These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2015-03-30 11:40:20 UTC
Princess Cherista wrote:
Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0

They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight.


Your concerns are valid, but have you ever tried to target lock a frigate in a capital? Hardly a speedy proposition.
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2015-03-30 14:07:32 UTC
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:
I'll just say this: If you make it too risky for carriers to use their fighters and apply dps, then nobody is going to do it. No matter how "ballanced" the change might look or how good the idea sounds, if you make it so that a carrier has to stay put for x amount of time in the middle of nowhere, somewhere it can be probed down by a Cheetah and dropped on in under 30 seconds, then it's flat out not going to be worth it to use them in that capacity. Why should I use this cool fighter mechanic when I can just sit off gate in my Isthar, let my friend do the insta pointing, and just blap things with sentry drones and be about 10X safer and just sacrificing a bit of dps? Or do it even cheaper and use a Nado or a Naga?

Why would anyone be willing to put their carrier at risk when they can get whereabouts the same effect but spend a lot less money and be a lot safer? Whether it's assigned fighters, or it's a instablap nado, you're going to die when you jump the gate anyways.


Very valid points, a cheetah should not be able to probe down that carrier in 30 seconds. It's been discussed else where recently that probing players down is becoming far too easy. Also pointing out how safe you can be just by sitting next to the gate will only be relevant to on gate encounters, though sitting at range and warping off is a good equivalent anywhere. What you're really saying is the carrier needs to feel safer than that, or apply enough dps to warrant the higher risk than that to have players use them instead of whatever new cheap throw away doctrine is used.

What about hiding your carrier in a different system altogether a few jumps out in an unknown direction? Would that be worth it? Also it'd have the added bonus not entering a TiDi system at all. If someone finds you, all you'd have to do is jump to another system. Then the hunt would go on, this time with the jump cool down and fatigue. You could jump and escape but you'd be removing your dps from the fight, and if you are unfortunate enough to get caught the fight could easily spread to the system you are in to try and save you. Also forcing the carrier into remaining in one spot is silly, they should be able to move and try to stay hidden. This way carriers would act more like an artillery in that you try to keep them away from the fight and on the move.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#163 - 2015-03-30 14:15:39 UTC
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:
I'll just say this: If you make it too risky for carriers to use their fighters and apply dps, then nobody is going to do it. No matter how "ballanced" the change might look or how good the idea sounds, if you make it so that a carrier has to stay put for x amount of time in the middle of nowhere, somewhere it can be probed down by a Cheetah and dropped on in under 30 seconds, then it's flat out not going to be worth it to use them in that capacity. Why should I use this cool fighter mechanic when I can just sit off gate in my Isthar, let my friend do the insta pointing, and just blap things with sentry drones and be about 10X safer and just sacrificing a bit of dps? Or do it even cheaper and use a Nado or a Naga?

Why would anyone be willing to put their carrier at risk when they can get whereabouts the same effect but spend a lot less money and be a lot safer? Whether it's assigned fighters, or it's a instablap nado, you're going to die when you jump the gate anyways.



You are on the cusp of getting it. You're almost there. Two suggestions. Come to terms with the simple fact that mega carrier warfare is is boring, broken and bad for the game in it's current form. The other... come to terms with the simple fact that ishtars are broken and a bad fall back place to go to when you leave the land of broken carrier warfare.

Once you let go of the 2 worst and severely broken play styles in eve.... you'll suddenly start to have fun and enjoy the game. There is so much more to eve pvp than landing on a grid, dropping sentries, assigning them to some jerk who calls himself FC and waiting to see if you win or not. Really, take a step back and have an objective look at what you are doing. Sure you win fights, but it's such a dumb and boring way to do it. You see, it's risking your ship, putting your hoo haw on the line for the win. Making a few decisions during the epic battle - that's where the fun is.

W/ the carrier sentry or ishtar sentry fleets, for the most part you can claim two things: 1. We won and 2. I was there.

If questioned after the epic battle as to what you did, you're response is that you landed on grid and assigned sentries to some dude. That's not really even playing the game if you think about it.


