These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mechanical Infidel
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2015-03-23 23:55:04 UTC
Am not a fan of alternating modes for T1 ships unless it's a binary thing like siege mode. You should be able to anticipate what the enemy is going to bring to the field and modes kinda disrupts that. It would be better solved with new ships to suit the new proposed the roles.

I think we need to simply accentuate the existing roles of capitals and super capitals while also maintaining the following capital food chain.

Carrier < Dreadnought < Super Carrier < Titan

Carriers are in a strong position at the moment, probably need to talk more about countering remote repair prevalence in allowing sub capitals to kill them.

Dreadnoughts should hopefully be still able to incapacitate the new pos defense guns. In lowsec they suffer from not being able to pin enemy super fleets due to no bubbles, this making and ranged cap weapons pointless due to warp ins and they also suffer from the fact they can easily RR the lower dmg.

Supers Carriers are solid overall can fight anything, the EWAR immunity makes nearly impossible to kill in low sec in groups.

Titans acts as a remote bridge and alpha capital DPS off the field.

_____

Proposals to accentuate existing roles:

Carriers are the baseline here, as ECM is a pet hate of mine I think that it should be changed to counter RR prevalence. ECM could be split into 2 sets of bonuses, anti EWAR module (reduce range/strength ewar modules) and anti Emissions module (reduce amount of RR/Neut/Nos). Now support can counter logi and carrier blobs.

Dreadnought need some kind of capital warp disruptor(capital targets only) that only works in siege mode. It will bring risk to supers in low sec if someone really wants to commit. If there is no way to disrupt PoS defenses in the new system with raw damage then it will be hard to give dreads other roles without screwing up support.

Super carriers are to take the Titans Jump Portal Generator, the only difference is it is compulsory to jump to destination with the fleet.

As Titans lose a support role, they should be enhanced in there main combat role. Maybe give it 25% base EHP over Super Carriers. Give DD a 5km falloff and give them a new module that denys the Target Remote Assistance "Isolator".

With EWAR immunity still in effect for supers with the exception of the new titan module they should remain highly prized.
Heathkit
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2015-03-23 23:55:11 UTC
xttz wrote:
Titans could potentially generate wormhole-like effects in a local area. This could be used to buff friendly ships or negate hostile ones.


This is a great idea. It adds unique utility and support to titans. Once could picture competing ship doctrines based on expecting certain titan-generated effects to be present.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#103 - 2015-03-24 00:21:59 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
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.



I quite like this idea, because then Sov could be safely introduced to wormhole space, and since wormhole space isn't connected to itself (for now) our sov would be 'safely limited' top stop us from digging in too much.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-03-24 12:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.

It's difficult to think of shifting dreadnoughts into an anti-ship role without them dominating the field, yet their role as siege engine seems to be endangered. Still, if they don't need to siege anymore, increase the base damage on capital weapons a bit and remove siege modules, or at least alter them so they don't do 600% damage bonus. Basically, a little more firepower than a battleship and much better tank at greatly increased cost.

I think of carriers being the centrepiece of a fleet, using their small craft to provide support while the ships themselves are doing very little. i.e. take away their remote rep bonus, add logi fighters, ewar fighters etc. Let them do just about everything with drones (fighter sized). This would also force the pilot to choose between a flight of combat fighters or support fighters, instead of triage's "all or nothing" approach, thus increasing flexibility and freedom.

Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.

Reduce sensor strength on capitals to a base of 30, so subcaps have more options for countering capitals besides bringing other capitals. Might want to remove ewar immunity from supercaps for the same reason, but keep sensor strength fairly high.

Consider allowing capitals to jump to a star system in range without a cyno - just lock onto the star and appear somewhere in that system, reducing dependence on alts or corpmates for casual travel. Cynos still work if you want precise jump co-ordinates. This reduces the punishment for flying a cap, allowing more freedom to use the ship's abilities. Jump fatigue still provides a limit on how often this can be used of course. A short spoolup time would be in order for this too (just like a MJD).

