These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#121 - 2015-03-27 04:16:00 UTC  |  Edited by: RogueHunteer
Problems are you need to be in large groups to use them and need support in order to want to field them... Give them a reason to enter the field not to just shot other capitals at this point. Supers should have their own race remote burst in E-WAR.
They may be the biggest in the game but it's time we remove the fear of using them in none blog form. By cutting the cost of replacing them. At this point I think build cost for all supers and titans should be cut in half. More to lose and more to build. Also the hit points on supers and titans need to be cut in half. More used in combat and fear of replacing them because of the cost is just dumb.


Aeon - Remote burst "Neut" to only 60% cap on any ship in range.
Wyvern - Remote burst "ECM" already in the game. Only change is it only effect your ship once every 10 mins.
Nyx - Remote burst "Warp Jam" for 30 secs no point needed. Only effect your ship once every 10 mins
Hel - Remote burst "Webs" for 30 secs your ship loses 40% of it's speed.


What makes this set up nice it wont matter if you get blog by supers. Some modular only effect your ships to a point and time.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#122 - 2015-03-27 04:47:19 UTC
My question is how does all of this fit into sov 5.0? (I know nothing about supers, so I can't speak to them at all.)

I am a huge proponent of small numbers of caps as force multipliers. I think they offer a very cool variety of fights in wormholes, and they allow smaller fleets to fight larger ones.

The problem, as previously stated, is large numbers of caps at once. Therefore, to me it is not about balancing capitals, as the spot they are in is not untenable. The problem is creating this new sov system to discourage groups of 50 capitals flying around at once. How do we have a system where the best method of play is putting a couple triage carriers at 10 different nodes instead of piling them all into one node as 50 slowcats? I know I am biased but I think if you could encourage that type of playstyle with the mechanics a lot of these pilots who think capitals are useless would go away. I have a hard time feeling carriers and dreads are useless when I see how they are used.
Anthar Thebess
#123 - 2015-03-27 08:01:28 UTC
Capitals are good force multiplier in subcaps fights.
Dreads can blap battleships off the field ( currently unused because of the slowcats)
Triaged carriers can change battlefield within few minutes.
In both cases we are just talking about handful capitals deployed on field.

Issue is with massive use of carriers that are totally broken.

I will be telling this over and over again.
Simply because there is almost no possibility to kill a slowcat fleet in this game.
Not because this is not possible on paper - in theory this is quite simple - but because SERVERS ARE UNABLE TO COMPUTE scale of fight needed to do it.

This is totally broken, and just need to go.

Supers , i don't have bloody idea what to do with them.
Again when used alone they are perfect in their role , but when it comes to mass use of motherships we have the same issues that we see in slowcat fleet.

No one drops swarm of titans without any support as they are easy targets, but remote capital reps without need of triage , kill every thing.

Just one idea for sansha motherships, i always loved idea that sansha mothersip have bit longer range than other supers.
While changing other supers make leave it alone, but increase jump drive range to 7 ly.
This way we will see ratting capitals dropped by revenants from time to time, and some revenant kills also - as potential support ships will be out of range.
Terminator Cindy
Federation of Freedom Fighters
VINDICTIVE
#124 - 2015-03-27 09:08:45 UTC
What i find it illogical is for a 9km ship to be defenseless and powerless against a 200m boat, no matter the fit. This should change.

Capitals are super-sized ships. Make super-size modules for each type and let them fit those.

Or start with a basic structure and armor and let them fit a much bigger number of any modules. A dread is an attack-oriented ship 5 times bigger than a battleship - let it have 5 times more high slots and twice the slots for medium and low. A carrier should be more logistic-oriented, so let it have twice the high slots and 5 times the low/medium slots.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2015-03-27 09:14:08 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
The problem with carriers as they are is they are very overpowered...

Seriously? Carriers are OP? You were told this throughout the whole Halloween war and it's only now that you are able to grasp it. Damn, that's fast.

Manfred Sideous wrote:
...they are very overpowered being able to fill multiple roles simultaneously.

This premise is wrong.
During the same Halloween war, I witnessed so called "wrecking ball" formation. First, you deploy Archons in "defense" mode, hold the grid and **** in local. If some threat appears (like dreads), you 1) jump in motherships which are in "logistics" mode; 2) switch Archons to "attack" mode; 3) wreak havoc; 4) **** in local.
That setup, in spite of using modes, could only be defeated if we dogpile more supers and titans. It was demonstrated in B-R5.

