These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#701 - 2015-11-06 02:52:33 UTC
Still waiting for replies from CCP to any critic thus far...

In the mean time:


  • Should we expect the new Chimera hull design early or released with Citadel Expansion



Man I really want that new hull.

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

Alexander Kreoss
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#702 - 2015-11-06 03:24:52 UTC
yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking
DragonZer0
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#703 - 2015-11-06 03:42:13 UTC
Alexander Kreoss wrote:
yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking



Really the gallente carrier is the ugliest one of the capitals currently.

On a site note it would be interesting to see capitals being able to fit some smaller turrets for the AA support as it is called. Not enough to chase off something like Battleship that has you tackled but something to make frigates and maybe a cruiser warp off?
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#704 - 2015-11-06 09:03:02 UTC
Sayod Physulem wrote:
Regarding that n+1 topic again...

I agree with a lot of the basic points that Sayod brings up here.

I mean the guys that can bring the bigger fleet will always have the advantage. That's Eve and I don't see how it could even be a goal to make that not the case. I mean this is not some balanced PvP game where you have 10 v 10 Battlegrounds or anything like that.

What I basically interpret this dev blog to say is that people are complaining that things like logistics and Ewar are making Eve combat too complicated so you are dumbing them down. Everything that you describe here can be done by both sides so there is no "unfair" aspect too it. You are just streamlining the combat in the game and dumbing it down that is all that I see these changes accomplishing.

As far as your argument that it is hard to balance things when people can refit in combat while that may be true to a point changing that first off does not guarantee and kind of balance and secondly it almost seems silly to chase after some hyper balanced gameplay in a game like Eve that is so focused on unbalance. I mean anyone can fly any ship and use any module so game mechanic wise there can never be any situation that is unbalanced.

There can only be a situation where you brought the wrong ships or not enough ships and since Eve is a game about match-ups and counters that's just part of the game. If you don't like being countered by your enemy then get better spys to give you more accurate intel. Or conversely you could just loose and admit that your opponent out gunned you or out smarted you etc...

I played WoW while I watched them go down the path of "balancing" the game and it ruined the game. The simple fact is that when people loose they don't ever want to think that them sucking or their opponents being better than them has anything to do with it so they will always blame game mechanics in one way or another. So even if you could somehow actually "balance" the game people would still **** and moan about unfair or unbalanced mechanics.

Further now your are simplifying game mechanics or homogenizing game mechanics (both of which I read as dumbing down the game) to make balancing easier and all of this in a game that could not possibly be unbalanced and who's game structure has nothing to do with balance.

I think that you guys need to take a step back and think about what balance really means and where it will wind up if you insist on taking this game down that path and what it has done to other games and what it is doing to this game and then explain to me how it is even something that should be a goal.

Before you guys "rebalanced" all the ship line ups the Minmatar ships were the solo, meaning 1 v 1, PvP kings of the game. So if you wanted to do solo PvP then Minmatar were the ships to have. Now since everyone could fly the rifter there was no unbalance in the game. Further the Minmatar ship fell behind every other ship in the game in almost every category except speed. They had the weakest sensor strength, the lowest paper dps, the crappiest tank stats etc... So outside that one very narrow situation every other ship in game was better pretty much.

Back then the Amarr had really great tanks and best in game dps but their dps was locked in damage types and could be stopped with cap warfare. So each race had it's ups and downs and strengths and weaknesses so on the whole there was balance just in specific situations one race or one ship might have an advantage over the other but in Eve everything is situational so that is as it should be.

So anyway then you guys went and "balanced" all the ships and now things are more homogenized meaning there is less difference between the races' ship line ups which in a sense makes things more unbalanced because now little differences send things way out of balance because things are so homogenized.

When Blizzard went down this path with WoW where it wound up is them making all the classes almost identical and removing almost all differences between the classes or races etc... and you wound up with 2 basic roles in PvP in that game which were heals and dps. Within those 2 basic roles everyone had basically the same "moves" with different names and different graphical effects to them but the mechanics were nearly identical. So with "balance" came a lack of options. Not to mention the fact that people still whine about lack of balance and that game still has it's FotM class, spec, etc...

All of that is not to mention the fact that WoW, when I left it, was so hyper balanced that a very small difference was very noticeable and even upper single digit percent differences were game breaking. You guys will NEVER achieve balance in this game and even if you could your players would not see it that way. Further your efforts to balance the game will only server to make it more unbalanced.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#705 - 2015-11-06 12:52:35 UTC
Alexander Kreoss wrote:
yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking


De gustibus non est disputandem!

Do not argue in matters of taste!

I love the Thanatos and think it looks great. Especially with the Quafe skin.

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#706 - 2015-11-06 14:05:24 UTC
How can people not get this?

The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.

