These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#141 - 2015-10-25 15:16:36 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.


Incorrect. Even when Webbed and Painted Anti-Capital guns (Current XL) Will do nothing to Sub-caps. The new "High-Angle" guns for dreads will be needed to hit subcaps. Was said at Vegas. Propper decision for Engagement will need to be made before you drop the dread into battle, are you killing that cap, or fighting off support.

159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#142 - 2015-10-25 15:17:40 UTC
Interesting new features. Will add a whole new layer to the current dull capital warfare.

A few questions:

- The new Force Auxilary (FA): will they be in the price range of carriers or dreads or will they be more expensive?
- What range of local tank are you looking at for a FA ( as in how many dreads / carriers ? )
- From your picture of the different classes I can only draw the conclusion that a third super based on the FA is possible as well. Are you guys working on such a ship or not?
- Do you have a timeline for releasing the relevant skills and blueprints? Right now you have fe perfect Triage Pilots in game, I'd love for them to be able to be (near) perfect when these new ships hit.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#143 - 2015-10-25 15:26:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
After reading this blog, I have but a few reservations and some answers to some unclear sticky points, or considerations to level the playing fields between classes or to change some numbers would go a long way....

1) Will capital remote repair modules no longer work on carriers at all, or will they merely be so ineffective as putting a small local repper(s) on a battleship and facing off against a large group hoping to tank their agro?

2) Will capital remote repair modules only work in triage mode?
If so, why don't we change sub cap logistics to mirror capital logistics to win the fight against N+1 once and for all for all ship classes? Why sub capital ships should get favorable treatment under different rules in this regard, while cutting the legs from under existing capital game play based on the same rules, leaves me staggered and in a state of bewilderment, bordering on resentment with hints of injustice. If non triage spider tanking encourages N+1, then kill it everywhere. And to counter, apply damage mitigation to all ship classes so Omega doctrines don't become the new slowcats flying the N+1 flag.

3) Anti sub capital weapons. Thank you CCP. Thank you. But before you finalize your thought processes on this weapon class, consider this:
**** Give all capitals and supers a new slot type to fit this module, allowing Carriers/Dreads/Supers/Titans to fit for both anti structure / anti-capital and anti-sub cap combat. Forcing us to use the same hi-slots for these new guns seems lame and in your face nerfish.
i) These modules should allow capitals (carriers, dreads, supers and titans) to engage and take on (wipe out) isolated attackers or very small groups of attackers depending on the number of modules fitted.... outside of siege mode in addition to in siege mode.
ii) I would expect siege mode to give the cap pilot a boost to the damage / optimal / tracking / falloff / RoF / ability to hit smaller ships and larger groups depending on how well the ship is supported, or tanked / repped by its fleet, while not providing such bonuses outside of siege at all. This will not only force caps with anti-sub cap weapons to commit to be more effective, but also give them value for doing so outside of a pure dps boost against large structures that dont move or shoot back.
iii) Smaller capitals should be able to fit less of these new anti-sub cap weapon hard points than the larger ones. If the T3 module slot fitting layout (Fitting screen) would be used in this instance (assuming no other layout is being considered while keeping the existing slot layouts intact), then I'd expect that:
iiia - carriers / dreads can have 1-2 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiib - dreads can have 1-3 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiic - supers can have 1-4 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiid - titans can have 1-5 anti sub cap weapon hard points

4) Warp strength on supers (I know you said the numbers are subject to input from us):
i) I'd expect supers to have a warp strength of about 50ish (Why allow 20 rifters - at a fraction of the cost - to do what 1 HIC already can)
ii) I'd expect Titans to have a warp strength of about 100ish (Again, why allow 20 rifters to do what 1 HIC already can)

5) Will my fighter squadrons be able to engage sub caps I can target on grid in this new UI, or will I only be able to engage ships in my ships targeting range?
5b) If you remove fighter warp from fighter squadrons, how do I get them to engage said targets beyond the 100km camera range if my targets use a micro-jump drive or warp to a safe beyo9nd my targeting range on the grid?
5c) Will I be able to assign my squadrons to players?

6) Can the Titans also get some new fleet based remote assist AoE toys like the supers will get?
6b) Can we keep the existing doomsdays and have these new ones work as script or module variations?