Thus, the idea of modes is irrelevant.
Furthermore, modes are the gimmick for T3 ships. For ordinary ships, modes are realized via fitting. You feel like carriers take too many roles at the same time? Cut fitting slots, problem solved.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#126 - 2015-03-27 12:00:33 UTC
The whole modes idea is quite interesting. I'm not sure if there should be so many ships able to swap between operating modes, but for capitals it might prove worth it. After all, "modes" means the ship will be able to be good at one thing at a time, forcing players to plan more. I see it particularly useful for carriers and supercarriers, and maybe titans too. Not so sure about dreadnoughts (they have siege mode after all).

I also think there could be more capital variety. Perhaps more T2 versions, or completely new ships for new roles. What about a capital construction ship, especialized on deploying structures of any size? Given those are going to be quite revamped too, it could be nice to have it. Think about it as a deployment/deconstruction-focused industrial capital ship.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#127 - 2015-03-27 14:11:45 UTC
Modes are not going to fix the problems with Carriers, if you can easily transition between them. You need to seriously nerf the Carriers' remote repair ability when they are out of Triage. Put more of the bonus onto the Triage modules and less on the base hull.

For Supercarriers, the electronic warfare immunity was a stupid idea and needs to go. That is the biggest thing.

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

Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2015-03-27 14:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Quintessen
Super-capitals along with the Roqual should get station service slots. A limited number and restricted by type, but they should totally get station service slots.

I think a Roqual with refining capabilities and production capabilities would definitely give it some love.

Titans and Roquals already have some services like clone vats. This would just be an expansion on this idea. So instead of the normal high-slot item that the Roqual gets, instead it and the other super-caps would get a high-slot item that makes the thing stationary, gives it a reinforce/entosis link mechanic makes the station services available.

They effectively become mobile cities. Give them bonuses to certain station services like structures have. But this idea really excites me and I think it could give the supers some love, especially the Roqual.

Edit: Oh, addendum, pilots in supers shouldn't show up in locator agents when station services are turned on.
Jori Ituin
Antex Solutions
#129 - 2015-03-27 19:47:12 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
Super-capitals along with the Roqual should get station service slots. A limited number and restricted by type, but they should totally get station service slots.

I think a Roqual with refining capabilities and production capabilities would definitely give it some love.

Titans and Roquals already have some services like clone vats. This would just be an expansion on this idea. So instead of the normal high-slot item that the Roqual gets, instead it and the other super-caps would get a high-slot item that makes the thing stationary, gives it a reinforce/entosis link mechanic makes the station services available.

They effectively become mobile cities. Give them bonuses to certain station services like structures have. But this idea really excites me and I think it could give the supers some love, especially the Roqual.

Edit: Oh, addendum, pilots in supers shouldn't show up in locator agents when station services are turned on.


Ever since I started reading the Lost Fleet series of books by Jack Campbell, I've thought that the Rorqual should have a limited capability to manufacture ammunition, cap boosters and drones...
Jori Ituin
Antex Solutions
#130 - 2015-03-27 19:54:07 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.
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.

Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.
Jori Ituin
Antex Solutions
#131 - 2015-03-27 20:07:54 UTC
One change I'd like to see made to supercarriers, which has no bearing on their role or combat effectiveness is local drones orbiting/ flying about the ship. These would be a graphical change only and could be client based, so that they have no effect on the server, there should probably be an option to turn them on or off as I'd assume that you'd probably want them turned off in a large fleet fight.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#132 - 2015-03-27 20:17:09 UTC
What if we changed logistics fundamentally?

Half the logi get capacitor transmitters. This can help with local reps as well as support a rep chain. Changes which push ships more to this might actually count in favor of offensive blobbing because it's the quickest way to burn down a target.

If shield logi had instead the function of increasing the resists on a target rather than giving reps, this could coincide with increasing the effect of local reps. So would any module that would decrease the sig of a target. None of these changes does much about blobbing, especially cap blobbing.

Perhaps if shield transporters exchanged shield for shield, instead of cap for shield, damage done to one target is simply shared through the fleet. This would oblige a fleet to have some local reps acting as donors. Rather than have logi just give each other cap, they rely on the rest of the fleet giving them shield and armor, thus decreasing the range of rep fleets and increasing their susceptibility to bombs. Perhaps it would be simpler and accomplish the same thing by simply removing the range bonus on remote capacitor transmitters. Falloff could be added to mitigate this somewhat.

