These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Capital & Super Rebalance Suggestions

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2015-07-07 01:35:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Quote:
Capital Turrets that are fitted to titans now have a new damage-scaling attribute; targets with a signature radius smaller than this size will take reduced damage from these turrets. This does not apply to dreadnaughts.
not including dreadnaughts

Not that any dread is that small to begin with
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#42 - 2015-07-07 01:42:26 UTC
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Holy crap, every suggestion so far has been the least thoughtout I've ever read. God I hope fozzie doesn't take ideas from you guys this is stupid.


I'd agree that Manfred Sidious doesn't have all of the best ideas, but what he put in the OP isn't all bad, some of it is gold. And the rest of the thread seems to have even better ideas. Of course, as with any thread, not all of the ideas in it are good. But I'm actually impressed with this one.

I think you should actually read the thread before you criticize it.

I did read the thread

Not very well, I will show why.

Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
He wants to remove the Carrier's ability to get a +1 to drone controls per level then put it into Drone Control units. Why? what is the point and how does that fix carriers at all? Theres no point, he just moved it from one place to another and nothing changes.

He wants to split carriers into two types of basically a DPS and a Logistics carrier, why? theres no real point of this at all, no justification, no reason why he suggested this.

I said that, Manny did not. I am not Manny.

The reason why I made the suggestion was to prevent slowcats from being able to simultaneously have high DPS and high RR.
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2015-07-07 02:58:11 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Holy crap, every suggestion so far has been the least thoughtout I've ever read. God I hope fozzie doesn't take ideas from you guys this is stupid.


I'd agree that Manfred Sidious doesn't have all of the best ideas, but what he put in the OP isn't all bad, some of it is gold. And the rest of the thread seems to have even better ideas. Of course, as with any thread, not all of the ideas in it are good. But I'm actually impressed with this one.

I think you should actually read the thread before you criticize it.

I did read the thread

Not very well, I will show why.

Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
He wants to remove the Carrier's ability to get a +1 to drone controls per level then put it into Drone Control units. Why? what is the point and how does that fix carriers at all? Theres no point, he just moved it from one place to another and nothing changes.

He wants to split carriers into two types of basically a DPS and a Logistics carrier, why? theres no real point of this at all, no justification, no reason why he suggested this.

I said that, Manny did not. I am not Manny.

The reason why I made the suggestion was to prevent slowcats from being able to simultaneously have high DPS and high RR.


One cherry pick and even your idea does nothing helpful at all.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#44 - 2015-07-07 04:40:14 UTC
Vlad, go re-read the first 95 words of Manny's post. Then tell me "there was no reason to any of the suggestion he posted."

If you think the ideas will make the game worse, explain precisely why they'll do so. Rhetorical questions aren't precise, neither is your current shiptoasting.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2015-07-07 05:02:34 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
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.


Or you could just...you know...slow the rate of inflation. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2015-07-07 05:04:18 UTC
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Rawketsled wrote:
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Holy crap, every suggestion so far has been the least thoughtout I've ever read. God I hope fozzie doesn't take ideas from you guys this is stupid.

I can't even begin to see how many counter intuitive things I've read so far but its like a politicians wet dream.

Reducing the cost of super hulls from 15b to 3-5? why even have a regular carrier? If I'm gonna blow 3 billion on a nice chimera hull why not blow 3 billion on the wyvern, theres literally no point to a regular carrier at that point.

Why even have a space harpoon? we already have this with bubbles and HIC points

Its like Manfred literally has zero experience with capitals with all these stupid changes.

You should elaborate on why the suggestions are bad.

PS: There's no need for the excessive use of even. You're not a white girl.


He has nothing to elaborate on why he even proposed this! Why reduce the cost of Super hulls, why reduce the cost of titans? why introduce all this categorical nonsense with all the carrier bonuses? why introduce all this extra SMA/CHA space and stuff.

Its extremely obfuscating and theres nothing in here beyond these few cherry picked good things that might be useful but none of this fixes capitals.


At least he used 'even' once. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-07-07 05:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
He wants to remove the Carrier's ability to get a +1 to drone controls per level then put it into Drone Control units. Why? what is the point and how does that fix carriers at all? Theres no point, he just moved it from one place to another and nothing changes.