7) New ship hulls?
a) I'd like 2 - 3 different Dreadnought flavors (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
b) I'd like 2 - 3 different Carrier flavors
c) I'd like 2 - 3 different super carrier hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
d) I'd like 2 - 3 different titan hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)


Aside from the above points, hell yea... I'm down with all of it.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#144 - 2015-10-25 15:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
Something I'm surprised not to have seen mentioned yet is an alternative to Force Auxiliaries / Triage mode when deciding on a fleet composition. It seems as though everyone is just assuming these ships will be mandatory for any capital fleet to be effective, despite no other kind of capital being like this.

It's worth having a conversation about the alternatives; specifically how to make capitals viable without triage support. With the erosion of ewar immunity and lower EHP, there should be new defensive options to make these ships worthwhile to field. These ideas could include:

a) Rebalancing local capital reps
b) Capital-class Target Spectrum Breakers as mentioned above. They're pretty much the ideal candidate for these modules.
c) Applying some form of the structure Damage Mitigation mechanic to (super)capitals.

All of these can increase confidence in these new ships enough to get them fielded more often without making Triage the no-brainer pre-requisite to use them.
MidnightWyvern
Fukamichi Corporation
SAYR Galactic
#145 - 2015-10-25 15:29:19 UTC
Anth9rax wrote:
Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it.

^Hasn't been paying attention at all over the last several months.

Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!

Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
#146 - 2015-10-25 15:38:20 UTC
Change the Fax names pls.
Also lack of refitting sounds like dumbing down, and combined with citadels being self repping leaves the Gal/Min Faxes being even more useless than their previous carrier incarnations.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2015-10-25 15:47:54 UTC
What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#148 - 2015-10-25 15:48:43 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus?

Ideally, the replacement will be a super-cool bonus for intelligent, attractive people.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#149 - 2015-10-25 15:54:19 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus?


+5% ship-spinning speed per level.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#150 - 2015-10-25 15:57:53 UTC
xttz wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus?


+5% ship-spinning speed per level.

Capsuleers don't know bout my nanohel

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#151 - 2015-10-25 16:07:53 UTC
Over all it sounds very interesting. And well killing slow cats one way or another was inevitable. Adding more cap mods and well making them much more like other ships only bigger also makes some sense. However all those skills at lvl 4? now am i going to need to do those 45days trains? so much for hitting 50M sp :/.

I am not so sure about the refitting restrictions. It make sense, since well yea you never need to make a choice with the fit. Its DPS or Tank or ... whatever. So the idea of restricting this seems logically motivated. (anyone see solo carriers desperately rep there mobile depos). I personally do a bit of in combat fitting. We use a nestor mostly for this reason. I would miss it, but i get it.

Most of my concerns have already been voiced. Namely i never bothered with drones. I use carriers for triage only. A easy progression to the new ship would be grand.

As a WH dweller and currently in a c5 (but moving out right now. need more than 2 ppl to run that show), escals will need a rework. Not that they didn't already need them. If the new subcap guns are only doing 2k DPS they can't even break a marauder, and well that is not even enough for some sleeper sites. Well not really.

So yea subcap guns do sound great. but 2k is just too low. A rattlesnake does just over 1k DPS.

My other concern is mass and WH connections.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
lisa 8
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#152 - 2015-10-25 16:08:51 UTC  |  Edited by: lisa 8
Some bold changes CCP,

I don't think that removing the ewar immunity from sieged Dreads is such a good idea, hell they are in siege and can't move anyway, why make them that much more vulnerable than they already are, it isn't like they aren't already sitting ducks in that state.
Also, given all you have to do to kill cap fleets will be , kill their Force Auxiliary Capitals, making Cap fleets survivability odds much lower than they are presently, the idea of nerfing the EHP on Super's isn't a great idea either.

I do have a some questions though & are in no particular order;

1. Most alliances require dread pilots to have both short and long range guns atm (for example pulse lasers & beam lasers), but now with these new anti-subcap guns as well, that we will have to have, will the size of the cargo bays be increased accordingly so that pilots can carry the 2 extra sets of guns, plus their other fittings in the cargo, when they are moving from deployment to deployment? Just giving us fleet hangars will not solve that issue.
Or is it the intention that the anti capital / structure guns will just be a generic type that will do same damage both short and long range, thus removing the need for both short and long range guns ? Which sounds kinda dumb if it is.

2. How will people be compensated for the modules they have fitted to their capitals come patch day ?
Will Meta 2 guns, Dead Space & Faction module variants, be swapped automatically for their capital equivalents ?

