These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Focus Group] Capital Ships

First post First post First post
Author
Scott Ormands
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#121 - 2016-01-28 18:10:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Any chance one of you guys can nudge CCP to do a consolidated log as well as the daily posts? Makes it much easier to search for references when you can't remember what day they were made.

Thanks Smile


There was just a change made to the way logging was done but I dont remember the details.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#122 - 2016-01-28 22:59:43 UTC
Scott Ormands wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Any chance one of you guys can nudge CCP to do a consolidated log as well as the daily posts? Makes it much easier to search for references when you can't remember what day they were made.

Thanks Smile


There was just a change made to the way logging was done but I dont remember the details.

You still talking about the few 3 month old logs or is there actually more, that haven't been made openly public?

It just seems the focus group got together, threw around a few vague ideas, tickled a few egos and disappeared.


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.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#123 - 2016-01-29 10:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
@Sgt Ocker They're all public, you must've missed it. Link: https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/


@Scott, yes the site was tided a bit CCP, posting blue dev responses which was nice. I was just asking if a giant master file can be appended to each day at log rollover so there is one master file to crtl+F through Smile
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#124 - 2016-01-29 12:58:45 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
@Sgt Ocker They're all public, you must've missed it. Link: https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/


@Scott, yes the site was tided a bit CCP, posting blue dev responses which was nice. I was just asking if a giant master file can be appended to each day at log rollover so there is one master file to crtl+F through Smile

I didn't realize it was still a thing, thanks - I'd given up looking (about 2 weeks ago).

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.

DiplomatNano
Unbeknowns2U
#125 - 2016-02-12 23:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: DiplomatNano
Make refiting in combat made easy.... you must run a module which allows others to refit, you can't be repaired by other why running it and you can't move. Also you can't refit yourself by running the module... Do you still want to commit to pvp ?
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#126 - 2016-02-25 22:39:29 UTC
Ability 3: Tackle (name TBD, suggestions welcome)
* Range: 20km
* Duration: 10s
* Speed Bonus: -80%
* Scrams target stopping them from using MWD/MJD
* Only usable on Fighters & Drones



I'm sorry about this is just crap... This should be use-able on BC or Higher. Please change this.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#127 - 2016-03-04 23:11:44 UTC
Patch Notes for March 2016 Release wrote:
Citadel Cruise Missiles and Citadel Torpedoes have been renamed XL Cruise Missiles and XL Torpedoes respectively.

Ermm ... why not just Capital Torpdoes and Capital Cruise Missiles.

You know, like Capital Hybrid / Laser / Projectile Turret.

/facepalm
Scott Ormands
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#128 - 2016-03-05 03:50:18 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Patch Notes for March 2016 Release wrote:
Citadel Cruise Missiles and Citadel Torpedoes have been renamed XL Cruise Missiles and XL Torpedoes respectively.

Ermm ... why not just Capital Torpdoes and Capital Cruise Missiles.

You know, like Capital Hybrid / Laser / Projectile Turret.

/facepalm


Those are the modules/missiles not the skills themselves.
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#129 - 2016-03-05 10:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: The Economist
Has any thought been given to consolidating the capital missile skills?

Originally three of the dreads all effectively had weapons requiring dual training to be used properly:

Moros: hybrids + drones
Nag: projectiles and missiles
Phoenix: cruise and torps

Since then however moros have lost their drones, nags have lost their launchers and phoenix and rev have remained the basically the same.

Currently to use both close and long range weapons 3 dreads only have to train one rank 7 skill whereas the phoenix requires two, one for torps and one for cruise.

Not a big issue [although it may become more of one when T2 capital weapons come out and phoenix pilots find they have to train two weapon skills to 5 whereas every other race's pilots only have to train one to achieve the same utility!], but has occurred to me a few times over the years; just wondering if this is an imbalance that matters, one that has a reason or is just a case 'meh, it's not broken, why change it and besides people would ***** no matter what we did with the sp's'
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#130 - 2016-03-30 10:13:14 UTC
Hi CCP Larrikin,

just tucking in to give some feedback on the whole thing.

