These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anikitos Monomaxos
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2015-10-25 21:57:10 UTC
Sounds very interesting, looking forward to see the changes
unimatrix0030
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#282 - 2015-10-25 21:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: unimatrix0030
I still don't see why anyone would use those high angle weapon batteries.
If they only give 1-2 battleshipsdps why even bother taking out you hugly more expensive and slower dread then actualy using some battleships?
In pve those won't be of any use, 2 bs will warp in faster, have more mids(and more utility). The only thing bether would be tank.
It will take longer in clearing capital escalations.
In pvp the only use i see is big bait tank, but for pvp the lack of dps will be a big turn off. It won't be used against many subcap fleets. Even in wh space it would be more mass efficient to use 2 bs's.
In PVP bs will be cheaper, in pve bs will be cheaper.
Even for capital escalations in wh's it would be easier to just warp em in and out right away.
So when are we going to use these things again? Never!

So how about you giving those high angle weapon batteries the same amount of damage as today, but you do the damage to several target at the same time with the max of 1-2 battleship damage per target. But the total damage is the same as before.
Example(math not correct) the dread guns now do 10k damage, then with new high angle weapon batteries you hit 5 targets at the same time with 2k damage.

I don't like the removal of the refitting during fights. That will hurt smaller but more skilled capital users far more then blob capital users. Tiping the balance to capital blobs more.

The other changes look interesting, looking forward to it.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Centurax
Blackbird Security Networks
R A P T O R
#283 - 2015-10-25 22:03:38 UTC
Really excited about the changes and caps again, so good work!

Some hopefully quick questions:

1. Carriers and Supercarriers, would it be possible to have some kind of anti ship/fighter weapons on them, flack cannons or something similar?
2. Is there any thoughts as to making the fighter types for the new squadrons similar to the fighters found in Valkyrie, because even if there is no actual connection yet it would be a cool addition even if it is faction squadrons?
3. Also will squadrons be available to use with Citadels?
4. With the addition of Citadels and the other structures, how long till we can have and use Capitals in Empire?
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#284 - 2015-10-25 22:14:54 UTC
If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. Straight

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#285 - 2015-10-25 22:39:51 UTC
Galphii wrote:
If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. Straight

An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#286 - 2015-10-25 22:47:00 UTC
The estimated DPS from the high angle weapon batteries seems really low. How does this not still leave dreadnoughts worse off than carriers in fleet combat? You're giving carriers all this combat versatility with squadrons, and dreads get battleship DPS? WTF.

A 60 second timer is not going to solve the swiss army knife refit problem for capitals.

What happened to the idea that structure bashing is super boring? Seems like CCP has given up on that, and boredom tanking with citadels will still be a thing. Also, can't wait for the thousands of abandoned citadels to pile up in low class WH space because you can put them anywhere and caps can't get in to bash them.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#287 - 2015-10-25 22:52:43 UTC
Grorious Reader wrote:
The estimated DPS from the high angle weapon batteries seems really low. How does this not still leave dreadnoughts worse off than carriers in fleet combat? You're giving carriers all this combat versatility with squadrons, and dreads get battleship DPS? WTF.

A 60 second timer is not going to solve the swiss army knife refit problem for capitals.

What happened to the idea that structure bashing is super boring? Seems like CCP has given up on that, and boredom tanking with citadels will still be a thing. Also, can't wait for the thousands of abandoned citadels to pile up in low class WH space because you can put them anywhere and caps can't get in to bash them.

What happened was we all didn't want entois links taking out our structures. So this new damage mitigation thing has been introduced, and its pretty cool.

It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH. Note that 50 odd T3s will be close to the mitigated damage limit of an XL. It will take just 30 mins at that level.

Also lots and lots of questions asked here are answered in the dev blog. Try reading people.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

MrQuisno
Doomheim
#288 - 2015-10-25 22:58:40 UTC
no one asked the hard question whats going go happen to "CURRENT" doomsdays removed or remain ?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#289 - 2015-10-25 23:00:16 UTC
oohthey ioh wrote:
Do something thing witht eh old doomdays to, keep them simple like they are now but something more fun other then lock and shoot.


