These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#781 - 2016-01-10 10:05:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Otasja wrote:
Why not? There's already going to be a magical cap on how quickly you can destroy a citadel, so they may as well stick to their guns and add a magical limit of what negative things can be done in other area's.

That is advocating a slippery slope. The citadel change was put in to patch a major flaw in social interaction in EVE and it was done with a lot of reluctance. Citadels hold supplies and ships owned by many players, capital ships do not. A citadel is a place where lots of players can base their operations, where entire corporations or alliances can stage fleets. Capital ships are just big ships. Their hit points should be what prevents them from dying too quickly.

I'll vote in favor of changes that diminish the effect of multiple players attacking a capital together, but I cannot support anything that nullifies further players.

This is the land of slippery slopes. Remember the lasers of sov redemption. They showed us the way forward. 1 person.

Perhaps we need more slippery slopes that reduce a blob to just the effectiveness of it's first 6 people (5 if they have max skills).

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 ?

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#782 - 2016-01-11 04:07:03 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
This is the land of slippery slopes.

A lot of people say that but I've never seen a slippery slope in EVE, unless you want to suggest that Incarna was a slippery slope that led to ship skins. But if anything, most if not all of these "slippery slopes" are things that were in the works a long time ago, and some percentage of the playerbase was merely unaware of it before.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jane Hemah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#783 - 2016-01-16 19:04:19 UTC
will we be able to fit the new XL guns to the carriers and supercarriers? Because, if i understood correctly, the way you want the carriers to handle the squadron mechanic. With the maximum of 5 squadrons of 6 or 8 fighters for carriers and i think 5 squadron of 12 fighters for supercarriers. The drone control units will be useless. And then the high slots will have very few modules that will make sense.

That way i think carriers and supercarriers would have a better chance of survival and it would make them more useful for fleet engagement.
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#784 - 2016-01-18 11:37:37 UTC
Happy to see CCP eat up all my ideas from figther blogs and capital reworks. Cool
Loki Feiht
Pathfinders.
#785 - 2016-01-19 00:44:45 UTC
CCP

Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?

More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#786 - 2016-01-19 04:46:17 UTC
Loki Feiht wrote:
CCP

Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?

They don't only nerf it, but sometimes it needs to be put in check. A lot of this is unexplored territory as so many other game companies have been extremely averse to allowing emergent gameplay, so nobody knows what the playerbase will come up with. It is not surprising then, that the players sometimes find it all too easy to thwart the original intended rules. CCP wants it to be possible--but not easy.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#787 - 2016-01-19 04:51:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Derp
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#788 - 2016-01-19 20:51:37 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Loki Feiht wrote:
CCP

Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?

They don't only nerf it, but sometimes it needs to be put in check. A lot of this is unexplored territory as so many other game companies have been extremely averse to allowing emergent gameplay, so nobody knows what the playerbase will come up with. It is not surprising then, that the players sometimes find it all too easy to thwart the original intended rules. CCP wants it to be possible--but not easy.

Isn't it a shame that all groups suffer the same consequences when only some groups "thwart" intended mechanics.

Emergent game play will never really be possible due to the risk averse nature of a lot of the PVP in Eve.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Ascensions
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#789 - 2016-01-20 14:33:50 UTC
Any updates regarding the rorqual yet? its been 3 months since it was last commented on by staff
Jehle
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#790 - 2016-01-22 03:40:58 UTC
Most the changes look fun and engaging. I also think it's great that we keep moving away from the days when my carrier sat just barely outside of POS shields and assigned my fighters to some one.

I always felt like the trade off of triage and siege modules was a well balanced one. Unable to be EWAR'd but not be able to receive remote reps was a simple mechanic that has evolved into fun gameplay for a triage pilot. So... it seems a little unfair to remove our bonus, yet keep our disadvantage. Also, it seems like we wont be able to check to see if ships are in triage any more - so make sure there is a cool animation like siege mode has! It was mentioned that triage might get a high bonus to the new statistics - if its powerful enough this wont be a problem for me at all.

