These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Skills, Modules and Refitting

First post
Author
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2016-02-12 21:02:47 UTC
Jack Roulette wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Jack Roulette wrote:
Please tell me this doesn't mean FAUX and Carrier have the same prereqs now. Why in the ever loving F@#$ would I want to train all those drone skills to fly a logi ship?


you have always had to train them to fly a capital logi ship soo nothing has really changed

If "because it's always been that way" is the only answer you have you might as well just drool on yourself and tell me how much you like turtles. Because that's the most ******** answer to ANY question.

What benefit does training fighter skills provide for a logi ship that can't field fighters? None. It would be the most nonsensical prereq in the game. It would be the equivalent of requiring gunnery V to use a mining barge.

Are you asking for more relevant skills or a shorter training time. Because I can tell you which one you're likely not getting.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#102 - 2016-02-12 21:06:20 UTC
Jack Roulette wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Jack Roulette wrote:
Please tell me this doesn't mean FAUX and Carrier have the same prereqs now. Why in the ever loving F@#$ would I want to train all those drone skills to fly a logi ship?


you have always had to train them to fly a capital logi ship soo nothing has really changed

If "because it's always been that way" is the only answer you have you might as well just drool on yourself and tell me how much you like turtles. Because that's the most ******** answer to ANY question.

What benefit does training fighter skills provide for a logi ship that can't field fighters? None. It would be the most nonsensical prereq in the game. It would be the equivalent of requiring gunnery V to use a mining barge.


except FAX will be using drones at least the most recent build we saw of them used drones
Black Mystic
Excognative Ignorance
#103 - 2016-02-12 21:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Mystic
Congrats!! You guys have officially ruined the game and given a major ****YOU to the seasoned EVE veterans. The idea of a FAX class is a good idea, but you (CCP) have basically ruined the game with this implementation. It'll be fun to see how many pilots leave the game after this expansion. Let me explain why:

Mistake #1: In vegas you guys told us that the Triage ability will be limited to only one FAX. Which in essence means only one FAX in the fleet. With no remote repping from another FAX to keep it from being primaried straight off the field that single FAX is going to be useless.

Mistake #2: The current skill bonuses for carriers make them unique. You guys gave these new FAX generic, and albeit lame, bonuses. There's no specialazation for the bonuses. They simply copy each other of the same type. This is especially evident in the Lif (Minmatar FAX) and the Ninazu (Gallente FAX) . They are basically the same ship, which now makes the Minmatar triage focus on shield. This completely throws the Minmatar versatility out the window. Most Minmatar ships can be either shield or armor fit, but the bonus on the LIF means that it is basically shield only. Sure it can rep armor, but it's local tank is focused on shield. Minmatar carriers already have inferior HP than their counterparts, so now Minmatar triage is just pointless garbage.

Mistake #3: Cycle time. Really? A Cycle time bonus? What is the point in forcing 2 of the 4 Triage FAX ships to use cap boosters? These 2 FAX are virtually useless on the battlefield. with Cycle time eating up cap and the Nuets that are going to be applied, its cap is going to be gone before the battle is in full swing, and that's not counting the local reps that are going to be needed since these will be the Primary target of any hostile fleet.

Mistake #4: Remote Ancillary Shield Booster and Armor Repairer. No, just No. Rediculous idea, especially if you can only fit one per ship.

Mistake #5: (More of a personal one, but still points to some issues) Making them all look the same. The Ninazu is the only exception. Unless these transform while in triage, they all look the same. Since when do Amarr and Caldari ships go Vertical? The Gallente is understandable with the Myrm and Domi both being vertical in nature, though the Domi is just as long as it is tall. But only Minmatar have a vertical Capital ship as well as several sub capitals with a vertical design. The Amarr have the Oracle (which I also thought was a bad design for the Amarr) and the closest the Caldari have is the Merlin and Scorpion variants. This makes the design team seem very new to the game or unobservant at the very least. Maybe there will be some Lore to come out and explain these designs, but in the end, they don't fit in with the their perspective racial shiptypes.

