These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#381 - 2015-10-26 19:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Rena'Thras
I just have one question:

Will the existing ratting carrier still be functional? (A Carrier that rats with its fighters and remote reps them or that takes part in team ratting as a repair platform.)

That's what a lot of people are going to complain about going away since they've trained skills to use it for that purpose. As a non-cap pilot, I've been training in that direction because it seems like a fun form of gameplay.

Will the Carrier class still be able to use remote repair modules? Hell, even L sized Battleship ones (that T2 Logi can use)?

Also, will "Fleet Auxiliaries" have to be in triage mode to use ANY remote reps, or only Capital class remote reps? Will they be able to use weaker ones without nerfing themselves into the dirt (since I can think of no other way to describe "intentionally become immobile AND completely subject to EWAR simultaneously")?

And will this "great gameplay" decision also apply to ships putting out damage? Will Titans and Dreadnaughts be forced to only be able to deal damage in siege mode and be unable to conduct their primary role without activating a module that makes them a sitting duck?

...sorry if I'm coming on a little heavy there, but this is just annoying after all the SP I've put into going for a functional ship that's about to be not functional anymore.

.

...also, as a person that likes playing healing roles in games, I hate it when people go about nerfing healing classes while buffing damage dealing classes or not subjecting them to the same conditions (e.g. in WoW, making healers super mana dependent while removing mana management from damage classes, or here, making healing dependent on triage mode while damage dealing is still possible outside of siege mode.)

I just like things being handled equally.

.

EDIT: Okay...that was more than one question. My apologies. ^_^;
Bill Lane
Strategic Insanity
FUBAR.
#382 - 2015-10-26 19:17:48 UTC
Rena you animal. Good questions, and good points. Logi carrier is a great tool for helping younger players get into fleet PVE ops in less-than-ideal ships, especially in sites that would melt t2 logi.

Military Gamers gaming community

FUBAR's Website
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#383 - 2015-10-26 19:19:37 UTC
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :)
I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw!

I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance.


So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#384 - 2015-10-26 20:21:47 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
Firvain wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.


As it should be?

Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :)
I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw!

I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance.


So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up!

Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.

Seems like a weird work around for the same effect.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#385 - 2015-10-26 20:38:56 UTC
Will "no EWAR immunity" carry into sensor strength, allowing capitals to be vulnerable to (enough) ECM, dampers and disruptors?

Will this design migrate into marauders and other sub-capitals? I imagine being able to differentiate ships that use similar weapon systems based on which types of EWAR they're most resistant to would be useful for mixing things up a bit: make caracal/cerberus resistant to webbing, while the rupture might be resistant to disruptors (relying on innate speed to provide resistance to webbing).

An interesting rework of capitals so far.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#386 - 2015-10-26 20:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
For the "sickle" doomsday, rather than picking two random points in space, what about selecting two or more ships with the weapon pathing between the selected ships? I would expect this to be faster than picking two points in space. If warning/feedback is required, have the attacking ship illuminate the selected targets with something akin to a target painter effect.

I really don't want patches of space lighting up red: it's a tacky effect in ESO and reduces the need for situational awareness.

(on the flip side, I guess in the scenario that you'd be using sickle doomsday you're probably going to be playing in time dilation, so speed isn't really as important as sheer cool factor)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#387 - 2015-10-26 21:51:17 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.

Seems like a weird work around for the same effect.

Ha, I like that. Always realised it could be possible but never thought people would actually do it :p
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#388 - 2015-10-26 22:21:09 UTC
Caps can, and do, already fit points. not sure how this is an issue...

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#389 - 2015-10-26 22:49:57 UTC
Without getting into details, this has been the most exciting dev blog I can remember in a long time. +1
Ahed Sten
#390 - 2015-10-26 23:09:39 UTC
Sooooo....Goodbye ratting carriers?

Not only will the micro required to manage fighters be more trouble than it's worth, fighters will also be confined to grid and won't follow you in warp, which, lets face it, is currently the best thing about them.

Otherwise, interesting changes I guess.
Zamrikus
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#391 - 2015-10-27 00:14:49 UTC
Finally, I've been waiting for some interesting cap changes since 07, it is about time you made piloting caps more interesting.

@everyone whining about how things will never be the same again, ADAPT! If things remained static forever, and continued to work on years old systems; the game would stagnate and eventually die.

PRAISE THE CHANGE!

It'll be very interesting to see how this changes things around in New Eden and I cannot wait for it!
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2015-10-27 00:23:41 UTC
I'd think I'd be happy with a dread with about 6k dps with hight tracking, sub-capital guns. Instead of 2 shotting battleships, take them out in about 4-5 shots
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#393 - 2015-10-27 00:30:49 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.


While those aren't overly large numbers, you are not accounting for the fact that an XL will be dealing out massive amounts of dmg. While Hsec is rich in numbers, the vast majority of those groups are actually small. This means that only the minority of groups in Hsec will have even the slightest chance for killing an XL Citadel.

