These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
#721 - 2015-11-11 10:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Metal Hunter
Perhaps this question was already asked, excuse if I repeat.
Whether the new capitals will repair each other at the activated Triage module?
Whether the new capital will operate drones at the activated Triage module?
Whether the volume of capacitor of the new capital and consumption will be reconsidered by capacitor modules?
Whether basic capacitor of the new capital will be increased?
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
#722 - 2015-11-11 14:32:33 UTC
Hello dear developers! I want to express opinion of the majority of Russian-speaking players! Reworking Capital Ships will lead 1) to a drop online, as many players learn the skills on them, which are studied over the years! You created a situation of uncertainty, play in further in EVE or not!
2) capital ships will not to be in demand, on them will not fly
3) с5, с6 will become extinct
4) we think that you go not the right way and that you must not redo the old, that you must add only new!
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#723 - 2015-11-12 12:47:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Calexis Atredies
I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.

Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.

You could potentially be making the game very boring.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#724 - 2015-11-12 15:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Calexis Atredies wrote:
I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.

Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.

You could potentially be making the game very boring.


They are also adding capital neutralizers. I expect them to have a fairly major impact as well.

With that said, I do not expect the typical PVE Carrier to use cap boosters or cap batteries. I expect they will still be just as susceptible to cap warfare as the current ones.

Do not forget that they are also adding deadspace neutralizers. I expect these to become fairly standard on Bhaalgorns and other dedicated anti-capital ships.

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#725 - 2015-11-12 15:15:42 UTC
Calexis Atredies wrote:
I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.

Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.

You could potentially be making the game very boring.

Your Fax will save you from being capped out - At least for as long as it takes the blob your fighting to neut it out - because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).

Best bet - Join a capital mega group (they don't deploy unless it is a sure thing) OR sell your capitals and be done with them.

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.
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
#726 - 2015-11-13 06:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Metal Hunter
Why so to worry? New modules for the capitals will be installed in empty seats. Also will put them instead of something that put earlier. Empty seats that weren't added. And EHP will cut. Cap boosters won't rescue the capitals. The capitals won't become better, thicker. Both killed them, and will kill further. That personally afflicts me. The capital and super capital ships turn into unnecessary garbage. Only because they will be easier to be caught and killed. Who will begin to fly, risk on them - understanding that risk and spent for these ships ISK aren't justified?

Add:
New fighters united in groups will die and quickly. It will be impossible to repair them. And it is additional expenses. CCP and so made everything that the capitals and the super capitals died quicker and that super PVP children/guys could have satisfaction from an easy victory.

Maybe someone thinks, what the capitals on anomaly will fly to PVP fiting? PVE the capitals will be collected for receiving the maximum profit from anomaly. Therefore will be thin.
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
#727 - 2015-11-13 07:30:11 UTC
Interestingly, and why didn't guess to enter Capital Ancillary Shield Booster and similar on armor...
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#728 - 2015-11-13 14:53:55 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).

How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning?

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#729 - 2015-11-13 16:33:20 UTC
Just a thought:
* Dreadnaughts will be the only capital able to fit a Siege-module, which buffs DPS etc, while rendering remote assistance impossible for the duration of the Siege-cycle.

* Force Auxilliary Capitals wll be the only capital able to fit the Triage module, which gives bonus to reps, remote reps etc, while redering remote assistance to the triaged FAC impossible for the duration of the triage cycle.

* Carriers will be the only ship able to fit ??? which buffs ???, while rendering ??? impossible for the duration of ???

For consistency, and for players that do not want to invest in a third cap-ship; why not enable carriers to fit either a siege module (buffing damage and local reps) or a triage module (buffing remote reps/local reps), but make it not-as-good-as-the-other-capitals. This would give more flexibility to the poorer players that can not afford 3 capitals, aswell as bring a deeper dimension to cap warfare. Or you just merge the Triage and Siege modules into one unified module for all three capitals - The Triege Module or perhaps the Siage Module...you get my point....

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#730 - 2015-11-13 20:17:06 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).

How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning?

Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says.

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.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#731 - 2015-11-13 22:08:14 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).

How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning?

Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says.

So your saying you have no ******* idea what your talking about? Because you really don't.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#732 - 2015-11-13 23:59:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Here's my idea for how trading carriers with force auxiliaries should work:


When rolling out the change, begin allowing players to freely exchange docked carriers for force auxiliary, they simply click a button and a countdown begins. One hour later the carrier is now a force auxiliary of the same race. They can halt the process and undock it as a carrier if they need it all of a sudden.

Give a three-month grace period for free changes. Within this period, people can swap to a force auxiliary, fly it around and play with it, then swap it back to a carrier, fly it around, and even swap it back to a force auxiliary.

After the grace period ends, you can still swap them as long as you stay docked but once you undock the ship, its type is set for keeps. Also, any carriers or force auxiliaries that went into production after the change rolled out (even during the grace period) are set and unable to change type.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#733 - 2015-11-14 01:47:06 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).