You're almost there sweety, just let sentries go and a whole space world of fun will open up to you.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#164 - 2015-03-30 14:22:15 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


EDIT: reworded in the hope that the EVE Creative Director reads it:

The first part of this discussion should be: "do we want to do it?". I would suggest that, "yes, we do".

Having established that, the next question is "how?". Clearly it's not impossible, just perhaps a challenge.

Well, the first thing to do would be to understand the existing code and data flows, then build a refactoring and migration plan so that any missing underlying functionality can be added without impacting the existing game, followed by the implementation of the extra client 'states' (such as - I am now inside that other ship, so update my client accordingly).

None of this is difficult - it simply requires the will followed by the execution.

If we ask CCP for this and tell them that it will really improve the game, and then the CSM push for it - perhaps we'll get it? Wouldn't that be better than simply accepting a whitewash answer?


Don't get me wrong i really wish a carrier could jump with docked ships but the time and resources CCP seems to hint it would take I doubt would be worth it.

it wasn't just the code for ship x is docked in ship y and when ship y jumps carry player in ship x with it

but also what happens when player Y logs off or when player x logs off and Y moves around

and i'm sure there were more
Lugh Crow-Slave
#165 - 2015-03-30 14:23:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Tiberian Deci wrote:
Princess Cherista wrote:
Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0

They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight.


Your concerns are valid, but have you ever tried to target lock a frigate in a capital? Hardly a speedy proposition.


no but i have run plenty of sites with frigs in my carrier


and i have no problem locking my station camping fleet with one


i have also locked a few freighters in my time and would have no problem using a dread to camp niarja

EDIT:

I'm not just saying this would now be bad for the freighter pilots that now need to deal with dreads but also to the ones who gank freighters.

no doubt once people start ganking freighters in HS with dreads CCP will be forced to buff the freighter to have the potential to tank a few dreads before CONCORD arrives meaning it is now harder for the newbro ganker to enter the world of ganking
Kraizer793
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#166 - 2015-03-30 16:19:41 UTC
I will say that I'm a lowsec PvPer. I am overjoyed that 0.0 is getting the attention it deserves after all this time. The reason I left null was for all of the frustration with problems that CCP is now turning their gaze to fix. However, as a lowsec pilot, I get a front-row seat to how balance changes meant to target one use case of a ship can affect another. So, I'm not trying to detract from the 0.0 updates, but given that there are 9 of 14 CSM X members that ran on a nullsec platform, I would like to stress that the uses and meta surrounding capitals in lowsec are different from those in null, and that it still needs to be taken into consideration when performing game balance.

As for Modes, I have mixed feelings. The modular nature this provides seems something that has been reserved for Tech 3 ships, either with modes or swappable subsystems. Capitals have this in a reduced form, with a "Pop-Eye the Sailor Man" button in which they consume a can of space spinach and go super saiyan for five minutes. Supercapitals and titans do not get this, but instead get weapon systems that are unique only to them (DD, Jump bridge, Remote ECCM, Fighter Bombers, etc.). Furthermore, there is distinct imbalance between the classes, some of which are in very niche scenarios, such as the performance of dreadnought guns vs. titans DDs in heavy TiDi situations that are still rather fresh in everyone's memory. As someone who owns both carriers and dreadnoughts, I want them to be fun, complex, engaging, and worth the while. By the same token, though, I personally don't want a capital fleet to be a stand-alone entity. When subcaps aren't required to conduct warfare, I feel as if the game will suffer a mortal wound, from which healing will be a long, painful process. So, the multi-mode system provides not only bonuses, but penalties, to ensure that capitalss can operate in a variety of ways, but not simultaneously. This also provides a unique small-gang aspect where capitals are used in small numbers of ways to mix and match, chain and alternate different modes. So, +1 for the idea. I am still very interested in other ideas, however.

The issue that sticks out the most to me in regards to capitals in a sov 5.0 world is the fluid nature of the battlefield, whereas capitals are relatively stagnant assets. Committing a sizable amount of capital firepower to a grid where an ELS capture needs to take place, only to have the objective completed by either side means that the capitals are now stuck not only in one position, but in a position that is not contributing to the destruction or capture of the structure in question. Even if that particular control point is won by this capital group, and the opposition is completely annihilated from grid, it only takes a few dictors to hold those ships in place, preventing them from being used in other parts of the engagement across other systems in the constellation.