As a Titan pilot, there is nothing more fun than locking and shooting a Triage Carrier with the current Doomsday. I don't need to have a more interactive module to have more fun with it.

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

Kopaka Newton
Sanctuary of Shadows
Dock Workers
#290 - 2015-10-25 23:20:47 UTC
First off, I've never flow a capital before, I am just now (this week) finishing base training to get in a carrier. However, I've joined EVE after seeing RnK's Iron Clad video, so I've been interested in logistics, capitals and carriers since the beginning. Seeing the carrier's logistics role stripped off before I can even participate in a capital fleet brings me mixed feelings, more on that later.


-Force Auxiliary Capitals

Not my favourite name and not my favourite models either (from what I've seen in the vegas videos) but that's not the point.
Hanging around more experienced carriers owners, I see most people usually have a Triage carrier, a Ratting carraier and a slowcat. So I guess having two classes instead makes sense, especially if the goal is to kill slowcats. I just hope that the prerequisite skills are similar for the two classes. One thing I liked the carrier class for though, is that it is a very versatile ship and I'm sad to see that go away.


-You will be unable to refit while you have a weapons timer

An integral part of operating in a triage group, people and myself are concerned that this would make a challenging and fun gameplay element much more dificult to use. Triage carriers are more hard to use than in RnK's days because of the bigger fights. Again, we don't know much about Auxiliaries, and their model looks 2x to 4x that of a freighter so they might be much more effective than a single carrier.


-No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity

This is good. I'd like to know if normal capitals (carriers, dreads, auxiliaries) will have a base warp strength? The dev blog only mention super-capitals. I allways feel beter using my Deep space transport in null-sec and in wormholes knowing that a single frigate probaly won't be an issue for me.


-High Angle Weapon Batteries

I've never been interested in a dread before. They were only big trebuchets designed to bash a structure or break triage, usually by scuiciding themselves. I've seen solo dread PvP videos before though and that is very cool. Now I am much more interested.interested.


-Carriers, Super-Carriers & Fighters

I trained for carriers because of both logistics and drones. My first time using a Tristan, or my first time using sentries, I felt it was a very cool mechanic, being able to control a swarm of drones. However drone gameplay became old quickly.
I will make the same paralel people have done before, the new fighters looks like World of Warships's fighters. To me it is a good thing, because I enjoy the carrier class in WoWs the most. I can't wait to see how it actually feels on SiSi.


-New 3D targeting

Unrelated to capitals, one thing I've allways wanted in EVE is the ability to warp anywhere in the solar system. Right now we can only do that by warping to planets and creating bookmakrs in between planets. It would be nice if we could warp to, or make bookmarks on points we would do using this targeting UI on the solar system map.

Thank you for reading my feedback!
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#291 - 2015-10-25 23:30:18 UTC
Guess it sounds good if you fly capital ships. I won't because of the outrageous price tag and I am space poor. I am sure Eve Welfare won't cover it....
Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#292 - 2015-10-25 23:35:41 UTC
Im totally down with this! Specially the Carrier / Supercarrier line sounds pretty interesting!

I do think however, dreads seem a little weak - Siege already comes with a lot off downsides and at least should give you *ECM* Immunity, the other Ewars are fine imho.

But most importantly: Please consider drastically reducing the Cost of Titans and Supers.

Aim for a Target price off 20b/Hull for Titans and 5-10b/hull for Motherships and reimburse current pilots simply with additional hulls in the redeeming system.

This would remove a lot of the risk aversity in using them and allow you to more freely balance their use.
Fishymonster
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#293 - 2015-10-26 00:04:57 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.

So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2015-10-26 00:06:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Galphii wrote:
If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. Straight

An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.