Congratulations CCP, you've managed to contradict yourselves, both in design and function. The FAX look cool, but out of place with their respective races and without at least 2 on field, they are not going to be utilized.

I hope this post gets players thinking a little about these changes and their aspect in the game. I know that as of now, I'm taking my triage modules off my carriers because a Battle platform is better than a useless hunk of junk in my hangar, and letting any of them "Be converted to a FAX" would be a waste of resources.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#104 - 2016-02-12 21:20:12 UTC
Black Mystic wrote:
.



1 you can have more than one FAX on field but yes the one in triage will get primed first and the N+1 still applies so that wan't fixed


the minm and gal carrier are focused more on sub cap repping and smaller fights where the amarr/cal are focused on capital repping and bigger fights

3 cycle time is a great help with low buffer sub caps

4 these sound very interesting and could come through in a pinch. having more than one per ship could be very over powered

5 amarr already has a vertical ship but i do agree over all these ships look poor and it will be the only vertical caldari ship. the reason is probbably because they had to make large citadels have a vertical docking bay so they wanted to get the most out of it
Alexis Nightwish
#105 - 2016-02-12 23:27:00 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP you are hearby charged with two counts of complete and utter bullshit.

Count 1; Special snowflake status for carrier pilots.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Force Auxiliaries will instead use a renamed Carrier Skill.
Amarr Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Caldari Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Gallente Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Minmatar Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
So now THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHIP CLASSES will use the SAME ******* SKILLBOOK? Carriers, Supercarriers, and Force Aux? Bullshit to the highest degree!


How is this different from what we have now?

Carriers skillbook (racial) unlocks: Carrier and Supercarrier. Add Triage skillbook to unlock Triage use of Carrier, which is almost a different ship class compared to a Combat Carrier setup. The new FAX taking a) Carriers skill and b) Triage skill to be useful really just solidifies that technicality.
That's just it, it's not different from what we have now, and what we have now is crap. They almost made is so that two of the three different ship classes you could fly with one skill (logi capital, drone DPS capital, drone DPS supercapital) would require its own training but they backed out.

If things were equal the Dreadnought skill would let you fly a Titan (since it's "just a bigger Dread" just as a supercarrier is "just a bigger carrier"), and if they ever split the Dreads into a siege version and a non-siege version then the same skill should apply to both. This idea would be considered heresy if I suggested it, however the exact same thing is somehow okay when applied to Carrier/Supercarrier/FAX because that's the way it's always been done.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Lugh Crow-Slave
#106 - 2016-02-12 23:29:43 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Syri Taneka wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP you are hearby charged with two counts of complete and utter bullshit.

Count 1; Special snowflake status for carrier pilots.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Force Auxiliaries will instead use a renamed Carrier Skill.
Amarr Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Caldari Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Gallente Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
Minmatar Carrier Bonus (per skill level):
So now THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHIP CLASSES will use the SAME ******* SKILLBOOK? Carriers, Supercarriers, and Force Aux? Bullshit to the highest degree!


How is this different from what we have now?

Carriers skillbook (racial) unlocks: Carrier and Supercarrier. Add Triage skillbook to unlock Triage use of Carrier, which is almost a different ship class compared to a Combat Carrier setup. The new FAX taking a) Carriers skill and b) Triage skill to be useful really just solidifies that technicality.
That's just it, it's not different from what we have now, and what we have now is crap. They almost made is so that two of the three different ship classes you could fly with one skill (logi capital, drone DPS capital, drone DPS supercapital) would require its own training but they backed out.

If things were equal the Dreadnought skill would let you fly a Titan (since it's "just a bigger Dread" just as a supercarrier is "just a bigger carrier"), and if they ever split the Dreads into a siege version and a non-siege version then the same skill should apply to both. This idea would be considered heresy if I suggested it, however the exact same thing is somehow okay when applied to Carrier/Supercarrier/FAX because that's the way it's always been done.

but the dread skill is also a much faster train


tbh what i think they should have done is split the skill into two x12 and just given ppl with the carrier skills the equivalent level in the fax skill yes there would be some sp generated but it would have been the cleanest way going forward
Lt Shard
Team Pizza
Good at this Game
#107 - 2016-02-12 23:43:05 UTC
Quote:
Despite those good reasons, we feel that we can address the amount of mastery and excitement available to Triage pilots without the need for refitting in combat, and that’s exactly what we want to do.