Capitals in highsec? Better make sure they can't blitz incursions. Most level 4's have gates so not a huge issue there. Level 5's could be moved to highsec to give HS capital pilots something to do, but I think these would be better left for nullsec agents (the ones hired by alliances at an admin hub!) You'd definitely want to consider all of HS cyno jammed too. It could work, but there seems to be plenty of downsides (use in wars, blitzing missions etc) with few upsides (epeen... honestly can't think of anything else).

Manny's mode idea has some merit - sacrifice some abilities to gain bonuses elsewhere. Seems like the sort of thing carriers should be doing, and if dreadnoughts need more flexibility, they could get something like that too.

Oh, and I think the 'wormhole-type bonus' idea for titans could be interesting. I don't know what else you'd do with the suckers tbh.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#105 - 2015-03-24 12:32:10 UTC
From my limited experience with archon can we make it immune against light interdictor bubbles? P
Also I heard mostly from other players saying capacitor is sometimes tight.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-03-24 13:16:54 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.

It's difficult to think of shifting dreadnoughts into an anti-ship role without them dominating the field, yet their role as siege engine seems to be endangered. Still, if they don't need to siege anymore, increase the base damage on capital weapons a bit and remove siege modules, or at least alter them so they don't do 600% damage bonus. Basically, a little more firepower than a battleship and much better tank at greatly increased cost.

I think of carriers being the centrepiece of a fleet, using their small craft to provide support while the ships themselves are doing very little. i.e. take away their remote rep bonus, add logi fighters, ewar fighters etc. Let them do just about everything with drones (fighter sized). This would also force the pilot to choose between a flight of combat fighters or support fighters, instead of triage's "all or nothing" approach, thus increasing flexibility and freedom.

Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.

Reduce sensor strength on capitals to a base of 30, so subcaps have more options for countering capitals besides bringing other capitals. Might want to remove ewar immunity from supercaps for the same reason, but keep sensor strength fairly high.

Consider allowing capitals to jump to a star system in range without a cyno - just lock onto the star and appear somewhere in that system, reducing dependence on alts or corpmates for casual travel. Cynos still work if you want precise jump co-ordinates. This reduces the punishment for flying a cap, allowing more freedom to use the ship's abilities. Jump fatigue still provides a limit on how often this can be used of course. A short spoolup time would be in order for this too (just like a MJD).

Capitals in highsec? Better make sure they can't blitz incursions. Most level 4's have gates so not a huge issue there. Level 5's could be moved to highsec to give HS capital pilots something to do, but I think these would be better left for nullsec agents (the ones hired by alliances at an admin hub!) You'd definitely want to consider all of HS cyno jammed too. It could work, but there seems to be plenty of downsides (use in wars, blitzing missions etc) with few upsides (epeen... honestly can't think of anything else).

Manny's mode idea has some merit - sacrifice some abilities to gain bonuses elsewhere. Seems like the sort of thing carriers should be doing, and if dreadnoughts need more flexibility, they could get something like that too.

Oh, and I think the 'wormhole-type bonus' idea for titans could be interesting. I don't know what else you'd do with the suckers tbh.


The last thing eve needs is Highsec Level 5 mission Running Capitals.

I disagree with a chunk of Manny's modes idea mostly on the basis that the capital basically replaces the subcap in every way shape or form at that moment. Its scary to say but we need more subcaps on the field, not more capitals. Giving immunities, propulsion bonuses, range bonuses, dps bonuses to a ship that cannot be alpha'd, has partial immunity to ewar, and whose only real vulnerability is to either be swarmed by 8X the number per cap, plus neutralizers, or another capital..

Most people think Carriers and Dreads are relatively balanced where they are at, minus slowcats. Supers and Titans are in a different level.

Ultimately, the classes need to be balanced between the Battlecruiser (needs help w warp speed, and a slight review of tank and dps when compared to cruisers), Battleship (bomb survival mostly), Carrier (n+1 scaling), Dread (relatively ok), Super (too many immunities and N+1 scaling), and Titan (Purpose, N+1 scaling and tidi). Ultimately the issue is purpose, not dps numbers or warp speed.

