EVE Information Portal

The blog only states that capital reps will be effective on fax machines (as in unbonused on carriers)- however, the current slowcats Archon and Chimera only get RR and cap transfer range bonuses, not RR amount bonuses. Will there be more changes to capital RR modules that would actually nerf slowcats?
[/quote]

you cant use remote reps without triage

Current Doomsdays will remain, but their damage is going to change.

We've talked about Super-Carriers and Titans having 20 to 50 Warp Strength.
Capital Warp Disruptors and Scramblers would have simmilar warp disruption and scramble strength to the existing officer modules (-2 for warp disruptors and -3 for scramblers). We're not locked to these numbers, so tell us what you think!

HIC's with their focus point will be able to solo tackle a titan.

At this stage, no.

Awh, I love Grath. He's a bro.

His question is something that the the CSM, and Manny inparticular, have brought up. We're looking at it, but at this stage don't intend on making any changes to the cost of construction for capitals.
If we did, we wouldn't announce them at a round table where some players could get a financial advantage.

How are fighter resists/shield/armor/hull going to work? Are you reviewing these? Going to just a straight up HP pool of omni resist?

The fighter blob with members dying doesn't lend itself to the triple layered HP style we currently have.

Also what happens if they are bombed does the unit take Y damage, or members*Y damage ?

What about ewar? All jammed out, or a partial DPS loss or something in the middle? Ditto webbing them.

I'm super stoked about the capital changes because they're mostly in line with what I wanted capitals to be!

One thing I will say though is that Siege, Triage, and Bastion must NOT generate a weapons timer on their own. There is no compelling argument for why simply being in a different mode should prevent refitting. If you wish to prevent ships from docking or jumping through a gate (which was the original reason for a weapons timer), use another mechanic. For example, infini-pointed capitals cannot use stargates. Utilize something along those lines.

I'm looking at a low sec Guardian fit right now that has over 300k omni EHP with HG slaves. It costs ~1.4b on top of the implants (no purple, lots of blue), but you know better than to under-estimate how much people will spend on ships to get a pvp edge. Unlike the fleet auxiliary, it can also receive remote ECCM / r-sebos which can largely negate hostile e-war, and that triage carrier is probably easier to alpha than a 300k EHP Guardian with a frigate-sized signature.

Along those lines, could we please have a serious look at the interaction of various implant sets and capitals? If Slaves end up affecting armour Auxiliaries and there is no comparable set of shield, that has a significant potential to skew the meta. The same goes if Crystals were suddenly able to affect shield ships. Balancing EHP with the assumption of slaves might make the nullsec meta shield heavy, and balancing without thinking about them will make the lowsec meta very armour heavy since every cap pilot living there likes 'em.

Oh, and here's a few other questions for good measure:

1. CCP is removing the swiss-army knife nature of supercarriers and appears to be grooming them for more of a 'flagship' role with powerful abilities, while removing incentive to field them by the dozen. Given this, there are a great many supercarrier pilots who might wish to fly other ship while retaining the ability to put their super into combat at need. In light of how dependent supercarriers often are on high-value implant sets, could we please get a more elegant clone-swapping solution (perhaps only to other clones in the same citadel) so that I can fly Triage in a clone with 3% implants, then swap over that evening to my super clone to support a major offensive?
2. Has CCP examined elementary probability theory in connection to ECM and the loss of e-war immunity for siege / triage? It's very easy to get a large number of rolls against a triage carrier with a dozen cruisers fielding ECM drones, and you only need one success. They spoke about giving very high e-war resistance, but I feel that warp disruption and ECM/TDs/Damps should be examined separately rather than lumped together.
3. Given how complex the new carrier fighter interface appears to be, my conclusion is that flying one carrier and nothing else could offer fun gameplay which rewards player skill... but that multiboxing them in PvP could be prohibitively difficult. The problem I see with this is not one of one player no longer being able to fly a fleet of carriers, but rather of how difficult it might be to fly a carrier and subcap alt; given an inability to multibox and how caps are often kept in reserve but not committed, I see many chances for blue-balled capital pilots who would of previously been able to participate on a subcap alt but can no longer do so because they must commit to their carrier.
4. More of an open-ended question to CCP; what about the current state of Dreadnoughts as employed against subcaps do you find problematic, and why does it seem necessary to prevent well-supported capitals from applying damage to subcaps? While a useful tool, blap dreads do not appear to be significantly harming the current pvp metagame. This sort of coordination between capitals and subcaps creates interesting gameplay and has significant implications for fights in WH space.
5. With a decrease in EHP, there could be far fewer 'supers tackled, form up to save them' operations, which can often spark larger fights (such as Asakai) because the capitals might well be dead before help could possibly arrive. Are viable active tank options for supercapitals being considered at all?
6. When coming up with new numbers for capitals, will they be balanced against the current state of capitals, current state of subcaps, or both? This question is aimed primarily at the degree to which subcapital DPS has crept upward in the last several years, while capital dps hasn't to the same extent. Where does CCP see the appropriate ratio between capitals and subcaps with regard to EHP, DPS and cost lying? I know Grath already touched on the cost point, but the question of balance between 100b worth of capitals and 10b worth of subcapitals is one that should be considered, or capitals won't be worth the potential loss.
7. Have the implications of high-alpha weapon setups (Citadel Torps, 3500mm Howitzers) been considered with regards to the new fleet auxiliary ships? If the anti-capital DPS of capital weapons is reduced far below current values to compensate for reduced EHP, then the utility of capitals as weapons against other capitals becomes questionable. Likewise, if damage numbers are not significantly reduced but EHP numbers are, the elimination of supers as logistics platforms functionally immune to non-DD based alpha makes this a very significant consideration. If X arty nags can reliably break Fleet Auxiliaries, then capital fights might well turn into rather uninteresting (and expensive) attrition matches where the skill or tactics of the players becomes less relevant.

I am assuming you have a way to prevent titans from using the DD to teleport ships that are inside a POS shield?

That is quite simple - there are no POS shields without POSes