These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

More Capital Modules: an idea to fix some of the recurring capital problems
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-03-19 20:21:36 UTC
Let me first start by pointing out a capital fix that was posted on the forums recently by a CCP rep:

The problem was that titans were really good at shooting down sub-capital ships, and that violated the rule that capital ships and sub-capital ships aren't supposed to be effective against one another.

The fix was:
  • remove the tracking penalty from siege modules and instead make the capital turrets have that low tracking all the time (so that titans have the same tracking as dreadnoughts)
  • reduce the number of targets a titan can lock to perhaps 2 or 3
  • reduce the scan resolution of titans to 5

    • The idea behind reducing the scan resolution to 5 was so that it would take a long time to lock sub-capital ships, even with officer sensor boosters, which titan pilots can easily afford. This right here is where I see the problem. In many cases, capital ships can take advantage of cheap sub-cap modules and buy the most expensive version of the module in order to maximize their potential on the field. But setting their base attributes so low as to require them to have those things seems counter-intuitive to me. I propose instead that CCP fix these issues by adding new capital modules--and for each capital module added, its sub-capital counterpart would have a reduced effect when used on a capital ship.

    These new capital modules can come in one at a time, as these issues with capitals hips are gradually tackled. They don't need to come right away. But someday perhaps capital ships will be fit almost entirely with capital modules and rigs.

    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."
    Aqriue
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #2 - 2012-03-19 20:40:52 UTC
    Here is a better suggestion for capitals

    - Titans get AoE doomsday back + single target ability + standard guns to pop cruisers for *****
    - Super Carriers get un-nerfed to their ass kicking after getting buffed from moms
    - Titans counter sub caps with multiple firings of AoE doom
    - Super Carriers counter sub caps with drones
    - Titans counter Carriers with their big boom sticks
    - Super Carriers counter Titans with fighter bombers, cause Titan's can't track X-Wing newbs going for the thermal vent
    - All sub cap pilots go home the losers and forums stay a nice roasty warm from all the Butthurt Oops whining

    The end

    Or a better option

    - Un-nerf Titan guns so they pwn idiots in battleships
    - CCP creates new smaller ships with capital class weapons,
    -- Frigs and Cruisers carrying Citadel Siege Torps anyone?
    -- Idiots die in battleships, they pwn bigger ships in smaller ships. Just need big blobs of smaller ships instead of big blobs of whiners who can't figure out to bring a freaking cap ship that has a capital tank (<-- FFS, this is why your battleship was destroyed. Get your ass in a cap ship and stop avoiding high risk! )
    MIrple
    Black Sheep Down
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #3 - 2012-03-19 20:43:30 UTC
    Aqriue wrote:
    Here is a better suggestion for capitals

    - Titans get AoE doomsday back + single target ability + standard guns to pop cruisers for *****
    - Super Carriers get un-nerfed to their ass kicking after getting buffed from moms
    - Titans counter sub caps with multiple firings of AoE doom
    - Super Carriers counter sub caps with drones
    - Titans counter Carriers with their big boom sticks
    - Super Carriers counter Titans with fighter bombers, cause Titan's can't track X-Wing newbs going for the thermal vent
    - All sub cap pilots go home the losers and forums stay a nice roasty warm from all the Butthurt Oops whining

    The end

    Or a better option

    - Un-nerf Titan guns so they pwn idiots in battleships
    - CCP creates new smaller ships with capital class weapons,
    -- Frigs and Cruisers carrying Citadel Siege Torps anyone?
    -- Idiots die in battleships, they pwn bigger ships in smaller ships. Just need big blobs of smaller ships instead of big blobs of whiners who can't figure out to bring a freaking cap ship that has a capital tank (<-- FFS, this is why your battleship was destroyed. Get your ass in a cap ship and stop avoiding high risk! )


    Someones butthurt from getting there IWIN button taken back.
    Sernum
    Infinite Point
    Pandemic Horde
    #4 - 2012-03-19 21:48:59 UTC
    why do people who have clearly never used a ship class propose fix's for it?
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #5 - 2012-03-19 23:43:12 UTC
    Sernum wrote:
    why do people who have clearly never used a ship class propose fix's for it?


    Because they met someone who knew how to fly it and their fragile e-peen was hurt when they didn't kill it quickly.

    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."
    Ocih
    Space Mermaids
    #6 - 2012-03-20 00:13:18 UTC
    The problem with the EVE solution is it's based on new player optics.

    The original design of the Titan was very much built to kill whole fleets of sub cap ships. They had crappy guns and an I-Win AoE doomsday.

    Now they have crappy doomsday and soon they will have crappy guns. If I could get out of the ******* thing I'd be in a Titan tommorow but I never thought of the Titan as a weapon of conquest. I saw it as a Sov defence tool that should give you an almost impervious defence of your own space. A webbed Titan squad can still be an unbreakable defence force in EVE but if everything around them dies and you still lose all you are fighting for, wtf is the point in having them?

    CCP saw them as a liability to the game and have put them somewhere below the value of a Dread. A mammoth of a structure basher that otherwise never gets to log in. It was not handled well, it was a whack-a-mole nerf to address the short falls of a single person in a big alliance.
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #7 - 2012-03-21 21:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
    I think that the purpose of titans should be to destroy other capital ships, and in that way they make an excellent line of defense against incoming capital fleets. What better way to protect your towers than to assault the assaulting fleet with a bigger and badder fleet? You jump in several titans among a dreadnought fleet, pop a few of their dreadnoughts to get started, and you've immediately got the upper hand. Now each titan continues to fire upon them much like a dreadnought in siege mode, without being in siege mode, and also with much greater tanking ability.