So, I'm not exactly qualified to make specific balance suggestions with hard numbers and figures, as I do not have the background in 0.0 capital warfare that many others reading this may have. I do think, however, that the situation I outlined above is the main problem, and not the jump fatigue or "well now I have to go gate to gate" things I've heard. Jump reactivation timers when jumping to systems within such close proximity will likely be negligible compared to the length of 0.0 fights, especially those of these new constellation-wide fights. 40 minutes base time for a capital to ELS something makes a 4LY jump (50m of fatigue minus the last 10 minutes in which fatigue is not added but re-calculated) not a big deal, and if a subcapital force is present to provide ELS that don't take as long, the capitals can more easily be jumped to new points of interest around the constellation, given that being perma-dictored will be much easier to defend against. At first glance, this sounds like actually a good thing. Subcapitals required to support capitals, and without subcap ssupport, the capitals are ham-stringed in their influence over the rest of the fighting. However, losing a supcapital fight over an ELS target, but still holding the field should not be a crippling los for that particular capture point, given the capitals are stuck without outside intervention. The other thing is, being one of those capital pilots would be absolutely awful. Therefore, I think that there needs to be some mechanic that allows for extraction after a capture point. Whether this is a temporary disruption to bubbles on grid with the CP, or a reduction to the current fatigue timers of caps on grid, or whatever. If caps being committed in this new sov 5.0 world can be forced out of the fight after their objective has been completed by a few dictors, then it won't really matter what sort of fancy modes your Archon has, you'll only get to use them for one fight of potentially dozens.

This all ma be a non-issue, though. Again, I'm not a 0.0 warfare aficionado.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#167 - 2015-03-30 23:47:17 UTC
Great post friends keep it up.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#168 - 2015-03-31 01:35:12 UTC
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#169 - 2015-03-31 11:31:43 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.



Um, it took me 20 sec to come up w/ 6 ways to abuse that idea. 3 are kind of funny and 2 are deffo game breaking. Being able to lock more than 3 targets and do that kind of damage would make dread blapping king and sub cap fleets would evaporate.

Being able to lock 6 targets means (with little practice) you can keep 8-10 (maybe more) targets in the locking que. Your rate of fire would pretty much be equal to the rate a few dreads can take down sub caps. This and you want them to be able to get carrier reps and cap while doing such. Eeeesh.

Add in gate travel and folks will be forming up in moros fleets to go on a roam. You can kill all sub caps AND entosis the crap out of every system as you pass. Though I normally embrace chaos, this is a bit much.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#170 - 2015-03-31 11:37:47 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.

Bastion blocks RR. Just like Siege.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#171 - 2015-03-31 12:36:19 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.

Bastion blocks RR. Just like Siege.


Indeed and you wont need to go into siege to do your dps. You only go for times you need good local tank or extra range. Basically moving the damage bonus from siege to hull will open the ship up for more combat options.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#172 - 2015-03-31 12:37:31 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.



Um, it took me 20 sec to come up w/ 6 ways to abuse that idea. 3 are kind of funny and 2 are deffo game breaking. Being able to lock more than 3 targets and do that kind of damage would make dread blapping king and sub cap fleets would evaporate.

Being able to lock 6 targets means (with little practice) you can keep 8-10 (maybe more) targets in the locking que. Your rate of fire would pretty much be equal to the rate a few dreads can take down sub caps. This and you want them to be able to get carrier reps and cap while doing such. Eeeesh.

Add in gate travel and folks will be forming up in moros fleets to go on a roam. You can kill all sub caps AND entosis the crap out of every system as you pass. Though I normally embrace chaos, this is a bit much.


Yeah and one celestis will shut that blap dread down.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Proton Stars
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2015-03-31 14:40:05 UTC
Oh god, I voted for this idiot.


