These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

First post First post
Author
Deckel
Black Thorne Corporation
#441 - 2015-10-27 17:39:40 UTC
When I started reading the article I was just contemplating the suggestion of a area ewar effect that could be projected from capitals and then I was pleasantly surprised to see such a thing being proposed.

I would ideally imagine this to work by allowing a Capital to equip, or be built with only a single debilitating effect that they can turn on that will affect all ships that are within range, but ships that are closer to the capital with receive harsher penalty effects for the duration of the debuff, or perhaps the debuff with last longer or have a higher chance of affecting them.

I wonder What kind of area limit they are thinking of applying to this ewar pulse?
If they make it an incremental effect with distance I imagine up to 100km could be workable but it will probably be a fair bit less.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#442 - 2015-10-27 17:42:15 UTC

Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made.


No, that has never been the argument. The usual argument is that the skill is still useful, even if it is not useful in the way you prefer.


"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#443 - 2015-10-27 17:44:46 UTC

  1. Will fighter squadrons take damage one-fighter-at-a-time or will damage be distributed randomly to individual fighters within the squadron?

  2. Example
    If a fighter squadron gets bombed/smartbombed, will half the fighters explode and leave the other half undamaged or will all the fighters in the squadron go down to half health?

  3. Can damaged fighters regen lost hitpoints via shield regen as they do now? Will there be "abilities" for them to actively rep themselves?

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#444 - 2015-10-27 18:13:32 UTC
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#445 - 2015-10-27 18:32:30 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps



1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#446 - 2015-10-27 20:15:05 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps



1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range.


that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500.
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#447 - 2015-10-27 20:31:11 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps



1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range.


that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500.



the xl guns now aren't the greatest for range and they implies the ones for sub caps would be even shorter.
Dun Bar
Inner Shadow
Hull Penetration
#448 - 2015-10-27 20:34:19 UTC
Just a thought, is the rorqual being looked at as well or no?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#449 - 2015-10-27 20:41:08 UTC
Actually I'm not sure that combat refitting even needs to be prohibited on the rebalanced capitals. The reduction in base hp and the requirement to use plates and extenders to get good ehp (which can't be fitted for instant hp) makes it less powerful than the current state where you can fill a rack with hardeners, no?
Maraner
The Executioners
#450 - 2015-10-27 20:42:39 UTC
Excited by a great deal of this.

Worried however about the nerf to refitting on the fly. Especially to sub caps. The dev blog stated that the weapons timer would stop all refitting until the timer has gone, I believe that this has been confirmed for sub caps as well which I strongly disagree with.

Could CCP please confirm / deny that refitting sub caps from capitals is gong to be stopped?

Otherwise it all looks great.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#451 - 2015-10-27 20:57:04 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps



1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range.


that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500.


Most aren't saying useless, what people are rightly asking is: Is the step up enough to justify the cost and the massive limitations of it?

The tank will be less impressive seeing as refitting is dead, or the dps won't be up to snuff. They're not as good as you're making out.
Luscius Uta
#452 - 2015-10-27 22:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Luscius Uta
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:


Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness.


When has this ever happened?

I can recall plenty of times when a handful of drama queens made wildly hyperbolic claims that some skill had been nerfed into uselessness, but I don't really recall it ever happening.


I found Advanced Large Ship Construction to be a prime example of CCP trolling us with skill changes. Even if you're a dedicated industrialist, spending a month or so just to reduce build time of Blopses and Marauders by 1% is utterly silly. Also, don't forget that for some time Exhumers skill gave pathetic 1% reduction to strip miner and ice harvester duration. Generally, if a skill isn't worth training to L5, then I consider it to be poorly designed.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#453 - 2015-10-27 22:43:12 UTC
I have a radical idea.

How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use?

You know, so that people keep playing the game, and subscribe to it?

Just an idea.
Pestilen Ratte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2015-10-27 22:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Pestilen Ratte
..
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#455 - 2015-10-27 23:07:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
CCP Phantom wrote:
With the Expansion EVE Online: Citadel this spring, we will see also a full revamp of Capital ships and warfare including Supercapitals!

The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective will have diminishing returns. Instead, the individual game play will become more interactive and meaningful.


OK, I'm not trying to defecate on your parade here-- the reimagined scheme for fighter combat looks like it has the potential to be really cool, I like the refitting change, I love the notion of making all flavors of cap be useful from a personal logistics standpoint, and I like the idea of the HP / module rework for caps.

That said, I absolutely do not understand how you're going to balance these ships. The new fighter scheme, the new anti-subcap weapons for dreads, and the new AOE damage / ewar tools for supercaps strongly suggest that you want to make capitals strong combatants VS subcaps. This makes sense in light of your decision to implement damage mitigation on strategic objectives-- a change that largely destroys the usefulness of capitals as siege weapons (why bring clumsy, expensive ships to do a job that can be done just as effectively by simply bringing along a few more doctrine-fit subcaps?).