The point (as Rawketsled actually did mention even if he didn't explain in detail) is that Slowcats can remote rep at full non-triage-mode capacity with ten drones out. His idea is to make carrier pilots need to use drone control units to field more than five drones, which forces them to consider the tradeoffs between drone control units or remote reppers, and that will substantially nerf the power of a Slowcat fleet.

(Slowcats are Archon carriers that use remote reps on each other while deploying sentry drones to obliterate the enemy.)

Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
Rawketsled wrote:
You're right there is a burden of proof on Manny, but that doesn't mean the ideas are automatically bad.

Yea actually that does

The moment I have to ask why and there wasn't a reason provided automatically disregards it as a valid idea. It doesn't raise any points to the reason why they'd post so why even consider it?

Great ideas need great evidence otherwise what are they?

Just because you don't understand an idea doesn't make it bad. It is good for someone to explain their idea, but if you wish to contribute to such a discussion, you should attempt to understand an idea before you show contempt for it.

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."
Maichin Civire
#48 - 2015-07-07 07:10:40 UTC
Almost all the ideas posted in this thread are god damn terrible, but I think OP suggestions are worst of all I've ever seen.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#49 - 2015-07-07 11:37:34 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
I said the same thing about supers yesterday. Reduce the cost. Their cost is out of line with their relevance and power in the fozzie-sov game.

Meh to the Titan as mobile strike base idea. That should be the SC's role. They are super carriers, FFS. Should be able to clone jump to one, board a ship in the SMA, and launch, complete with launch animation. They do need a bigger SMA and clone vat to make it truly viable. Would be a great way to make attacks more unpredictable under fozzie-sov with an appropriate degree of risk. Would allow some orgs to "go nomad" in the post-Phoebe game.

Yes to making/ keeping the Titan the ultimate cap killer. That should be their role on the field. I'd also like to see jump fatigue removed from Titan bridges, while removing their ability to bridge capitals and super-capitals. This would give them, along with SCs, a great role to play in a constellation scale fozzie-sov battle, even if that battle didn't escalate to capitals for damage dealing. Would be great if their SMA was large enough to carry a half-dozen or so dreads or carriers. This would, again, allow some orgs to go nomad if they chose, and have a front line ability to ship up if required.

Yes to blap-dreads (with an SMA). A major weakness of fozzie-sov is a decent escalation path to capitals and then super-caps. A counter-argument, though, is that blap-dreads may be too strong an escalation path, to the point of becoming mandatory. That puts us right back into the supers-as-apex-force meta that we have now. As long as they are easy to speed/sig tank for cruiser sized ships and below, it should be fine.

An attacker or defender should be able to make the tactical decision NOT to escalate to capitals, and there should be effective doctrines available to the FC that enable that choice. If an escalation can be forced, it always will be, and we've just traded one flavor of super-cap supremacy for another.

Meh to the gimmicks, like "space-harpoons", though they would be good for some laughs.

LIkewise Meh to the idea of splitting the carrier hulls. I think that can be achieved with fitting/rigging trade-offs. Force a choice between a damage bonus rig/fit and a RR bonus rig/fit. I'd much rather pay occasionally to replace a rig than shlep two hulls around.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#50 - 2015-07-07 13:30:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Or you could just...you know...slow the rate of inflation. Roll



That's crazy talk.

mega. titans.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#51 - 2015-07-07 15:30:28 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Or you could just...you know...slow the rate of inflation. Roll



That's crazy talk.

mega. titans.


Maybe we could have a mega-titan that's so big that there's actually space inside of it where you can mine, and explore, and do missions and stuff. The best part is that you could park it right in the middle of hostile space and AFK cloak it.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#52 - 2015-07-07 17:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
davet517 wrote:
Maybe we could have a mega-titan that's so big that there's actually space inside of it where you can mine, and explore, and do missions and stuff. The best part is that you could park it right in the middle of hostile space and AFK cloak it.



but just make it bigger on the inside, and shape it like a police box.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#53 - 2015-07-07 18:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
I'll try to summarize my thoughts on this (with some minor additions), which were posted in the other threadnaught.

