These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Capital Q&A

First post
Author
drunklies
Imperial Guardians
Tactical Narcotics Team
#81 - 2015-11-13 20:22:28 UTC  |  Edited by: drunklies
Re the high angle guns.

Understanding that the numbers given are estimates, could you elaborate more on the range.

Does 50km represent short, mid or long range for these new batteries, i.e. is it a void, multifreq or scorch number?

Are there any plans on long range high angle batteries?
Esteban Dragonovic
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#82 - 2015-11-13 21:05:46 UTC
Any thoughts about the Capital Remote Armor/Shield/Energy transfer skills? Considering the logistics role is being stripped from carriers entirely, most carrier pilots (those that didn't intend on flying triage) could have up to 7.5 million SP locked into effectively useless skills.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2015-11-13 21:13:00 UTC
Many wormholers have trained into a dreadnought specifically for PVE; will the developers reimburse the SP for the ship and the guns so that people can put those skill points towards a carrier?
Ariz Black
#84 - 2015-11-13 21:41:05 UTC
Will carrier skins be transfered to faxes, or refunded?
Neckbeard Nolyfe
Zero Fun Allowed
#85 - 2015-11-13 22:25:47 UTC
I have a question.
Dreads and triage carriers are force multipliers for smaller groups who cant field many number of players in order to brake/rep something effectively.

In what situation do you see that group staying small and continue to use inefficient 'high angle dread guns', who have to commit to be able to apply its pathetic 2x arty mach/3x rail proteus worth of dps. Not only that, but they cannot receive reps, eccm, remote sensor boosters, remote tracking computers, while they are vulnerable to the counterparts of those, and need to stop delivering their pathetic damage in order to refit and counter that ewar.

How do you see anyone use dreads in the future instead of just joining the bigger group and spam t3's with impunity Mr. Larrikin?

~lvl 60 paladin~

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2015-11-13 22:48:05 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) In a carrier vs. dread fight, will the dread be able to kill the carrier fighters? The "high angle" guns don't seem suited for this purpose. #1
A) Dreads would want support from subcapitals to kill fighter squadrons. High Angle guns are not suited to killing fighters (or frigates).


So Carriers basically counter Dreadnaughts.

So what do Dreadnaughts counter? What is their niche? What are they supposed to do, and how do they accomplish it?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#87 - 2015-11-13 22:52:00 UTC
Esteban Dragonovic wrote:
Any thoughts about the Capital Remote Armor/Shield/Energy transfer skills? Considering the logistics role is being stripped from carriers entirely, most carrier pilots (those that didn't intend on flying triage) could have up to 7.5 million SP locked into effectively useless skills.



Production Efficiency......

Yaay!!!!

Alundil
Rolled Out
#88 - 2015-11-13 23:04:24 UTC
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions. Hopefully more answers to questions are coming.

Can you share your thoughts on what these changes will mean for wspace capital combat?

Current (estimated) DPS numbers for dreadnoughts with the high angle 'sub-cap' guns is woefully inadequate based on the typical fleet compositions in wspace fights that involve capital and sub capital ships. In addition to this, the continued lack of capability to receive remote assistance while in siege combined with the loss of combat refitting makes turns these ships into very expensive and relatively meaningless ships in a fight involving sub capital ships. They will still be "orbit and neut until dead" targets that will lack the needed DPS potential to kill webbed/painted sub capital targets that are receiving remote reps from a logi group (T2 logi cruisers/FAX).

When fit with normal 'capital-sized guns they are then effectively useless against anything other than another capital or a structure.

This is a significant loss to the functionality of very pricey and training intensive ships. In fact, it would seem that carriers + fighters now out class dreadnoughts in combat capability where mixed-sized targets are concerned as they will be able to put down effective DPS to targets of all sizes anywhere on grid (fighter flight time being the only issue).

I'm right behind you

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#89 - 2015-11-13 23:06:20 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Borat Guereen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Borat Guereen wrote:


Large groups with multiple cyno alts would still get a large benefit from their infrastructures allowing to pinpoint their jump to a "safe" location, while jumping to a sun would require at most a cloaky explorer (i.e more useful than a cyno alt, without needing to fly rookie ships cynos and be sitting ducks for one hour) and allow solo players to use capitals in null sec, at greater risks than when in a bigger group.


