These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Capital & Super Rebalance Suggestions

First post
Author
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2015-07-06 18:12:13 UTC
Capital & Super Rebalance Suggestions

Prologue:
The overarching strategy in these proposed changes is to give players meaningful reasons to field these ships in an environment where structure grinding doesn’t exist.
Reducing the cost and adding utility to all classes is imho low hanging fruit that’s easily sniped. On the subject of reducing cost it is imperative that Supercarriers and Titans are reduced so that the price point isn’t a deterring factor in fielding them in subcapital fights. I feel these changes will give all classes unique roles and reason for players to field them.

Dreadnaught
Add Corporate Hangar and Ship Maintenance Bay ( The rationale for this is many new players when training for their first capital typically skill for a carrier for the utility of the suitcase adding a SMA & SMA allows players to instead choose which ship is more fun , useful for them).
Change hull bonus out of siege dread does around 7.5k dps. Tracking only allows it to hit capital sized ships. Is not EWAR immune and can receive remote assistance.
When dread enters siege it has highly improved tracking and does somewhere between 1-2k dps allowing it to hit subcapitals (dps amount is debateable , I think it should be higher than a short range BS but not more than double so imho 2k dps should be the ceiling). Dread cannot receive remote assistance while in siege but is EWAR immune.
Carrier
Increase Corporate Hangar and Ship Maintenance hangar size.
Split existing carrier into 2 hulls per race.
Logistics Carrier - Bonuses to Rep range , power. Capacitor Transfer range & power. Penalty to drone dps.
DPS Carrier - Bonuses to Drone Damage penalties to remote assistance.
The overarching idea is to kill the slowcat and limit the carriers ability to do all things good at one time. On patch day when players login they will choose which type of carrier they want their existing carriers to be (If this is impractical due to coding etc then I suggest turning existing carriers into the logistic carrier).
Separate the fighter & drone bay. (suggest fighter bay being able to hold 20 fighters and the drone bay being 2-4k)
Buff fighter ehp.
Change Drone Control Units to affect Fighter HP & Resistance.
Can the Nidhogger not be so bad please?

Supercarriers
Reduce hull cost (suggestion 3-5 billion isk to build a hull)
Increase Corporate Hangar and Ship Maintenance Bay as well as Fuel Bay (suggest at least double the current size)
Separate Fighter & Fighter Bomber bays allow for 20 of each in each bay.
Change Drone Control Units to affect Fighter & Fighterbomber HP & Resistance.
Create Supercarrier specific module “Space Harpoon”. High slot module that allows the Supercarrier to Harpoon another Capital or Supercapital and prevent it from warping. The Harpoon can then be reeled in. If the mass of the target is lower than the Supercarrier the result is the target will be dragged to the Supercarrier. If the mass is higher the result is Supercarrier is dragged to the target. This also creates unique gameplay opportunities for multiple supercarriers to team up and drag titans and heavier targets. Space Harpoons can affect sieged/triaged targets. Furthermore the Space Harpoon should be able to Harpoon to structures and pull themselves to the structure. Suggested Harpoon Range 75km for meta 1 and 100km for named/faction. Comparable fitting needs to the ECM Burst.
Titans
Reduce hull cost. (suggestion 15-20 billion isk to build a hull)
Increase Corporate Hangar and Ship Maintenance Bay as well as Fuel Bay (suggest at least double the current size)
The titan should be the ultimate capital/supercapital killer. Increase turret DPS so that the titan does 50% more turret dmg than any other capitals possible maximum dps.
Add scriptable highslot module that does an AOE or Cone force pull or push ( Heavy Interdictors are immune). This will give the titan great utility in subcap fights allowing it to reshape the battlefield. 10 min cooldown same rules apply as DDD.
Double the amount of clones the clone vat bay can store. (With increased CHA/SMA size coupled with clonevat size this will allow the titan to be used in covert roles. Sneak into position summon a fleet strike and disappear.
Rorqual
Remove Ore Compression Bonus and Mission
Create Capital Sized Gas Harvester’s , Mining Lasers , Moon Extractors
The Rorq becomes the ultimate expression of resource extraction when it enters siege allowing it extract resources from Clouds , Asteroids and Moons at rates beyond the capability of any other known device or mechanism.
Normal Siege rules apply 5mins cycle can’t receive remote assistance and is EWAR immune.
Increase ore bay size so that the rorq can do 2-3 cycles of siege before needing to empty.
Modules
Space Harpoon
Titan Force Mod
Capital sized Gas Harvester , Moon Harvester , Mining Lasers and requisite meta/faction versions
Capital Sized Energy Neutralizers and Nosferatu’s
Drone Control Unit change to affect Fighter & Fighter Bomber EHP/Resistances.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#2 - 2015-07-06 18:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Supported, but not entirely sold on a couple of things.

