These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maraner
The Executioners
#801 - 2016-02-12 19:32:43 UTC
Great many exciting changes coming up, I think CCP is going to have a great expansion and some real success with Citadel.

BUT please please rethink the nerf to combat refitting. CCP may want this but I dont think anyone in the player community is calling for it at all.

It brings depth to gameplay, stop dumbing it down. Also could we get a more realistic rationale for changing it / removing it. The analogy with a card game is ridiculous. Perhaps try some honesty.

If it simply that you want to increase the mortality of caps then say so.
Kblackjack54
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#802 - 2016-02-18 06:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kblackjack54
Maraner wrote:
Great many exciting changes coming up, I think CCP is going to have a great expansion and some real success with Citadel.

BUT please please rethink the nerf to combat refitting. CCP may want this but I dont think anyone in the player community is calling for it at all.

It brings depth to game play, stop dumbing it down. Also could we get a more realistic rationale for changing it / removing it. The analogy with a card game is ridiculous. Perhaps try some honesty.

If it simply that you want to increase the mortality of caps then say so.


Say what you see, ISK sink, a massive ISK sink, that is what is being created here,, Nerfs on Capitals of all types, creation of new Cap types, reworked fighters, destroyable Citadels, proposed removal of player built stations, you name it there at it, simply to promote conditions for the introduction of more micro transactions, All Hail the Credit Card waving hoards.

This has little or nothing to do with game play in my view and will only promote less combat rather than has been spun off by CCP, more when players fully understand the reality of the mechanics involved.

The game suffered massive player losses after CCP introduced fatigue to Capitals in such a draconian manner, there now proposing to introduce conditions that ensure if you do use them and brave the soul destroying space aids incurred your probably going to loose the Cap ship when you arrive, While 'Some' may feel these changes are good for the game, Pretty sure Cap Pilot account holders are going to take a very different view more akin to that of being yet again kicked well and truly in the nuts by CCP for investing time and ISK in the process of getting one in the first place, Sold all of mine the day CCP brought in fatigue, unsubbed the accounts and held up the proverbial finger in the direction of Iceland, No more money for you lot.
Arekanderia Hara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#803 - 2016-02-18 19:27:02 UTC
>No more warping fighters. I missed that the first time through.
So, when a carrier gets ganked now and has to emergency warp to a safe, we lose a few hundred million in fighters? Solid plan, can't see this being an issue at all.Sad

An additional note to make, from the looks of the squadron presentation, it seems like we can only watch as our drones die and do nothing to repair or prevent their death. Can you elaborate on how you plan to reduce fighter and fighter bomber prices? I would have understood if it was possible, like it is now, to move one injured fighter back to the hold and release another to fight in its stead while it's shields regenerate, but as it stands you have to pull back the entire squadron in order to prevent the death of a single fighter. The only way I can see this as being positive, is if each 'squadron' can be repaired rather than being forced to purchase new fighters to replenish the squadron.

Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?

You seem determined on forcing carriers into a pvp role only, instead of keeping it as a multi-purpose ship as it is now. It's fine if you want to remove the RR from carriers, that's understandable, but how is their damage going to be applied when in an anomaly vs in fleets?

Additionally, the use of different drones to approach different situations is a key aspect of the carrier, in my eyes, and forcing only 3 drone types seems ineffective, both from a damage standpoint and a reaction standpoint.

The use of long range sentries to poke as the enemy fleet gets closer then bringing them in and launching lights to deal with the faster and smaller ships and heavies to deal with the cruisers then fighters to deal with battleships and higher. The way it's presented here seems like we'll not only be extremely limited in our capacity to react but also in our ability to keep up with drone deployment. It feels like, from what I've read, that you're going to force carriers into a few specific drone specialties and not allow us more than (X) amount of drone waves, whereas before it was dependent on how many fighters you would bring to a fight, if you brought any at all. Bring 10 fighters and several waves of every other drone or 15 fighters and a few waves of other drones or 20 fighters and hope for the best.