If this is how you want to move your Capital ship, you can just take gates. You know that right?

Sitting ducks for one hour? A cyno lasts a maximum of ten minutes...

And, that "cloaky explorer" alt - she can fit a cyno after a negligible training investment.

It strikes me that if you do not know basic capital ship mechanics, maybe you should learn them before you suggest changes to the game.


A cyno alt is mostly toast once it lits the cyno, which is why I am referring to cyno alts as useless for pretty much anything else. Having an exploration ship lighting a non covert cyno is a pretty sure loss, especialy when the goal I am defending here is to allow solo players to use one of the best assets of capital ships in enemy territories.

Your quip about taking the gate is simply about denying solo players a reasonable capability to use the jump drives of capitals without having to fit in the mold that suit your own play style better.

You have no ideas how solo players play. You play with a large infrastructure surrounding you all the time, large intel capabilities, and mom fleet on stand by to save you when you mess up. It strikes me that you do not know any the basics of playing solo, may be you should try it out before yapping.

Last, my question is not adressed to you but to CCP through that Q&A thread. I am actively lobbying for ways to improve capital usage for solo player or micro gangs, and I understand that is not your own priority.


In August, I got internet access again after being away from game for several months on a RL deployment. I found that all my friends (and the support network associated with them), had moved to Vale of the Silent from Fountain. I moved 22 Capital ships from Fountain to Vale, by myself. With no local intel channels, no Supercapital back-up assistance, and being hunted by Fountain Core for the first three cyno jumps (and every NPC 0.0 and low sec group out there in between). And with no Capital ship losses. I think I know how to move Capital ships solo. Take your assumptions elsewhere.

How did I do this? Because my cyno alts are not useless paperweights. They can all fly the most overpowered ship in the game - the Interceptor. Once you realize this simple fact, you figure out pretty quickly that with the right amount of patience you can move almost anywhere in this game. And no, it does not mean you have to light the cyno on the Interceptor (or Covert Ops).

Of course, if you do not want to train useful cyno alts, and use them, then you are free to move Capital ships gate-to-gate with a scout. It is not my preferred travel method, but it does actually work.

There is no way to improve capital usage for solo player or micro gangs that does not make it even easier for the blob to move.

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

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#90 - 2015-11-13 23:06:50 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Querns wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Servanda wrote:
Some people keep telling me the FAX class will be a supercap going with all the building and docking restrictions. I couldn't findany clarification about this. Seems to be a common point that is unclear. So would be nice if you could confirm which kind of caĆ¼ital they will be as this is rather important for planing.



I specifically asked this at Vegas because the CFC leadership was spreading this rumor on Slack prior to vegas

FAX machine are Capitals and can be built anywhere

When asking about the glaring hole in the slide where a SC FAX machine would go, I got a snicker and a no comment


Ummm ok again. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

But how did you, part of PL, know about FAX's... and also how did the CFC know.. about faxes, as they were spreading it on slack? Specifically the CFC leadership....

Prior to Vegas?

Just curious.

Your attempt to trap someone into admitting to knowing about leaked information is cute, but wholly unnecessary. I already explained how this could be. The leak was broadcasted to basically everyone who spoke English at the time. It would have been rarer not to have heard about it, honestly.



Well, manny got ejected from CSM for allegedly leaking something. I am not going to get into it.

I will tell you that I learned about Capital changes in their entirety a week before Vegas from a Goon on Slack, and there were no less than 4 CCP devs talking in the channel, so they knew.

I have no knowledge how that person found out, nor do I care


I'm sorry to beat this horse but I keep scratching my head on this. You learned from a Goon... in Slack, and the Goon leadership were spreading these as rumors (Edit: I'm sorry Goons were talking about it on slack).. and four dev's were present?).

... did I miss the big reddit firestorm when everybody started talking about FAX's a week before and that Carriers were changed in total? I mean with the usual bull people spread almost immediately from slack to reddit, I would have thought the biggest capital change in Eve's history would have been posted in total before eve vegas....

..... ..... how does that make any sense?

Now before I go down my usual tinfoil hat move, I'm sure all of this was posted online and leaked in 1000 different places and I'm just missing the post to verify the timeframe of all of this. I'm sure its out there, I just glossed over it. Now I know the big post about (don't sell supers) was a deal... but the fleet hanger changes.. the SMA changes.. the Entire New Ship Class....

