldn't feel the need to blue everyone within 9 regions in order to protect their CSAA towers.

When the changes go live compensate all previous owners currently flying super hulls by giving them spare hulls through the Redeem system so that their net investment of minerals is conserved.

As I recall Manny (or Elise?) saying, "the price of admission to a good fight is the ship you are in." Much more dynamic and interesting roles could appear more palatable if the build costs were tailored around the philosophy that they could be used in risky situations and lost frequently without crushing the soul.


What long it takes for a major power blocs to build sc? How many they do already have at their inventory assets list. The price of build is not that important vs enviromental they are used at. Let's imagine titans are 10b worth now, a lot of people could immediately buy one and a lot could achieve even few, does it mean they going to buy them? Absolutely NO cause there are no proper conditions to use them.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#62 - 2015-03-22 11:30:36 UTC
you do realize you've just replaced every subcap in the game with this mode switching.

Mega tank, or self made no anchor bubble, or multi drone deployment...

You are making what is already very strong, into rediculously strong. They need a purpose, not the ability to replace every subcap in the game.

You need to start with basic functionality. The carrier for instance needs to carry. The supers need a vulnerability. The titan... Well... Anyway.

Ultimate summary, the proliferation needs to slow down to the point where amassing nothing but cap and super pilots is how you win the game. That's the balance point that needs to be achieved. This is done with the goals assigned for them.

There is one buff I wouldn't be against. That is with cyno jumping. Right now people have to light a bulb on a char, target and jump to it with their super. What I would suggest is that supers and caps can blind jump into a system (just target the system and jump into it). You wind up at a random planet in system. Cynos still work, they are just for pinpoint jumping.

I would allow the basic mobile cyno inhibitor to stop blind jumping (so the hunter can stop the guys friends from gang---- them). Basically 1 inhibitor blocks all blind jumps into the system (as these only last 1 hour, it's not a big deal).

What I would avoid is any buffs to the ship that would cause it to replace subcaps. It's not easy.

Yaay!!!!
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2015-03-22 13:36:56 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:

Arrow10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Range
Arrow10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Cycle Time


While there are many ideas and roles for capitals to fulfil, something I feel they absolutely should not do is cover specialist ewar roles like this. By allowing capital ships to tackle other ewar-immune ships, it not only devalues Interdictors + HICs, but pushes us back towards the era of apex fleets. Once you're able to cover all key fleet roles solely with capital ships, there's no reason to take anything else and the only outcome is that an opponent will have to bring more capitals to compete. This problem is further compounded with the recent jump drive changes and cyno inhibitors.

There are all sorts of things capitals and super-capitals can be doing in this game. We have existing mechanics that can be iterated on and improved (clone vat bays, fleet bonuses, jump bridges, etc). There are all sorts of other imaginative ideas I've seen recently (Titans generating wormhole-style bonuses/penalties around an area in order to complement the fleet they're supporting).

Please, let's be more creative than "capital-sized Interdictor".
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
#64 - 2015-03-22 14:25:20 UTC
Ari Kelor wrote:

- Adding a blockade style of module for both the Dreadnaught and Carrier. Similar to the Triage and Siege module this will have multiple effects that can set up a blockade for stations and stargates. Balancing considerations is that they will use stront, and will take up to a minute to deploy, so that you will need to keep continual coverage to try to catch something.



This is really interesting. Movement will be critical with the new command node system, allowing capitals to shut down or otherwise manipulate gates could give them a critical and interesting role. If your cap fleet lets you move more freely (bridging) while restricting the enemy (blockading), building and maintaining one will become highly desirable for fozzie sov warfare.

Love,

~Coelomate
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-03-22 14:29:48 UTC  |  Edited by: The Hamilton
I think there needs to be more back to the drawing board originality when it comes to providing caps and supers with a purpose post sov 5.0. Modes, more variations and movable starbases are all derivative of what they currently do. What about entirely new concepts.


