These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

First post First post
Author
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#41 - 2015-03-21 20:32:06 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
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.




I get what you are saying. But effectively you are asking CCP to say " Hey I have two good feet , I can make my feet better if I just shoot one of them". Instantly alienating part of your customer base doesn't sound like the best of business models.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Darren Fox
Ehefkae
#42 - 2015-03-21 20:57:27 UTC
As Faren said, a carrier in triage is very interesting gameplay, a significant force-multiplier, but also has clear counters. It is fairly balanced. Dreadnaughts are useless out of siege, and have a fair amount of uses in siege. If CCP are serious about removing structure hp grinding completely, they lose some of their use.

Regarding future use of carriers and supercarriers I would love to see them used as true "capital ships in a combined fleet". Imagine that a carrier gets a special role bonus while being squad commander in a fleet. All frigate and destroyer class ships in the squad gets bonuses to damage/sensor str/sig/resists etc. based on the carrier type and special capital boosting modules. This applies within a certain range 50-150km? of the carrier. They are also able to dock (5? seconds docking sequence) and have their structure/armor/shields repaired fully (over 60? seconds). While docked they warp and jump with the carrier.

The supercarrier does the same, just for cruiser-sized hulls.

This would then replace fighters and fighter-bombers and make the carrier's and supercarrier's damage depend on the presence of appropriate subcaps in their squads.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-03-21 22:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiddle Jr
Carriers - remove fighters. They are good in logistics role and lets keep them focused at this role.
SuperCarrier - remove logi bonuses, add fleet boosting bonuses. Only supers could use fighters and f.bombers

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2015-03-21 22:40:21 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Carriers - remove fighters. They are good in logistics role and lets keep them focused at this role.
SuperCarrier - remove logi bonuses, add fleet boosting bonuses. Only supers could use fighters and f.bombers


The commanding role of carriers is the ability to use fighters. That is the defining ability of the carrier class.

It's not going anywhere.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2015-03-21 23:17:35 UTC
Remove friendly effects from supers. Institute immunity to non targeted interdiction (focused HIC still works).

Watch the fireworks
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2015-03-21 23:54:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiddle Jr
Anhenka wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Carriers - remove fighters. They are good in logistics role and lets keep them focused at this role.
SuperCarrier - remove logi bonuses, add fleet boosting bonuses. Only supers could use fighters and f.bombers


The commanding role of carriers is the ability to use fighters. That is the defining ability of the carrier class.

It's not going anywhere.

Correct, and if happen as proposed this role is narrow to sc only. I prefer carriers be focused on healer role and break the dual strenght (logi/dps).

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Lienzo
Amanuensis
#47 - 2015-03-22 00:05:54 UTC
In terms of mechanics on the actual battlefields, capital ships are not flawed to the point of making the game unplayable, even less so come summer. Making them able to do what they already do every five minutes won't really make much difference. If anything, it will just be countered by further blobbing as supers specialize themselves into specific fleet roles as subcaps do already.

If changes were limited to the proposal, you would still need supers carriers to counter super carriers, and even then, stalemates would remain a likely outcome. There's a reason super blobs rarely fight one another, and a big part of that is lack of incentive. Many if not most EVE players consider a fair fight to be an unfortunate consequence of a lack of intel.

This proposal really doesn't address the problems of super blobbing and logi abilities without ewar susceptibility, the ecologies of capital ships, nor their lack of dependence on anchored infrastructure.

At present there is no way to hit back at anything logistically connected to capital fleets that are logged off, or based out of npc stations, and that is really a bigger problem that excludes player organization from the equation.

At present, only jump freighters are actually made out of moon rock. Why even tie capital ships to moon warfare? How does CCP tie capital ships to the landscape of EVE come fozzysov?




Titans could be rehabilitated by improving the use of doomsday versus blobs. They could serve as a direct counter to remote repairs. Dreads will need a role in the future, and that role should reflect entosis-based sov. Perhaps ewar immunity could be a function of anchorable structures for capital ships, and be dependent upon sov level.

I would propose linking entosis to sov levels. It would be an improvement if entosis modules also used charges. There should also be a capital version of entosis that has expanded functionality but doesn't reward capital blobbing. To that end, I would propose combining dread siege mode and entosis functionality. They have similar user limitations already. A single capital ship in a flagship role would have the same effect as a blob does on an hp barrier. The time for available player engagement in space could thus never be shortened artificially.