And all of this was known a week before.... by a Goon. I would have thought if Manny leaked.. he'd leak to PL. I do take allegiances very strictly... possibly too strictly for Eve.

I don't see how this makes any progressive sense though.

What would have made sense is this:

CSM member leaks new changes, changes get out, someone posts anonymously some manufactured log, people say haha,, others say "Blame FozzieSov", the thing happens.

This though.. Went like this?:

CSM member leaks new changes. Changes go to select groups of people in high leadership... doesn't get spilled or posted for public consumption, backalley conspiracy goes on to hide changes and mask changes for benefit of "high leadership", info known a week out. Nothing publically leaked, all internal channels, no public inkling... except to.. select groups of people.. witnessed by CCP....

.....that one doesn't make sense..... but I'm going to drop it as this post isn't the place for this type of inquiry into the Capital Q&A.

(Scratches head).

Yaay!!!!

Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#91 - 2015-11-13 23:19:32 UTC
As this thread seems to rapidly be becoming the new discussion thread, I will post my question here.

In the announcing devblog, the author writes about making carriers and dreads both good choices for first time capital pilots.
Carriers are losing their long time, primary role. Dreads are getting refitting service and hangars/maintenance bays.
Both ships are shown in the matrixesque graph as fulfilling a "first tier" damage role; one using turrets, the other using drones.
One class won't be clearly better than the other for first time cap owners.

My question: What will happen to build prices?
Right now, dread hulls cost roughly 2 to 3 times as much as carrier hulls. Assuming that both hull classes will do similar-ish damage with similar-ish force projection and fleet benefit, carriers are the clear choice for first timers because of the dramatically lower price.

I theorize that one of three things will happen to capitals' component requirements:
1) Dreads will come down to carrier price. I assume (hope) CCP will decide to refund now unused components per dread to their owners. Losing 2b isk per dread is like getting hit with the Street Repairs card in Monopoly.
2) Carriers will rise to current dread prices.
3) Carriers will increase and Dreads will decrease. CCP will choose a happy medium of about 2b for capital class hulls (and again refund unused materials to dread owners).

I realize this question cannot be answered now without causing tremendous changes in the value of all existing carriers and dreads. I assume CCP doesn't want to see alliances stockpiling one or the other class in the interest of making back 100 to 300 percent of their initial investment. The long term effects of such a large change could be devastating to CCP's "Helping out the little guys" flavor of recent changes if CCP doesn't wait to announce their choice until it's too late to really capitalize on the changes. Imagine an alliance warchest going from 30 trillion to 90 trillion overnight.

This question will have to be dealt with eventually.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#92 - 2015-11-13 23:36:10 UTC
Well what you don't factor into the carrier hull is the prices of fighters, which can equal the price of the hull. Since wads of sentries won't matter people will have to pack max fighters, and possible spares.

Still I see your point. I think the difference in the end maybe about a billion or so separation.

Yaay!!!!

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2015-11-14 01:19:30 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
We will release details about the Rorqual soon.

DAMNIT DONT YOU TEASE ME LIKE THIS
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#94 - 2015-11-14 02:40:00 UTC
Quote:
Q) WIll a large subcap EWAR fleet be able to reduce the effectiveness of a group of capitals to zero? #1
A) To the same degree that its possible to reduce the effectiveness of a group of sub-capitals to zero, yes. Although it will be harder.
So bringing more will always win - Nice change, oh wait, no different to now.