  • Deadspace generator on a super that prevents all others from warping to a grid for a couple of minutes while also leaving it vulnerable.
  • Off grid shooting for dreads with support to spot targets.
  • Proper rts style control of fighter wings to move about a system while outside of protective areas.
  • Act as a slingshot for subcaps.
  • Intel source of adjacent systems.
  • Titans launch an equivalent of a nuke to a specific grid within system giving ample warning to those on grid.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#66 - 2015-03-22 16:35:13 UTC
Allowing capitals into highsec would be nice. With the removal of fighter delegation, carriers lose most of their bite; by further preventing seige/triage and only being able to use gates capitals would not be "unballanced". most accel gates would prevent use in most pve, and being able to build and use capitals in highsec would allow access to non sov holders and more access means more kills.
Ari Kelor
Frontier Explorations Inc.
#67 - 2015-03-22 17:59:45 UTC
Coelomate wrote:
Ari Kelor wrote:

- Adding a blockade style of module for both the Dreadnaught and Carrier. Similar to the Triage and Siege module this will have multiple effects that can set up a blockade for stations and stargates. Balancing considerations is that they will use stront, and will take up to a minute to deploy, so that you will need to keep continual coverage to try to catch something.



This is really interesting. Movement will be critical with the new command node system, allowing capitals to shut down or otherwise manipulate gates could give them a critical and interesting role. If your cap fleet lets you move more freely (bridging) while restricting the enemy (blockading), building and maintaining one will become highly desirable for fozzie sov warfare.


I agree with your conclusions. It seems to me that the new sov warfare is trying to add a terrain of sorts by implementing constellation level siege mechanics. Capitals need to be part of this system in order to be widely used, what better way use them than to make it so they can effectively counter smaller ships capabilities while at the same time sacrificing there ability to effectively counter other capital ships. Movement and the ability to actively oppose your enemy several jumps away will be a great advantage, a role that Capitals can easily fit into given the right mechanics.

As for the OP instead of pushing MODES onto the capitals, add more variety to the triage/siege modules to give capitals different capabilities. Bringing down the power of the current modules and split the bonuses into 3-4 separate modules and build fits around them. It would be really interesting if they made different animations for the different modules so you can visually see what they are using.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#68 - 2015-03-22 19:01:17 UTC
Ari Kelor wrote:
Coelomate wrote:
Ari Kelor wrote:

- Adding a blockade style of module for both the Dreadnaught and Carrier. Similar to the Triage and Siege module this will have multiple effects that can set up a blockade for stations and stargates. Balancing considerations is that they will use stront, and will take up to a minute to deploy, so that you will need to keep continual coverage to try to catch something.



This is really interesting. Movement will be critical with the new command node system, allowing capitals to shut down or otherwise manipulate gates could give them a critical and interesting role. If your cap fleet lets you move more freely (bridging) while restricting the enemy (blockading), building and maintaining one will become highly desirable for fozzie sov warfare.


I agree with your conclusions. It seems to me that the new sov warfare is trying to add a terrain of sorts by implementing constellation level siege mechanics. Capitals need to be part of this system in order to be widely used, what better way use them than to make it so they can effectively counter smaller ships capabilities while at the same time sacrificing there ability to effectively counter other capital ships. Movement and the ability to actively oppose your enemy several jumps away will be a great advantage, a role that Capitals can easily fit into given the right mechanics.

As for the OP instead of pushing MODES onto the capitals, add more variety to the triage/siege modules to give capitals different capabilities. Bringing down the power of the current modules and split the bonuses into 3-4 separate modules and build fits around them. It would be really interesting if they made different animations for the different modules so you can visually see what they are using.


Too confusing, too broken. You'd be giving caps and supercaps powers they never could have conceived of.

I would take them down to the drawing board in total. Redo their goals in total, and balance their power curve so they don't replace a fleet of a logi wing alone. We have to tone them down, bring them inline with every other ship, and create a command structure for them (a reason to bring 1 to 5 of them, and not 100 to 500 of them).

Yaay!!!!
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#69 - 2015-03-22 19:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Trying to balance them off the concept of retrieving their post glory is folly. The past is gone.

Let's make them relevant in the present.

Unfortunately with that, this means that the concept of a nothing but capital fleet armada needs to die. In addition, the concept of amassing nothing but cap cashes also needs to die. It's begun with the phoebe and sov changes. I fear that people maybe too attached to what they were, they won't bother with trying to make them into what they should be.