But seeing as citadels will have real teeth, you'll likely need double, perhaps triple this number.

I have no problems with caps in high sec, provided the Cyno ban stays. Make them forced to be gated.

Caveat: I don't live in highsec but there's no use in carebear land that makes their resistance to concord relevant.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#295 - 2015-10-26 00:12:22 UTC
First, CCP can read my blog.

overall, I am excited by the whole thrust of the capital rebalance. I think that it's a direct attack on the current meta, which is overall a good thing.

There's nothing wrong with the current meta of EWAR-immune triage carriers and RnK-style refitting on the fly, however it IS hard to balance capitals and introduce different gameplay options when the current meta still exists - why would you try being a mobile capital with MWDs when you are better served glomming up with your buds for refits?

Weapons timer / siege and triage
Overall I support this. However, it is worth considering whether the FAX and Dreadnought siege time should be 5 minutes, or whether it should cause total immobility. if the goal is to break up the giant capital blobs we see now, and create mobile carriers and dreads playing a positional game in space (and trying to avoid doomsdays and remote EWAR weapons, etc), then it is worth considering whether immobility is necessary, because this will still encourage static deployments.

One option to consider is reducing siege timers to 1 minute with a cooldown; to make them essentially a capital class Bastion module (the Marauder's Bastion is a very, very good model here for how Dread siege can work).

Another option is to have Siege and Triage impose a 50%, 60% or 90% speed nerf on the capital using it, and having a short cycle time.

EWAR vulnerability
I am a bit 50/50 on this. Your capitals are going to become vulnerable to Falcons and EC-300's. I have previously had great success jamming slowcats with EC-300's from time to time. That's 5 light drones wirth 15K ISK jamming a Chimera or Archon. Now you'll have this happening to probably static Dreadnoughts in siege.

Unless you are unaware, Dread scan res is so abysmal that if your dread is even 10% vulnerable to a Falcon or a flight of EC-300's, it will lose lock and take 30s to reacquire a target. The jamming drone or Falcon will get 2 more stabs at jamming the capital before it completes its re-lock.

Damps will make this even worse - you don't even need to jam, you ust put 5 resolution-scripted damps on a Capital and it will take 5 minutes to lock something. It will be the easiest way to take capitals out of the fight permanently. Even a 25% reduction in scan res will trash Dreads, let alone TDs, Missile Disruptors, etc.

EWAR immunity is a difficult thing to countenance, but it has its place.

HAWs
Firstly why not rename this to Point Defence Battieries? High Angle Weapons as a name makes absolutely no sense. I mean, i'll take Force Auxilliary on advisement, but HAWs? Haw haw haw.

Secondly, 1K DPS is a no. it's a Dread, not a fat BS. 2K DPS needs to be balanced against Carrier DPS, basically. Currently a gank Thanny can top 3K DPS, and whilst this will change after the Citadel expansin, carriers will (obviously) gain amazing force projection with whatever DPS they have per squadron. Like, they just drive their fighters 500km away, they do 1500 DPS @ 500km.

This leaves Dreads in a terrible place if their subcap DPS is nothing, or a fraction of a carrier's DPS. So this needs to be balanced. Yes, you are obviously trying to get rid of blap dreads, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with blap dread balance (+/- phoenix edge cases) at the moment. If you have to use HAWs and you have 50km projection @ 2,000 DPS and are totally immobile while doing it, you could be unable to wipe out a carrier before it slowboats out of your range with its capital MWD. In which case....why even use Dreads?

So, yeah, i think you have to explain why no blap dreads a bit better. To properly blap dread you need multiple characters on grid +/- OGB's (+/- OP Phoenix edge cases in black holes). Enemies generally know how to avoid being blapped or how to counter it. If your capitals are moving around grid now (i hope so) and carriers have amazing damage projection you really need Dreads to actively hunt carriers down.