Yaay!!!!

Malcorath Sacerdos
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2015-03-24 14:06:28 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
[Part 1 of 5]
*snip*



i love your entire suggestion, +1
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-03-24 23:25:57 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:

The last thing eve needs is Highsec Level 5 mission Running Capitals.

That's why I didn't recommend it.

Phoenix Jones wrote:
I disagree with a chunk of Manny's modes idea mostly on the basis that the capital basically replaces the subcap in every way shape or form at that moment.

It depends on what the modes do. After re-reading them, I think most of his ideas are a bit OP but the concept is sound. If these modes take a minute to switch over and require even more time to switch to another mode afterward, they wound't be as flexible as the t3 destroyers, yet would provide flexibility. Still, carriers were always considered the 'swiss army knife' of eve and they're hardly underpowered atm, so bypassing the modes idea is completely reasonable.

Phoenix Jones wrote:
Ultimately the issue is purpose, not dps numbers or warp speed.

In terms of role, I have posted in the past that supercaps cannot be balanced against smaller classes in their present form. They were designed to let a player feel like a god.

One of my ideas was to reduce the supercarrier in size and power, down to a regular carrier. Basically, let current carriers be logi and support, and have these 'assault carriers' able to use fighter bombers, 'tiericiding' them. Their role is anti-capital and to some degree anti structure, but with much less power than a supercarrier can currently bring to the field. It's really about how much power you want a single character to have, and supercarriers give them too much. Better a fleet fields 200 assault carriers than 200 supercarriers imho. Of course, a reimbursement of isk would have to be given to current owners.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Alexis Nightwish
#109 - 2015-03-24 23:30:35 UTC
Remember that one of the primary problems with carriers wasn't that they were good. It's that they could be good at anything at anytime. You're proposal of modes would, IMHO, only exasperate that problem.




The biggest issue I see with (super)caps is their EHP.
A tanky frigate has about 10,000 EHP.
A tanky cruiser has about 50,000 EHP.
A tanky battleship has about 250,000 EHP.
A tanky capital has about 1,250,000 2,750,000 EHP...
A tanky supercap has about 6,250,000 18,000,000 EHP!

Combine that with the redonkulous amount of undisruptable repping triage carriers can do and you have a recipie for disaster. CCP is trying to do away with HP walls. I really think they should apply that philosophy to caps/supercaps. Not this idea of removing their DPS. If a T2 fit Chimera had about 1.25m EHP, a T2 fit Wyvern had about 6.25m EHP, and triage didn't convey EWAR immunity, I think the whole system would be a lot healthier.



Here are my thoughts on what to do with caps and supercaps (in addition to nerfing their EHP):

Carriers and Supercarriers

The drone bays on carriers would be set to 250m3 or thereabouts. SCs would lose their 'drone bay'.

Carriers and SCs gain a separate fighter bay into which only fighters and, in the case of SCs, fighter bombers can be placed (pretty much exactly how current SC drone bays are).

Drone Control Units would be renamed Fighter Control Units and only increase the number of fighters/FBs you can deploy. They would not allow additional drones.

Decouple the fighter/FB limit from the drone limit. What I mean is carriers and supercarriers can have up to 5 drones, AND a contingant of fighters/FB deployed concurrently. Fighters/FBs would not use bandwidth. Total number able to be controlled would be limited by the ship (eg: Thanny gives 1 fighter per level), and any Fighter Control Units.

Fighters and FBs would be subject to all effects that a typical subcap is subject to. For example, but not limited to:
Can be webbed
Can be pointed
Cannot warp out of a bubble
Can suffer the drag bubble effect
Can be neuted out
Can be disrupted by all forms of EWAR

Also, fighters and FBs which leave the grid their carrier is on will lose all bonuses conveyed by their mothership, dropping their stats down to base levels.


