Player Features and Ideas Discussion

@Alexis Nightwish Your numbers are completely off. The way things are now, this 'big' EHP wall you are sooooo worried about, just indicates you do not have proper DPS to take them down. That's your problem, not the supercaps.

Have you seen what a hot drop of dreads do to a supercarrier? Or a titan? Both fitted with some of the BEST modules in the games.

The supercap dies, very quickly.

EWAR immunity (which also included bubbles before), is there for the simple reason of giving the big target a slim chance of survival.

Do you know what happens when 20 EWAR T2 cruisers start jamming/disrupting targets? Yeah... you can go AFK while your ship dies because you can't do anything helpful. So the poor chap in the titan or supercarrier would be primaried EWAR and then DPS applied (so it dies EVEN quicker...).

Supers haven't been supers for a long time (at least 5 years). They are only a problem when a few hundred are dropped on someone... but that could be said for any fleet of a few hundred of X ship.

I'd like to see carriers have more use of their Fighter-craft. When I think of a carrier, I envision fighter-craft as the primary projection of power. Yeah it can carry things in the hanger and such but predominantly I would like to see the logistics component separated out into its own capital hull.

In their current form they are a Swiss-army knife that mostly uses remote logistics with a few fighters on the field.

I'd have their fighters be the main event, so to speak. In addition, I would like to see carriers have some form of point-defense, such as the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System on modern day naval warships.

Regarding Dreads, I think they should have a gunboat hull/role for anti-ship and a catapult hull/role for anti-structure.

I agree with everything right up until the end of where i quoted you...

What you want to do with the tracking of dreads against subs is just bullcrap unless the effective damage against ship type is revamped to be based on hull / gun size. And extending the invalid targeting mechanic to more caps without introducing it (invalid targeting) to the smallest of sub caps when they try to take on supers and caps is also bullcrap.

You should do exactly the opposite.

If in siege, the damage bonus will wipe out anything a true tracking dread (never mind 10 of them or more) can hit 100%. We should allow tracking dreads outside of siege, and prevent them in siege to balance out the insane damage.

What the hell did he write?

And it gives exactly what?

What to do about Capitals !

I have read 99% of the suggestion, and as little of the „why you can´t do this or that“ as possible (it does not help creative thinking) and as I look at it – if the Wright brothers would have listened to „why you cant do this or that“ like I see here - we would not be flying today.
I have incorporated and adopted ideas from what I have read, so I will look at this more as a collective idea than just my own. And as for the „mode“ idea, it is still in its essence a good idea, Triage and Siege is just another form of „mode“ and by moving it more towards the morphing of T3 Destroyers would be awesome on the Capitals. As on how this would look like or be done – I have no idea, I'm just a ideas guy.

I believe most of the commentators are on the line that „keep Capitals it as is“ is in no way beneficial for game play, and also that there is no obvious role for them in Fozziesov 5.0

My take on solving the issue of Capitals, is as follows:

Carriers will continue to be the ultimate solution when it comes to Drones and logistics.

They will be in two classes, Attack Carriers (current Super Carrier) and Combat Carriers.

Attack Carrier, lower EHP by 32%, give it two types of „Mode“. Attack and Defence, Attack mode will give added speed and range to Fighters and Bombers, and reduced resists. Defence - will give added bonuses to resists.

Combat Carrier, lower EHP by 17%, give two types of „Mode“. Combat – added range and damage to drones, and resists reduced by 8%, RR effectiveness reduced. Logistics – bonuses to RR and Resists, Drones to be skills only (5 drones can be deployed).

Dreadnoughts, lower EHP by 23%, 5 high slots, two Modes – Combat & Attack, Combat – Increased agility, speed and tracking. Attack – increased damage, increased resists, reduced speed, agility and tracking.

Titan, reduce EHP by 40% will have 3 modes, Fleet – Passive – Fortification,
Fleet – reduced EHP by 50%, ability to use DD.
Passive – can bridge, use weapon systems.
Fortification – by consuming Stront, Shield as on POS will be raised, weapon system as on Drifter BS will activate (guns sitting on outside of shield that can be disabled) if fitted with Clone vat bay, and high-slot modules X-Y & Z (no idea what to call them) you will be able to turn your Titan into mobile station with Medical, Fitting, Repair & Docking bay. So when you invade, you have a base to attack from, and if you live in NPC 0,0 you are able to set up your own temporary base. If attacked during Fortification, you will be able to put it into reinforcement and destroy.

I see Capitals with lower EHP, I see them with lower entry point, I see them where they are not „I win“ button. I don´t see Titan as one in a live-time use (for 80% of owners), but as an item you want to use 99% of the time.
I also see where bringing too many Capitals in fleets will reduce there effectiveness.

In multiple scenarios, this is one possibility for Capitals to evolve. I'm just someone with vivid imagination, and firm believer in the butterfly effect. My ideas may not be the best ideas, but they may encourage someone with better ideas to put them forward, or even take my ideas and evolve them to another stage.

Carriers outfitting on the fly in slowcat fleets wasn't enough.

Yes. Yesss. Give each capital type two modes - Attack & Defense butt0ns. That will solve everything.

GUD MODES ON TECH 1 VESSELS.

Sane people do exist. I'm shocked.
But still, criticism is nice only when served as appetizer. We'd like to see your ideas too.

I've been thinking some more about the removal of fighter assist mechanics, and the role of carriers. While there certainly is an issue with a carrier pilot deploying fighters to others and remaining safe, far from the battle itself, when I think of carriers, I think of them being large, vulnerable assets that *always* deploy their small craft at a distance. It's kind of their role, really (talking of the carrier concept in general). In short, instead of shying away from the remote assist option, embrace it.

Someone earlier in the thread suggested splitting the logistics and carrier aspects into two separate ships, and I very much like this idea. Have carriers focused on the deployment of fighters to augment fleets and perform other tasks, such as scouting. i.e. add more fighter-sized drones with other capabilities (I've mentioned this earlier in the thread, but remote rep fighters deployed at a distance could be very cool).

What if fighter assist was reinstated, but carriers themselves were made far more vulnerable? Greatly reduce armour and shield amounts, though keep their structure strong. Instead of forcing them to be on the field, you should be trying to keep them away. Perhaps when they deploy fighters, they effectively become a spatial anomaly, appearing on everyone's overview so they can just be warped straight to (steps should be taken to ensure a fleet of 300 carriers doesn't cause problems with overcrowding the grid). You'd definitely want to have escorts, as capitals should.

In fact, instead of triage, carriers could get a 'deployment' mode of sorts, enabling them to provide fighter assistance to other pilots, but like siege mode on dreadnoughts, prevent them from moving or receiving remote reps for the duration of the cycle. So if a carrier is sitting on the edge of a forcefield, it still won't be able to move inside while deployed and has to wait for the cycle to end in order to retreat to safety. Window of opportunity for engagement.