Yaay!!!!
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#70 - 2015-03-22 19:28:21 UTC
What about just removing capital remote reps altogether? This would require taking supercaps with doomsdays and fighter bombers completely out of the equation. If carriers and dreads were forced to be supported by subcap healer magic, would there really be any need for supercaps as we know them today? Hell, you could find a way of giving fighter bombers to standard carriers to give them some sort of genuine anti-capital/structure punch, albeit not at the level of the supercarrier of today. It just seems like the entire idea surrounding the brick-like nature of massed capitals with remote reps is one of the major stumbling blocks.

Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
#71 - 2015-03-22 20:05:03 UTC
Keep in mind that CCP announced the (eventual) removal of hitpoint-based POS grinding at fanfest. Capitals will be in a truly absurd balance spot once the big guns don't even have a use shooting a POS.

If capitals retain anti-capital firepower, the game will beg for a reason to deploy them in the first place. While capitals only excel at shooting capitals and nothing else, they just won't be used.

Love,

~Coelomate
Leisha Miranen
Doomheim
#72 - 2015-03-22 20:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Leisha Miranen
While I agree to an extent, it seems odd that you've chosen the Archon as your example. It is perhaps one of the only capitals that currently has few balance issues, if any - it sees a wide array of uses, and is especially common for triage (I.e. it's not hurting or in need of serious love). Of all the capital ship the archon is probably the one that needs change the least.

Whereas dreadnoughts are the caps most affected by the removal of structure grind, because it removes one of their main purposes.
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp.
#73 - 2015-03-22 21:51:59 UTC
Leisha Miranen wrote:
While I agree to an extent, it seems odd that you've chosen the Archon as your example. It is perhaps one of the only capitals that currently has few balance issues, if any - it sees a wide array of uses, and is especially common for triage (I.e. it's not hurting or in need of serious love). Of all the capital ship the archon is probably the one that needs change the least.

Whereas dreadnoughts are the caps most affected by the removal of structure grind, because it removes one of their main purposes.


Completely missing the OP's point. He's using the Archon as an example because it's so good, not because he thinks it needs improvement. Being so good at everything all at once is the entire point of his proposal.
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#74 - 2015-03-22 21:55:59 UTC
The problem with balancing capitals lies in where is appropriate to set their power. Should they be glorified battleships, or should they be able to defend themselves. On one hand they represent the largest and most powerful things we can build and fly, on the other all it takes is a pair of cruisers and they die kinda easily.

They should be powerful enough that it takes quite an effort to bring one down, but weak enough to where they cant dominate an entire wing of smaller ships.

As it sits, all but the Super-carriers and titans are glass cannons, carriers can be removed off field with the concentrated effort of a few tornados and a tackle; dreads fall prey to anything faster than an old cripple.

Perhaps as a balance change make them better capable of engaging smaller enemies, or make them more viable to field in smaller numbers- a carrier should not need seven more carrier buddies to be able to defend itself against something small enough to fit in its drone bay.

And scripts to siege mode; they would let the dread switch between ungodly damage or greatly bonused tracking speed.
Leisha Miranen
Doomheim
#75 - 2015-03-22 22:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Leisha Miranen
CompleteFailure wrote:
Leisha Miranen wrote:
While I agree to an extent, it seems odd that you've chosen the Archon as your example. It is perhaps one of the only capitals that currently has few balance issues, if any - it sees a wide array of uses, and is especially common for triage (I.e. it's not hurting or in need of serious love). Of all the capital ship the archon is probably the one that needs change the least.

Whereas dreadnoughts are the caps most affected by the removal of structure grind, because it removes one of their main purposes.


Completely missing the OP's point. He's using the Archon as an example because it's so good, not because he thinks it needs improvement. Being so good at everything all at once is the entire point of his proposal.


So remove even MORE utility from capitals than CCP already has? What I'm saying is that he's gone to a lot of trouble to lay down a lot of specific numbers for carriers, where you are saying this isn't about carriers (I didn't see any specific modes suggested for other capitals in the OP....).