Removing out of triage reps from capitals:
I don't understand this at all. It isn't in line with the other classes of ships and just doesn't make sense. It also absolutely does not solve the N+1 problem. It will just mean capital ships will have no capable logi - so N+1 with dreadnoughts instead. In large enough battles the triage will die. Why create a mechanic that causes capital fleets be unable to tank each other? Will triaged capitals be able to receive reps in this update?

Removing in combat refitting:
This is also an awesome feature unique to capital gameplay that I would be sad to lose, because its fun. Why is there this arbitrary rule that a fleet must be unable to adapt on the fly? Not only can a triage carrier not tank an enemy capital fleet on its own - but now it cant even refit for tank to increase its survivability.


If I go out in a 30 man guardian and battleship fleet and meet another 30 man guardian and battleship fleet, I go out with the confidence that my logi will likely have the ability to save me - or we'll be able to decide to disengage without losses.

If I go out in a 30 man capital fleet under these new rules, and meet another 30 man capital fleet the winner will just be the fleet that pops the others faster - starting with the triage. So bring dreadnoughts.
Custos Stratos
Gotham City.
#791 - 2016-01-24 15:18:40 UTC
Any updates on that at all?

Skill requirements for the new modules?
What new modules will we actually get now? With stats.
New E-War on Carrier/Supercarrier?
Details on the new Capital Logistics?
Restriction of Capital Remote Repp to the new Capital Logistics?
Stats of Capitals after the change? Hitpoints and stuff.....
Skill changes to Fighters/Fighter Bomber?

It's 3 months now and there were basically no updates at all except "in Spring".
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#792 - 2016-01-28 09:31:21 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwkjpzMZVw

So this Video shows the 4 new FAX designs on Duality. That is if it is real and no fake, but I gues its not.

My personal opinion : The Galante one looks nice. The caldari one looks a little like a short Wyvren. These two look like they could actually come from designers of their individual race.

But the Amarr one looks horrible. I cant even tell where the "front" of it is. It looks mutch more like a space station than a ship. With the tendency of ships to twist up to 90┬░ when making a turn, I cant immagine to actually move this beast without crushing my forhead into the table every single time.

Also : Please notice that the FAX have massive hangar bays. Since FAX were announced as capitals that focus on healing, what are those massive bays for? Is it possible that we will see logistics fighters for FAX ?

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#793 - 2016-01-28 09:58:35 UTC
The Amarrian one ought to look like a 1200m wide Navy Slicer imho; the twin tips could probably be a little rounder (less menacing) but what I just saw looks like a Caldari cubicle with a cheap paint job. Where's the intricate curly golden bits? Where's the trademark roundness?

And CCP MSPaint ... Solar Sails? Loose wires, antennas, broken pipes covering the rear? Rotating passageways and metal scraps sticking out at odd angles? Do those ring a bell?

As for Caldari ... think Horizontal. Caldari engineers have notorious fear of heights - don't put them through this LOL

Jokes aside, glad to see this is happening. Big smile


Any word on EWAR capabilities for the regular (not super~) Carriers?
G Kvan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#794 - 2016-01-28 10:08:51 UTC
CCP Do you plane to rewrite fatigue mechanic after capital and super remote rep nerf ?
can we hope to restore old jump drive mechanic for massive capital fights?
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#795 - 2016-02-03 13:38:28 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Currently, players choosing 'My First Capital' almost always chose a Carrier. They provide more utility than a Dreadnought through the use of fleet hangars, ship hangars, damage, and repair abilities... All capitals will now get Ship Hangers,...

When I first read this I was nodding in agreement, but as I thought about it, I became increasingly concerned that you (CCP) haven't fully grasped the significance of the Ship Hanger on the carrier.