As much as I like the ideas presented herein, I do have the above concerns. Although moderately inexperienced as a carrier pilot, I have been having a lot of fun with the carrier thus far and I would hate to see it become ridiculously hard to utilize, or ridiculously easy to utilize. I feel like there should still be a middle ground where you have to learn how best to approach a situation with your own carrier fit and strategy, but the changes seem to present a limited array of possibilities when engaging with a carrier.
I hope my thoughts on the matter were clear and I do hope to hear back from you in regards to these potential issues.
Thank you for your time and thank you for continuing to create and diversify content for Eve.
Apologies if these ideas/issues have already been presented, I didn't read through the comments.
Ja'ffar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#804 - 2016-02-23 12:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ja'ffar
I think there are some good, some very good, some problemtic and (maybe) some bad (for some of us) changes. Good work CCP!

Sadly I don't got the time to ready through the whole tread since it is tltr and so maybe someone already reasoned the following this way. I'm not familiar to most of the mechanics because of not flying caps atm, BUT a dread with sub-cap weaponery should do more then 1-2k dps tbh. Because this would mean that a good fitted bs can tank a dread forever...Shocked Not even the much greater tank will save the dread in this case ...from point of lore and even from the size-difference and status (cap vs. sub-cap...if a cap is realy intendet to be able to fight sub-caps) this should not be possible!
In a direct encounter the dread should always be the king and thus be able to smoke up a bs. If this is happening earlier or later has to be defined.

Some of your changes I still dislike but overall a good package of changes I think, go on like this (and give me some T5 mining barges or mining carriers Cool)

Best rgr
Cptn Manu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#805 - 2016-02-24 05:38:16 UTC
Arekanderia Hara wrote:
>

Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........


This is honestly my biggest question.
Smokeing Eagle
Confederate States of Eve
Kanen Industrial Guild
#806 - 2016-02-27 01:54:28 UTC
I'm sorry if this has been asked & answered. But will Dreadnought's be receiving more high slots to allow for fitting sub capital weapons along with capital weapons? Or will I only be able to set up for 1 type & hope I don't run into the other. Thank you in advance for any information.
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#807 - 2016-02-28 11:55:28 UTC
Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.

If I miss it - can anyone point this statement.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#808 - 2016-02-28 12:13:50 UTC
Sisi Collins wrote:
Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.

If I miss it - can anyone point this statement.

Carriers will only be able to launch the different types of fighters.
Light, heavy and sentry drones will no longer be usable on a carrier.


This;
Quote:
We are completely re-imagining fighter game-play.

Squadrons

The carriers of the Citadel Expansion will launch squadrons, made of up to 12 fighters of the same type.

These squadrons act as a singular unit. Carrier pilots give orders to an entire squadron. You lock an entire squadron as one unit, except instead of Shields, Armor and Hull, the number of fighters remaining in that squadron are shown.

And this;
Quote:
Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.

Light Fighters Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles
Support Fighters Optimized for Electronic Warfare tasks including (but not limited to) Stasis Webifiers, Warp Disruptors, Neutralizing, Tracking Disrupting, etc.
Heavy Fighters Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures.
The number and types of squadrons a carrier or super-carrier can launch will be limited.

Both from this blog are probably the closest indication, carriers will no longer use sub capital drones.

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.

Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#809 - 2016-02-28 12:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Sisi Collins
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sisi Collins wrote:
Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.

If I miss it - can anyone point this statement.

Carriers will only be able to launch the different types of fighters.
Light, heavy and sentry drones will no longer be usable on a carrier.


This;
Quote:
We are completely re-imagining fighter game-play.

Squadrons

The carriers of the Citadel Expansion will launch squadrons, made of up to 12 fighters of the same type.

These squadrons act as a singular unit. Carrier pilots give orders to an entire squadron. You lock an entire squadron as one unit, except instead of Shields, Armor and Hull, the number of fighters remaining in that squadron are shown.