Shaklu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#174 - 2015-03-31 17:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaklu
WarFireV wrote:
(...)Dreadnaughts: Oh dreads Sad. Their primary function is going to be phased out. They do have two fall back functions that will need to be amplified, the ability to kill other capitals and the ability to kill subcap. I purpose that they are given two different siege types. One more suited for attacking capitals the other more suited for attack subcaps. It would also be a good idea to lower their manufacturing cost.
(...)

Dreads could keep mostly the same role that they have now, just dialed towards capital and Battleship engagements. Give them slightly better tracking, perhaps a capital combat mode and a sub-capital combat mode. Give them more agility to be able to maneuver on field, but keep carriers as slow cumbersome things.

If you boost up the Battleship EHP and dps by 2x, then the counter to battleship fleets instead of fast cruisers (that have equivalent tank and dps right now, but are smaller and faster) would be either another battleship fleet, or dreads. It would be a basic escalation tactic, but in smaller numbers theoretically. If Battleships were boosted up to be something like 15-20% of a dread as far as EHP and DPS, then they would still have issues with cruisers as far as dps projection using large guns, but their tanks would be able to hold unless you had BS/Dread gang fall on them.

Right now, it seems that there is a more or less linear projection of ship power from frigate to cruiser, but then it stops.

This is what I see in fleets and videos:
Frigate < T2 Frigate < Destroyer < T3 Destroyer < Cruiser < T2 Cruiser = T3 cruiser = Battlecruiser = Battleship
and then WAAAAY up above and beyond, you have Dread > Carrier > Supercarrier > Titan

There's a huge gap between Battleships and capitals that could be filled if you simply made battlecruisers and battleships more resilient and harder hitting, and brought dreads down a bit (especially in price)

Cruisers (T2 mostly), battlecruisers and battleships are all basically identical as far as DPS and tank, except obviously smaller, faster, cheaper ships are better. If they re-balanced the curve more linearly from frigate to dread, possibly reducing the cost of dreads to be closer to 1.5-2 bil fully fitted, then you would see them as a viable option on field against battleships.

The modes you could give dreads could make them fun and specialized
Anti-Capital Mode
  • Increase weapon damage by 200%
  • Decrease Tracking speed of weapons by 50%
  • Decrease max velocity by 80%
  • Increase armor/shield resists by 2%/lvl


Sub-Capital mode
  1. Increase Tracking Speed of weapons by 100%
  2. Increase Scan Resolution by 50%
  3. Increase Ship Agility and Velocity by 100%
  4. Decrease Shield/Armor boosting by 20%


And then you could have EWAR Mode, a Tank Mode, and some other ones that could be cool.. perhaps AOE Neuts, or Targeted AOE Neuts so that fleets wouldn't be able to just anchor up on 1 pilot, they would need to spread out a bit. Lots of options. Right now dreads are just too expensive and fragile to plop on the field with an enemy fleet unless you have lots and lots of them and you are either fighting capitals, or like.. dominixes.

I came up with that targeted aoe neuts idea while I was typing, and I think I should elaborate on how awesome that would be. Dread-only modules of different EWAR types that hit a ship and all ships within, say, 3k - 5k of that ship. This would make dreads suuuper important in large fleet engagements, and make pilots actually have to... pilot while in larger fleet fights. You could just keep at range ~10k or whatever, but then you could just web the leader and the rest come to a standstill, or target the following blob.. or perhaps dreads could even have a ship tractor beam module that would simply drag ships forcefully towards them. Having AOE modules that do ECM, Neut, Sensor Dampening or some others but only allowing say 2 modules per dread.. maybe just keep it at 1 so more dreads will drop, would kill the blob fleets and spread out the combat much more. Logistics would still be okay because there are usually few of them and they can orbit the fleet or whatever, but combat pilots will need to be significantly more spatially aware.

Anyway, went on a tangent there, but yeah, if you evened out the EHP and DPS of battlecruisers-dreads and gave dreads a bit more maneuverability and some unique ewar modules, they would get used frequently. Oh, and make dreads cheaper!

Increasing scan res on both carriers and dreads and putting them in a support/combat role against fleets and not specific targets like structures or capitals would also be a perfect platform for fleet commanders to sit in the middle of a battle and direct the troops. Like someone said before, the ships are so huge, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have fantastic computer and scanning equipment on-board.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#175 - 2015-03-31 17:43:50 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.