How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning?

Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says.

So your saying you have no ******* idea what your talking about? Because you really don't.


How does what I wrote (in plain English) to you, add up to me saying it prevents blobs winning?
Like I said, read what I wrote then respond to what is written.. Not what you think it says.

Hint the + & = signs create the outcome (no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob WINS)
The = sign is the outcome..
BIGGEST BLOB WINS.

How do you get I am saying it prevents the biggest blobs winning? When in fact I said the exact opposite.

Learn to read English and stop being a bad.

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.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#734 - 2015-11-14 02:21:43 UTC
The biggest blobs usually win no matter what, but there is a significant variance depending on actual flying skill. Problem is, most of the big blobs are the ones with more skill. You might say TEST is an exception to that, and you'd be quite wrong.

Reducing the skill barrier will give smaller groups a larger chance to compete, while also making it easier for a larger yet less-skilled blob to fend off a small group that is highly skilled. I do feel that skill should be important in EVE but it is going to be important no matter how the game changes and more importantly it comes from experience flying as a lower-skilled pilot. It is for that reason that I support changes that lower the barrier to entry for newer pilots.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#735 - 2015-11-14 10:35:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Sayod Physulem
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The biggest blobs usually win no matter what, but there is a significant variance depending on actual flying skill. Problem is, most of the big blobs are the ones with more skill. You might say TEST is an exception to that, and you'd be quite wrong.

Reducing the skill barrier will give smaller groups a larger chance to compete, while also making it easier for a larger yet less-skilled blob to fend off a small group that is highly skilled. I do feel that skill should be important in EVE but it is going to be important no matter how the game changes and more importantly it comes from experience flying as a lower-skilled pilot. It is for that reason that I support changes that lower the barrier to entry for newer pilots.


That doesn't make any sense. While I agree, that larger groups are often more skilled aswell, this still is the wrong conclusion.
Lets work through the cases (it is always blob versus small group):
(1) Fighting is skill intensive:
  • blob has skill and small group has skill -> blob wins
  • blob has skill and small group has no skill -> blob wins hard
  • blob has no skill and small group has skill > small group wins
  • blob has no skill and small group has no skill -> blob wins

    • (2) Fighting is not skill intensive:
    since skill doesn't matter we can just assume case 1.4 (both have no skill) -> outcome is always blob wins

    Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small. It is possible to outplay a larger group and that is very important to be the case.
    If not you do not only stop smaller groups from working you also give larger groups internal power, when skill is required, corporations have to prevent a brain drain - thus treating their members well to stop them from leaving, but when you need to be in a large group to be successful the large group doesn't have incentives to improve the life of their members as they have no other option anyway.
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #736 - 2015-11-14 10:44:58 UTC
    Sayod Physulem wrote:
    Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small

    You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails.

    There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that.

    FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

    Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
    Sayod Physulem
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #737 - 2015-11-14 10:55:16 UTC
    Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
    Sayod Physulem wrote:
    Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small

    You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails.

    There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that.


    yes and no - in general it works that way - "they will fly slippery ships" you assume an intelligent/skilled small group.
    "Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage.
    Alavaria Fera
    GoonWaffe
    #738 - 2015-11-14 16:36:21 UTC
    Sayod Physulem wrote:
    Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
    Sayod Physulem wrote:
    Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small

    You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails.

    There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that.


    yes and no - in general it works that way - "they will fly slippery ships" you assume an intelligent/skilled small group.
    "Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage.

    Maybe test has been feeling impatient lately.

    I heard they were fighting with a bunch of fellows somewhere

    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 ?
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #739 - 2015-11-14 19:06:07 UTC
    Sayod Physulem wrote:
    "Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage.

    That's not what I said at all. I was explaining that a skilled group that is large may often act in ways that a skilled group that is small will not, and there are ways for a small group to take advantage of that, even if taking advantage of it rarely involves going toe-to-toe with the large group. There are many ways this plays out, I simply mentioned one.

    FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

    Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
    MrQuisno
    Doomheim
    #740 - 2015-11-15 21:51:08 UTC
    Hello,

    I would like to join the focus group for capital ships. As over the last few years I been pushing many ideas on the forums for how it would be awesome to change up some of the capitals and fighters. I have push ideas like fittings to fighters or even different type of classes. Glad to see some of the ideas got used. Nerfing the capital ships HP to make them the players pick a path to all dps or tank.

    I still think we are still missing a capital ship here. Why can't we get a super class for force Auxiliary with special abilities. You would use these type of ships which give special abilities out side the scope of command ships. Giving you extra fitting slot high med or low maybe even rigs. Instead of stacking penalties of using more then one type of module. In other words say you wanted to fit 4 cargo slots in the low. With this ship you would get same bounes for 4 fitted but would be able to free up one extra slot to fit what ever you liked.