And this;
Quote:
Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.

Light Fighters Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles
Support Fighters Optimized for Electronic Warfare tasks including (but not limited to) Stasis Webifiers, Warp Disruptors, Neutralizing, Tracking Disrupting, etc.
Heavy Fighters Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures.
The number and types of squadrons a carrier or super-carrier can launch will be limited.

Both from this blog are probably the closest indication, carriers will no longer use sub capital drones.


I have read this, but again - nothing about Carriers will have no longer ability to launch drones. Yeap, fighters will be re-worked completely, it's fighters - not drones.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#810 - 2016-02-28 13:35:57 UTC
Sisi Collins wrote:


I have read this. but again - nothing about Carriers will no longer ability to launch drones. Yes. fighters will be re-worked completely, but it's fighters - not drones.

I would imagine the fact they are introducing "Light Fighters" would be a pretty big hint they are removing other drones.

You are right though, CCP are keeping everything very close and not telling players/customers much at all.


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.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#811 - 2016-02-28 16:04:11 UTC
Cptn Manu wrote:
Arekanderia Hara wrote:
>

Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........


This is honestly my biggest question.

Maybe they don't...

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 ?

Arekanderia Hara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#812 - 2016-02-29 05:46:55 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Cptn Manu wrote:
Arekanderia Hara wrote:
>

Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........


This is honestly my biggest question.

Maybe they don't...


Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals.

If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital, so that I can adequately support my alliance mates, then it's obvious this game no longer has the players best interest in mind, and it's time to relieve my subscription.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#813 - 2016-02-29 05:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Arekanderia Hara wrote:
If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital

I'm sure you can use a single battleship to get the isk to pay for a capital, it'll just take a bit longer.

If you must use multiple accounts at once though, make sure you aren't getting some sort of unfair advantage.

Arekanderia Hara wrote:
Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals.

Yeah I wouldn't want you to keep your capital docked or anything. I did hear that losing them doesn't count if you insured though. Or so say some of the best players in eve (after losing caps)


Arekanderia Hara wrote:
it's time to relieve my subscription.

Ah, an unsubber. Again.

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 ?

Arekanderia Hara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#814 - 2016-02-29 06:06:25 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Arekanderia Hara wrote:
If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital

I'm sure you can use a single battleship to get the isk to pay for a capital, it'll just take a bit longer.

If you must use multiple accounts at once though, make sure you aren't getting some sort of unfair advantage.

Arekanderia Hara wrote:
Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals.

Yeah I wouldn't want you to keep your capital docked or anything. I did hear that losing them doesn't count if you insured though. Or so say some of the best players in eve (after losing caps)


Arekanderia Hara wrote:
it's time to relieve my subscription.

Ah, an unsubber. Again.


Arekanderia Hara wrote:
If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital, so that I can adequately support my alliance mates, then it's obvious this game no longer has the players best interest in mind, and it's time to relieve my subscription.


Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#815 - 2016-02-29 06:45:11 UTC
Yes, the same response to that as before, as well.

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 ?

Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#816 - 2016-03-08 14:56:43 UTC
Again question to CCP - will carriers lose ability to launch drones with Citadel expansion or will be introduced only new mechanics for fighters and carriers will still launch drones?
Vantick Iscod
North Korean Nuclear Research
Brave Collective
#817 - 2016-03-16 18:35:06 UTC
Yes! Carriers can no longer use drones, that is why there are two new fighter types, they can only use fighter squads. As for refitting changes, they really are needed. Saying that it gives game play is a cop out and you are just scared of change. That being said CCP needs to add in something to fill that gap in terms of game play. They are filling the gap in game play for carriers and even titans to an extent, but dreads have no game play value now.
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#818 - 2016-03-16 21:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sisi Collins
Vantick Iscod wrote:
Yes! Carriers can no longer use drones, that is why there are two new fighter types, they can only use fighter squads. As for refitting changes, they really are needed. Saying that it gives game play is a cop out and you are just scared of change. That being said CCP needs to add in something to fill that gap in terms of game play. They are filling the gap in game play for carriers and even titans to an extent, but dreads have no game play value now.