3. Given the depth of the changes planned, will there be a rebalance of the slot layouts for Dread's, Carriers, Super's & Titans ?
It seems only logical there should be, given how impacting the planned changes are, especially for Dreads, Carriers & Super's at least. I may be wrong, but I am thinking, Dreads will need a extra high slot in order to be able to fit, the new Dread DD which CCP Larrikin hinted at, while Carriers / Super's will need extra mid / low slots depending if they are shield or armour ships & less high slots. Has this even been considered, if not it should of been.

4. The hand of God Doomsday - maybe I missed something, but how is this even remotely useful ?
When a Titans doomsday weapon is activated, it prevents the Titans jumpdrive from activating for what 10 minutes?. The Doomsday device its self also has a reactivation delay of what 1 hour?. So what is to stop those teleported sub caps from just warping directly back since they will only be sent to random point within the same solar system ?.

Thanks for a reply.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#153 - 2015-10-25 16:09:28 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
After reading this blog, I have but a few reservations and some answers to some unclear sticky points, or considerations to level the playing fields between classes or to change some numbers would go a long way....

1) Will capital remote repair modules no longer work on carriers at all, or will they merely be so ineffective as putting a small local repper(s) on a battleship and facing off against a large group hoping to tank their agro?

2) Will capital remote repair modules only work in triage mode?
If so, why don't we change sub cap logistics to mirror capital logistics to win the fight against N+1 once and for all for all ship classes? Why sub capital ships should get favorable treatment under different rules in this regard, while cutting the legs from under existing capital game play based on the same rules, leaves me staggered and in a state of bewilderment, bordering on resentment with hints of injustice. If non triage spider tanking encourages N+1, then kill it everywhere. And to counter, apply damage mitigation to all ship classes so Omega doctrines don't become the new slowcats flying the N+1 flag.

3) Anti sub capital weapons. Thank you CCP. Thank you. But before you finalize your thought processes on this weapon class, consider this:
**** Give all capitals and supers a new slot type to fit this module, allowing Carriers/Dreads/Supers/Titans to fit for both anti structure / anti-capital and anti-sub cap combat. Forcing us to use the same hi-slots for these new guns seems lame and in your face nerfish.
i) These modules should allow capitals (carriers, dreads, supers and titans) to engage and take on (wipe out) isolated attackers or very small groups of attackers depending on the number of modules fitted.... outside of siege mode in addition to in siege mode.
ii) I would expect siege mode to give the cap pilot a boost to the damage / optimal / tracking / falloff / RoF / ability to hit smaller ships and larger groups depending on how well the ship is supported, or tanked / repped by its fleet, while not providing such bonuses outside of siege at all. This will not only force caps with anti-sub cap weapons to commit to be more effective, but also give them value for doing so outside of a pure dps boost against large structures that dont move or shoot back.
iii) Smaller capitals should be able to fit less of these new anti-sub cap weapon hard points than the larger ones. If the T3 module slot fitting layout (Fitting screen) would be used in this instance (assuming no other layout is being considered while keeping the existing slot layouts intact), then I'd expect that:
iiia - carriers / dreads can have 1-2 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiib - dreads can have 1-3 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiic - supers can have 1-4 anti sub cap weapon hard points
iiid - titans can have 1-5 anti sub cap weapon hard points

4) Warp strength on supers (I know you said the numbers are subject to input from us):
i) I'd expect supers to have a warp strength of about 50ish (Why allow 20 rifters - at a fraction of the cost - to do what 1 HIC already can)
ii) I'd expect Titans to have a warp strength of about 100ish (Again, why allow 20 rifters to do what 1 HIC already can)

5) Will my fighter squadrons be able to engage sub caps I can target on grid in this new UI, or will I only be able to engage ships in my ships targeting range?
5b) If you remove fighter warp from fighter squadrons, how do I get them to engage said targets beyond the 100km camera range if my targets use a micro-jump drive or warp to a safe beyo9nd my targeting range on the grid?
5c) Will I be able to assign my squadrons to players?

6) Can the Titans also get some new fleet based remote assist AoE toys like the supers will get?
6b) Can we keep the existing doomsdays and have these new ones work as script or module variations?

7) New ship hulls?
a) I'd like 2 - 3 different Dreadnought flavors (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
b) I'd like 2 - 3 different Carrier flavors
c) I'd like 2 - 3 different super carrier hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
d) I'd like 2 - 3 different titan hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)


Aside from the above points, hell yea... I'm down with all of it.