1) E-war
Split e-war into module sizes based on ship hull: (Existing e-war: referring to scramblers, disruptors, webs, damps, jams, bubbles & bubble gens, TPs and neuts)
i) Small: (effective against pods, shuttles, frigates, destroyers & cruisers)
ii) Medium: (effective against frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers and Battleships)
iii) Large: (effective against cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, capital industrial ships and carriers)
iv) Capital e-war (new): (effective against battleships, carriers, dreadnaughts, capital industrial ships, super carriers and titans)

Also separate the jumpdrive and warp drive systems. Warp scrams, bubbles and warp disruptors (incl disruptor gens) will only effect WAPRDRIVE. Give us new modules to prevent JUMPDRIVES from being activated. The anti-jumpdrive mods should be fittable to black ops, marauders and capital ships only to give those ships much needed roles and bonuses in capital warfare.

2) Expand capital ship hull range
We need 2-3 different types of dreadnaughts:
i) Attack class (Anti capital / neo-structure) with new anti sub cap weapons that actually work.
ii) Brawler class (anti sub capital / semi anti capital) with new anti sub cap weapons that actually work.
iii) Assault class (anti capital / anti super capital)

We need 2-3 different types of carriers:
i) Logistics class (current carriers minus drone bonuses and ability to fit all drones)
ii) Brawler class (support carriers - geared towards engaging sub capitals, complete with turret / missile slots, no remote reps or triage) with new anti sub cap weapons that actually work.
iii) Attack class (anti-capital class carriers - geared towards engaging capitals & supers, complete with turret / missile slots, fighters & bombers & no remote reps or triage)

We need 2 different types of super carriers:
i) Logistics class (current supers, minus remote ecm)
ii) Assault class (current supers, minus remote reps)

3) Tech 2 Capital ship hulls
We need 2-3 different types of T2 dreadnaughts:
i) Capital Interdictor - Anti jumpdrive AoE (of x hundreds of km?) to lockdown jump capable fleets (big brother of HIC).
ii) Capital E-war - Big brother of Scorp / Falcon / Rook / Bhalgorn / insert e-war ship here. Focused on countering slow cats with lots of EHP. - Also comes with modules to hunt cloaked ships, similar to scanning / probing signatures.
iii) Capital Killer - Big brother of Marauder, geared towards anti super warfare with huge tank.

We need 2 different types of T2 carriers:
i) T2 logi carrier - (more reps, better tank, even less spank - refer to difference between t1 logi cruisers and t2 for justification)
ii) T2 recon class - (covert class carrier, more effective dps against sub cap gangs, t2 fighters, less tank, no remote reps, allow players to view what the drone is seeing on different grids, the return of skynet)

We need a T2 Titan:
i) Gateships (reference to heavy gear 2 vessels) - Act as mobile stargates. more focus on bridging fleets, can link to another gatership in fleet and create a permanent bridge between the two - for the duration of pilots being in fleet, being alive, or online). Jump fatigue nerf to apply to vessels jumping between gate ships.

4) T2 capital weapons, T2 fighters , T2 Fighter bombers, T2 capital ammo, T2 doomsday
i) Weapons - self explanatory
ii) Ammo - self explanatory
iii) T2 fighters & T2 fighter bombers - adds e-war flavor to fighters. Tackle, webbing, neuting, jamming/damping variants to assist in engaging sub caps and capitals.
- Also includes a recon fighter for the T2 recon carrier, allows a fighter to be assigned (while carrier is cloaked) to fleet members / celestial objects off grid and the owner can then view what the drone sees. This is a capital recon tool.
iv) T2 doomsday - allows use of script for limited AoE effect, with reduced damage. forces sub caps to bring bigger ships to help take on supers.

5) Allow Capitals and Supers into Hisec.
Nuff said.

6) Super Capital docking
With the new citadel structures:
i) Small citadels: allow sub caps & capital industrial ships to dock
ii) Medium citadels: allow sub caps, capital industrial ships and capitals to dock.
iii) Large citadels: allow all ships (including supers) to dock (forget about mooring)

7) Capital propulsion mods
5000 MN MWD and ABs please. Kthnx.