Tying entosis to sov levels helps give a sense of geography. Adding some new sov rules to enforce the existence of a periphery in sov constellations allows us to make some systems vulnerable, and some systems invulnerable. It would be sufficient to require that a sov level three system must be surrounded by sov level two or higher systems. With this condition, we could safely restrict entosis modules to the lowest level sov system as well as unclaimed systems. Capital level entosis effects could expand on this by have an additional layer of privilege in expanding a battlefield by being able to destablize a system one sov level higher than is available to subcap entosis. One capital level entosis modules should also count for at least two subcap entosis modules across the whole constellation, encouraging escalation.

A feasible limitation to entosis could be that the claim be attributed to an anchorable structure in already claimed space within a few lightyears. This will limit third party groups to those with regional presence. Obviously, the ability to claim uncontested space should be preserved. The need for the anchorable structure allows for the defending entity to retaliate. It's like SBUs, but it requires that anyone putting down an SBU own space somewhere, and it works with vastly reduced numbers of players.

If capital ships are to become flagships primarily, it would be smart to make their abilities and roles reflect this. All large ships need to have modest fleet hangars. Access range to capital fleet features needs to be extended to a minimum of ten kilometers. Dependence could be increased by reversing the ammo volume changes from 2006. Dreads will need to have improved tracking or explosion velocity/radii to fight battleships more effectively.

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#48 - 2015-03-22 00:31:37 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:




I get what you are saying. But effectively you are asking CCP to say " Hey I have two good feet , I can make my feet better if I just shoot one of them". Instantly alienating part of your customer base doesn't sound like the best of business models.


We don't have two good feet in the eyes of the developer. We have two feet that keep having their toes clipped off because CCP can't figure out a proper balance. Can they get these ships down to an acceptable level of offense and defense? I'm sure they can. Can it be done while maintaining some semblance of value for the money? I don't think so. What kind of offensive and defensive power should ships that cost 15x and 25x the cost of their capital counterparts be capable of?

I know it would alienate those players who have been lulled down the path of the supercapital only to have it ripped out from under them. But whether it is overtly ripped out from under them or slowly made irrelevant over years, that segment of the playerbase should be equally pissed with having basically lost a big ticket item in terms of cost as well as training time.

Hey, give it another try to make them into something relevant. And not just relevant on a ship by ship basis, but relevant given the proliferation we have witnessed in terms of ships and pilots. Sadly, I think we'll be back talking about this again in a year or two. Any changes coming will not be the final solution for these ships and this will be yet another effort at kicking the can down the road. That sounds defeatist, I know; but sometimes mistakes just need to be owned up to and difficult decisions made.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#49 - 2015-03-22 00:50:33 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:




I get what you are saying. But effectively you are asking CCP to say " Hey I have two good feet , I can make my feet better if I just shoot one of them". Instantly alienating part of your customer base doesn't sound like the best of business models.


We don't have two good feet in the eyes of the developer. We have two feet that keep having their toes clipped off because CCP can't figure out a proper balance. Can they get these ships down to an acceptable level of offense and defense? I'm sure they can. Can it be done while maintaining some semblance of value for the money? I don't think so. What kind of offensive and defensive power should ships that cost 15x and 25x the cost of their capital counterparts be capable of?

I know it would alienate those players who have been lulled down the path of the supercapital only to have it ripped out from under them. But whether it is overtly ripped out from under them or slowly made irrelevant over years, that segment of the playerbase should be equally pissed with having basically lost a big ticket item in terms of cost as well as training time.

Hey, give it another try to make them into something relevant. And not just relevant on a ship by ship basis, but relevant given the proliferation we have witnessed in terms of ships and pilots. Sadly, I think we'll be back talking about this again in a year or two. Any changes coming will not be the final solution for these ships and this will be yet another effort at kicking the can down the road. That sounds defeatist, I know; but sometimes mistakes just need to be owned up to and difficult decisions made.


That is the nature of MMO's. There are none that ever have been in perfect balance. MMOs are more like a balanced scale. When one side gets to heavy and starts to tip you put weight on the other. I think you are correct the next balance pass on capitals and supers won't be the last. That would be horribly boring if it were. Sometimes when playing in a sandbox the wind blows or the rain falls and changes the terrain.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Spring HeeledJack
GreenSwarm
#50 - 2015-03-22 01:40:29 UTC
I do not see much of an issue with capitals themselves currently, more so the Jump fatigue timer, it seems to go up sensibly go about 3 days then bam suddenly you get hit with a 20 day timer so a bit of tweaking to that would be nice.

The only issue i have is the role dreads and carriers and even supers and titans will play in the Fozziesov era as the cap brawls will be few and far between, The proposal of entosis links being the only way to take structures completely takes away one major use people had for dreads, supers and carriers in the first place.

