These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ann Davenport
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#421 - 2015-10-27 12:26:09 UTC
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:
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...


Nid pilot here. What is surviving a fight like?
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#422 - 2015-10-27 12:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Baki Yuku wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:
Wormholes aside, your Rattle as only 1/10 of the EHP of dreads and does not have the option do refit to 6k+ dps when the situation requires it.

Those new weapon system are designed to give dreads a way to contibure to a fight where there are no (more) big targets to shoot at. Its makes your dead may more versatile.


They don't doh there is no value in bringing a knife to a gun fight and that is what the new dread guns are a knife a blunt knife. Why would you field a ship that costs 3b can not be repped won't be able to refit [If they go though with weapon timer for siege] can be jammed can be damped can be tracking disrupted. And in exchange for all these disadvantages you do a stragering 2k dps. You're better off putting your dread alt into an extra rattlesnake.


We have jet absolutely no numbers on how strong ewar will be on capitals in general and dreads in siege in particular. The only thing that is for certan is that your rattle will take the full effect of any kind of ewar to its face.

With a dread you get the flexibility to go bigger if needed, a jump drive and a big EHP pool combined with the top DPS that some, but definitly not all BS can pull.

If you still dont like it, dont use it.
Heidi Franklin
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#423 - 2015-10-27 14:08:51 UTC
Certain parts of this dev blog seem okay. Of course Im not one to go over every detail but one thing that stuck out to me are the fighter squadrons and how they are going to be implemented.

I just want to make sure the uses to which a carrier can be used currently at still the same after the change (obviously without logistics of course since you are removing that from them). Can squadrons be intermixed with different types of fighters? Will different types of fighters exist? Can other types of drones be used still? If you condense fighters into a squadron, when the flight returns will you magically get back fighters you have lost? Will you have to replace the fighters/ can you edit a squadron while fighting? And there are practically a limitless number of other questions out there.

Basically I want carriers to be as effective as they are now or better in regards to fleet fights or even ratting/ running anomalies or wormholes.

Just my 2 cents
Luscius Uta
#424 - 2015-10-27 14:16:46 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless?

LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own.
Htfu


Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two.
CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#425 - 2015-10-27 14:22:45 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
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. ^_^;

I hope a Dev answers your questions. I feel like they do not care what most people were doing with a utility (multipurpose) carrier. They seem to think what were were able to do with it is not good for the game. Regardless of what you want to do with your carrier. That great ship is getting nerfed so you can have more fun. :( say goodbye to your carriers guys and girls they will be only good for one small role in major battles only. Because you will have more fun doing only one thing with it. Trust them with this. Look how much fun we have entosising little nodes scattered across an entire constellation. That's fun right? History of nerfs and buffs for this game tell me the carrier is even more of a spinning ship in station only ship. My only hope is they let us move skill points to a ship we can use.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#426 - 2015-10-27 14:41:37 UTC
Thanks for all the feedback so far folks, just want to let you know that we're still reading this thread, and will be answering some points once our jetlagged colleagues have all returned Big smile

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#427 - 2015-10-27 14:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Floydy
Luscius Uta wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless?

LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own.
Htfu


Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two.
CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem.

On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so?

Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game.

ps. I have an Archon which has CCC rigs, I also have a Revelation that's useless to me since the Nag/Moros are so much better for what I need. *shrugs*
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#428 - 2015-10-27 14:55:49 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless?

LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own.
Htfu


Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two.
CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem.

On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so?

Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game.

ps. I have an Archon which has CCC rigs, I also have a Revelation that's useless to me since the Nag/Moros are so much better for what I need. *shrugs*

I have several ships that were once awesome sadly this trend continues...
Circumstantial Evidence
#429 - 2015-10-27 14:57:22 UTC
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.

CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#430 - 2015-10-27 14:58:07 UTC
Everyone has. It's part of the game. If this didn't happen it would get really stale like it used to be during the Drakes online period :)
Wolfe copying
Naked Industries.
#431 - 2015-10-27 14:59:29 UTC
Very interesting changes. No more tanking everything until downtime; which is great because that was a **** mechanic. I will be interested in learning more about the carrier changes and force aux capitals.