N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss.
Severice
The Order Of Asgard
Lord of Worlds Alliance
#707 - 2015-11-06 16:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Severice
What i want to know as a pilot who would be "Picking their first capital" (ignoring all the ones i'm stuck with)

Will all capitals have the same jump range, hangers, hanger bays, ect?
Will all capitals have the same price?
Will all capital have the same DPS vs capitals?
Will all capital have the same DPS vs sub caps?
Will carriers with their fighters be better vs sub caps, but worse vs caps?
Will the projected dps of carriers make them glass cannons or significantly weaker than dreads?
Will capitals be repairable in siege modes?

What reasons will we have to use capitals?
Will the only reason to choose a carrier over a dread be style choices or gun vs drone skills?
Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#708 - 2015-11-06 18:14:26 UTC
Alexander Kreoss wrote:
i couldnt agree with Kassasis Dakkstromri more. and i really feel that capitals in general are very ****** compared to many other games versions of capitals. its one thing to balance a game but at no point should capitals have such limited defense for dealing with with sub caps. in all honesty, the time invested in capitals should literally mean you are better than another subcapital ship with a pilot of the same skill and caliber. like in other games.

No, not like in other games - that is what makes eve unique. You don't have this stupid level system where ships get better and better with every "level". Every ship has a purpose and some things are better acomplished by small ships. That is how it is meant to be and should be. It creates variety in fleets, and you don't feel obsolete as a new player because you are not. Even if you can only fly frigates you are still important. This doesn't mean that capitals are not powerful they just need support to be effective. If you don't like that then this is the wrong game for you.

Alexander Kreoss wrote:
i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes.
you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone.

Alexander Kreoss wrote:
this force auxiliary ship is neat in thought but just another joke. anyone ever seen why your supports hate you. its a **** job with little glory and now you wanna force players and fleets to have to use these ships and support the damage. thats cool in theory for but you'd be better off just implementing that idea as a battleship with capital reps rather then investing in a billion isk ship that just helps other plays enjoy there game more. and i thank anyone who reads this that actually enjoys being the CLERIC. you are special people that deserve better then what you get.

I love to fly logistics, and looked forward to fly a carrier at some point, if they really remove combat refitting that would certainly be a bummer but I would probably still give it a shot, depending how it develops, won't be closer than a year ahead anyway. And I think it is good to split carriers up into dedicated logistics and drone boats, I never liked drones anyway, I always forget those stupid isk sinks Ugh. And drone assist never works - never got on a killmail with a logi because of assisting drones, they just sit idle around if you don't target yourself and press F. Anywaay ... back on topic. Logistics are in a good state in my opinion - introducing falloff seems fair though, and if you don't like it I don't want to force you to fly it. Can't have a fleet just made up from logistics anyway so it is good that not everyone wants to do it Blink

But I also don't like the idea just beeing a meat shield without beeing able to influence the outcome. And I can do that with subcap logi (pull range overheat prop mod/hardeners, get transversal up) and I would like to be able to do that with a cap with combat refitting eventually.

Ah and I don't really like the name to be honest but I wouldn't mind that so much as the removal of combat refitting. And if you like to press F1 blapping things, just get a dread and some friends with serpentis and minmatar ships ;-) some fresh paint and slow movement can change your life y'know. It is the right thing, that you can't apply that yourself - caps need support and that is how it should be (and that is why I don't really like the concept of the HAW...)
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#709 - 2015-11-06 18:51:32 UTC
afkalt wrote:
How can people not get this?

The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.

N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss.



This is why you cap Capital Remote Repair, along with a few other common sense changes. Then no need for a useless new Capital ship to act as a fat XL Basilisk.

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#710 - 2015-11-06 22:18:50 UTC
afkalt wrote:
How can people not get this?

The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.

N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss.

Seriously backwards there.

The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?



Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk.


CCP don't really pay attention and consider smaller groups (or just don't care about the smaller groups) when looking at changes to the game - and balancing the game for the blobs has just worked so well up till now - Why change the way they do things.

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
State War Academy
Caldari State
#711 - 2015-11-06 23:45:41 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:


CCP don't really pay attention ...





CSM please fix this.


I mean has anyone in Team Five-0 actually played Capital Ships, besides ejecting from a Polaris and boarding one for ship spinning?

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

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#712 - 2015-11-07 16:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?

Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk.

Mega groups huh? So evil, retaining all the players

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford)

Hmm, Titans, so rare even largest alliances have two or three...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#713 - 2015-11-07 16:43:52 UTC
Sayod Physulem wrote:

Alexander Kreoss wrote:
i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes.
you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone.

What ship is this that you're buying for 2.5bil which is that capable now?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Umar Umarhabib
Doomheim
#714 - 2015-11-07 18:21:08 UTC
Will the High Angle Weapon Batteries have a missile variant for Caldari capital ships?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#715 - 2015-11-07 21:55:32 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?

Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk.

Mega groups huh? So evil, retaining all the players

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford)

Hmm, Titans, so rare even largest alliances have two or three...