If your new role for capitals is as bruisers that can repel large numbers of opposing subcaps though, how is this not going to lead to the same, stale N+1 gameplay that people have been complaining about for years with existing caps and supers? I understand that you're going to nerf the spider-tank, and that the idea is that a team's ability to tank will be limited by the ability of their auxiliaries. But how is that actually going to make a difference? If caps remain strong against subcaps as well as structures, the answer is still always to bring more caps. The only difference between the proposed paradigm and the "wrecking ball" type apex-force paradigm that people have been complaining about for years is that the resulting fights will presumably be a lot bloodier as a result of logistics not being able to keep pace with damage. That will do little to affect the strategic outcome though: the side that can field more caps will still win; the bill will just be larger.
Circumstantial Evidence
#456 - 2015-10-27 23:20:18 UTC
Pestilen Ratte wrote:
How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use?....
CCP tries to do both things in parallel. This thread is about a capital ship overhaul, but before this hits, we will see 13 new ships in a Winter update. That's a lot, IMO :) Tech Two Logistics Frigates, Navy Disruption Frigates, new Tech II Destroyers, and an ice mining frigate. These are going to provide new options for light-and-fast gameplay. And, all subcaps will be helpful in battle against redesigned super-capitals, since they are losing immunity to ewar.
Commander Liger
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#457 - 2015-10-27 23:36:42 UTC
Would it be possible to give the Rorqual a Capital mining laser that acts like the "Sickle" Doomsday? Also, give it the ability to do potential damage to ships in LoS? I am not saying DD LoS damage, but a fair amount to use it as a deterrent.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#458 - 2015-10-28 00:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Baki Yuku wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Rowells wrote:
E1ev1n wrote:
My suggestion is to increase the High Angle battery DPS over the 3k DPS mark, battleships are a heck of a lot cheaper and can do OVER 2k dps already so for a Dread to be stuck under that mark is very shameful.

lol, your glass cannon vindi can do 2050dps at what range? With which drones?

No, you are grossly overstating your typical battleship. Not to mention the range of the HAWB is supposed to be similar to current short range XL (I wish I had the video handy to source).

I'm not against the idea of a bump in dps, but I don't like that kind of justification. If we really balanced damge based on isk, you would be flying battleships either. Not when tier3 BC and pretty much any other ship is laying around.



Rattlesnake, 1400 to 84km, well over 200k EHP.

Approx 1/6 the cost of a fitted dread.

Or the poor mans version, the fleet phoon can accomplish the same albeit at a much weaker tank. Change from 475m.

This is a particular factor in WH because of mass - it's not just cost.


Wormholes aside, your Rattle as only 1/10 of the EHP of dreads and does not have the option do refit to 6k+ dps when the situation requires it.

Those new weapon system are designed to give dreads a way to contibure to a fight where there are no (more) big targets to shoot at. Its makes your dead may more versatile.


They don't doh there is no value in bringing a knife to a gun fight and that is what the new dread guns are a knife a blunt knife. Why would you field a ship that costs 3b can not be repped won't be able to refit [If they go though with weapon timer for siege] can be jammed can be damped can be tracking disrupted. And in exchange for all these disadvantages you do a stragering 2k dps. You're better off putting your dread alt into an extra rattlesnake.

And we'll just ignore the impressive tank a seiged dread has? Or the fact that it has heavy resistance to ewar in siege where a BS does not? Larger capacitor that would require multiple BS or specialized fits/ships to bring down? If you're going to try and balance against the cost, I'll ask why you don't just spend that isk from the BS on a dozen T1 cruisers which do a better job.

Not to even mention the other things the dread could have, like capital neuts or cap boosters. Ship progession has never been linear with isk spent and bonus Received. The best part about a BS tracking dread doing 2k is, where previously you needed support or specialized fits to compete, all those extra slots can be effectively used some other way. Not that they won't help, but not nearly as necessary.

And if you're going to include the 'cannot be repped' why have none of the price comparisons included the support ships needed?

Notwithstanding the fact that it seems no has considered whether or not 2k is the base or the max.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#459 - 2015-10-28 00:40:28 UTC
Real humans are Eve's most precious resource. That means that nearly everyone talking about how a Dreadnought's HAW needs to be better because "we can just bring two or three Battleships instead," is just straight up full of nonsense. Most groups don't have two or three extra humans they can bring in Battleships instead of Dreadnoughts. And if they do, why not bring them in more Dreadnoughts? Or one Dreadnought and two or three support ships? And if you don't have more humans, than Dreadnoughts are among the easiest ships to multibox - I've been doing it for the past few years with sexy results.

Really what many of these people are concerned about is how they are going to find a way to make lots of ISK if they cannot run Carriers in anomalies or Dreadnoughts in their capital escalations. They are just afraid to come out and say that they are more concerned with PVE than PVP.

With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships?

With that said, since Dreadnoughts are among my current favorite ships to fly, I will not object if they get more DPS.

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

Maksmad
Perkone
Caldari State
#460 - 2015-10-28 06:05:52 UTC
Do we have more info on new skill for capital guns/modules?

If there will be capital T2 guns, it should be communicated because we will probably need capital guns @5 which not many people have. And those are lv 7 skills.

Also for citadels usage/production/management we should know in advance what new skills requirements will be.