You totally need to watch the Capital video. fighters work totally different now. You position them on the system map where you want them and give them orders. If you ever played the Homeworld Series of Games it works like moving squadrons around in it. Set where you want them to move issue orders. They do move around the map again and now have a multitude of commands you can issue them

We now have Squadrons insteads of individual fighters. With a Max of 5 Squadrons that can hold up to a max of 12 fighters
There will be 3 Types of Fighter Squadrons
Light ( Anti-subcaps)
Heavy (Anti-Capital)
Support (ewar, nueting, scramming etc)

Squadron will have certain abilities depending on the type which could include a max of 3
Anti-capital torpedos
Anti-fighter missile swarm
Bombs
Evasive maneuvers
EWAR - scramming, neuting
Microwarp
Microjump
Special Weapons

Carriers and above will no longer use Drones and fighter bombers get Wrapped into the new types of Heavy Fighters. The Range limitation is gone because now you have system control and move the drones over the system. Much akin to an actual carrier. You have no place on the battlefield, You launch fighters from safety and send them into the Combat Zone. Using an all new control scheme Akin to Homeworld.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#154 - 2015-10-25 16:10:20 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.



Sorry, but that's not particularly helpful in the grand scheme of things. I don't think you'll find a single person that would say yes to that question. Yet people are risk adverse right now with Supers and Titans. Organisations don't commit them on a whim or deploy them when there is a significant chance of losing them and no gain which is at least equal to the potential loss.

What do you think they'll do with a reduction in their current EHP and mechanics which force them to operate in smaller numbers in a more distributed pattern? Suddenly become less risk adverse?

How did you get your Super or Titan in EVE and are you willing to use it in your new meta?
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#155 - 2015-10-25 16:10:36 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Smertyukovitch wrote:
So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital?

And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this.

Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place.

Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved Smile


So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset.
So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
#156 - 2015-10-25 16:18:53 UTC
drunklies wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Smertyukovitch wrote:
So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital?

And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this.

Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place.

Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved Smile


Smert is drawing assumptions based exactly on what you have said.

EHP nerfs, incoming.
Ewar immunity, gone.
Defences. If triage is the barrier of entry to killing that super fleet, then yeah, seeing as 5 guys in subs can kill a triage without breaking a sweat.
Jump Fatgiue, still a cancer for everyone who doesnt want solo frig pvp, or move more then 6 ly.
DPS limits, set in the citadel dev blog.

This is the vision you have. Someone has pointed out that it looks kinda ****** for caps and supers. Don't insult them by saying they are working from the wrong assumptions.

You want to make it awesome, easy. Give everything that cannot receive remote assistance the ability to refit, off themselves, always. Give everyone else the ability to refit off of ships with fleet hangers. Acknowledge that mass refitting is only really a problem when combine with endless RR.

Oh, and consider doing something other then a target painting debuff for supers.


The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages. Before this summer is was DPS to structures, ratting support, home defense support etc. With the changes outlined in citadels dev blog and this capital ships rework dev blog it still feels like there's no actual sense in owning capital ship and having 2-3 years old char just to pilot it decently. I'd be happy if you prove me wrong with actual numbers CCP but as i said this is how i see upcoming changes based on my experience with EVE Online.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#157 - 2015-10-25 16:20:31 UTC
loquacious7 wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Smertyukovitch wrote:
So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital?

And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this.

Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place.

Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved Smile


So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset.
So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really

Carriers can take gates now.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#158 - 2015-10-25 16:21:25 UTC
Smertyukovitch wrote:
The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages.

How can you look at the history of Eve and say this with a straight face?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2015-10-25 16:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Rek Seven wrote:
I'm not experienced with low sec or null sec cap warfare, just in wormholes but it would seem to me that the use of dreads will become as follows...

Small/medium groups will not field dreads to kill sub caps because if they do and they get dropped by even one hostile dread designed to kill caps, they will not be able to fight back because they will be massively outgunned.

At the other end of the scale, large groups will be able to have all their dreads fit with High Angle Weapon Batteries and have the freedom of being able to obliterate sup capital fleets and smaller cap fleets alike, through shear number superiority.


Following on from the above, I was just talking to a corpmate and he made a good suggestion for dreadnaughts...

Dreadnaughts should be able to fit a full rack of both the anti-capital weapons and the anti-subcapital weapons but only be able to use one type at a time.

Since refitting during combat is being nerfed, you could add a mode switching option (like T3Ds) to dreads that lets them switch to either capital guns or sub-cap guns. Add in a time delay between mode switching and maybe a activation capacitor cost to balance the ability.

Thought?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2015-10-25 16:27:16 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.



No, but that's what people have been used to for years.

They'll be less happy about this, than phoebe.