LOL, retaining all the players - so many of whom only log in when a guaranteed winning fight is pinged.
Come my pets, Mittens needs you to protect his chicken ass because his little empire relies on all of you being too scared to risk anything.
20 guys just formed up in Pure blind - and the ping goes out to the 40+K mainly afk membership of the CFC - we need another 150 in fleet "NOW" (and get them because ganking a 20 man gang with 200 is so much fun for all)
Retaining all the player groups too afraid to get out from under their masters skirts and play the game, sure being risk averse is the only way to play an online game.
There is probably 2 or 3 alliances within the CFC worthy of holding Sov by being able to hold their own in a fight and I'm not sure Goons are one of them. Sure Goons are good at sending out 200 man sigs (of mixed alliances) to harass the smaller groups, they are good at highsec ganking and most importantly, they are very good at keeping TQ in an all but stagnant state.
But being the most risk averse group on TQ is nothing to be proud of.

As for titans - Rare? Largest alliances only have 2 or 3? Are you really that bad or do you think everyone else is?
(I count 7 on one pos kill during the last fleet you joined alone and anyone with half a brain knows there are many more where they came from)
By your response - You believe Devs have it right and only the largest groups should have access to the largest toys? How balanced is that - I was right - Everyone needs to join Goons - Especially if you have a Super or a Titan.
Join Goons - Unless you actually want to play an online game, in which case, you better start looking elsewhere because Eve is heading down the "Mega blobbers or out" road.

you are just the worst troll to wear the Goon tag. Shame really, the odd post from you actually makes sense - Then you blow your credibility by defending the largest most risk averse group on TQ.

Goons + Pets = Bad for Eve

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
#716 - 2015-11-07 22:34:34 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sayod Physulem wrote:

Alexander Kreoss wrote:
i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes.
you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone.

What ship is this that you're buying for 2.5bil which is that capable now?

I think Alexander Kreoss is talking about a bling carrier - 2.5 bil?
Which according to the blog at least;
Quote:
No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity

Yes, titans can be tackled by enough Rifters, or jammed by enough Falcons. We've got some interesting mechanics for this and I'll go through them one by one -

Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Heavy Interdictors with a focus point will work as they do now, as will bubbles.
Will still be able to be tackled by a lone ceptor (or rifter or whatever) and once tackled will die (as is the way, call in as many friends as you can) due to having no real counter to small ships.

Sayod Physulem said - And caps are never meant to move around alone - Your right and how boring is a game where you "have" to be in a large group just to play.

Alavaria Fera, - There isn't one
A lone carrier can't defend itself (can be tackled by) against a solo frigate - Is exactly as it is now.

Is making supers and titans (the most risk averse classes of ships in Eve) vulnerable to ewar really going to change anything? All it does is give the large groups more opportunity to blob the small groups and the poor sap moving his most expensive asset is more easily caught and killed by a group of subcaps (with no special requirements other than a lot of tackle). If 10 captors with long points can catch a Super, that is what super hunters will use - Who needs to be slowed down (risk losing an easy kill) by having a Hic in fleet when speedy ceptors can do the same job?

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
State War Academy
Caldari State
#717 - 2015-11-08 16:19:27 UTC
Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.

The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs?

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#718 - 2015-11-11 03:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.

The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs?

That's a pretty hefty cost. You might want to get a second opinion.

In fact, I KNOW you can get better prices than that from builders in your own alliance.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#719 - 2015-11-11 05:57:30 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.

The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs?

Also given Battleships run to a cool billion for a Marauder hull....... I think Cap prices are fine. Carriers were way way too cheap for their abilities before.
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
#720 - 2015-11-11 06:03:35 UTC
I can't tell that I like that that suggest to change.
Data on changes yet not final, but it is clear on what updating is directed.
At those who lives in WH there will be problems. They will be connected with changes of dreds and cariers.
On new cariers anybody will have no studied skills. Skill will be studied with x10 multiplier (most likely). For T2 of guns on Dreds too it will be necessary to study skill.
Also they will get thus worse on the smaller ships. It will make more difficult accommodation at WH. It isn't excluded that part of WH will become empty.
If you want to subject to bigger danger of cariers and super cariers create for them special anomalies on which these ships will jump. Let anomalies shine as beacon/cino and will be visible to all.
The changes entered with fighter are bad that now fighter can't be repaired.
Carriers and Super-Carriers can consider analog of modern aircraft carriers. However, automatic repair of fighter at return to the ship still isn't provided. It is impossible to adjust fighter - at what level of damages it comes back to the ship.
You add new modules for Carriers and Super-Carriers but you change Hit Points. You skry all take away Hit Points quantity. But new modules which you give will need to be installed somewhere. And occasional seats for installation of new modules aren't present. Therefore as if I wasn't glad to new modules, it will make Carriers and Super-Carriers worse.
For what it is necessary this nerf?