Definitely we need some penalties for CCC and other engineering rigs. Perhaps we need some dedicated logistics rigs that carry worthwhile penalties. All the rigs need stacking penalties, and those that currently don't need to be brought in line with those that do.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2015-03-27 20:23:09 UTC
Jori Ituin wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.
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.

Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.


Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters.

Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless.

And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes.
Jori Ituin
Antex Solutions
#134 - 2015-03-27 21:06:21 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Jori Ituin wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.
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.

Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.


Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters.

Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless.

And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes.


Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue.
Rinai Vero
Moira.
Villore Accords
#135 - 2015-03-27 22:34:58 UTC
I've never flown a capital ship. Most of my EVE time has been spent in Low Sec engaged in FW. When Phoebe changes were implemented caps became more viable in the Low Sec world, so I started training them.

Honestly, I think it is probably for the best that Caps start to be used less in 0.0 Sov fighting, but that's an opinion from someone who's had nothing to do with 0.0 sov so far.

My advice is to wait to see what kind of fights are developing once Entosis Sov goes into effect. I'm seeing lots of discussion in this thread based on how unbalanced the *current* Cap meta is and how *current* battles are being negatively impacted. Throw all that thinking away, because Entosis Sov *will* render it moot.

I speculate that Caps will have plenty of utility if people think about using them dynamically to support the kinds of engagements Entosis Sov will be generating. Having battles spread out over entire constellations in and of itself will be huge. Many of the complaints about Caps / Supercaps that are referenced here depend on exactly the kind of massive concentrated battles that Entosis Sov will be making *much* more rare.

Imagine instead of only logging in cap / supercap fleets for that one massive escalation, that cap fleets are instead deployed as needed to support an entire constellation or region wide offensive consisting of numerous subcap fleets out completing sov objectives. You might only need to deploy a single carrier at a clutch moment in one fight, while still keeping your dreds on standby incase an entirely different fleet gets hotdropped by the enemy. Maybe that hotdrop happens at the same time that the first carrier gets counterdropped. Did you keep enough caps on standby to support both engagements?

These are the kinds of things that will be happening, and they have the potential to be awesome even with the cap meta as it is.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#136 - 2015-03-27 22:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Jori Ituin wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Jori Ituin wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.
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.

Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.


Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters.

Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless.

And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes.


Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue.

That was mostly to keep supers in line with the changes for carriers, yes. In a later post I suggested the bonus for deploying additional drones could be modified to only apply to fighters (and fighter bombers), and so only 5 regular drones could be deployed from capitals. This would remove the need for supers to be unable to launch regular drones, so they could actually carry a bunch of lights if they wanted a little point defence, being limited to 5 at a time. Needless to say, this would go along with other nerfs to supercarriers such as removing ewar immunity etc. Also, if their power is being reduced, their price should be reduced accordingly.

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#137 - 2015-03-28 00:38:12 UTC
Jori Ituin wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Jori Ituin wrote:
Galphii wrote:
Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix.
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.

Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.


Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters.

Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless.

And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes.


Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue.


Just make it so that Carriers cannot carry subcapital drones. Problem solved.

Compensate with a bonus to smartbomb cycle time or damage (for racial damage type only).

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

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2015-03-28 00:42:20 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Just make it so that Carriers cannot carry subcapital drones. Problem solved.

Compensate with a bonus to smartbomb cycle time or damage (for racial damage type only).

Ah, the ever popular "Burn it to the ground and let nobody sort it out" option.

Thankfully, I'm 100% sure CCP won't listen to them.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2015-03-28 00:43:57 UTC
Half of you people don't have any idea of how terrible fighters are. They die in an instant to any fleet and they are barely usable against subcaps.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#140 - 2015-03-28 01:57:43 UTC
Just make sentry drones BS ONLY. It will solve so many issues. Taking them away from carriers would put carries in a good spot. There is no actual use for sentry drones on carriers. There are several abuses (such as deliberate premeditated player induced soul crushing lag - the kind where you are dead 20 minutes before you load grid) that removing sentries from carrier drone bays would elliminate.

This would also bring the ishtar back in line with the other HACs. It's current role as a risk averse PAC (*USSY ASSAULT CRUISER) would go away. No more drop and run for the ladies!

Shocked