These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

First post First post
Author
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2015-03-21 01:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
Hello fellow Eve junkies and theory crafters. First I want to say thank you for all the support and votes for CSMX. I am in awe and humbled by all the support. This has only emboldened me to work harder and strive to make a positive impact on Eve in representation to those have put me in this position. So I wanted to make this thread before I was given my CSM credentials or subject to any possible constraints of NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement).


I think it is smart to start this conversation now. I started a similar thread sometime well before Phoebe Force Projection changes. We need to get a head of the curve that will be the revision of Capitals and SuperCapitals. I would like to think that if nothing else my last thread gave CCP Developers more information and who knows perhaps a few ideas to make informed decisions. I was really happy about the last thread ( The link to that thread is HERE ). The discussion was very civil and constructive. I am sure we can all create that outcome again with this topic.

So with SOV 5.0 coming summer 2015 this effectively renders Capitals and SuperCapitals irrelevant to the battlefield with just a few fringe exceptions. Furthermore Capitals and especially SuperCapitals have been very out of balance for a long time. CCP has been waiting for the right time or perhaps an catalyst that warrants development time to take up this hard and difficult task. Sov 5.0 is the very catalyst needed to springboard Capitals & Supercapitals higher up on the priority list for developer attention.


I am going to paraphrase a few things CCP Developers have said recently please forgive me if the quotes are not exact.
CCP Seagull said in the Eve Keynote this year that " CCP wants capitals and supercapitals to have important , relevant & unique value". CCP Fozzie said on Eve Down Under "We want to see a environment where capitals and supercapitals are present in the battlefield in a balanced but impactful presence". From this it's easy to deduce that CCP wants players to strive to obtain them use them and kill them. That they wanting us to do these things will be for good and relevant reasons.

So without further Adieu lets get talking about it. What don't you like about Capitals and Supers? What do you life? What do you think should change? If you were given the developers brush what would you do? Be creative but within the bounds of practicality. I have a idea ill post and by no means do I think that I necessarily have the answer but who knows maybe I do or maybe a portion of the answer. Please be respectful of eachother and try to remain positive.. It's completely cool to disagree with someone or a position they take or a idea the suggest but try to do so constructively.

‚ô•Manny

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2015-03-21 01:04:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
Modes

Modes would be a new mechanic for all capital and supercapital ships. Mode bonuses will vary based on Ship Class and Race. The overarching strategy would be to make capitals very flexible and able to perform in a multitude of roles but not all roles at once. Each mode will have bonuses and penalties. Furthermore swapping modes will take a longer time on capitals and even longer on supercapitals. Mode skills are a possibility with supplementary skills to affect mode change time.

ArrowOffensive - Red Aura
ArrowDefensive -Green Aura
ArrowMobility -Yellow Aura
ArrowElectronic -Blue Aura

MODE SWAPPING

ArrowBase 5mins

ArrowCapital Mode Interfacing - 10% reduction in mode interfacing time per level.


Example of current Archon and a Archon after Mode feature.

Current Archon

Traits
Amarr Carrier bonuses ( per skill level)
Arrow50% Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter and Capital Remote Armor Repairer range
Arrow4% Bonus to all Armor Resistances
ArrowCan deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter

Role Bonus
Arrow200% to Fighter Control Range
ArrowCan fit Warfare Link modules
ArrowCan Fit Triage module


Offensive Mode Archon
Traits
Amarr Carrier bonuses ( per skill level)
Arrow 10% DPS Increase to all Drones & Fighters
Arrow 10% Drone Tracking and Navigation Speed
Arrow Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter

Role Bonus
Arrow200% to Fighter Control Range
ArrowCan fit Warfare Link modules (-50% effectiveness of modules)
ArrowCan Fit Triage module(-50% effectiveness of modules)

Penalties
Arrow-25% Local and Remote Repair systems effectiveness
Arrow-25% Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter effectiveness
Arrow-25% Structure , Armor & Shield hitpoints
Arrow-50% Speed , Agility & Warp Speed
Arrow-50% Electronic Warfare Module effectiveness

Defensive Mode Archon
Traits
Amarr Carrier bonuses ( per skill level)
Arrow 50% Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter and Capital Remote Armor Repairer range
Arrow 4% Bonus to all Armor Resistances
Arrow5%Local and Remote Repair systems effectiveness
Arrow 5%Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter effectiveness
Arrow 5% Armor
Arrow Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter

Role Bonus
Arrow 200% to Fighter Control Range
Arrow Can fit Warfare Link modules (-50% effectiveness of modules)
Arrow Can Fit Triage module