Personally I think that XLs should be limited to low and null, places that see larger fleet action and capitals. This makes an incentive to move out of the "safety" of high if you want to have a big boy toy. It also means that those fighting in high over Citadels, will be fighting Meds or Lgs that are more in the range of those groups.

If you can't have big boy ships in Hsec, then big boy stations should be disallowed as well, or all be allowed.
E1ev1n
Big Sister Exploration
#394 - 2015-10-27 00:43:39 UTC  |  Edited by: E1ev1n
Change it all let BOB sort it out
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#395 - 2015-10-27 00:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Delt0r Garsk
Ahed Sten wrote:
Sooooo....Goodbye ratting carriers?

Not only will the micro required to manage fighters be more trouble than it's worth, fighters will also be confined to grid and won't follow you in warp, which, lets face it, is currently the best thing about them.

Otherwise, interesting changes I guess.

**** ratting carriers, Since like 100% of can't read a dev blog.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#396 - 2015-10-27 00:50:43 UTC
Manes Avatarr wrote:
I dont like a way how citadel is being deployed. Throw it out of cargoold and then it "lights itself in and out", cmon.. its childish. At least deployment should have some stages:
1. throw out from cargohold
2. basis is being build by tiny drones
3. structurals put in place, platings added..
4. alot of zip zaps of electricity etc
5. other stuff added
6. lights put on eventually and structure is anchored

Something like this. Its not a hangar array, you know? Its hucking enormous structure, put some immersion in it, even in deployment process.

And YES.. i love all proposed changes to capitals, citadels etc. Look exciting and all. Keep up a great work!


As I understand it, from the roundtable discussion, these will take 24 hrs to completely online. The video was just a mockup for us to see it happen, not real time.
McDarila
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2015-10-27 01:12:01 UTC
At Eve Vegas we ran the number on fighter costs and I am very worried that this had been overlooked. You asked for me to post the numbers on the blog when I brought it up after the Q and A.

fighter

dragonfly
Title     Quantity  0 Price      Price for all 
Tritanium 715 904  5.43 ISK  3 887 359 ISK
Pyerite   273 926  10.95 ISK 2 999 490 ISK
Mexallon  79 695    49.84 ISK 3 971 999 ISK
Isogen    27 526   115 ISK    3 164 664 ISK
Nocxium   4 697    519 ISK   2 437 743 ISK
Megacyte  1 137    1 452 ISK 1 650 969 ISK
Zydrine   464      1 176 ISK 545 669 ISK  
In total: 18 657 893 ISK

firbolg
Title     Quantity  Price      Price for all 
Tritanium 907 174  5.43 ISK   4 925 955 ISK
Pyerite    249 592  10.95 ISK 2 733 032 ISK
Mexallon  82 425   49.84 ISK 4 108 062 ISK
Isogen     31 931   115 ISK   3 671 107 ISK
Nocxium   5 306    519 ISK   2 753 814 ISK
Megacyte  1 126    1 452 ISK 1 634 997 ISK
Zydrine   515      1 176 ISK 605 645 ISK  
In total: 20 432 612 ISK

einherji
Title     Quantity   Price      Price for all 
Tritanium 1 132 267 5.43 ISK  6 148 210 ISK
Pyerite   219 861   10.95 ISK 2 407 478 ISK
Mexallon  82 663    49.84 ISK 4 119 924 ISK
Isogen    20 673    115 ISK    2 376 775 ISK
Nocxium   4 864     519 ISK   2 524 416 ISK
Megacyte  1 098     1 452 ISK 1 594 340 ISK
Zydrine    587       1 176 ISK 690 318 ISK  
In total: 19 861 460 ISK

templar
Title     Quantity  Price      Price for all 
Tritanium 936 819  5.43 ISK  5 086 927 ISK
Pyerite   220 013  10.95 ISK 2 409 142 ISK
Mexallon  85 782   49.84 ISK 4 275 375 ISK
Isogen    22 876   115 ISK    2 630 054 ISK
Nocxium   4 239    519 ISK   2 200 041 ISK
Megacyte  1 122    1 452 ISK 1 629 189 ISK
Zydrine   675      1 176 ISK 793 807 ISK  
In total: 19 024 535 ISK


cheepest at 3 squads of 10 fighters plus 30 replacements 746,315,720 isk

cheepest at 5 squads of 12 fighters plus 120 replacements 3,358,420,740 isk
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#398 - 2015-10-27 01:56:27 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

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.


That would be bad, but is how most pilots think, engage only if you feel certain of the win.

The other side of the coin must also be looked at though.

Does CCP think it is healthy for the game to have a capital class ship design that WILL be lost every time it is used as intended? Does CCP think that players want to go into combat knowing they have no chance of living, even if it is required for fleet success?