Quote:
***** Siege/Dreadnoughts *****
Q) 1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low/Why would you use subcap siege dread over battleships?
A) Sieged dreads have several advantages.
Superior range (50km from High Angle guns)
Resistance to EWar
Higher base HP
Provides refitting services to fleet
Dependant on your battleship fit, potentially cheaper to replace after loss when including insurance.
A jumpdrive
We want players to have interesting choices. Dreads shouldn't always be the best choice.
A) Not really.
* I can (with subcap TP and web support) reliably hit out to 65k with short range ammo now. 66K with my Phoenix. So I will be able to hit out to 50K with guns designed to do less damage, to a more limited range of targets - And this is an advantage how?
* So my siege dread (which is immobile) will be harder to tackle - but enough subcaps can still neut, jam etc. How many Bhaalgorns is it expected will be "enough" to overcome Ewar resists? How many Falcons or Rooks will render a capital ship useless?
* From an already reduced HP pool - So a new Dread will have + or - the same base HP it has now? but only in siege? What will it have out of siege?
* As long as you sit in siege for 1 min (or whatever timer is chosen) inactive, not shooting. You realize your fleet being able to refit doesn't help you stay alive? So no real advantage to the dread pilot there.
* I can build a Mach with a bit of bling for less than it costs to simply insure a Dread - Are Dreads getting a 50% reduction in build costs? Insurance is a scam - 700 mil returns around 2/3rds of hull cost (with premium deducted). I can build 3 T1 battleships for the cost of insuring 1 dread. Which means, with dreads doing less damage than a T1 battleship out of siege (and roughly the same in siege), they will never be the best option. Damn, I can build 7 ABC's for the cost of insuring 1 dread AND have more DPS, using disposable ships (dreads will not be able to hit)

Dreads will never be a "best choice" for anyone other than the large blob groups who can field hundreds of them.
-- - -- - -- - --
Quote:
Q) Will they be in the price range of carriers or dreads or will they be more expensive? #1
A) In the price range of Carriers & Dreads.
This really isn't an answer - A dread costs double what a carrier does to build - So what is the base price of FAX expected to be - That of a dread OR a carrier? Or somewhere in between?
As these are designed to be disposable
Quote:
Q) What range of local tank are you looking at for a FA #1
A) Simmilar to current Triage Carriers, but this is subject to change.
A triage carrier unable to refit is going to die pretty fast, or will FAX be exempt from aggression timers so they can refit off each other when primaried (all the time as they need to die so any fight can progress)? - How is the build cost of fielding these in adequate numbers likely to affect smaller groups ability to field capitals?
-- - -- - -- - --
Quote:
Q) Will capital remote repair modules only work in triage mode? #1
A) Capital Remote Repair modules will only be effective when your in Triage. We haven't decided what mechanic we will use to do this yet.
So completely immobile, static, capital fights is the meta being sought?
Land on grid - Fight till you win or lose = Totally uninteresting game play. (biggest blob wins)

It is hard to be positive about change that has such wide reaching repercussions, when the available information is so lacking in any real content and answers to questions are met with vague answers.

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.

Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2015-11-14 07:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
I have some observations and questions in regards to the roles of capitals. In the Dominion capital meta, capitals stepped all over one another's roles (supers replacing dreads, dreads doing what supers do but cheaper, etc). This was very problematic with the capital meta.

In the new design, titans/supers will be focused around their special abilities making them unique, and force auxiliaries have a completely unique role as well.

But things get murky when it comes to carriers and dreads. Consider they both now get:

Fleet hangers to move ships.
Refitting services.
Weapons to kill smaller ships (fighters/High angle weapons)
Weapons to do damage to structures and other ships (Heavy fighters/Regular Dread Guns)

...they seem to be accomplishing the same role on the battlefield. Yes, they do it differently: carriers get support squadrons, don't need siege and have longer range....but I don't really see that as enough separation given that they're still both capable of accomplishing the same tasks.

So the question is do you think dreads and carriers are stepping on each other too much in the proposed design?
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#96 - 2015-11-14 08:02:17 UTC
Tineoidea Asanari wrote:
How many arty nags do we have to field to volley a FAX?

A vague number would be enough.


CCP Larikin.... I hope your reading this quote.

The new N+1 is Omega fleets of dreads. This mind set of limiting capital remote repair modules to Triage is a pitfall.... Scrap it now before you have to fix it later.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2015-11-14 08:32:38 UTC
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I have some observations and questions in regards to the roles of capitals. In the Dominion capital meta, capitals stepped all over one another's roles (supers replacing dreads, dreads doing what supers do but cheaper, etc). This was very problematic with the capital meta.

In the new design, titans/supers will be focused around their special abilities making them unique, and force auxiliaries have a completely unique role as well.

But things get murky when it comes to carriers and dreads. Consider they both now get:

Fleet hangers to move ships.
Refitting services.
Weapons to kill smaller ships (fighters/High angle weapons)
Weapons to do damage to structures and other ships (Heavy fighters/Regular Dread Guns)

...they seem to be accomplishing the same role on the battlefield. Yes, they do it differently: carriers get support squadrons, don't need siege and have longer range....but I don't really see that as enough separation given that they're still both capable of accomplishing the same tasks.