Why do you think it is a good thing for Dreadnoughts to be able to hit other Capital Ships so hard without committing to the field? I think the current system whereby specially fit Dreadnoughts, who have committed to the field, can hit Battleships works pretty well. Do you see your newly proposed Dreadnoughts being able to hit Cruisers? Or just Battleships? Do you see them requiring stasis webifier and target painter support to hit subcapital targets?

I like the suggested changes to the Rorqual, except that I think the cycle time might be too short. I am envisioning deep nullsec and WH systems where mining can go relatively unimpeded.

As for the cost reduction to Super Capitals... Why? Do you think people will use them more often? I would be totally cool with Titans becoming T2 Dreadnoughts, with a massive nerf to HP, price decreases, and a focus on killing other Capitals.

The suggestion to split Carrier roles is a good one. Just make T1 Carriers the logistics platform and Supercarriers the Damage platform.

Super Capitals should definitely be able to tackle other Super Capitals.

Quote:
The overarching idea is to kill the slowcat and limit the carriers ability to do all things good at one time.


This is absolutely needed.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2015-07-06 18:24:16 UTC
I'm having de ja vu
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#4 - 2015-07-06 18:24:52 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I'm having de ja vu


Well, this time there is no talk of modes.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#5 - 2015-07-06 18:28:33 UTC
Some interesting ideas for capital ships. I've proposed something similar for carriers a few times (split them into logi and fighter platforms) because it's never made sense to me that a logistics platform also has so much combat capability and hauling capability. The dreadnaught idea in particular is interesting in that you'd give each dread two roles based on whether it was in siege or not, but I fear it'd make them too flexible just like carriers are now. But, if I may be so bold, maybe do to dreads what you proposed to carriers: split them into two distinct classes, the existing dreads, and another class of dreads that gets the sub-cap combat siege bonuses you mentioned.

I admittedly didn't read the supercap suggestions because I've never flown them and likely never will.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2015-07-06 18:30:53 UTC
Also can we stop trying to justify existence of the industrial core by giving it whacky roles? No need to bedazzle the handcuffs unless you like that kind of stuff.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#7 - 2015-07-06 18:31:54 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Also can we stop trying to justify existence of the industrial core by giving it whacky roles? No need to bedazzle the handcuffs unless you like that kind of stuff.

I can't unsee that mental image. Thanks for that. Blink

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-07-06 19:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I've got a few changes I'd make to your ideas:


Dreadnoughts:
Dreads in siege mode should be the higher damage dealers. I think I see what you're going for--making titans have less ability to hit subcaps than dreads have. But I think a better way to do it would be to give titans a role penalty to tracking, along with their bonus to damage. I'd say dreadnoughts should lose 50% tracking in siege mode, to reach the current tracking values. This means that out of siege mode their greatly-reduced DPS would come with double the tracking. It's not enough to easily hit battleships, but if you have subcap support to web and paint the battleships, they become much easier to hit. I'd also boost the base damage of capital weapons a lot--the siege module should only be doubling the DPS, out of siege the dreads should do a lot more DPS than a battleship.