The statement "...players choosing 'My First Capital'..." completely misses the point. Players don't sit down and compare a Dreadnought to a Carrier and then choose. The vast majority of players who buy a Carrier do so because they want the ability to move fitted ships through low or null sec. The ship hanger is everything. Being able to repair or carry fighters is the utility that the majority of players never use. I brought my carrier, an Archon, over two years ago. I fitted it for Triage because that was the professional thing to do. I've jumped it dozens of times, but I've never once dropped it into a combat situation. I've never even added Stront to the fuel bay. Yes, one day, I hope I will have the opportunity and the balls to drop it in combat, but that was never why I brought it. There are a dozen people in my small corp that own a Carrier, have owned one for years, but never dropped it in combat. I'd be surprised if more than 1 in 10 carrier owners use them in combat.

Thus as you have misidentified the problem, adding a Ship hanger to a Dreadnought is not the solution. Most people won't buy Dreadnoughts instead of Carriers or Force Auxilaries because of this additional utility. Instead people who want a suitcase capital will choose one based on the price (assuming the Ship hanger size is consistant). If Carriers remain at currently half the price of Dreadnoughts, Carriers will remain the first choice. If anything this 'buff' to Dreadnoughts will only push their price upwards, whereas the price of Carriers once their repair utility is removed, is likely to fall slightly.

On the otherhand, adding a Ship Hanger to a Jump Freighter would be a far bigger QOL improvement. Almost everyone who owns a JF, owns a suitcase Carrier too. It would make logistics so much easy and just makes sense. For those arguing that this would partially circumnavigate Jump Fatigue and bring about a return to the bad old days of force projection. I would point out that the real problem of force projection was that the likes of PL could escalate any fight at will and no smaller entity could afford to engage even a frigate of PLs, certainly not a hauler. However, JFs would not be dropped into a PvP battle. They would have to be loaded up first, jumped to a station or POS, unloaded, cargos redistributed and then deployed to the battle site. An organised redeployment designed to provide content. Not a hot drop on a whim by bored, rich players just for Lols, with no thought about how they are damaging the game.

I'm not against adding ship hangers to Dreadnoughts, but in my experience with CCP, a buff is usually offset by some sort of nerf. So please give something to Dreads that is important to them, before hitting them with the nerf bat.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#796 - 2016-02-03 16:29:39 UTC
I can see you've thought this through ... but I don't entirely agree. I am currently training towards my First Capital, and moving ships (aka a Fleet Hangar) is indeed a major concern. I always *wanted* a dread, but unfortunately, I needed a Carrier for its utility as well. Forcing me to train those pesky drone skills I never intend to use.

So glad I'll finally have the choice between putting my remote rep skills to use (FAX) or maybe get a Subcap blappin' Dread (high angle guns) without having to train drones, without grudgingly having to get an additional carrier just because I kinda need a suitcase. Standing on this crossroad, a fleet hangar is definitely something that factors in to the equation. Back when a Carrier was the only cap with a fleet hangar, there wasn't any real choice at all. Now I can train for those things that really interest me.


That said, on to the issues I'm facing with these changes:


I actually did sit down and compare dreads to carriers. And dreadnoughts do sound like my cup of tea, at first glance. Unfortunately, I'm still not getting a real picture on those high angle guns ... they seem quite underwhelming to be honest -- am I missing something? Dropping a dread almost certainly provokes a nasty response, and I have this gut feeling those brand new high angle guns don't compare well to regular battleships. Combined with no range dictation and a severely gimped lockspeed (siege lockspeed bad. triage target locking good. Why??), it seems to me a Carrier would severely outperform an anti-subcap dread.

While I do feel CCP is on to something here, a Dread at double the price of a Carrier still falls short in comparison; a Fax machine won't be able to defend itself; for EWAR I'd have to look at SUPERcaps, so sadly that's a no-go; and I can't figure out why anyone would ever get a Rorq. Soooo ..... after reading pretty much every post concerning caps I'm still none the wiser.

The way I see it - and I could be a million miles off the mark here - a First Capital ought to be a "light general purpose" kind of ship; something not overly specialised in any role bridging the gap between battleships and caps. The capital ship redesigns don't seem to allow for any options or creativity -- eg: can't fit a spidertank rep on a dread, can't fit any kind of damage on a fax? I can understand some ships are bonussed whereas others are not; but is it really necessary to take away the hardpoints and flat-out prevent fitting certain modules? It does not help deciding on My First Capital in the slightest.