in terms of what I am unsure about or don't support at this time:
i) Not a fan of reducing the cost of supers.
ii) Give us more capital / super hulls, fill the cost gaps to meet the current super costs.
iii) Keeping the construction of supers attached to sovereignty ownership. I think this should be allowed in low-sec.
iv) Keeping triage and siege modules. They were great at repairing and killing structures... which are not a thing anymore... delete them and give the ship hulls their bonuses.
v) Capitals and Supers not being able to use a gate if tackled (with no aggression). Either fix them so they can use a gate if tackled with no agro like sub caps can, or prevent subs that are tackled from using gates regardless of agro.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Trobax
Doomheim
#54 - 2015-09-23 07:21:00 UTC
Carriers == Fighters ONLY
SuperCarriers== Bombers ONLY
MotherShip(new class) == Capital Fleet bonuses (on grid)
Titans== Cap/Super Killers and portal machines

SlowCats heavily rely on sentry drones. Make them fighters only so that is takes time to apply that dps, and drones dont sit safely near the carriers.
SuperCarrier could become dockable, and get their hps halved. You could strip them from RR or require a Rig for RR, effectively lowering the tank. You could keep the sov to cook restriction.
Motherships will need fleet defence to stay alive. No offensive capabilities. More like links for Capitals. Maybe can fire a space harpoon (really?). Sub capitals still require commands and/or T3s to receive links.
Titans would be employed to portal fleets and kill the motherships-Capitals(Dreads would join the fun too).
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-09-23 15:33:19 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
1) E-war
Split e-war into module sizes based on ship hull: (Existing e-war: referring to scramblers, disruptors, webs, damps, jams, bubbles & bubble gens, TPs and neuts)
i) Small: (effective against pods, shuttles, frigates, destroyers & cruisers)
ii) Medium: (effective against frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers and Battleships)
iii) Large: (effective against cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, capital industrial ships and carriers)
iv) Capital e-war (new): (effective against battleships, carriers, dreadnaughts, capital industrial ships, super carriers and titans)

I actually have a comprehensive write-up of a workable size-based EWAR system that is mostly complete. Here's a sampling, there's far too much to put in one post:

Stasis webifiers
New stasis webifier functionality: amount of webification is based on the square root of the target's signature radius and/or the cube root of the target's mass. If the target's signature radius is too small or its mass is too high, it will not receive the full effect of the webifier.
Small Stasis Webifier I
* 1mw powergrid, 25tf CPU
* 5gj activation cost, 5.00s duration
* 10km optimal
* -50% max velocity
* 40m effect radius
* 1,000T effect mass

Medium-Small Stasis Webifier I
* 4.5mw powergrid, 30tf CPU
* 15gj activation cost, 7.50s duration
* 15km optimal
* -50% max velocity
* 80m effect radius
* 3,150T effect mass

Medium Stasis Webifier I
* 20mw powergrid, 35tf CPU
* 40gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* 20km optimal
* -50% max velocity
* 160m effect radius
* 10,000T effect mass


Other sizes would be medium-large, large, and capital. The capital webifier will web all capitals by the listed value but uses the effect radius/mass when applied to subcapital ships.

The net effect of this is that when a webifier is used on a ship of its size, you get approx. the full effect, and it is reduced when you have a webifier that is too large or too small. Larger webifiers are most easily fit to larger ships but can still be fit by smaller ships, like the medium webifier above being fit to a frigate. Such a frigate could web cruisers at full capacity, or battleships significantly, while also enjoying the range benefit but would suffer from the fitting and capacitor cost of running the module while also having a reduced effect against other frigates.

By setting the small at 10km range and the rest at ever increasing ranges, the average web range has been increased. This is countered somewhat by their diminished usability as per size importance. Ships with web range bonuses will need a reduction to those bonuses, or possibly may have them swapped out completely for something else instead. This will actually serve to make it more difficult to fully web frigates, while making it less difficult to partially web them. The approximate slowing amount, using a medium T2 web, is: 30% against frigate, 38% against destroyer, 59% against cruiser, 52% against battlecruiser, 28% against battleship, 13% against carrier




ECM Jammers
Radar ECM - Small White Noise Generator I
* 5m3 volume, 4000kg mass
* 1mw powergrid, 40tf CPU
* 5gj activation cost, 5.00s duration
* 3 radar jam strength, 1 omni jam strength
* 16km optimal, 18km falloff

Radar ECM - Medium White Noise Generator I
* 20m3 volume, 16,000kg mass
* 10mw powergrid, 55tf CPU
* 40gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* 9 radar jam strength, 3 omni jam strength
* 24km optimal, 27km falloff

Radar ECM - Large White Noise Generator I
* 80m3 volume, 64,000kg mass
* 100mw powergrid, 70tf CPU
* 320gj activation cost, 20.00s duration
* 27 radar jam strength, 9 omni jam strength
* 36km optimal, 40.5km falloff


Essentially, the small ECM has a duration of only 5 seconds and only jams a target for 5 seconds. Medium is 10 seconds, and large is the 20 seconds we have on current ECM. Furthermore, if a small ship is jammed by a larger jammer, it still only gets jammed for the 5 seconds while the jammer itself has a longer cooldown cycle. Medium ships cannot be jammed longer than 10 seconds, and larges cannot be jammed longer than 20 seconds.