In general it really feels like caps have all been massively nerfed the past few expansions, reduced range, fatigue, the insane lock times on supers whereas subcaps have been receiving buff after buff. it was my impression that the main nerf of jump drive range was to reduce power projection from groups. yet with the introduction of Thera subcaps have the ability to move from Deklein to Catch in two jumps which seems rather unbalanced, or even base out of thera and be able to throw ishtar fleets everywhere at any time.

Some form of balance between the two would be nice, be that less fatigue or larger jump ranges for caps again but it definitely feels that instead of thinking caps thorough CCP have just been punishing cap users to favour the use of subcaps more, which i can completely understand the reasonings behind it, but to me it feels like they are going about it the complete wrong way.

At the moment it just seems like one rule for caps and one rule for everything else and CCP's Power projection nerf made it easier to move subcaps great distances but restrict caps which to me feels like a kick to the teeth.
Coelomate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2015-03-22 01:52:02 UTC
Definitely the conversation we need to be having. Some background thoughts and fundamental questions --

  • Capitals are expensive, slow, and extremely vulnerable - particularly to other capitals (dreads, DDs and fighter bombers melt them). This triggers rational risk averse behavior, leading to horrible blobs, hangar queens, etc. How do you get people to risk their capitals while keeping them expensive and strong? In a meta increasingly dedicated by speed and the ability to extract from inevitable blobs, how do you balance slow and sturdy ships?
  • People like big toys, so everyone will want to train for, buy, and use capitals. How do you balance them so that they are powerful, but not optimal to use compared to anything else?
  • Capital remote reps are a huge problem, making capital fleets scale at an absurd rate with each additional RR carrier/super.
  • Marauders present an interesting example of acceptable imbalance. Bastion mode is ridiculous, but by disabling remote reps and immobilizing the ship they don't overwhelm the meta. Having said that, their expense, sluggishness and vulnerability also dramatically limits their use - the vast majority are only brought out for safe PVE.
  • Without structures to shoot, fleet compositions will look much different. How can capitals support mobility and grid control without being necessary to stand a chance?


Love,

~Coelomate

iTransport
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2015-03-22 02:45:48 UTC
I'm sure all the good people will rant on stats and roles but i want to touch on feel. (pun intended) Caps as a whole are in a good place. Siege Dreds and fighter carriers work well, though i would lessen their support ability, but supercaps have no real true features.

I'd see supercarriers working with the new mooring concept getting tossed around. Every bright-eyed science fiction fan wants to see a large ship jumping in across the expanse and deploying the fleet. While Titan-made jump portals somewhat cover this right now, it's very passive and just not cool.

I'd like to see motherships living up to their name and committing themselves to jumping in and deploying an assorted fleet of ships, Homeworld-style, the carry-alls of the universe. Clone bays, range refitting, and generally everything you need to stage and fight in enemy territory included.

Titans are on the other end of the spectrum, their main feature, the DD's have been tweaked, replaced and remodelled for a long time now and it needs to be kept, but even if it gets adjusted further, it still will feel like a one trick pony. It needs to set itself into the new structure meta as a 'definite recommendation' if sieging a system.

How?

True titan modules that spec it into anti-structure warfare past damage. Cancelling out the new effects in support of the fleets, changing the battlefield in a system and just acting like a true command and control vehicle for an operation. Very viable to have one on the field, but just as viable to take one out to swing the tide.

Think of them as the current Incursion setup on the Sansha's side with motherships.. they are the spearhead of operations.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#53 - 2015-03-22 02:51:04 UTC
Some good suggestions, but the warp speed penalties feel like arbitrary obstacles. On the same page +50% warpspeed bonus on mobility would lead to ceptorlike warpspeeds for L5s.

In that proposal, Carriers would still have access to regular sized drones. Wouls dare say the ability to carry an unlimited supply of sentries is still part of the issue. Would really appreciate if fighters were capital sized weapons aswell (meaning 3km sig res instead of BS 400m) and would stop doing silly things to hictors.Bombers work fine, just regular fighters got some silly abilities since tracking revamp.
Kara Traice
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2015-03-22 04:00:55 UTC
I'll chime in my 2 cents about capitals in highsec I think it would be fine if the following things were done>

1) New capital / Super Capital level missions were added. (New content is always good)
2) People flying capitals / Supers can not attack other players. Purely for pve only.




My reasoning is some people never will leave high sec and you can't force them to. Why not give them the opportunity to progress beyond level 4 missions in a Marauder. I know a lot of ppl don't agree with some of my ideas but that's my opinion.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#55 - 2015-03-22 04:12:52 UTC
Kara Traice wrote:
I'll chime in my 2 cents about capitals in highsec I think it would be fine if the following things were done>

1) New capital / Super Capital level missions were added. (New content is always good)
2) People flying capitals / Supers can not attack other players. Purely for pve only.