    The purpose of subcap fleets here then is for you the tower defender to have several heavy interdictors present to prevent them from warping or jumping the capital ships out, and for them to shoot down your heavy interdictors so they can escape. And it all just gets more complicated and strategic from there.

    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."
    Valea Silpha
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #8 - 2012-03-21 21:32:29 UTC
    I agree with the general spirit of the original post, but I think it also goes in the wrong direction.

    I think that the real answer is to make a set of weapons for dreads, and a set of weapons for carriers. That way, they can be individually balanced to each ship, rather than trying to force them to be one thing on one ship, and something totally different on another.

    While the nerf to capital weapon tracking has meant that titans cannot destroy sub-cap fleets en masse, dreads are being used to slap sub-caps in medium gang fight all over the place. Vindicator webs can hold down ANYTHING well enough for capital tracking to hit it with no problems at all. And that's exactly the opposite of what CCP said they wanted.

    And thats why we should have more differentiation in capital weapon systems.
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #9 - 2012-03-21 22:09:49 UTC
    Valea Silpha wrote:
    I think that the real answer is to make a set of weapons for dreads, and a set of weapons for carriers.

    Dreads have turrets/missiles, carriers have drones.

    Not sure what you're getting at here.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #10 - 2012-03-21 23:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Valea Silpha wrote:
    I think that the real answer is to make a set of weapons for dreads, and a set of weapons for carriers.

    Dreads have turrets/missiles, carriers have drones.

    Not sure what you're getting at here.


    I think Valea Silpha meant to say titans.

    I also agree that titans should have their own set of larger capital weapons, instead of just having a giant DPS bonus on the regular-sized capital weapons. The titan weapons should have considerably higher dps and much lower ability to hit sub capitals, in fact it might even be difficult to shoot down regular capitals with them if there isn't some electronic warfare in use on the target.

    As for capital ships shooting at subcaps that are heavily webbed and painted, I don't see much of a problem. I do think that the velocity reduction skill bonus is too high, though, as 2 webs at 90% velocity reduction reduce the target's speed to around 2%. That'll slow a cruiser down enough for a capital ship to track it, a third web might make a frigate hittable. So I propose the velocity reduction increase by skill be calculated in a different way:

    current method:
    50% velocity reduction = 50/100
    60% velocity reduction = 60/100
    add in ship skill bonus and you get:
    50% * 1.5 = 75/100 (75% velocity reduction)
    60% * 1.5 = 90/100 (90% velocity reduction)

    my proposed method:
    50% velocity reduction = 50/100
    60% velocity reduction = 60/100
    add in ship skill bonus and you get:
    50% * 1.5 = 75/125 (60% velocity reduction)
    60% * 1.5 = 90/140 (69% velocity reduction)
    The idea here is to increase both the bottom number and the top number, so that there is a diminishing return, and thus there isn't a big titanic difference between skill level 4 and 5. If this makes the numbers too low, the ship skill bonus could be increased to 15% or 20% per level:

    50% * 1.75 = 87.5/137.5 (64% velocity reduction)
    60% * 1.75 = 105/145 (72% velocity reduction)

    50% * 2 = 100/150 (67% velocity reduction)
    60% * 2 = 120/160 (75% velocity reduction)

    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."
    Asuka Solo
    I N E X T R E M I S
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #11 - 2012-03-22 05:36:15 UTC
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Valea Silpha wrote:
    I think that the real answer is to make a set of weapons for dreads, and a set of weapons for carriers.

    Dreads have turrets/missiles, carriers have drones.

    Not sure what you're getting at here.


    I would venture a guess that he'd be in favor of introducing new carrier hulls that has missile/turret slots and can, with a little fighter support and a nerf or two in terms of its logistical prowess, engage sub cap gangs.

    As far as Dreads go... anti-sub cap gang guns.

    Yes plz.

    Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
    Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #12 - 2012-03-22 07:03:05 UTC
    You know what I have to say to all of this?

    I think we should just increase their signature radius, that way they get the nerf we want, but at the same time it buffs their ability to hit other capitals. Maybe we can also reduce their signature resolution, but not by a ridiculous amount like the OP suggested.
    Who would like to buy a melon?  Madame, would you like to buy a--   ...oh. I see you've already got some.   Who would like to buy a melon?
    Tallian Saotome
    Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
    #13 - 2012-03-22 07:47:40 UTC
    Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius wrote:
    You know what I have to say to all of this?

    I think we should just increase their signature radius, that way they get the nerf we want, but at the same time it buffs their ability to hit other capitals. Maybe we can also reduce their signature resolution, but not by a ridiculous amount like the OP suggested.

    +1 for Dibbler

    Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
    Reaver Glitterstim
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #14 - 2012-03-23 07:21:27 UTC
    Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius wrote:
    You know what I have to say to all of this?

    I think we should just increase their signature radius, that way they get the nerf we want, but at the same time it buffs their ability to hit other capitals. Maybe we can also reduce their signature resolution, but not by a ridiculous amount like the OP suggested.


    Lowering it to 5 wasn't my idea at all. I half support the proposal on the basis that officer sensor boosters can make a pretty tremendous difference to scan resolution. But I think that rather than calculate for what those COULD do, it would make more sense to design them against being put on a titan, as it is a module designed to be excellent for, and very expensive for, sub-capital ships. Thus, it would seem a simple fix would be to add in a capital sensor booster.

    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."