Following this rebalancing of the modules, the ships would have to have their sensor strengths adjusted to reduce the strength of smaller ships while increasing the strength of larger ships, such that battleships had on average 3x the sensor strength of cruisers, while cruisers had 3x the strength of frigates. This would mean that using a jammer larger than the ship would have a high chance of success but a longer cooldown than its jam time, while using a jammer smaller than the ship would have a low chance of success but could try again sooner--although a small jammer still only jams a battleship for 5 seconds. A large ship using a large jammer may jam a small ship for 5 seconds but the small ship can quickly re-lock the large ship. On the other hand, if the small ship gets lucky and jams the large ship, it may lose a lot more than 5 seconds because of the time it takes to re-lock the small ship.

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."
Ben Fenix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#56 - 2015-09-23 19:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Ben Fenix
Manfred Sideous wrote:
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.


Agree with most of
Dread
Carrier
Super Carriers
Titans


Dockable supers in MORE than just XL citadels.

#Soup
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-09-23 20:09:24 UTC
Yay for reviving a dead threadRoll

Posts prior to today ended on 7/7/2015. I'd rather see a new thread on what we think the new Capital roles will be.

Space harpoon = stupid idea, doesn't fit anywhere at all in the current state of ships and there is no precedent set from any of the smaller ships

Carriers I can get behind having 2 kinds with very separate roles, but I"m curious what the logi situation will be w/ Carriers once CCP go ahead and announce their ideas at Eve Vegas

Dreads should have more weapon slots... 3 only? Lame. Give them like 6, and redo eve-math so they stay at the same DPS.

I also like the idea of restricting Carriers to Fighters only and SupersCarriers to Fighter-bombers only. All in all, I'd like FB's to do less damage and have a racial damage restriction put in place on both carriers and supers.

Titans... Im thinking they are right were they need to be. Jump fatigue is going down overall, which is nice, and I"m sure we'll see a few more Titan bridges coming up here and there.

What would be nice is if they added ship class based warp core strength, and a few more sizes of warp disruptors. It might encourage bigger ships to come out against smaller sized fleets (ship size, not numbers)... or it might not What?

Also... Rorqual... it needs something, but I don't know what.

Cedric
Trobax
Doomheim
#58 - 2015-09-23 21:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Trobax
Dr Cedric wrote:


Also... Rorqual... it needs something, but I don't know what.


Capital tractor beam to pull caps /supers and keep them in bubble. Effectively, a different version of the space harpoon.But cooler.BattleRorq ftw
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-09-23 21:22:40 UTC
Trobax wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:


Also... Rorqual... it needs something, but I don't know what.


Capital tractor beam to pull caps /supers and keep them in bubble. BattleRorq ftw

could disguise it as a way to pull barges to safety--capital tractor beam may tow ships

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."
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#60 - 2015-11-08 14:53:35 UTC
I had thought I had posted in this thread long ago when it first came out but I must have made my response to the thread elsewhere.

Now while quite a few of his changes have gone ahead I think it's easy to see why Manny might have potentially leaked to his alliance the numbers of the capital rebalancing.

Just look at this original proposal to the public here - we're witnessing the single greatst concentration of titans/supers/capitals per head try and reduce the build cost of supers and titans to a pittance because of insider knowledge of incoming role changes. It's impossible to tell how much of this OP was tongue in cheek ipostedthistoCCPmonthsagoandnowimgoingpublictogivemypeopleearlywarningaboutincomingchangeswithoutdirectlyviolatingNDA or if it was all an act of sophistry meant to conceal a push for his alliance in particular and associates being able to wield even more of the new rebalaned uber-DPS titans and supers.

Just look at his original proposal. Was this the beginning of the end for his tenure?
Previous page123