Penalties
Arrow -50% Drone and Fighter DPS , Tracking & Navigation Speed
Arrow -50% Locking Range and Sensor Strength
Arrow -50% Speed , Agility & Warp Speed
Arrow -50% Electronic Warfare Module effectiveness

Archon Mobility Mode

Traits
Amarr Carrier bonuses ( per skill level)
Arrow 10% Agility
Arrow 10% Speed
Arrow 10% Warp Speed
Arrow 10% Reduction of Capacitor Use for all Propulsion Mods
Arrow 2% Reduced fatigue
Arrow 4% Increased Jump Range
Arrow Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter

Role Bonus
Arrow 200% to Fighter Control Range
Arrow Can fit Warfare Link modules (-50% effectiveness of modules)
Arrow Can Fit Triage module (-50% effectiveness of modules)

Penalties
Arrow-50% Drone and Fighter DPS , Tracking & Navigation Speed
Arrow-50% Locking Range , Scan Resolution and Sensor Strength
Arrow-50% Electronic Warfare Module effectiveness
Arrow-25% Local and Remote Repair systems effectiveness
Arrow-25% Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter effectiveness
Arrow-25% Structure , Armor & Shield hitpoints

Archon Electronic Mode
Amarr Carrier bonuses ( per skill level)
Arrow10% Scan Resolution
Arrow10% Lock Range
Arrow10% Sensor Strength
Arrow10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Range
Arrow10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Cycle Time
Arrow5% Warfare Link module strength
Arrow10% Neut & Nos Range and Strength
Arrow10% Tracking Disruptor Strength , Optimal & Falloff range
Arrow5% All other Electronic Warfare modules
Arrow2% CPU
ArrowCan deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter

Role Bonus
Arrow200% to Fighter Control Range
ArrowCan fit Warfare Link modules
ArrowCan Fit Triage module (-50% effectiveness of modules)

Penalties
Arrow-25% Local and Remote Repair systems effectiveness
Arrow-25% Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter effectiveness
Arrow-25% Structure , Armor & Shield hitpoints
Arrow-50% Drone and Fighter DPS , Tracking & Navigation Speed
Arrow-50% Speed , Agility & Warp Speed


*Notes - Cannot MODE shift while in triage. Cannot receive remote assistance with active Warp Disruption Field Generator. Default mode when boarding hull is Defensive. All of these values and traits/bonus/penalties can be adjusted or removed.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2015-03-21 01:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
Conclusions


You can see how this answers many questions and problems for capitals in a post Sov 5.0 world. The problem with carriers as they are is they are very overpowered being able to fill multiple roles simultaneously. Creating modes for the carrier for example gives players choices to tailor their ship to the moments circumstances. However in doing so they are trading off other abilities in mode selection. This creates an environment where you can use capitals in a multitude of roles and makes them very relevant and unique in what will be the new meta.


If you think about Titans for example. Many people want the AOE DD. Others want Blap titans back. While still people like the idea of unique and powerful on field bonuses. Creating MODE's allows these things to exist without making the overall ship too powerful by giving them that trait. So just imagine with me if you will a titan. Having an offensive mode that makes it able to Blap but inherently weak defensive stats. Or the same titan in Electronic mode producing huge AOE effects and giving immense fleet bonuses but having inherently weak offensive capabilities.

This creates new relevant and dynamic gameplay for capitals. Allowing multiple disciplines and tactics available to the player without making the overall ship or class over or underwhelming.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4 - 2015-03-21 01:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I'd like to see capitals allowed in high-sec space - particularly with the new structure system that CCP is proposing (and because with the lifting of placement requirements, the number of these is going to expand significantly). I think the mooring structure is going to be a really welcome addition for capitals (particularly Supercarriers and Titans).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2015-03-21 01:24:38 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'd like to see capitals allowed in high-sec space - particularly with the new structure system that CCP is proposing (and because with the lifting of placement requirements, the number of these is going to expand significantly). I think the mooring structure is going to be a really welcome addition for capitals (particularly Supercarriers and Titans).


i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage
Stellan Crendraven
Yalaan-Timirgor Conglomerate
#6 - 2015-03-21 01:34:20 UTC
I might be entirely wrong, but this proposal has already been made some (long) time ago.... I do, however, think that the roles you propose are an interesting idea.

As for caps and supers in high-sec, why not, if some roles are limited in some fashion, e.g. logistics and support only.

In the beginning, there was pain and despair. And death. Immense tragedies and terrible catastrophies.