The answer is not scripted hardeners, all that is doing is apply a band-aid over a flesh wound.

Just ******* keep it. Its absurd you want to go through with this change with so much push back and you still think its a good idea. I guarantee you whatever "fix" you come up with ccp, wont be as fun or unique as combat refitting.

If you can script locally, it takes out the tool needed to refit(and it will probably be weak as ****, so why bother with it. With no combat refitting you would just slap on Faction eanms because you have no idea what the ship is going to go up against), lots of fights im in revolve around securing that tool or keeping it away from an enemy.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#108 - 2016-02-12 23:54:14 UTC
Lt Shard wrote:
Quote:
Despite those good reasons, we feel that we can address the amount of mastery and excitement available to Triage pilots without the need for refitting in combat, and that’s exactly what we want to do.


The answer is not scripted hardeners, all that is doing is apply a band-aid over a flesh wound.

Just ******* keep it. Its absurd you want to go through with this change with so much push back and you still think its a good idea. I guarantee you whatever "fix" you come up with ccp, wont be as fun or unique as combat refitting.

If you can script locally, it takes out the tool needed to refit(and it will probably be weak as ****, so why bother with it. With no combat refitting you would just slap on Faction eanms because you have no idea what the ship is going to go up against), lots of fights im in revolve around securing that tool or keeping it away from an enemy.


i think its less of how powerful combat refitting is now and more how powerful it will be after the addition of new mods. removing it also frees ccp up to add even more into the game but yes the gameplay behind refitting will be a huge loss to flying these kinds of ships and until we know the extent of the new mods we wont know if its better or worse
Lt Shard
Team Pizza
Good at this Game
#109 - 2016-02-12 23:57:01 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i think its less of how powerful combat refitting is now and more how powerful it will be after the addition of new mods. removing it also frees ccp up to add even more into the game but yes the gameplay behind refitting will be a huge loss to flying these kinds of ships and until we know the extent of the new mods we wont know if its better or worse


Why would they make it better
Lugh Crow-Slave
#110 - 2016-02-13 00:12:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Lt Shard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i think its less of how powerful combat refitting is now and more how powerful it will be after the addition of new mods. removing it also frees ccp up to add even more into the game but yes the gameplay behind refitting will be a huge loss to flying these kinds of ships and until we know the extent of the new mods we wont know if its better or worse


Why would they make it better


why would they make the loss of combat refitting in exchange form more capital fitting options better?

i don't think they are actively trying to make things worse if thats what you mean
Lt Shard
Team Pizza
Good at this Game
#111 - 2016-02-13 00:16:08 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


i don't think they are actively trying to make things worse if thats what you mean


well they are
Lugh Crow-Slave
#112 - 2016-02-13 00:16:59 UTC
Lt Shard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


i don't think they are actively trying to make things worse if thats what you mean


well they are


people said the same thing about jump fatigue
Lt Shard
Team Pizza
Good at this Game
#113 - 2016-02-13 00:19:55 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
people said the same thing about jump fatigue


and jump fatigue is a good thing

the removal of combat refitting is ******* ********

its actually removing gameplay
Avon Salinder
#114 - 2016-02-13 00:20:44 UTC
The weapons timer condition for combat refitting is all that needs doing to address the issue. Carriers, and other ships etc with this ability should operate more in a logistical role, allowing the change of fittings predominately outside of combat, so if intel comes in before a fight that you need to change hardeners before heading in, you can do that. But it's far too easy to simply allow the current situation to continue, where no forethought is required and blobs of capitals simply refit during a fight on a whim. Your example concerning card games is very valid, so stick with this approach and see how it goes.