Um, it took me 20 sec to come up w/ 6 ways to abuse that idea. 3 are kind of funny and 2 are deffo game breaking. Being able to lock more than 3 targets and do that kind of damage would make dread blapping king and sub cap fleets would evaporate.

Being able to lock 6 targets means (with little practice) you can keep 8-10 (maybe more) targets in the locking que. Your rate of fire would pretty much be equal to the rate a few dreads can take down sub caps. This and you want them to be able to get carrier reps and cap while doing such. Eeeesh.

Add in gate travel and folks will be forming up in moros fleets to go on a roam. You can kill all sub caps AND entosis the crap out of every system as you pass. Though I normally embrace chaos, this is a bit much.


Yeah and one celestis will shut that blap dread down.


That's awesome! I had no idea that this game was so simple. Thanks for getting me up to speed on this. Sound thinking such as yours is bound to bring about great and balanced changes to eve.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#176 - 2015-03-31 17:49:29 UTC
Can you folks please for the sake of all that is pure and just... STOP TRYING TO GIVE EVERY SHIP IN THE GAME T3 DESTROYER MODE SWAPPING ABILITIES.

ahem.

please??
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#177 - 2015-03-31 18:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
An idea to make Dreads usefull post fozziesov would be adjusting the siege module to act like the bastion. Basically take the damage bonus away from the siege and add it to the hull bonus...

That way dreads can act like carriers and be front line ships that get RR but can be countered by ewar or they can go into siege and gain the bonus of the bastion... i.e range internal repair resistance bonus and ewar immunity.



Um, it took me 20 sec to come up w/ 6 ways to abuse that idea. 3 are kind of funny and 2 are deffo game breaking. Being able to lock more than 3 targets and do that kind of damage would make dread blapping king and sub cap fleets would evaporate.

Being able to lock 6 targets means (with little practice) you can keep 8-10 (maybe more) targets in the locking que. Your rate of fire would pretty much be equal to the rate a few dreads can take down sub caps. This and you want them to be able to get carrier reps and cap while doing such. Eeeesh.

Add in gate travel and folks will be forming up in moros fleets to go on a roam. You can kill all sub caps AND entosis the crap out of every system as you pass. Though I normally embrace chaos, this is a bit much.


Yeah and one celestis will shut that blap dread down.


That's awesome! I had no idea that this game was so simple. Thanks for getting me up to speed on this. Sound thinking such as yours is bound to bring about great and balanced changes to eve.


FU fleet is rather effective against boots why wouldn't they be effective against non sieged dreads? edit: moreover tracking distruperter and ECM will also work on non sieged dreads... So for all the potential blap dreads there will be more then enough hard counters... would you be able to provide a reasonable response that is not spurging with sarcasm?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#178 - 2015-03-31 18:45:01 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
WarFireV wrote:
Half of you people don't have any idea of how terrible fighters are. They die in an instant to any fleet and they are barely usable against subcaps.


what if fighters had fittings like tanks in dust 514? that might make them worth using...

you could assign fighters to work in formations where some are fitted to be e-war some for RR and some for damage... they could act in tandum with each other working to take out targets and keep each other alive...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

IceAero
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#179 - 2015-03-31 18:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: IceAero
OK, I want to add some of my thoughts onto this thread as well.

As a preface, I direct your attention towards this artistic render of the new Chimera: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/11051897_10153177598649394_6920115609548673410_o.jpg (Notice that the art calls out the clearly viable 'Point Defense' turrets)

So, this got me thinking. If you we're going to redesign carriers to have turrets, how would I do it? would it improve the game? And what could it mean for other capitals? Along those lines, I present the following litany of thoughts:

General Ideas:

(1) Carriers should be the 'generic' capital ship. Directly between Battleships and Dreads
(2) More Carrier PVP is desired in regular sub-cap engagements. (e.g., less 'cumbersome' to deploy, with more benefit, but easier to kill)
(3) Carriers should be more vulnerable to Dreadnoughts (.e.g., less EHP)
(4) Carriers should be less vulnerable to smaller ships that engage at close range (.e.g, close-range defense, more reps)
(5) Carriers should be excellent logistics platforms ONLY in triage mode.
(6) Carriers should be strongly encouraged to use Fighters (i.e., lower dps with regular drones/sentries)
(7) Along with (6), Reduce drone swarm by adding limiting the carrier to 5 drones (max 8 with drone control units)

Specific Changes:

First Goal: Maker carriers 'act their size and cost' (which isn't HUGE or EXPENSIVE) and increase their reliance on active tanking and increase their vulnerability to neuts.

