EVE Information Portal

Whilst we are discussing capital changes. Another comment i'd like to suggest and this will either go down well or in flames:

Will CCP ever consider letting subcaps (including their pilots) dock in the carrier to allow them to be jumped to a location and then undock from the carrier?

This could be a good mechanic that may be used for various activities in game.

Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.

First Post
To elaborate my point against the change to combat refitting:

The entire point of those changes is, to get more fights as I got it. That is why you want to make capitals more useful (thus more used) and eliminate the n+1 problem.

Now we all don't want to lose our ships, so we try to predict the outcome of battles and try to foresee if we will win or lose. And we won't engage if we forsee that we will certainly lose - I mean we are not that stupid. So if the outcome of a fight is predictable and both of the parties know the game very well and are intelligent, the party which will lose, can predict that and will avoid the fight.

So if you ignore ganks ("fights that happend because one party was bad at the game") you can only get people to fight, if the outcome is not predictable from the outset. Because then both partys can think they got chances.

And factors that are determined IN the fight are less predictable than factors that are already determined beforehand.
Now in case of fixed fitting, you have a fixed factor making the outcome more predictable resulting in less fights. But if the outcome depends on your performance IN the fight - your refitting in the fight, the fight becomes less predictable. Which is good as I we proved before.
This is the same reason, why I like the idea of trickshot doomsdays because the outcome is determined in the fight and not before, making people more likely to try their luck.

On a sidenote:
Keep in mind, that you can never eliminate the n+1 problem completely. By introducing a upper limit to your defensive capabilites (triage) you

don't eliminate the advantage of having one more damage dealer to kill the enemy faster

don't eleminate the advantage of having backup when your meatshield dies

If there is "the best" doctrine, then the group with more people will always perform better with that doctrine than all the other groups. So the only thing that can ease the n+1 problem, is making the doctrines and the interactions between ships more complex, that it become harder to know "the best" doctrine.
Basically you need to give people an advantage if they know the mechanics better, but also make sure that they will never understand the mechanics fully or else at some point the word of "the best" tactic will spread to everyone and even the "blobber" will use them.
As an example: Rooks and Kings found out that logistics are powerful and dominated larger groups using them but at some point other people learned that aswell.
So you always need that new tactic that is even better - and given that people are crafty, they will eventually hit the roof and find "the best" tactic in the given meta.

You can only really eliminate that by constantly shifting stats and attributes and trying to obscure what you do, so that people will never perfect their playstyle, because when they find out something that works really good, the meta already changed.
So maybe create a plan constantly changing stats before people reach that point of knowledge and tell you which ships are op and should be nerfed. The game doesn't have to be balanced - it just shouldn't be possible to know which of the ships are the good ones.

As it should be?

How will this RTS interface for fighter control interact with fleets? If you can't engage on a locked target or aren't locking targets to engage them, will you be able to direct them to attack a broadcasted target? If you are able to engage on a broadcasted target, will it be possible via interaction with the broadcast status line and broadcast log, or will you have to find it on overview or (worse) direct the fighters at the target's bracket in space?

Will there be assist or guard mechanics for the new fighters? Drone mechanics have long been preferred by multiboxers for their ability to allow some limited scaling. Fighters almost gained this with the skynet nerf but then lost it before the skynet nerf left sisi -- if fighters don't gain something comparable to assist for this iteration in place of the lost drone assist mechanic, multiboxers will be largely shut out of capitals and you can expect hundreds if not thousands of subscription losses to result.

Fighters are too expensive to carry hundreds of or send waves of on a 100km death march to the target currently. You can fit a 20 man frigate gang out for the cost of a single wave of fighters at current costs and the frigate gang will shred the wave of fighters inside of a minute with no losses. Will fighter and fighter bomber cost be adjusted to reflect the reality that they're pretty much kamikaze against even modest opposition? If not, carriers and supercarriers will not have a viable damage dealing mechanic as launching fighters for 300M per wave is an invitation to be trolled and nothing more.

Will fighter volume or the fighter bay volume be adjusted to accommodate extended engagements where AOE DPS or free fire on fighters can under current mechanics rapidly render carriers and particularly supers pretty much helpless when they're reliant on fighters for damage?

A major concern for many players who use capitals in PVE is that fighters don't currently auto-aggress NPCs. Will fighters auto-aggress NPCs after this iteration which removes the ability to use regular drones which do auto-aggress NPCs?

edit: also embedding fighter staging / launching in the inventory screen as shown in the preview is pretty much ebola, have you considered not doing that? That whole UI mock-up is horribly space inefficient, it'd be hard to believe something worse than the existing drone bay interface could exist without being shown that mock-up. Fully a third of the interface area is inherited from the inventory interface and has absolutely nothing to do with fighter functionality. Then you get to the fighter-relevant parts of the interface, where more than half the display area is empty space. 4k monitors are not very common yet, you can't waste that kind of screen real estate in 2015 TYOOL

To be honest, I like it pretty much.

This, the new structures... Nice stuff is coming to EVE it seems.

But I still hate the Fatigue stuff and the new SOV. And I want more trailers. What do I pay ya for? Work for it Lazyboys

Titans are supposed to be an alliance or corp wide effort to achieve. Rally your corp together and get them working for one. I don't like to say #nopoors but LITTERALLY nopoors. Go out and earn it like every other corp has done in Eve history

Great buff for dreadnoughts and titans.

Carriers will now become 'meh', and supercarriers will become even more 'meh'.

If CCP thinks we have the time to micro-manage fighters like that... then they better get a hefty EHP buff. Otherwise carriers/suppercarriers are going to be volleyed off the field so quickly...

We really need some skill information for those new capital modules. Do we need to start training those level 5's to use t2? We getting deadspace equivalent modules?

Definitely excited to see Dreadnoughts retaining a good role and to see Carriers becoming less jack-of-all-trades, master-of-all-trades. I look forward to trying out the new dedicated Force Auxiliary ships.

So, with capital neuts, will we see dreadnaughts with utility highs or is it going to be a similar scenario in terms of "pre-assigned" fittings for the highs?

any idea if the naglfar will experience any issues in terms of fitting balance with the reduced turret need?

Will the meta versions of modules follow similar suit to subcap meta (post module balancing)?