Again, no official proofs.

Looking though all dev blogs concerning capitals and forum threads - I found only one notice about drones & carriers -

Quote:
Force Auxiliary Capitals

Four brand new massive internet spaceships! Force Auxiliary Capitals will take over the remote repair role from Carriers. They will be the only class able to fit the Triage module and the only capital class with bonuses to remote repair modules. They will have limited combat abilities of their own, being unable to fit any guns or launchers. However, we will be giving them a drone bay for self defense.
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
#819 - 2016-03-19 17:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: BambarbiyaKirgudu
Let's tell himself yourself the truth and ask yourself - these innovations we expect from developers? Why all this fuss with capitals and citadels? Instead, to bring new modules and structure in game, without breaking the old, what well-balanced and trustworthy, and to please the players, what we have instead of carriers - two ships - this means you will have to make another character and develop it, instead of POS - citadel, which are basically useless and cost a lot of money - i was recently on the test for the citadel - the citadel - this is the same how station, but only beats as POS), and dreads will become as large battleship!) Is this what we expect from developers? I think many will say that no! What do you think - will fall or not online, then!? I must say that unfortunately, there is a redistribution of the old, how a new and nothing more - in addition project discovery, which hardly need - to see the fleas under the microscope!) Skills injectors can be cause big imbalance in the game! All this is, unfortunately, very sad!( Lately, positive I see from new destroyers, new modules and all!
PS Began to appear here such characters, three days from birth all improved skills http://eveboard.com/pilot/IronBank - this can cause an imbalance in the game, what time and again has already been written! Can't you do that the player could pour skill 1-2 million in month? But it's the little things! All the basics of eve will soon be revamped and not for the better!( The developers time to think what to do next - at the end of the year will be a new space game with a huge budget Star Citizen, where excellent graphics, with fully painted cabins, cities, bars, casino, manufacturing, planets, wormhole - all that we expect from developers and what will be in EVE with online after that! There is a time the developers change things for the better? - is, if they will sometimes listen to the players!
Bobinu
Unsober
Last Picks
#820 - 2016-03-22 10:44:00 UTC
BambarbiyaKirgudu wrote:
Let's tell ourselves yourself the truth and ask yourself - these innovations we expect from developers? Why all this fuss with capitals and citadels? Instead, to bring new modules and structure in game, without breaking the old, what well-balanced and trustworthy, and to please the players, what we have instead of carriers - two ships - this means you will have to make another character and develop it, instead of POS - citadel, which are basically useless and cost a lot of money - i was recently on the test for the citadel - the citadel - this is the same how station, but only beats as POS), and dreads will become as large battleship!) Is this what we expect from developers? I think many will say that no! What do you think - will fall or not online, then!? I must say that unfortunately, there is a redistribution of the old, how a new and nothing more - in addition project discovery, which hardly need - to see the fleas under the microscope!) Skills injectors can be cause big imbalance in the game! All this is, unfortunately, very sad!( Lately, positive I see from new destroyers, new modules and all!
PS Began to appear here such characters, three days from birth all improved skills http://eveboard.com/pilot/IronBank - this can cause an imbalance in the game, what time and again has already been written! Can't you do that the player could pour skill 1-2 million in month? But it's the little things! All the basics of eve will soon be revamped and not for the better!( The developers time to think what to do next - at the end of the year will be a new space game with a huge budget Star Citizen, where excellent graphics, with fully painted cabins, cities, bars, casino, manufacturing, planets, wormhole - all that we expect from developers and what will be in EVE with online after that! There is a time the developers change things for the better? - is, if they will sometimes listen to the players!


Had some issues reading this, kinda took from it that there was some really good points but found it tough to comprehend.