We are not talking about hero sabres here, where fully fit you are out less than 100M. Instead we are talking about 1.5-2B per loss (estimate based on if hull ~= to a carrier), which many smaller alliances don't replace for the pilot.

I have T2 Triage, in an alliance that will keep me shipped, and honestly will jump in a FAX with zero care that it is primary. This is only because I am part of "The Big Evil Blob". Making it so that a FAX is the key to capital fleet victory helps us rather than hurts us. We can afford to loose these all day long, but can the rest of New Eden do that same?

I state this, simply and honestly, because I want fights. If you make it so that groups like the one I am in are the only ones who can afford real fleet battles, then you will not see any real battles.

The groups, like ours, are well entrenched, and no matter what N+1 fix you try to make, we will only get stronger, bacause the more you remove n+1, the more we can split our forces and maximize fleet variations.

So keep making life harder, keep trying to force pilots to loose ships due to enforced mechanics rather than pilot error. Every time you do this, you make groups like mine stronger, and those CCP professes to wanna help, only become more at risk, and easier to destroy.

Do you wanna see losses, wanna see fights, and wanna see null burning regularly? Stop trying to impose sweeping limitations that honestly don't effect the real gameplay, and instead focus your time on ship balance, features and reasons to own and maintain Sov. That is why pilots move to null and are willing to fight for it, focus on that and you will see ships burning, sov burning and null too busy fighting to care about your buffs to Hsec and lowsec getting 10 new missions...
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#399 - 2015-10-27 02:13:32 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
"It is not impossible to refit...but you will have to wait out your weapons timer and, effectively, be out of the battle while you do so. We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."

I think it's enough that you have to sit there, under fire for 60 seconds, before you can equip yourself to fight back.

Will the cargo hold on dreads be increased enough to allow them to carry a full rack of extra large guns?


This is a very good point. while I wanna say that fleet hangers are an issue, in truth, I think it is the size of capital moduals that are the issue. They are so massively over sized, and arbitrarily so. Every capital modual is 4k in size, which limits the possibilities for refitting drastically. With all of the new capital moduals and variations you are suggesting, they is going to be very little options for cap pilots once they undock.

Cap mods need to be reduced, if even to 1k in size, to allow for variable options. While you can state that strategic decisions are needed when you undock a fleet, I would agree, but there also needs to be a way for a fleet to adapt to changing environments. If I was to take out a capital fleet, with the intent of engaging another capital fleet, only to get there and see that fleet run away and then come back as we are heading home in a subcap fleet, I need to be able to adapt. Currently, with 10k fleet hangers, dreads will be able to refit 2 cap guns to HAWs and that is only if they didn't need that room for capital cap boosters or capital MWDs.

While we don't know the size of these new mods, I point this out, cause of the standardized sizes currently. Something that should be reviewed along with all the other coming changes.
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group
#400 - 2015-10-27 02:31:02 UTC
Tau Phoenix wrote:
Some intersting ideas in this dev blog and it is good that CCP realise that currently the Capital ship has little value to game play in the current climate. Whilst most ideas seem to have a valid point and i can see advantages i am concerned that the bread and butter capital, the Carrier, will be reduced to an oversized burden on a ship, especially given the potential new logistacal capitals.

Owning a capital and planning its movements within the game is a task that on its own needs planning in order to work out the requirements to have the ship in place without to much Jump Fatigue. Whilst having a new logistics capital is exciting i do not think that the logistical attribute of a carrier fitted for the task should be removed....in fact this is an oportunity to have the new logistis capital but also keep carrier able to fit logistics modules...just ensure that are not as effective as the dedicated capital class logistcs.

This also gives the game more choice in logistic planning. I think you need to keep the carriers ability to rep in battle, just to a lesser extent of the dedicated logistics capital.

Maybe of topic but whilst we are talking about capitals, will CCP give bonus to Jump Fatigue reduction for jumping capitals in the sov that you own? That would also stimulate more local capital movements.



Just an idea here, but what could really be nice is reducing the rep amount on capital remote reps by half (shield/armor/hull/cap) and giving the FAX a bonus not just to range but also rep amounts. So carriers still have remote cap/reps, but at a much more limited range and effectiveness.

This would allow for some interesting variations:

Amarr: 2x rep amt for armor and cap with a bonus to optimal range = to current
Gal: 2.5x rep amt to armor and hull, 1.5x bonus to cap with optimal range = to current
Cal: 2x rep amt to shield and cap with a bonus to optimal range = to current
Min: 2.5x rep amt to shield and armor, 1.5x bonus to cap with optimal range = to current

The added bonus for Mim and Gal being that they are normally the least tanked of the 4 races, and thus get a better bonus with lower survival. Also giving Cal and Amarr the better cap bonuses, which follows racial trends.

Add to this Triage, which becomes FAX only, and carriers cannot even come close to FAX reps, but there are still option in the sandbox.