I also imagine Fighters will be looking at a cost reduction? what will happen to current fighters with regards to the sunk cost on them?
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#432 - 2015-10-27 15:24:06 UTC
Is a potential change to the length of siege/triage time and fuel consumption being considered?
loquacious7
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#433 - 2015-10-27 15:32:55 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.

CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread.

This might be the first time they took a ship class with skill books required that cost a few bil and said sorry those do not count anymore. Oh wait outpost construction is in the same context now. So happy now.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#434 - 2015-10-27 15:54:47 UTC
A few things I wish you guys added...

I recently started to play the game again and found that my capital ships was way down on one side of the map and my corp on the other...

I tried to calculate in jump planer how long it would take to move my ship over... funny thing happened jump planner crashed saying it would take too long to calculate.

I really wish there was a booster that you could take that double jump distance and removed jump fatigue for a total of 24 hours. This booster could only be used once every 3 months or up to 4 times a year.

This would allow me as a player who comes back to the game every now and then the ability to catch up with my bros... it would be balanced by only being active for 24 hours and only can be used once every 90 days.

the other thing i would like you to add is the following:
Two tech II dreads Two tech II carriers.

Detla Force Carriers/faxes and Dreads

They have special new Jump drives similar to those found in jump-freighters that reduce jump fatigue and extender jump range up to 7.5 Ly

because more room is used to house the enhanced jump drive delta force carriers/faxes and dreads have lower dps/ehp/reppability then their tech I counter parts

The second class of tech II capitals are designed for home defence and worm hole space: they have no jump drive as jump drives are superfluous in worm hole space.... with all this extra room these tech II juggernaughts have more ehp/dps/reppability then their tech I counter parts... the carrier will get reduced versions of the super carriers projected anti blob weapons and so too will the tech II dread get a mini doomsday

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Luscius Uta
#435 - 2015-10-27 16:11:09 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given.


That wouldn't be a problem if upsetting people wasn't a design goal and only a consequence of many changes that were lately introduced by CCP.
It is one thing to change few stats and abilities to rebalance a ship class that is too versatile, but when you turn it into something almost completely different (as it is the case with currently proposed changes), then I don't call it a rebalancing but a massacre.

Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.


Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness. Imagine if one day they replace a skill like JDC with something like 1% mining yield per level (an exaggeration of course, but still I could imagine a few cases where the new skill bonuses would be a joke but yet would affect capital pilots). Could they still say "The skill is still useful"? Yes. does that mean we wouldn't have the right to be upset? Hell no!

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#436 - 2015-10-27 17:20:01 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:


Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness.


When has this ever happened?

I can recall plenty of times when a handful of drama queens made wildly hyperbolic claims that some skill had been nerfed into uselessness, but I don't really recall it ever happening.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#437 - 2015-10-27 17:24:21 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
McDarila wrote:
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



Damn that's expensive. Carriers would be the only ship in the game whose weapon system was more expensive than the platform they're on. Those values definately need looking at.


I expect fighters to get a nice price cut, as it would be a bit stupid to have that many fighters otherwise lol
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#438 - 2015-10-27 17:24:47 UTC
In Regards to HAW Weaponry, in addition to the advertised DPS being silly low they're likely be balanced around countering battleships. Battleships have severely fallen out of favor of usage due to the warp speed changes, bombers, phoebe. Until there is a reason to use battleships over cruisers there will be no purpose for the HAW Weaponry.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#439 - 2015-10-27 17:30:34 UTC
loquacious7 wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.

CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread.

This might be the first time they took a ship class with skill books required that cost a few bil and said sorry those do not count anymore. Oh wait outpost construction is in the same context now. So happy now.


They did no such thing, however so yoh can stop crying.
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
#440 - 2015-10-27 17:37:15 UTC
I don't think the High Angle Weapon Batteries are a good idea, Eve players being Eve players someone will figure out how to turn a dreadnaught into a solo-pwn-machine.

I don't believe that any capital ship should operate without a sub cap escort.