Carrier specific:

+1 locked targets for a total of 7.

Either +2 or +3 warp core strength per level of racial carrier.

Connectivity to, and control of drones and fighters is not be lost when entering triage, however they cannot be recalled until the carrier exits triage.

Triage gives strong resistances to, but not total immunity to electronic warfare.

Triage modules would have the same fitting as before, but the only difference between them is the cycle time. T1 would be 5 minutes. T2 would be 4 minutes. They would consume the same amount of stront (base of 75 per cycle). Additionally, the inability to move, warp, jump (gate or cyno), refit, or receive remote assistance remains.

New triage mode bonuses per level of racial carrier:

Archon:
-10% bonus to capacitor drained from external capacitor draining effects (such as void bombs, neuts, NOSs, and Aeon's remote EWAR (see below :))). This reduction would apply before any capacitor battery reflection effects. The amount of stolen cap given to a NOSing ship would of course be reduced.
+20% to targeting range
+180% to scan resolution
+180% mass
+1 max targets
-10% bonus to duration of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules
+25% bonus to repair amount and capacitor transfer amount
-5% bonus to capacitor cost of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules

Chimera:
+25% to sensor strength
+20% to targeting range
+180% to scan resolution
+180% mass
+1 max targets
-10% bonus to duration of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules
+25% bonus to repair amount and capacitor transfer amount
-5% bonus to capacitor cost of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules

Thanatos:
+40% to targeting range
+360% bonus to scan resolution
+180% mass
+1 max targets
-10% bonus to duration of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules
+25% bonus to repair amount and capacitor transfer amount
-5% bonus to capacitor cost of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules

Nidhoggur:
-7.5% bonus to signature radius
-15% bonus to signature radius bloom effects (including but not limited to: target painters, MWDs (as useful as they are in triage), shield rigs, shield extenders (not that they're used), the Hel's remote EWAR (see below :)), etc.)
+20% to targeting range
+180% to scan resolution
+180% mass
+1 max targets
-10% bonus to duration of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules
+25% bonus to repair amount and capacitor transfer amount
-5% bonus to capacitor cost of repair modules and capacitor transfer modules


The idea behind these suggestions is to make them resistant to EWAR, especially their race's own type, but not immune. This way options other than "overwhelming damage" and "shittons of Bhaalgorns" become viable ways to disrupt their massive healing power.
The triage modules may need to be split into racial versions due to bonuses being based on level of racial carrier.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Alexis Nightwish
#110 - 2015-03-24 23:31:26 UTC
Supercarrier specific:

No longer immune to EWAR, but has a special role bonus:
All electronic warfare used against the supercarrier is considered to already have two of the same effect already applied for the purposes of stacking penalties.

+10 warp core strength per level of racial carrier.

Wyvern +8 sensor strength. +4% bonus per level to the strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus remains.
Nyx +3 sensor strength. +4% bonus per level to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus remains.
Aeon: -3 sensor strength. +4% bonus per level to the strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus remains.
Hel -8 sensor strength. +4% bonus per level to the strength of Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus remains.


Instead of the current Remote ECM Burst, all supercarriers would have access to racial Remote EWAR Burst modules. These modules would only be able to be fitted to their corresponding supercarrier (the Amarr Remote EWAR Burst module could only be fitted to the Aeon), and they would all have a default mode, and a scripted mode. The default mode is a very long range, but less effective type of EWAR, and the scripted mode is a shorter range, stronger EWAR. The base cooldown is 5 minutes, and have an effect radius of 15km. Only 1 module of this type per ship. Cap or fuel use could be required to activate for balance reasons.

All the numbers are just placeholders. Range, effect radius, cooldown, strength of effect, duration, etc. would probably all need tweaking.