So the question is do you think dreads and carriers are stepping on each other too much in the proposed design?


Not to be rude, but your concern is a non-factor.
Sure, there's not much difference between carriers and dreads in the fact that their damage dealers, but the same can be said for the majority of the ships in each class.

Take tech 1 battleships as an example.
Most of them are damage dealers, with only slight variations in the hulls, but the ultimate difference being how they deal damage.
Be it missiles, drones, long range, short range, and so on.

Having said that, carriers and dreads actually have more significant differences than damage dealing BSs.

The dread is a direct attack vessel, and also has siege.
With the new guns they're being given, they'll be able to effectively counter a sub cap fleet.
2k dps with BS application is no joke, especially when you consider the vast tanking capacity.
It's a good way to counter a sub cap fleet without simply bringing more numbers, yet it can easily be countered with 1 dread fitting capital guns.

Carriers, on the other hand, will be more mobile, and has indirect damage, allowing it to stay further from the fight, essentially making it a support vessel.
It will be able to launch a set of drones the fits the situation on the fly, where as a dread has to dedicate itself to the situation it is fitted for.
Also, carriers will not be that great at assaulting structures, as the new citadels will have the option for a smart bomb.

To recap, the dread is a siege vehicle with the ability to counter a small sub cap fleet, while carriers are a support vessel with the ability to bash structures in niche situations.

Carriers are going to be something that you want close by and readily available, while dreads will be relied upon of the "oh sh|t" moments or for sieges.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#98 - 2015-11-14 11:50:14 UTC
Quote:

Q) Will we allow pilots to exchange their Carrier for Force Auxs? #1
A) Yes, but we havn't determined the mechanic for this yet. One possibility that has been raised is that on patch day, any carrier with a triage module fitted will be turned in to a force aux. But this is still very much something we want to get your input on before we nail down the final plan.


I think it would be more interesting without this "exchange" to the new carriers.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Angel's Threat
New Eden Corporation 98555201
#99 - 2015-11-14 13:43:36 UTC
Given the fact that you are looking at removing ewar immunity from capitals and supercapitals, have you considered not changing gun stats as a dreadnought can be countered by 4 tracking disruptors? Take for example my Moros, with 3 tracking disruptors loaded with optimal range script I will have a 4.8+13 range , before ewar resistance. If you go with tracking speed scripts, my moros has a tracking of 0.002 tracking with ogdins implant, tracking computer with script and a tracking enhancer. A battleship moving at 30m/s will almost be impossible for the moros to even hit until the battleship is nearly 40km away, at which point your falloff works against you. Add 4 opt range and 4 tracking speed scripts, and a moros can barely apply 2.5k dps to a quad vindi webbed and quad domination target painted battleship going 9m/s. Now these stats are before the ewar immunity but given the fact that 2 machariels , which is the bread and butter of low-sec currently, can neuter one dreadnought, you may want to reconsider.
By removing refitting options, you are also effectively killing capital warfare at its very core by removing their only hope to survive their cycle. Not only that, but many times during pos bashing capital pilots refit from sensor boosters once the target is locked to capacitor modules, or drop damage mods for warp core stabs, etc. You will effectively stab 95% of all capital operations through the heart with this expansion.
As someone else mentioned earlier, instead of completely removing the "wrecking ball" concept, have you considered drawbacks to it instead? Cut the RR range in half and maybe lower the repair power of it as well. Many groups have proven to be adept at bumping individual ships away from the chain and picking them off, this will make it easier to do that while also not 100% killing the supercap rescue force. By forcing all capital warfare to rely solely on a triage vessel, which can be countered in an infinite number of ways after this patch, you are effectively removing capital warfare.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2015-11-14 14:08:30 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I would have thought if Manny leaked.. he'd leak to PL. I do take allegiances very strictly... possibly too strictly for Eve.


Counterpoint: what if he leaked to anyone who would listen to him, and certain people don't care enough about him to pretend he didn't?

As for motivation, you may want to compare the planned capital changes to this thread from the summer. I know that if I'd had that much of my idea adopted by devs, I'd be pretty proud of it too.