My reasoning is some people never will leave high sec and you can't force them to. Why not give them the opportunity to progress beyond level 4 missions in a Marauder. I know a lot of ppl don't agree with some of my ideas but that's my opinion.

Yes give even more rewarding stuff in highsec

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 ?

Kara Traice
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2015-03-22 04:55:45 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Kara Traice wrote:
I'll chime in my 2 cents about capitals in highsec I think it would be fine if the following things were done>

1) New capital / Super Capital level missions were added. (New content is always good)
2) People flying capitals / Supers can not attack other players. Purely for pve only.




My reasoning is some people never will leave high sec and you can't force them to. Why not give them the opportunity to progress beyond level 4 missions in a Marauder. I know a lot of ppl don't agree with some of my ideas but that's my opinion.

Yes give even more rewarding stuff in highsec


CCP is a business after all and there is room in the sandbox for all play styles. Everyone has their preferences and even their own opinions on how to play eve.
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#57 - 2015-03-22 05:46:25 UTC
I think the roles capitals hold is fine as is. They're slow and risky, but they're unrivaled at holding the field. If the main issue here is that the wrecking ball is only countered by a larger wrecking ball, then you just need to introduce some form of counter-play to the system.

Why not replace the existing e-war immunity with a "soft immunity" where the ship absorbs the first n attempts, but the n+1 attempt and all past that affect the ship normally? We have a similar set up with how warp stability works now, so why not add this as a role bonus to capitals and supercapitals?

You'd end up with fleet compositions that counter the huge amount of reps that supercarriers can provide without nerfing the supers into the ground. It would also require contingents of subcapitals be fielded with any supercapital fleet to pick off the opposing e-war pilots.
Kiagon Fiero
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
Snuffed Out
#58 - 2015-03-22 06:07:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiagon Fiero
When considering new roles and uses for SuperCarriers and Titans their current build costs are too restrictive. Very few organizations can afford to use and lose them even with current incomes, and rental incomes will likely be shrinking soon. This means they are only used sparingly or in overwhelming numbers.

Accept the fact that "proliferation" has already happened and embrace it. Revamp their roles so they are used in combat regularly and die all the time. Reduce their build costs significantly. Imagine supercarrier hulls cost maybe 3-4 bil and Titan hulls 7-9 bil. This would open up a new spectrum of roles in fleet combat previously thought impossible. True, it would reduce the exhilaration in killing one, but at this price point they would be dying in actual combat much more frequently. At their current price point the only possible role they can play in combat is a role where they have an astronomically small chance of actually dying. Also, Sov holders wouldn't feel the need to blue everyone within 9 regions in order to protect their CSAA towers.

When the changes go live compensate all previous owners currently flying super hulls by giving them spare hulls through the Redeem system so that their net investment of minerals is conserved.

As I recall Manny (or Elise?) saying, "the price of admission to a good fight is the ship you are in." Much more dynamic and interesting roles could appear more palatable if the build costs were tailored around the philosophy that they could be used in risky situations and lost frequently without crushing the soul.
Mahmoud Khatami Ahmadinejad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-03-22 06:55:02 UTC
we dont need to have modes on every ship. just keep that to t3 destroyers.
Ari Kelor
Frontier Explorations Inc.
Eminent-Domain
#60 - 2015-03-22 07:14:19 UTC
In true spirit of the topic, I'd like to throw out a few idea's and see where they land.

- Use Carriers and Supercarriers as carriers...of ships that is. Give them the ability to carry a certain amount of mass of ships with them through a jump into a combat zone or any other destination. This has been mentioned before in the thread, and it is an interesting concept.

- Scorched Earth Policy, using special ammunition Dreadnaughts and Titans may deplete resources from moons and planets. Deploying them to strategically kill a portion of an enemies income as part of an ongoing war. The resource may eventually return, or be found somewhere else.

- Adding a blockade style of module for both the Dreadnaught and Carrier. Similar to the Triage and Siege module this will have multiple effects that can set up a blockade for stations and stargates. Balancing considerations is that they will use stront, and will take up to a minute to deploy, so that you will need to keep continual coverage to try to catch something.
Examples:
- carriers deploying a 'net of drones' that disrupt any cloaking attempts within a certain distance
- dreads setting up a 'flak zone' that damages all ships in an area (sort of like remote smartbombs)

- Implementing a Siege style mod to the Titan that allows it's fleet bonuses to be used across the constellation rather than just in the system.