Amarr: Remote Tracking Disruption Burst (150km range) - Generates behind an AoE 'cloud.' Any objects with a tracking attribute within the cloud have their tracking speed penalized. Cloud lasts 20 seconds. The tracking disruption would be the same as a level V Curse with a tracking speed scripted Remote Tracking Disruptor II. As soon as the cloud disapates or the affectee leaves the area of effect, the penalties end. Multiple clouds and/or single target modules generating the same effect have stacking penalties.

Amarr: Remote Capacitor Neutralizer Burst (75km range) - AoE ranged burst that neutralizes cap in the blast area. Costs 70% of the Aeon's current capacitor to fire, and neutralizes 25% + 5%/level (so 50% at V) of the capacitor energy used. Ships hit by the blast which are equiped with Cap Batteries will partially reflect the drain back to the Aeon.

Math example (pilot has skill at IV):
Aeon's attack cap = 29,531.25 (70% of 93,750 = 65,625 * (.25 + .20 from skill) = 29,531.25)
Ships in the AoE have a total of 200,000 cap
The blast reduces the cap of the ships in the area of effect to 170,468.75 cap (200,000 - 29,531.25 = 170,468.75)
170,468.75 out of 200,000 = 85.234375% so all ships in the AoE lose 14.765625% of their current capacitor
One of the targets hit, an Archon with a cap battery and full cap (81,094) when hit loses not 11,974.0359375, but 10,477.2814453125 with 1,496.7544921875 (12.5% reflected) being bounced back and drained from the Aeon leaving the attacking Aeon at 26,537.74 cap.


Caldari: Remote ECM Lock Breaking Burst (150km range) - An AoE ranged burst that breaks locks, but does NOT keep them jammed. The effect is similar to the ECM Burst module. Rediculously high omni jamming strength of 500. Cooldown reduced by 30s per level of skill.

Caldari: Remote ECM Jamming Burst (75km range) - Generates a high strength AoE ranged burst that breaks target locks and and jams out the victims. Omni jamming strength of 200 + 5%/level.


Gallente: Remote Sensor Dampening Burst (150km range) - Generates an AoE 'cloud' that reduces the targeting range of any object in its area of effect with a locking range attribute. Dampening strength the same as a level V Lachesis with a targeting range scripted Remote Sensor Dampener II. +5% bonus / level of Gallente EWAR Burst. Cloud lasts 30 seconds. As soon as the cloud disapates or the affectee leaves the area of effect, the penalties end. Multiple clouds and/or single target modules generating the same effect have stacking penalties.

Gallente: Remote Warp Scrambling Burst (75km range) - Generates an AoE 'cloud' that puts the effect of a warp scrambler: no MWD or MJD, etc., on any ship (including fighters/fighter bombers) in its area of effect. -1 warp drive strength per level. Cloud lasts 10s + 1s/level. As soon as the cloud disapates or the affectee leaves the area of effect, the penalties end.


Minmatar: Remote Target Painting Burst (150km range) - Generates an AoE 'cloud' that gives a +100% (+10%/level) signature bloom to any object with a sig radius attribute in its area of effect. 30s duration. As soon as the cloud disapates or the affectee leaves the area of effect, the penalties end. Multiple clouds and/or single target modules generating the same effect have stacking penalties.

Minmatar: Remote Stasis Webifier Burst (75km range) - Generates an AoE 'cloud' that reduces the speed of any object with a velocity attribute in its area of effect. 60% velocity penalty. 20s duration +3s/level. As soon as the cloud disapates or the affectee leaves the area of effect, the penalties end. Multiple clouds and/or single target modules generating the same effect have stacking penalties.




Dreadnoughts

Dreads are largely in a good place IMO, however I'd like to see something like this added to them:

New Role Bonus: The reflect effect of capacitor batteries is doubled.

+1 or +2 warp core strength per level of racial dread.

Also, maybe give the Rev a little something to help it fill a niche that the other dreads do not?

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Alexis Nightwish
#111 - 2015-03-24 23:32:12 UTC
Titans

Man I wish these were used in combat more instead of being glorified train stations.

