These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2015-10-25 13:00:01 UTC
Great move. These changes will require capital and supercapital pilots to think, anticipate and adapt if they want to succeed, so I can understand why the usual suspects are shrieking and wailing about how the sky is falling.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#82 - 2015-10-25 13:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
Tiberizzle wrote:
Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. P

You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here.

Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules.

Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense.

e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dograzor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2015-10-25 13:02:13 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.


Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#84 - 2015-10-25 13:02:30 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?


"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
Oskolda Eriker
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2015-10-25 13:04:11 UTC
Dograzor wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.


Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit.

I would take 4 vindicators with 2k dps(each) for just one moros costs.
Rossi Tenmar
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
#86 - 2015-10-25 13:04:18 UTC
Was really hoping for a slight increase of the current capital jumprange Sad
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#87 - 2015-10-25 13:06:47 UTC
Rossi Tenmar wrote:
Was really hoping for a slight increase of the current capital jumprange Sad

If you think combat capital jump range will ever be increased, you're dreaming.

Nut up and train shield already.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2015-10-25 13:18:14 UTC
Having watched CCP Dev's mirror talk to themselves loudly at Vega's as they try in vain to convince themselves that what there about is there way of preserving EVE for the future, That there is room full of players providing back ground noise only encourages them to continue along this path and reminds me of Nero and his fiddle backed up by the crackle flames and collapsing buildings.

Player Risk Aversion will prevent engagement with this pitiful train of thought CCP is currently peddling already players are scrabbling around selling off Supers at EVE base prices simply to recover at least a percentage of invested ISK.

Here's a slightly better proposal, an arranged disposal fleet, jumped into an announced system, Titans, Supers, Dreads and Carriers unfitted by the hundreds simply for players to come in and blow them up, A petition then to CCP to create another memorial of wrecks, Suggestions welcome as to what too call it.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-10-25 13:23:28 UTC
marly cortez wrote:
Having watched CCP Dev's mirror talk to themselves loudly at Vega's as they try in vain to convince themselves that what there about is there way of preserving EVE for the future, That there is room full of players providing back ground noise only encourages them to continue along this path and reminds me of Nero and his fiddle backed up by the crackle flames and collapsing buildings.

Player Risk Aversion will prevent engagement with this pitiful train of thought CCP is currently peddling already players are scrabbling around selling off Supers at EVE base prices simply to recover at least a percentage of invested ISK.

Here's a slightly better proposal, an arranged disposal fleet, jumped into an announced system, Titans, Supers, Dreads and Carriers unfitted by the hundreds simply for players to come in and blow them up, A petition then to CCP to create another memorial of wrecks, Suggestions welcome as to what too call it.

The game already has self destruct. We don't need to waste developer time on this.

Also, if anyone is seriously trying to recoup the pitiful amount of ISK involved in owning a supercapital ship because of a handful of vague presentations and devblogs, then I weep for both their grey matter and their inability to pay attention in gs_isk.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#90 - 2015-10-25 13:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Alidiana
It's awesome as I read it. However, if you're thinking this way...
Could there be any reasonable point defence system? I mean capital ships without point defence of any kind are just weird! And smartbombs don't fit well in that role, IMO. Would be good to have something like a FOF smartbomb with lots of tiny guns shooting hostile stuff in 5-10 km radius around the ship (and suppressable in some ways. Idk how to do this though). Not insisting though, that wouls just be fun IMO.
Also, regarding anti-subcap guns... Why that low dps? I think you could safely double that without really hurting anyone, dreads are big beasts and I expect them to have teeth...
And don't forget capital warp stabs, they might need those.
Some other thoughts got lost while I was reading through the rest of your blog.

P. S. Oh and.. please.. Docking to capitals? Lol
Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
#91 - 2015-10-25 13:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberizzle
Querns wrote:
Tiberizzle wrote:
Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. P

You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here.

Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules.

Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense.

e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little


Jockeying for the static hull / fitting advantage can easily devolve into a stalemate which produces no content with or without a time constraint. Quite often the contesting force doesn't want the objective, they want to force a feed. They won't contest the objective for the objective's sake but instead wait until the defenders commit and they can reship or refit a hard counter, or out of spite when the defenders stand down. The defenders can't contest the objective without feeding until the aggressors get tired of waiting to be fed. In pretty much all cases, the window of contestability leaves AMPLE room on the table for this stalemate to continue for hours (POS self-repair) or indefinitely (current fuzziesov node mechanics). This isn't what I'd consider meaningful strategic depth or an engaging interaction for anyone involved.