Princess Cherista
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-03-21 01:37:15 UTC
Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0

They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#8 - 2015-03-21 01:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage

This is a valid point. I think the wardec mechanics could use an overhaul, so perhaps this could be done with high-sec capitals in-mind.

Princess Cherista wrote:
Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0. They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight.

Simply dismissing the idea based on current capital mechanics (which are subject to change) is a tad shortsighted, as is the notion that carriers or dreadnoughts would become the new L4 mission of choice (as this disregards the fact that the majority of L4 missions are gated and would be incredibly easy to restrict). Quite simply, there are cheaper and faster L4 alternatives.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2015-03-21 01:45:24 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Modes
Modes would be a new mechanic for all capital and supercapital ships. Mode bonuses will vary based on Ship Class and Race. The overarching strategy would be to make capitals very flexible and able to perform in a multitude of roles but not all roles at once. Each mode will have bonuses and penalties. Furthermore swapping modes will take a longer time on capitals and even longer on supercapitals. Mode skills are a possibility with supplementary skills to affect mode change time.

I like the idea. Not that it's necessarily feasible, but instead of an 'aura' an animation for each mode would be pretty slick.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#10 - 2015-03-21 01:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Aran Hotchkiss
I have a habit of little making little pedantic points that don't really contribute to the greater discussion I feel.

In this case, I'm wary of having raw hit points being modified in-space as modes change - maybe instead a minor penalty to resistances (although that already sounds awkward and awful), as already pictures of archons with negative hull hit points due to shenanigans spring to mind.


Also wouldn't the electronic mode role bonus need the ability to fit a warp disruption field generator? :P


Back to silently reading this thread + replies with a box of popcorn

Edit:
Quote:
Simply dismissing the idea based on current capital mechanics (which are subject to change) is a tad shortsighted, as is the notion that carriers or dreadnoughts would become the new L4 mission of choice (as this disregards the fact that the majority of L4 missions are gated and would be incredibly easy to restrict). Quite simply, there are cheaper and faster L4 alternatives.


For the year that I'd been playing I'd come to view capitals as more of a group tool than an individual toy/ship - the need to use cynosaural fields to move, the fact it costs fuel to jump, siege/triage roles yadda yadda yadda - and I feel that allowing them in hi-security space would enhance the 'next biggest ship to buy'. When I see a carrier or dread currently my immediate response is "oh, something interesting's happening here'. TL;DR it feels like it'd be nudging them to become bigger, better(?) battleships

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2015-03-21 01:54:30 UTC
Well it's certainly an improvement over the current proposed non-place for them in 5.0.

Would supercarriers be the same except bigger or do you envision a separate role for them?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#12 - 2015-03-21 01:58:00 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Well it's certainly an improvement over the current proposed non-place for them in 5.0.

Would supercarriers be the same except bigger or do you envision a separate role for them?



Yea every capital and supercapital would gain modes. Perhaps not all the same Modes perhaps different bonuses/traits/penalties per Mode. The MODE system allows the ships to be very flexible and allows CCP to tweak add/remove change things without effecting the overall ship.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

J Mcclain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-03-21 02:11:41 UTC
I like the Idea of the modes. Just take a look at T3 destroyers and how dynamic it can make gameplay to have mode switching. Which would also potentially lead to pilot error which can swing fights and make things interesting. Not to mention the potential for ship animation that mode switching could bring to caps.

Creator and operator of the "Best of Us" channel for Military outreach and Veteran suicide awareness. Best of Us Community site

Lugh Crow-Slave
#14 - 2015-03-21 02:14:02 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage

This is a valid point. I think the wardec mechanics could use an overhaul, so perhaps this could be done with high-sec capitals in-mind.



even then you come across the issue that you could never really fly a freighter i have no problem spending 1.9b on a nag +fits to troll some guy in a charon and good luck flying JFs in HS
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2015-03-21 02:20:36 UTC
How would you deal with supers and titans?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Memphis Baas
#16 - 2015-03-21 02:23:21 UTC
You're presenting the modes from the point of view of one capital ship being fielded, but with a blob of them all "modes" will be covered to saturation, making mode selection per each ship just a statistical exercise.

In addition to color-coding, I'd like to suggest shape-changing (like T3 destroyers), because the bright nebula backgrounds will render the colors difficult to see. Or, color-coding in the overview.

CCP seems to want very few capital ships to be fielded per fight. The null alliances have many capital pilots (with ships), who are going to suddenly feel unwelcome when it comes time to x up. I wonder how CCP will handle that. How would you?

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#17 - 2015-03-21 02:28:07 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
You're presenting the modes from the point of view of one capital ship being fielded, but with a blob of them all "modes" will be covered to saturation, making mode selection per each ship just a statistical exercise.