New bonuses:

Leviathan: +5% bonus per level to the strength of Siege Warfare, Information Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus changes to "Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously."
Erebus: +5% bonus per level to the strength of Armored Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, and Information Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus changes to "Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously."
Avatar: +5% bonus per level to the strength of Armored Warfare, Information Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus changes to "Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously."
Ragnarok: +5% bonus per level to the strength of Siege Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, and Armored Warfare links. The +1 link per level bonus changes to "Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously."

Note, this is the only class of ship that I think should keep it's 100% immunity to EWAR.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

AskariRising
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#112 - 2015-03-25 00:00:10 UTC
hey guys, im not a cap pilot. im just reading and commenting on this thread from the perspective as an outsider....

first, what if all carriers had to anchor themselves before launching fighters? second, what if there was a way for carriers to launch remote attacks using their fighters? either by selecting targets for D-scan or by somehow being given targets remotely?

then make carriers unable to provide or receive remote reps or support while anchored. if they want to provide reps they would need to recall their fighters and unanchor before doing so. so either use fighters or logistics but not both at same time.


FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#113 - 2015-03-25 04:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
AskariRising wrote:
hey guys, im not a cap pilot. im just reading and commenting on this thread from the perspective as an outsider....

first, what if all carriers had to anchor themselves before launching fighters? second, what if there was a way for carriers to launch remote attacks using their fighters? either by selecting targets for D-scan or by somehow being given targets remotely?

then make carriers unable to provide or receive remote reps or support while anchored. if they want to provide reps they would need to recall their fighters and unanchor before doing so. so either use fighters or logistics but not both at same time.




That whole remote attacks using fighters got removed in the most recent patch.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=409271&find=unread

Currently, Carriers cannot launch Fighters while they are in Triage mode. I think that this should change. I would go so far as to make Triage mode apply significant buffs to Fighters in the same way it currently does to remote repair modules.

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

Kazaheid Zaknafein
Vakarii War Industries
#114 - 2015-03-25 10:18:38 UTC
Rather than modes that can be cycled at will, how about additional forms of siege/triage. These can be fitted to provide different effects while running; and while still burning the same fuel. They can be limited to fitted at a time like cloaking devices.

Carriers would receive their normal triage and an offensive variant that boosts sensor strength, scan res and drone performance. at the cost of losing all bonuses to logi.

Dreads could receive a capital sized warp disrupter, similar to a heavy interdictors but only applies the focused effects. This would let them tie down super caps on their own. This module would take one of the high slots on a dread, forcing them to choose between firepower and utility.

Anthar Thebess
#115 - 2015-03-25 10:56:54 UTC
Capital Combat ships divide by 2 base types :
- DPS
- Logistic

Dps are dreads.
In order to boost their damage they need to use siege module that enhances their dps output at the cost tracking, scan resolution and especially ability to receive remote reps.

Logistic are carriers.
Like dreads they can boost their logistic abilities by using triage module that have also similar rule - while module is active ship cannot receive remote AID.

Overall this looks like good balance.
Still players proved that CCP was wrong in this assumption in case of carriers.

Currently one of the eve MAJOR issues are carrier blobs that abuse ability to provide remote aid to whole fleet without triage, as while keeping their full offensive potential, and ability to refit on field, they can also provide logistic support to other ships without triage.

This way 200 man carrier fleet means ability to :
- deploy up to 2000 fighters
- drop up to 2000 sentry drones
- mount up to 400 smartbombs ( base concepts use 2 per carrier)
- mount up to 400 heavy neuts
while at the same time still keeping ability to provide remote aid from up to 597 capital remote AID modules to a single member of the fleet.

Because of this amount of ships needed just to brake this remote tank , and then slowly chew multi million ehp is so immense that it requires extreme blob of sub capitals supported by capital ships. Usually counter fleet have to be so immense that "soul crushing lag" will occur.

It is very simple way to solve this issue as the issue is connected to capital remote aid systems.