Speaking of which ... is it absolutely necessary to enforce training Advanced Spaceship Command, Capital Ships, Jump Drive Operation etc. to stupidly high levels (IV's, mostly V's) before even being allowed to undock one? I would think a progression in the Capital Ships is recommended if you want to get any kind of bonus out of your hull; but shouldn't I have the choice to take some baby-steps with poor Jump Drive Calibration / Fuel Conservation / hull bonusses then same way you don't insist on training Recons or Logistics to V before even sitting in those cruisers? Besides, when all V's is a prerequisite, "+5% per skill level" is absurd. Can't fly it at level IV, so everyone has +25% by definition am I right?


The general intent to create meaningful choices for that First Cap is there... but from where I stand, you're forced into the same skilltree, forced to make a "choice" without even knowing what you're choosing for (how will she fly? which targets could she conceivably engage?), and forced into certain fits with very few variations or personal flavour. Having one role taken from the carrier and placed into a new ship class, removing all drones below fighter from it, and adding fleet hangars all around sure removed the obvious "starter model" ; but to me, all it did is make me even more wary to go for either of them. Since the most obvious tangible benefit was the fleet hangar, I'm considering simply getting a jump freighter at this point!

Carriers lost a lot of utility, Dreads merely gained "high angle guns" (but are those any good? Look like rubbish by my reckoning) and Fax, well, at least I know what they're supposed to do. Would have been interested in the "occasional logi" but I don't want a ship that can't do anything else, can't receive reps (unlike a Guardian) and will undoubtedly be primary. See the problem here? As a capital newbro, the relatively low cost and versatility made the leap worthwhile. As far as I can tell however, a Dread is still the tower bashing machine of old, a Fax is a nerfed triage carrier and these revamped Carriers .... don't even know what to make of those anymore. They sound like cheap stopgap DPS dealers.

These rigid classes and restrictions are not merely a problem for wanna-be cap pilots either: it also ensures that, whenever a capital lands on grid, you can make a very educated guess as to what it'll be able to do. This unlike, say, battleships which might neut, spidertank, wield a variery of turrets/missiles/drones (some below their size, RHML or dual 800mm ACs anyone?) ; allowing for some very nasty surprises.


As for fleet hangars on JF ... Tech II Bowhead, perhaps?


This, a testimony from one who'd like to like these redesigned new ships but alas ... I cannot help but feel both reluctant and intrigued at the same time. We're losing the default starter's kit -- now what? Where does that leave me?
Jane Hemah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#797 - 2016-02-04 06:32:51 UTC
It seems like a few cap pilots have mentioned the gap between battleship and capital ships. I think that letting the carriers use the high angle guns would give the carriers some more PVP option. If the carriers get a bonus to the damage or range for said guns it would give the carriers better survivability and a reason to use them in the big fights CCP is so found of. The bonus would make it worth it to fit them but not to powerful that it would make the high angle guns worthless on the dreads.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#798 - 2016-02-04 11:13:52 UTC
Jane Hemah wrote:
It seems like a few cap pilots have mentioned the gap between battleship and capital ships. I think that letting the carriers use the high angle guns would give the carriers some more PVP option. If the carriers get a bonus to the damage or range for said guns it would give the carriers better survivability and a reason to use them in the big fights CCP is so found of. The bonus would make it worth it to fit them but not to powerful that it would make the high angle guns worthless on the dreads.

Capital sized Domis??

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Jus'not N'miFace
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
WE FORM BL0B
#799 - 2016-02-06 07:57:24 UTC
i cannot belive you are making us train another capital ship skill for triage carrier.. what a freaking joke!!! on top of that we have to train even more fighter skills.. you guys are so ridiculous and it pisses me off. triage carriers were fine you should just roll force aux skill to triage module and if they don't have it then it's a normal carrier like you want.. and to add even more freaking skills is just disgusting!!!
Bobinu
Unsober
Last Picks
#800 - 2016-02-08 09:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bobinu
Whaaat...

New skills for fighters and ships regarding the new carriers.....where can I find this information to prove this?