Restricting dreads to shooting structures or just having wet paper towel DPS ignores their use in killing supercaps. I wonder how you'll go balancing Dread weapons along a binary choice of "can ONLY shoot structures" and "can shoot subs" because the blap dread mechanic relies solely on maths. The only way you can mathematically deal with capital guns so they cannot hit subcaps means that they won't be able to hit even slow-moving capitals or supers effectively (ie, basically zero tracking, ridiculous ER/EV stats) or capitals at the edge of falloff.

If you screw dreads over, it'll just be carriers everywhere. I mean...from the looks of it carriers won't suffer from having to triage, so they will MWD about the joint at whatever speed (200-30m/s?) laying about with squadrons of fighters at 500km range, doing 1,000-3,000 DPS against totally immobile Falcon-jammed, celestis-damped, Sentinel-disrupted Dreads.

That's not such a great way of getting rid of Slowcats. It'll just be Fastcats.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#296 - 2015-10-26 00:16:52 UTC
"Why would you take out hear dreads when they only do 2-3 BS? Just bring the BS."

Why bring the BS when you could bring 3-5 frigates? Just bring the frigates.

Circumstantial Evidence
#297 - 2015-10-26 00:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Circumstantial Evidence
xttz wrote:
Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table?
CCP Masterplan wrote:
#105 - 2015-10-25 13:51:58
Yes that is an option. One possibility that has been raised is that on patch day, any carrier with a triage module fitted will be turned in to a force aux. But this is still very much something we want to get your input on before we nail down the final plan.
How about this idea: Players could contract carriers with triage fitted, to a special CCP character just for this purpose. On patch day, a script runs to check that the correct items are in the contract, and returns a Force Aux ship (with all fittings, rigs, etc) to the character making the contract. This should ensure the most players have the best chance to request a swap, no unwanted swap is automatically done. If the special script and character could be maintained for some length of time beyond patch day, that would help other players who "didn't get the word" in time, to make the swap, if they want it.

Edit: As I posted, I realized I made the common mistake, "what about WH?" sorry. Lower class WH would be unable to put a carrier up for contract :(

I would like some mechanic for players to request the swap, versus it being automatic, and some players get swapped out without really wanting it.
Eodp Ellecon
Nous Defions.
The Initiative.
#298 - 2015-10-26 00:40:59 UTC
Terranid Meester wrote:
This is all cool for capital pilots but what does it mean for sub-capital pilots?

This seems to only reinforce proliferation of capitals and super capitals, so how will sub-capitals, in particular battleships be able to compete once titans are the new battleships? Will null alliances make prioritising capital pilots over sub-capital pilots a reality so that those who choose to only fly sub-caps be made into second class citizens?



A lot of null fleets are cruisers or smaller. Capitals have languished since introduction of fatigue.

Battlecruisers and Battleships could use some love but this is about Capitals and Citadels in Spring for the moment.
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#299 - 2015-10-26 00:49:01 UTC
Some good idea, but the part on the refiting for carrier is total bullshit.

It's just a "blob win" now, the first who engage their carrier will just die, and the first who will engage their MS will die too, even if the trap is not perfect.
Just a "batphone" move, brainless.

Circumstantial Evidence
#300 - 2015-10-26 00:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Circumstantial Evidence
Dev Blog wrote:
the bar to killing capitals is limited to what a single Force Auxiliary in Triage can tank. If you can kill that, eventually you can kill the entire capital fleet...assuming you can stay alive and keep them tackled
Um, what changes, if I have N+1 Force Auxiliary ships in my fleet? Still N+1 gameplay, not that this is a bad thing. Many battles start with assumption that the other side has less, only later to discover that the other side has more friends.

Edit: added
Dev Blog wrote:
Stasis Webifying: We're introducing a new attribute 'Webifying Resistance' and it works the same as Electronic Warfare Resistance.
Why does this need to be separated from EWAR resistance? Do you plan different resistance percentages?

Also, please consider positive terminology to describe it, such as [engine/drive] Stability (like the term "warp stabilizer.")