Proposal is to :
- remove bonus they get from hull without triage module active
- reduce their base abilities to match Large versions.
- boost triage module bonuses to counter those nerfs

Thanks to those changes the only viable way to use capital remote aid systems will be by using triage module with all the benefits and cons that come with this module. Without changing how the carriers behave in triage.
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#116 - 2015-03-25 13:55:20 UTC
Would love if carriers got a few small turret /launcher slots so it could have a minimum of defense against subcapitals.
Also the weapon hardpoints don't need to be bonused but they could be nice to have like a extra space in the fitting screen for them?
Also a immunity against light interdictor bubbles since the ship is way way big and interdictor is very small so feels wrong that such a small ship should be able to hold down a capital..
Coelomate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#117 - 2015-03-25 19:21:33 UTC
CCP Turtlepower wrote:
Capital ships will be re-balanced later this year, we will make them awesome again!


The above quote (from another thread) sparked a huge discussion on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3098b6/capital_ships_will_be_rebalanced_later_this_year/

Lots of helpful feedback in those comments - especially the careful analysis of the current capital/super ecosystem.

Love,

~Coelomate

Sorila Renne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2015-03-26 15:13:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorila Renne
Unfortunately I am still far from being a cap pilot myself, due to the fighting in catch I have seen a lot of combat against capitals and would like to through my 2 cents in.

I really like the idea of removing ewar immunity from Super carriers. Give them natural bonus' like has been suggest with higher warp core strength, and the like so it's hard to ewar them into oblivion but still possible. This would make it possible to dismantle spider tanking both at the cap and super capital level. I don't think this would be too horrible because I imagine it would take a significant sized ewar gang to make it work and the gangs themselves are vulnerable to subcap aggression so there is a counter for it., and would encourage more varied fleet compositions.

I do think titans need some love and I think the biggest issue with deploying them and super carriers is the cost. Though it would cause some strife I think if super capitals (both titans and Super Carriers) costs were brought more in line with the other classes cost progression they would see a lot more use because their loss would not be so absolutely crippling. The current jump from a few billion for capitals to 60 billion and above for supercaps is staggering. 30 Billion would still be a massive cost, but would lower the bar significantly for entry to the brotherhood of Super capital ships. I know they were meant to be rare sights, but at this point in eve's life the landscape has shifted and proliferation has happened and in order to play with the big boys you need big toys. I don't mind this requirement for escalation, it makes sense, but the cost scaling doesn't make as much sense anymore with the new emphasis on getting more alliances into nullsec.


I really hope CCP takes a good long look at capitals and capital warefare because there are two things that set Eve apart from other space games, the size of the engagements (IE number of combatants) and capital ships. People will point to the community, to the economy, but those two things will grow around Eve's competition so I don't see them as the defining features of the actual game. The two things this game does that no other space game does is massive battles between subcapital and capital ships the likes of which people only saw in movies before. The changes coming to Sov will encourage smaller scale combat and the nerfs that have already come to capitals and their shrinking niche roles is a bit disheartening for an Eve child born from B5R.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#119 - 2015-03-27 00:39:52 UTC
Great discussion great ideas so far. Lets keep it goin friends!

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-03-27 03:36:59 UTC
I've always liked the idea of the combination space battleship/carrier from various science fiction universes. Ships from Babylon 5 or BSG were able to launch fighter wings and also mount heavy weaponry. I figured this was possible with the removal of gravity limitations confining terrestrial-bound ship designs - especially carriers, which need a flat top for launching and retrieval of aircraft.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of dreadnaughts being DPS and carriers providing logi. The models would probably have to be updated, but I'm picturing dreadnaughts bringing the pain with big guns and fighter/bomber bays, and hordes of fighter sized logi drones launched from carriers repping the fleet.

I'm also thinking the carriers should get a bonus to the number of fighters they can launch, not drones in general. i.e. 5 drones max, but can still launch max number of fighters. Blobs of slowcats just seems so.... static, compared to the more energetic space battles we see in fiction. Anything that brings eve more towards that sort of dynamic gameplay gets my vote.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.