[a] Increase speed and agility by 25%

[b] Decrease EHP by about 40% by:
[b.1] Lowering structure HP by 50%
[b.2] Lowering shield HP (Archon/Thanatos) or Armor HP (Chimera/Nidhoggur) by 33% (to give them the same ratios as supers)

[c] Increase Active repair strength by 25% by:
[c.1] Increase Capital Shield/Armor repair amount and activation by 100%
[c.2] Increase Capital Shield/Armor duration by 50%
(and yes, this is for the module, because I think all capitals should get some EHP reduction)

Second Goal: Force carriers into 'logistics' or 'assault' fittings by reducing logistics effectiveness outside of Triage.

[a] Remove the "Warfare link" role bonus (leave this to command ships)
[a] Remove Cap transfer / Shield / Armor Repair range bonus.
[c] Add 200% range bonus to Triage mod (60km range during triage)
[d] Increase Triage timer to 10m

Third Goal: Encourage Fighters and Reduce drone swarm

[a] Remove "Can deploy one additional fighter or drone per level" bonus per Carrier skill lvl.
[b] Add "20% bonus to [racial?] Fighters damage and hit points per level"
[c] Double the Volume of Fighter drones (MAYBE, to keep existing balances)
[d] Reduce drone bandwidth to 200 (i.e., max 8 drones with 3 DCU [and 16 effective Fighters...+1 over old system])
[e] Large increase to the fitting requirements for the drone control unit (more than double the PG...it's too easy to fit currently)

Fourth Goal: Make carriers more 'all-around' capitals by adding a defensive weapon system. (The result should be that Carriers 'dominate' a small zone [20km] around the carrier group at the cost of a high slots.)

[a] Add a new Modules: "Capital [Laser/Hybrid/Projectile] Point Defense Turrets"
[b] Add role bonus: "Can fit 2 [racial] Capital Point Defense Systems"
[c] Module does at least 250 DPS (needs to be more DPS than adding a Drone Control Unit). Uses (a lot of) medium ammo. Good tracking (affected by new skillbook), maybe 15km optimal, 5km falloff (Should be very effective against fighters/fighter bombers/and cruisers to encourage BS/Dreads and fast tackle that won't get hit by point defense [and faction points])
[d] Add new skillbook "Capital Point Defense Systems" w/ Requirements: Motion Prediction lvl 5
[e] Disabled during triage
Gevlin
Planned Obsolescence.
No Visual.
#180 - 2015-03-31 18:55:42 UTC
I understand the idea that more simple logic if 1 dread can kill a tower in 1 our 60 dreads should kill it in 1 minute. Though game play has to take hold and the developers have to take into consideration blobbing.

I built my dreads for structure grinding. I am a miner by natures. I would love to have dreads still be kept for that role. The I want to be special when I field it. I wish that damage applied to a structure will have a cap so the destruction of a structure will have a minimum time to be taken to be destroyed. This way the defenders have an opportunity to react to a conflict. The same should go for repairing.

Remember it is a SciFi universe so some techno-babble can be used to explain the reasoning behind it.

Structures should be a conflict driver exposing expensive assets to attack to accomplish a goal.

Titans and Super Carriers.

For combat ability should be there to make a fleet stronger at the end destination. A force multiplier, not an adder. Restricting the effectiveness of multiples of these in play will mean they will be used as an expensive tactical deployment and not a Blob I win button. Ensuring the owners of these ships promote the use of smaller ship to accompany them.

If the clone bay could be re worked to allow re-reinforcements to arrive through it would go a long way.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships