These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#581 - 2015-10-30 17:21:59 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.

On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier.

What's the problem with this?

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#582 - 2015-10-30 17:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.

On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier.

What's the problem with this?



For me personally, none whatsoever. I personally enjoy joining with others to show how futile CCP's efforts are in attempting to attack or disrupt our player generated emergent game play - I have no qualms about stating that openly.



But for sincere 'feedback', I'm not going to purposely obscure a legitimate perspective with my personal Bittervet - CCP has never wanted, nor implicitly encouraged any form of 'Arms Race' - they've caused them indirectly, to be certain, but never intentionally as a development plan. And players that blindly think that if CCP told them so, then it must be good! 'Yay may I have another ice cream CCP Chair?" Because the content such players are involved with is far removed from any real understanding of the issues and consequences of changes to Capital ships.

In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.

Developing features that cater to others outside our game, like World of Warship players as an example, are undesirable; as the uniqueness of the game is its best selling point. Though I can't deny that in this one instance, the new fighter proposal is 'promising'.

[Sarcasm] I wonder if Capitals will get a 'Point Defense', a sort of AA, like World of Warships? to go along with the new 'unique' Fighter changes.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#583 - 2015-10-30 18:00:36 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.

How can you accelerate from maximum?


Well, take someone like me as an example. I currently have two Titan pilots, one Supercarrier pilot, and three Carrier/Dreadnought pilots. At the moment, I own one Titan, twelve Carriers, and seven Dreadnoughts. In the world of jump fatigue, this makes sense to me, because I can stage jump clones and capital ships where they are most useful.

The only thing stopping me from having enough ISK for multiple Supercapital ships is lack of desire to grind it out. My alliance's space is good enough that I can easily pull in a Titan every couple of months without too much effort. You just have to be willing to keep logging in and shooting red shapes. The only thing stopping me from having two Titans and three Supercarriers (or five of each) is that they are currently character coffins. Once I can start docking the Supercapital ships, why would I continue to use regular Carriers vice Supercarriers?

One possible answer is that Carriers are way more disposable than Titans and Supercarriers. This means a small gang player can actually use them. Outside of moving ops and bridging fleets around, I can count on one hand the number of times I have used my Titan since I got it three years ago. Opportunities for a small gang player to throw around a Titan just are not that common. Once you start, you immediately get added to every watchlist imaginable, and then get bushwhacked. In that same time frame, I have used my three Capital pilots innumerable times (and not always in blob situations). Dropping three Revelations on a Triage Carrier is just as fun and effective as dropping an Avatar on a Triage Carrier.

So, yes, for the large fleet fights, where you are only planning to fight alongside two hundred other Capswarm pilots, it makes perfect sense to upgrade to a Supercarrier. You are never going to use it in a situation you can lose it. For everyone else, Carriers still have a very valid use.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#584 - 2015-10-30 18:00:54 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.

Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#585 - 2015-10-30 18:15:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.

Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?


I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.

But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.

There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.

Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).

This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.

If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#586 - 2015-10-30 18:18:24 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.

Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?


I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.

But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.

There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.

Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).

This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.

If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation.

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#587 - 2015-10-30 18:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.

Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?


I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.

But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.

There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.

Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).

This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.

If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation.


I can say that because there have been times that the use of such ships was appealing specifically because the goal was ISK efficiency in a tactical engagement.

At the Capital level ISK efficiency might be less a consideration vs. Force projection, Area Denial through hard-tanking enemy subcap fleets, and Damage output abilities.

If you're gonna swing the hammer, then swing it son

Tends to be how Capitals are used, so long as there is a counter-counter drop available. But again, how is asking me this 'feedback' to Capital changes?

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#588 - 2015-10-30 18:54:06 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together?
Alright, I'll expand upon this a bit. I think putting everything into an 'ewar' category doesn't allow for sufficient granularity in balancing and over-simplifies the situation if you consider how different types of ewar affect different ships

  • ECM for example needs something more complicated than a flat reduction in jam probability, or dishonor drones & non-bonused jammers used en-masse in utility mids have the potential to be a balancing headahce. What I suggest in this case would be a two-component resistance calculation. Step one would be to flat-out ignore all ECM below a certain strength. An EC-900 has a jam strength of 2, a well-skilled blackbird before links of 9, an un-bonused jammer with full skills of 4.5. If the calculation were (Jam Strength - Jam Resist) + (Regular ECM chance formula) + (Hull ewar resist), where Jam Resist was 5 for example, ewar drones and unbonused jams would have zero chance of affecting the target, but ships with a hull bonus still could, albeit with a lower probability of success as dictated by your formula for ewar resistance. Since hulls with a bonus to ewar strength have already been balanced with carrying jams in mind, it mitigates the chance for balance headaches caused by ships not normally carrying ECM starting to do so in quantity.
  • The case of damps also needs a look since putting scan-resolution damps on capitals given their already low values for this statistic could be overly powerful. Again, a flat % difference in effectiveness might not be optimal here. I'd suggest a diminishing returns curve towards a lower bound so that scan resolution either can't fall below a particular value or can't fall below a certain % of the ship's un-damped resolution. The ability of damps to chop off a couple hundred kilometers of targeting range is already somewhat silly, let's not add multi-minute lock times versus battleships into the mix. The ~70% reduction you get from a highly skilled Keres is already scary. Perhaps 'minimum' lock ranges above what diminishing returns would already imply.
  • Tracking disruptors are probably the one ewar type which a flat % reduction in effectiveness versus capitals would be alright now that we have missile tracking enhancers & computers, though I'd still like to see consideration of a non-linear diminishing curve where the first tracking disruptor doesn't do much, but multiple bonused ones will. Given a bit of time, an appropriate equation could be found I think.


I hope that clarifies things a bit as to what I meant. I know it makes things more complicated for players than a flat % reduction to ewar effectiveness, but allows for far greater nuance in balancing by giving the devs more knobs to tweak, and we are talking about capitals which lets CCP get away with a higher game knowledge level requirement.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging that's bad?
I think you have an interesting point. I don't think making carrier gameplay less engaging is the answer though. Do you have any suggestions?
When you put it like that it does sound like an odd objection to make, but valid nonetheless. Some possibilities to alleviate this might include:

  • Re-introducing fighter assignment / assist options. (Probably not the best answer)
  • Allowing FCs to put up rally points in 3D space, so players can send their fighters to a location by clicking on a glowy beacon thingy instead of putting in coordinates by hand. This still requires player participation, but lessen the workload slightly. Actually, putting up glowy marker points in 3D space with the new coordinate interface would generally be rather awesome for a lot of other purposes too.
  • Add behaviour options like Homeworld had to guard / patrol / etc. around a particular area / ship. For example, ordering your light fighters to engage tackle near a particular friendly target, setup a pre-defined bombing run formation relative to a beacon / target (like you can position probes relative to a scan area) or fly anti-bomber defense patterns on that wing of battleships. Looking at Supreme Commander's unit control system might also be worthwhile, or how RPGs like Dragon Age let you set a bunch of pre-defined tactics.

The goal here is to require player agency and punish stupid decisions, but make the player's will easy to carry out and require as little micro as is feasible.


Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#589 - 2015-10-30 18:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander McKeon
Part 2/2
CCP Larrikin wrote:
It comes down to balance.
Currently, any changes we make to XL weapons on dreads, we need to look at the effect it has on sub-cap blapping too.
For example, we can't buff the tracking of XL weapons without buffing sub-cap blapping.
By splitting these weapons up into dedicated Anti-Capital and Anti-Sub-Capital systems, we can separately balance them.
I can appreciate that rationale from the development side of things. Giving dreads a large enough fleet hangar to carry both sets of guns would be very beneficial since they can refit off each other now (without a weapons timer at least) and make the inability to hit subcaps with standard guns sting less. The concern I have here is that you're removing the ability to drop a small number of expensive, difficult to use ships and radically add to your group's DPS. You didn't really dispute the assertion that the current level of dps deployed by blap dreads was a problem, but the high angle guns cannot and should not match that dps level if they get sufficient tracking as to apply dps unaided. What I'd like to see would be the other dreads getting to where the phoenix is now in terms of balance; good, definitely usable, but not broken and requiring extensive specialized support to reach it's potential. It seems as though Citadel missiles already got their 'good vs. capitals, not broken vs. subcaps' balance pass, so good place to start. Perhaps a damage reduction factor based on a comparison of your tracking speed versus target signature radius?

Alternatively, perhaps a script on high-angle guns to reduce tracking to current XL levels with a corresponding damage increase so you can maintain the distinctness of the weapon systems. This might be the most elegant solution if you can manage both a script and ammo in the same gun, or introduce new ammo types otherwise.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#590 - 2015-10-30 19:02:49 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together?
Alright, I'll expand upon this a bit. I think putting everything into an 'ewar' category doesn't allow for sufficient granularity in balancing and over-simplifies the situation if you consider how different types of ewar affect different ships

  • ECM for example needs something more complicated than a flat reduction in jam probability, or dishonor drones & non-bonused jammers used en-masse in utility mids have the potential to be a balancing headahce. What I suggest in this case would be a two-component resistance calculation. Step one would be to flat-out ignore all ECM below a certain strength. An EC-900 has a jam strength of 2, a well-skilled blackbird before links of 9, an un-bonused jammer with full skills of 4.5. If the calculation were (Jam Strength - Jam Resist) + (Regular ECM chance formula) + (Hull ewar resist), where Jam Resist was 5 for example, ewar drones and unbonused jams would have zero chance of affecting the target, but ships with a hull bonus still could, albeit with a lower probability of success as dictated by your formula for ewar resistance. Since hulls with a bonus to ewar strength have already been balanced with carrying jams in mind, it mitigates the chance for balance headaches caused by ships not normally carrying ECM starting to do so in quantity.
  • The case of damps also needs a look since putting scan-resolution damps on capitals given their already low values for this statistic could be overly powerful. Again, a flat % difference in effectiveness might not be optimal here. I'd suggest a diminishing returns curve towards a lower bound so that scan resolution either can't fall below a particular value or can't fall below a certain % of the ship's un-damped resolution. The ability of damps to chop off a couple hundred kilometers of targeting range is already somewhat silly, let's not add multi-minute lock times versus battleships into the mix. The ~70% reduction you get from a highly skilled Keres is already scary. Perhaps 'minimum' lock ranges above what diminishing returns would already imply.
  • Tracking disruptors are probably the one ewar type which a flat % reduction in effectiveness versus capitals would be alright now that we have missile tracking enhancers & computers, though I'd still like to see consideration of a non-linear diminishing curve where the first tracking disruptor doesn't do much, but multiple bonused ones will. Given a bit of time, an appropriate equation could be found I think.


I hope that clarifies things a bit as to what I meant. I know it makes things more complicated for players than a flat % reduction to ewar effectiveness, but allows for far greater nuance in balancing by giving the devs more knobs to tweak, and we are talking about capitals which lets CCP get away with a higher game knowledge level requirement.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging that's bad?
I think you have an interesting point. I don't think making carrier gameplay less engaging is the answer though. Do you have any suggestions?
When you put it like that it does sound like an odd objection to make, but valid nonetheless. Some possibilities to alleviate this might include:

  • Re-introducing fighter assignment / assist options. (Probably not the best answer)
  • Allowing FCs to put up rally points in 3D space, so players can send their fighters to a location by clicking on a glowy beacon thingy instead of putting in coordinates by hand. This still requires player participation, but lessen the workload slightly. Actually, putting up glowy marker points in 3D space with the new coordinate interface would generally be rather awesome for a lot of other purposes too.
  • Add behaviour options like Homeworld had to guard / patrol / etc. around a particular area / ship. For example, ordering your light fighters to engage tackle near a particular friendly target, setup a pre-defined bombing run formation relative to a beacon / target (like you can position probes relative to a scan area) or fly anti-bomber defense patterns on that wing of battleships. Looking at Supreme Commander's unit control system might also be worthwhile, or how RPGs like Dragon Age let you set a bunch of pre-defined tactics.

The goal here is to require player agency and punish stupid decisions, but make the player's will easy to carry out and require as little micro as is feasible.




It is so much simpler just to not have ewar affect ships in triage, siege, or bastion. Changing that is a bad idea.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#591 - 2015-10-30 19:02:57 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

I can say that because there have been times that the use of such ships was appealing specifically because the goal was ISK efficiency in a tactical engagement.

At the Capital level ISK efficiency might be less a consideration vs. Force projection, Area Denial through hard-tanking enemy subcap fleets, and Damage output abilities.

If you're gonna swing the hammer, then swing it son

Tends to be how Capitals are used, so long as there is a counter-counter drop available. But again, how is asking me this 'feedback' to Capital changes?

So the only difference is the amount of ISK at stake?

Again, fail to see how that is relevant.

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

159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#592 - 2015-10-30 19:10:45 UTC
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?

Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#593 - 2015-10-30 19:16:30 UTC
159Pinky wrote:
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?

Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.

That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.

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

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#594 - 2015-10-30 22:19:40 UTC
Querns wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?

Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.

That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.


And it's not like jump fatigue means they'll be moving on anytime soon.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#595 - 2015-10-30 22:34:10 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved.

Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.

Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.

And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?

Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing?
Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way.
Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week.
Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs.

Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle.

No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL..

When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes.

and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#596 - 2015-10-30 22:46:22 UTC
xttz wrote:
Querns wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?

Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.

That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.


And it's not like jump fatigue means they'll be moving on anytime soon.

I think you missed the point - Lighting additional cynos to get more ships to the one place (something only the blobs need to consider) would not be affected by limiting how many can use any one cyno.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#597 - 2015-10-30 23:31:06 UTC
159Pinky wrote:
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?

Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.


I proposed this very thing during Jump Fatigue 'feedback', as an alternative to its institution.

Now that Jump Fatigue is in place, a Cynosural Field mass cap is irrelevant, as a mass cap only addresses force projection not the ships themselves; which this Capital rework will be addressing.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#598 - 2015-10-30 23:31:51 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Querns wrote:

Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.

Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.

And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?

Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing?
Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way.
Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week.
Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs.

Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle.

No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL..

When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes.

and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will)

Your problem is that you move. Don't do that. Or, do it much less often. Adding fatigue to carriers makes it more punishing to live as a vulture bent only on destruction. This is something which the game cannot support, in the long term. Sure, we in Goonswarm Federation and our allies are known for our capacity for destruction, but we balance this with a healthy ecosystem at home that exports as much as it imports.

You are aware that Force Auxiliaries can still be used to do triage and general-purpose remote repair, yes? If your argument is that you can't bring a single carrier as a jack-of-all-trades force multiplier, then I have little sympathy. Just like choking back the ability to refit during combat, forcing proper strategic decisions by asking one to choose between different levels of capital-based damage and capital-based remote repair is good for Eve.

It's not 2012 any more. We've moved on. So should you.

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
#599 - 2015-10-31 00:43:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Querns wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved.

Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.

Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.

And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?

Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing?
Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way.
Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week.
Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs.

Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle.

No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL..

When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes.

and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will)

Oh Cry some more tears on not able to move everything from one side of new eden to the other. Twice every weekend.

Jump drives were so OP from day one it was stupid. So freeking stupid that you can put that suitcase carrier where the sun don't shine.

He is a true Aussie. But you are some kind of sheep loving crazy guy that wonders why others have rams.

Seriously HTFU. And stop giving down under a bad name.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#600 - 2015-10-31 03:07:14 UTC
So, how effective will HAWB be at reprocessing packs of cruisers?