One guy, the FC, has to familiarize them self with the full range of the ship's capabilities to call for refits before committing to static fits.

In the case of combat refitting, everyone has to familiarize themselves with some useful range of the ship's capabilities to approximate an optimal fit for their ship within the constraints imposed by being shot at. It emphasizes individual pilot skill and defuses the static fitting advantage stalemate. In some cases you can even refit to minimize a reshipped hull advantage.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2015-10-25 13:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Mr Floydy wrote:

"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...


You misunderstand.

Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Dograzor wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"

I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight.


Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit.

I would take 4 vindicators with 2k dps(each) for just one moros costs.



That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead.

Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#93 - 2015-10-25 13:38:05 UTC
Drone Squadrons for subcaps in the future ?

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Clu Nimbus
Night Owls Legion
#94 - 2015-10-25 13:40:54 UTC
Hi CCP

How will the removal of Sentries/heavies effect carrier ratting? be they in nullsec or in lowsec level 5s? will the new fighters be able to apply damage as well the ones we currently have? might be worth considering giving carriers sentries/heavies but nothing smaller.

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#95 - 2015-10-25 13:41:50 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:

"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...


You misunderstand.

That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead.

Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me.


Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing.
If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#96 - 2015-10-25 13:43:54 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
2. With the talk on reduction of hit points on Supers and Titans, don't you think people will be even more risk adverse with capitals? That people will only commit them to the field if they have a guaranteed chance of not losing any?

A question for (all of) you: Do you think that being able to deploy with a guarantee that you won't lose anything is healthy/good for the game? Not even high-sec makes that promise.

knobber Jobbler wrote:
3. In respect to Ewar immunity, can you provide clearer details on this? Will it work in a similar manner to how warp strength and warp disruption mechanics work?

Similar but not the same - it isn't as binary as warp strength. As a hypothetical example: If your ship has a 50% web immunity, then a web that normally lowers your speed by 40% would only lower it by 20%.

knobber Jobbler wrote:
4. What will happen to the Shadows on my super? Will they turn into a faction squadron? What happens when they take damage? Can I call them back to repair to full strength or are fighter squadrons now disposable items like ammo?

The migration plan isn't set in stone yet, but N fighters of type X will get grouped in to a squadron of type X when you put them in to the Launch Deck (think of the 1-5 launch decks as 1-5 fighter slots similar to module slots), and then if you bring them back safely, they can be unfitted back in to the fighter bay as a stack of N fighters. If the squadron is damaged so that it loses one fighter's worth of health, it will then return as a stack of N-1 that you can then top up from your bay, or unfit back in to a stack of N-1 fighters.
Where N might be 6 for a carrier and 12 for a super.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#97 - 2015-10-25 13:44:23 UTC
Fishymonster wrote:
You said previously that CCP would not take abilities that players have trained for away from players after theyve unlocked it. Except now you are taking away players abilities to launch drones from carriers.

wont need my 5 accounts after this.


Hey dufus, there are more ships that fly drones, go get an ishtar like everybody else. Also a suggestion, play one account instead of those 5 that wont be missed.


CCP wrote:

The Swiss-army knife nature of refitting capitals makes trying to balance them impossible. Anything you bring to fight them can be countered in seconds.


I had no clue such a thing existed, looks like you got it covered though.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#98 - 2015-10-25 13:44:43 UTC
Fishymonster wrote:
...You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that.

No, Fighter bombers aren't going away. They'll probably come under the Heavy Fighter category. We're actually adding new types of fighter, rather than removing any.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2015-10-25 13:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Mr Floydy wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:

"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...


You misunderstand.

That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead.

Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me.


Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing.
If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame.



Yes, for the price of a single dread you could get maybe 10-15 tempests at 1500 dps each.

Sure, less tanky, but....I feel the cost/benefit just isnt there.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#100 - 2015-10-25 13:45:29 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
DrZoid Berg wrote:
Sadly you're going to kill a lot of the usability of a normal carrier by taking away the "normal drones". Carriers are used in large scale fights (which I get that you're trying to promote these with the changes) but there are countless other uses, ratting, home defense, etc.

Nothing in the devpost states that the fighter squadrons will have the same stats as current fighters. I'd not worry about Carriers not being able to rat etc yet.

Exactly. There's no reason that fighters in their new form won't be able to perform a variety of tasks such as ratting. Sure, they'll do it differently, but having to adapt and learn new techniques isn't a bad thing.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law