Carriers:
I would not merge them, but I would possibly make more distinction between their roles. It is my understanding that operation of a triage module disallows the launching of drones, and thus slowcats operate without one. However, the triage module also disallows the capital from receiving remote reps. It is only useful for a carrier that is trying to mimic an Oneiros or Scimitar. It does not allow rep chains.

I would alter the triage module to grant no defense bonuses but to allow remote reps. It will help defend the carriers by way of making multiple carriers more able to defend each other, and spider-tanking with triage modules can become a thing. In fact, I think real carrier spider-tanking should normally be done with triage modules. Capital reppers might need a nerf to make in-triage spider tanking similar in effectiveness to what could be done previously with what options were available through spider tanking.

Carriers that would not spider-tank can still gain a defensive bonus if there are at least two of them on the field, as either one can repair the other even while both are in triage mode.

numbers posted below in post #13

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2015-07-06 19:18:24 UTC
While you're not wrong in the slow cat needing to be redesigned from the ground up....

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or dropping some heavy duty troll bait..... 1-2k dps sieged dread? They can already hit sub caps, the pilot just has to not be a scrub. Add in a couple webs and game over. Then the Super/Titan cost suggestions? 0.o

Yeah, they need to be looked at but that is pure crazy.


I'll wait for CCP to post something to respond, instead of CSM trolling.

#Spaceharpoons

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#10 - 2015-07-06 19:20:13 UTC
Space harpoons? There's a Moby **** joke in there somewhere.. We need a pure white ship skin for each titan.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#11 - 2015-07-06 19:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
my pleasure bronson.

That aside, I really like the idea for dreads with switching the damage roles (subduing a chubby over the idea of SMA on a dread). However, I dont see any mention of reduced hitpoints for any of the ships. The costs are going down a bit, but are the massive base HP still needed in the new roles? The way I see it, the need for massive dps against structures is gone so its entirely possible that the overall HP and max damage for these ships can be brought more in line and reduce the chance of balance issues and niche OP areas. It is one of the primary reasons for reduced damage against subcaps and terrible tracking for capital weapons. A more linear progression in stat increases would simplify a lot of things.

On the rorqual, I really dont want to see the compression go away (and the mission?). I use it a lot since it has a bit more flexibility than a POS and I would definitely use it more if it didn't require a 5 minute siege timer. That is my single biggest issue with it. If people are deadset on keeping the indy core around, I would suggest removing all current roles from it and moving them to the base hull. Then add as many specialized gas/mining/moongoo-ing cores as you want. A bigger SMA might be nice too since its more restricted (and should therefore specialize). In my own vision, If you were to give it harvesting roles, those would be delegated to drone-like pieces, but thats just a personal aesthetic preference. Also, to the chagrin of many other rorqual pilots, I would like to see some cargo space moved from hull to fleet hangar (only slightly larger) and to the ore/x-material bay (possibly specialized hangars for materials?) in a greater tsum than what was lost.

and while im at it, you dont need to split carrier roles, since you are reducing cost of supers anyway, you have your dps carrier right there. Even the skills are the same. Just remove any and all drone bonuses from normal carriers and focus on logistics. And remove all logistics bonuses from supers. Boom, roles split.

And no, the niddy cannot not be ****. Thats its job. Even has a skill bonus for it.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2015-07-06 19:30:36 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Space harpoons? There's a Moby **** joke in there somewhere.. We need a pure white ship skin for each titan.

http://i.imgur.com/Hlqad2e.jpg
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-07-06 19:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
continuing post #8
Numbers, for those of you who prefer these:


All capital weapons: +300% damage, +100% tracking

Siege Module I: +100% damage (instead of +700%)
Siege Module II: +135% damage (instead of +840%)
Both siege modules: -50% tracking

new bonuses for Titans:
skill bonus: 15% bonus to weapon damage per level
role bonus: 50% more weapon damage and 60% less tracking