If you are suggesting that his point is really about other capitals then I'd like to see the very specific suggestions he has for dreads and supers, which could benefit a lot more from this than carriers (which are currently in a fairly good place and IMO don't need to be touched).
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#76 - 2015-03-22 22:47:44 UTC
Leisha Miranen wrote:
CompleteFailure wrote:
Leisha Miranen wrote:
While I agree to an extent, it seems odd that you've chosen the Archon as your example. It is perhaps one of the only capitals that currently has few balance issues, if any - it sees a wide array of uses, and is especially common for triage (I.e. it's not hurting or in need of serious love). Of all the capital ship the archon is probably the one that needs change the least.

Whereas dreadnoughts are the caps most affected by the removal of structure grind, because it removes one of their main purposes.


Completely missing the OP's point. He's using the Archon as an example because it's so good, not because he thinks it needs improvement. Being so good at everything all at once is the entire point of his proposal.


So remove even MORE utility from capitals than CCP already has? What I'm saying is that he's gone to a lot of trouble to lay down a lot of specific numbers for carriers, where you are saying this isn't about carriers (I didn't see any specific modes suggested for other capitals in the OP....).

If you are suggesting that his point is really about other capitals then I'd like to see the very specific suggestions he has for dreads and supers, which could benefit a lot more from this than carriers (which are currently in a fairly good place and IMO don't need to be touched).


Im not a Dev the example of the Archon was a presentation of a idea. All the figures bonuses and stats are irrelevant because they are highly subjective to discussion and balance. However the MODEs and the example of how you can give strengths and weaknesses is the overall point. The overarching thing is you can make capitals do new and exciting things without just buffing the overall kit. A dread for instance that can go into a anti subcapital mode. Or a anti-capital role. The sky is literally the limit. However what you don't want to do is say " O hey caps can do everything they can do now but were also giving them all these other things they can do at the same time". Modes allow for new exciting roles without stripping away existing roles. Its about making things more dynamic and offering players new tools and choices that creates interesting gameplay.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#77 - 2015-03-22 22:49:26 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
What about just removing capital remote reps altogether? This would require taking supercaps with doomsdays and fighter bombers completely out of the equation. If carriers and dreads were forced to be supported by subcap healer magic, would there really be any need for supercaps as we know them today? Hell, you could find a way of giving fighter bombers to standard carriers to give them some sort of genuine anti-capital/structure punch, albeit not at the level of the supercarrier of today. It just seems like the entire idea surrounding the brick-like nature of massed capitals with remote reps is one of the major stumbling blocks.



I'd be down for that but the cost of Supercaps would need to come down. However that plays into another conversation about logi roles in general in PVP.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2015-03-22 23:02:04 UTC
One way to nerf the carrier blob might be to give capital reps the same treatment dreadnought guns have with siege. Reduce the base despair amount significantly while increasing the triage module bonus.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2015-03-22 23:12:27 UTC
Rowells wrote:
One way to nerf the carrier blob might be to give capital reps the same treatment dreadnought guns have with siege. Reduce the base despair amount significantly while increasing the triage module bonus.


This would be a bit premature. I would hardly call the ability for heavy spider tanking to be considered OP when the main situations where it was a problem (300 carriers at a sov timer) are being stripped away until they are nearly useless for Sov.

What you suggest is certainly an option as long as it accompanies a new role for carriers. They are hardly in a place atm where they need more heavy nerfs because they are being "OP".
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#80 - 2015-03-22 23:37:29 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Rowells wrote:
One way to nerf the carrier blob might be to give capital reps the same treatment dreadnought guns have with siege. Reduce the base despair amount significantly while increasing the triage module bonus.


This would be a bit premature. I would hardly call the ability for heavy spider tanking to be considered OP when the main situations where it was a problem (300 carriers at a sov timer) are being stripped away until they are nearly useless for Sov.

What you suggest is certainly an option as long as it accompanies a new role for carriers. They are hardly in a place atm where they need more heavy nerfs because they are being "OP".


Anything fielded in 100+ blobs can be rediculous. Even dessies in the blob scale can do absurd things. We need to find a balance where a few are fine, but fielding 100 at a time is pointless.