I do see the 'fun' benefit of being able to adjust ship capabilities to adapt to the situation, but there are other ways to do this if you care to explore the potential. Other games allow you to move power between ship systems for greater speed, defence or offense, and what the combat refitting system currently allows is something akin to this. So, perhaps consider a mechanic along these lines in the future.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#115 - 2016-02-13 00:26:18 UTC
Lt Shard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
people said the same thing about jump fatigue


and jump fatigue is a good thing

the removal of combat refitting is ******* ********

its actually removing gameplay

yes it is removing game play however it is gameplay that is making capital ships very hard to balance


combat refitting is the main reason i fly triage and unlike what so many people think there is a lot of for thought and skill that goes into this its a lot more than just pulling random cards into your deck


but i also know first hand how powerful it is and i can imagine how hard it must be to balance around
Romana Erebus
The Dikembe Mutombo Shotblocking Team
#116 - 2016-02-13 01:02:53 UTC
How about revamping that horrible Capital Navigation window. So instead of having to right click to jump you can have that window open and jump/bridge from that window instead to not only cyno generators but player lit cynos as well. Also it would work for blops capable operations as well . Instead of right clicking on a blops battleship to bridge through as long as you was in range you could have an option in the capital nav window to bridge thru when the portal is up. Currently makes no sense that all jump navigation requires right clicking instead of nav window.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#117 - 2016-02-13 01:12:10 UTC
Romana Erebus wrote:
How about revamping that horrible Capital Navigation window. So instead of having to right click to jump you can have that window open and jump/bridge from that window instead to not only cyno generators but player lit cynos as well. Also it would work for blops capable operations as well . Instead of right clicking on a blops battleship to bridge through as long as you was in range you could have an option in the capital nav window to bridge thru when the portal is up. Currently makes no sense that all jump navigation requires right clicking instead of nav window.


i may be wrong but i think by nav window you are referring to the overview?

in that case i don't think it is capable of pulling information from outside the solar system and this may be a lot of work in legacy code to fix just for a small convinced however if it can be done easily it would be nice
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#118 - 2016-02-13 01:13:04 UTC
wait what why does they all have 6 highslots

OH GOD WHO GAVE FAUX WARFARE LINK BONUSES I THOUGHT IT WAS MEANT TO BE A DEDICATED TRIAGE BOAT GODDAMN
Lugh Crow-Slave
#119 - 2016-02-13 01:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Mr Rive wrote:
wait what why does they all have 6 highslots

OH GOD WHO GAVE FAUX WARFARE LINK BONUSES I THOUGHT IT WAS MEANT TO BE A DEDICATED TRIAGE BOAT GODDAMN


its meant to be a fleet support ship and considering its role 6 highs seems about right considering on has to be dedicated to the triage unit


and whos to say ccp wouldn't give triage a bonuses to warfare links forcing them on field in capital fights
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#120 - 2016-02-13 01:29:39 UTC
"It is important to remember that Force Auxiliaries are new ships and can be tuned specifically for Triage gameplay in both mechanics and stats"

tuned specifically for triage gameplay doesn't sound like they're meant to be fleet support ships at all, from what I gather, theyre designed to be dedicated triage boats.

1% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness

If you think ANYONE is going to waste a highslot on a warfare link on one of these things, as opposed to having a dedicated fleet booster, then you're having a laugh.

Honestly, its a complete waste of two role bonuses, they might aswell not be there at all, theyre completely detrimental if fitted to any fleet, as not only does it reduce the amount of remote reps the carrier can give out (3 links, triage mod leaves 2 slots for reppers lawl), but the bonuses are so low, you are better off using a command destroyer over them.

A FAR better role bonus for a dedicated triage boat, especially considering the refit penalties, which are going to make jumping in to a hostile fleet a complete nightmare to counter, is giving FAUX a reduction in the capacitor amount needed to jump. That way, FAUX can actually be used to jump into hostiles, reducing a defender's advantage.

Another great bonus for FAUX to have would be a reduction in the amount needed for remote armor or shield reps

Another one would be to increase the effectiveness of capacitor battery resistance to counter capital neuts

Another one would be to reduce the amount of nanite paste needed to repair modules, or increase the repair speed of damage modules.

I could write about another 20 which would actually be useful to a FAUX, but having warfare links on a ship with 6 highslots thats meant to rep, triage, and cap transfer, is at the absolute bottom of the list.