And now here's how my proposed values compare to what we currently have:
DPS of Dreadnought in siege: no change
Tracking of Dreadnought in siege: no change
DPS of Dreadnought out of siege: +300%
Tracking of Dreadnought out of siege: +100%
DPS of Titan vs current value (with Titan skill at 3): +117.5%
DPS of Titan vs current value (with Titan skill at 5): +75%
DPS of Titan vs Dreadnought (current ratio): -10% (36/40)
DPS of Titan vs Dreadnought (my proposal): +57.5% (63/40)
Tracking of Titan vs current value: -20%

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#14 - 2015-07-06 19:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Space harpoons? There's a Moby **** joke in there somewhere.. We need a pure white ship skin for each titan.


EVE is going down the path to turn into this

http://i.imgur.com/jO24Dfc.jpg

or this

http://i.imgur.com/OhpvCJj.png
Leto Aramaus
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#15 - 2015-07-06 20:39:56 UTC
A BIG NO from me about the massive cost reductions on Titans and Supercarriers.

Like wtf?

Why?

You want everyone and their alt to have a Titan?

You want 5-10 Titan losses a day, and 50-100+ Supercarrier losses?

I'd prefer the opposite, frankly. I think it would be much cooler if Titans and Supers were brought back to the days of BoB and Atlas(? was it Atlas?), where there were "rumors that they have actually BUILT a TITAN".

-1. not a fan.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2015-07-06 20:53:17 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
A BIG NO from me about the massive cost reductions on Titans and Supercarriers.

Like wtf?

Why?

You want everyone and their alt to have a Titan?

You want 5-10 Titan losses a day, and 50-100+ Supercarrier losses?

I'd prefer the opposite, frankly. I think it would be much cooler if Titans and Supers were brought back to the days of BoB and Atlas(? was it Atlas?), where there were "rumors that they have actually BUILT a TITAN".

-1. not a fan.

We've already hit the point of no return on that.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#17 - 2015-07-06 21:00:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
Rowells wrote:

We've already hit the point of no return on that.


It's like inflation IRL, countries eventually stop printing the penny as their money is devalued.

Obvious solution? Get rid of rookie ships completely, frigs become rookie ships, and we make a class bigger than the titan (the mega-titan).

Problem solved. You're welcome all.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2015-07-06 21:05:52 UTC
Dread : How good does the tracking get in anti sub-cap role? It hits BS? BC? Cruisers? HACS?
Scriptable siege module to anti cap or anti sub-cap as opposed to good anti-cap dps without commitment would be better imo.

Carrier : Looks good

Supercarrier : Do they lose their rep support bonus or they are still somewhat capable of hybrid operation?
Harpoon is a neat idea but teaming up to pull larger target might be hard on the hamsters.

Titant : I would not count on an AoE effect being integrated but who knows...

Do those reduction in cost bring docking capabilities for super/titans? Reduction in EHP?
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-07-06 21:07:12 UTC
Time to make it even more worse or either interesting.

Get rid of Triage/ Siege mods. Wait, don't cry yet.

Buff Capital turrets/launchers overall DPS. Improve all XL ammo.

Dreads should play their own very narrow role - kill other Capitals. Nothing else. Not sure about structures.

Titans never leave null sec space ever and super carriers as well. Pilots should work on better utilization of non cap logistics tacticts.

Build costshould be increase for all of them. Carriers 2.5 bil; Dreads 5.0 bil; Supercariers 35.0 bil; Titans 125 bil.

CAPless this game is deff need that. Otherwsie we have cruisers vs capitals online.

"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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2015-07-06 21:13:15 UTC
Howabout we bring back Motherships? Lets downplay the carrier aspect of the supercarrier and bring back its command and operations roles, making it extremely ideal as a subcap support ship, but pathetic to use directly as an attack vessel. I think the best way to fix supercaps is to make their best use to be on the battlefield in support of subcaps.



Frostys Virpio wrote:
Dread : How good does the tracking get in anti sub-cap role? It hits BS? BC? Cruisers? HACS?

I think he was going for HICs.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

123Next page