Will they though? You put all your caps in one mode i'll obliterate you. Split them up i'll cull the weakest.

Memphis Baas wrote:
In addition to color-coding, I'd like to suggest shape-changing (like T3 destroyers), because the bright nebula backgrounds will render the colors difficult to see. Or, color-coding in the overview.


Yeah fair enough I don't think I hit the bullseye on everything.

Memphis Baas wrote:
CCP seems to want very few capital ships to be fielded per fight. The null alliances have many capital pilots (with ships), who are going to suddenly feel unwelcome when it comes time to x up. I wonder how CCP will handle that. How would you?



I don't think thats accurate at all. I think they don't want them to instantly dominate the battlefield by sheer presence.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#18 - 2015-03-21 03:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
First, let me say that I think its great you're already active in communicating. You communicated before but I honestly believe you'll step that up as a rep.

I think the idea of modes is not a bad idea for capitals. It's probably not a bad idea for a whole number of ships, but I see how it could be useful for trying to fix capitals. Hell, even the dread could get in on the game, but obviously carriers will garner the most immediate attention. On the other hand, just be done with supers. Or, in case you're going there, Super supers.

As you've said, EVE may need more ships. I'm not convinced they need ships larger than capitals. Supers were a grand idea back when the game was younger. However, as ISK and skillpoints accumulate in the game over time, especially a game this old, they eventually just chase the big ticket items. That eventually just leads to the arms race we've witnessed in recent years. It wasn't just the sov system that led to this arms race. It was the age of the game, the wealth and skillpoints acquired over time, and the easy access to PLEX-based pay-to-play alts. Tack on the endless ISK and resource faucets in the game and its just a constant spiral.

I fully recognize that players will want something to do with their wealth and something new to train for. In other words, end-game "stuff". But that doesn't have to be ships that play into the old n+100 meta. Then again, without players being able to push farther, they may just get bored. But larger and larger ship classes aren't the answer to that dilemma. Real content is.

In the end, I think you're going down an interesting path with the modes. But let's not look back 2 years from now and see that we've just continued to kick the can down the road with the fact that we and CCP can't figure out that bigger and more expensive isn't a better path for the game. Getting rid of supers will be a difficult choice, and one I am quite certain will result in unsubs from all those alt accounts that were built around them or from people who only play Supers Online. Thus I don't ever see that decision being made.

I don't see how we ever put the genie back into the bottle with supers. For their cost, they need to have value and that's the issue we continue to battle: nobody wants them to have a commensurate value because that makes them OP when used on the scale that EVE is capable of producing. It might be better to simply kill the genie and take the entire game down a different path altogether.

PS - Best part of this thread is it's getting the convo started. Worst part is it will be repeated in its entirety when CCP starts its own similar thread.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#19 - 2015-03-21 03:51:48 UTC
Personally, I like the modes idea, but I am not sure it goes far enough towards balancing out the power of Carriers. In short, I think Carriers need to lose the ability to employ all drones, other than Fighters. Fighters could then be buffed proportionately to compensate some for the loss of versatility. Additionally, if necessary, Carriers could then gain bonuses to smart bombs or another point defense system. Bottom line, I don't like seeing 200 Carriers dropping sentry drones and forming their own Apex fleet. That sort of "line-of-battle" role should be filled by Battleships (and maybe Dreadnoughts), not Carriers.

Supercapitals should either be nerfed in power to the point that they are simply T2 Carriers and Dreadnoughts (while retaining the ridiculous price markup) or turned into mobile, destructible stations. I have outlined the basic concept elsewhere.

I say this as someone who currently owns 22 Capitals and 2 Titans. Capital ships are by far my favorite ships to use in combat, but they need some serious work.

I don't think Titans are in as much need of rebalancing as Supercarriers. Perhaps that is because I have more experience fighting against massed Supercarriers than massed Titans, but I don't think Titans are too unbalanced. The only thing I like about my Titans is the "finger-of-god" aspect of the Doomsday. I have had precious few opportunities to use it, mostly due to real life commitments, but when I get the chance to Doomsday a Carrier off the battlefield it is simply awesome.

Carriers should not be allowed into High Security space. It is not balanced around them.

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

Major Spag
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2015-03-21 04:58:40 UTC
Perhaps a tiered approach?

Carriers and Dreads get 2 modes. Supers 3 and Titans 4?

I'm not opposed to your suggestion. There is merit in this. Let's not make capitals into the next drakes: nerfed to complete uselessness.
123Next pageLast page