First, things i do like:
It is good that you have created a focus group with people who are expierienced on capitals and discuss the changes with them. This makes it a lot easier to keep up with all the posting going on, and ****- or trollposts are probably gone, so the good idead are probably sticking out a lot better than before.


Now, things i don't like:
Even though the focus group is in place, it feels like it's all happening behind a big curtain and from time to time another piece of the puzzle is presented to the EVE players. Then there's only a reddit-thread about it where only capital focus people can write, and from the 25 people in it, only about 2 or 3 actually do post feedback in the related threads.

Another thing that has come to my attention is some very serious proposed changes that will make some ships great and exclude others right from the beginning from actually being useful, this is especially the case on Carriers and Super Carriers.

As it stands now, the Archon and Chimera are both getting a 4%/level resistance bonus, while the Thanatos and Nidhoggur are both getting a 2.5%/level fighter squadron damage bonus.
Why is that bad? I'll tell you.
The Thanatos or Nidhoggur have to, in order to achieve an Archons resistance level, fit one additional EANM or similar.
This means, one of the lowslots is already gone.
Historically, Archons have had one additional lowslot ofer Thanatos / Nidhoggur however. I know, the actual attribute and slot-layout changes are not on SISI yet respectively not up for discussion yet.
Still, with current design in place, for same tank-levels on armor the Archon would probably have 2 more lowslots over Nid/Than - to either go for even MORE tank or to fit 2 DDAs for example.
In which case the carriers designed as damage-carriers are the ones ending up with lower damage or lower tank.

And now comes design flaw #2 on that matter: For the Archon or Chimera to achieve the same damage levels as the Nidhoggur/Thanatos, they'd have to fit ~"half" a DDA. This means, in case of the Archon which currently has the additional lowslots, it could fit one DDA more than Nid/Than and come out with same tank but better DPS.

And this whole "fear" boils down to the following:
-Revealing details on ONE specific ship-type in the style it is happening right now - piece after piece - is bad for actually discussing those details and finding a context on whether these changes are good or not.
For example, these skillbonuses could be very healthy, IF the Thanatos ends with a lowslot MORE than the Archon - which seems unlikely though.
Same goes for the Nidhoggur, if it has equal midslots with the Chimera, it might become a good ship! Is that likely to see, however? I doubt so.

But, why is this really problematic?
Because you're giving a resistance bonus to Archon / Chim. Not a EHP bonus you could implement right now in the form of bonus to capital armor plates or shield extenders, no, you're giving them resistances, which is an EHP bonus and a bonus for incoming remote repairs and a bonus for local tanking. More so, a bonus that is not stacking penalized.
And we're talking about capitals, where the more EHP you have the better your results will be as you'll be able to hold for longer on grid, which directly translates into damage dealt overall / utility for the fleet.



TL;DR:

Chim/Archon bonus: 1x EANM / Invul ---> 1 Slot makes Nid/Than equal.
Nid/Thanny bonus: ~0.5 DDA ---> 1 slot makes Archon/Chim better.

Take Archon/Chim Resistance Bonus. Same goes btw for Aeon and Wyvern.
Replace with bonuses to capital shield extenders / capital armor plates on Archon / Chim, ... and i don't know what yet for the Aeon / Wyvern, as they obviously are role bonused for it already. And now THAT would be a nice topic for discussion on your focus group, wouldn't it?






Also, things i noticed:
Light Fighters take 1k m³ of hangar space. 9 of them form a squad. 9k m³ = 1 squad.
Support Fighters take 3k m³ of hangar space. 3 of them form a squad. 9k m³ = 1 squad.

THIS ONE IS OFF: Interceptor Fighters take 1k m³ of hangar space. 12 of them form a squad. 12k m³ = 1 squad
proposed change: Support Fighters take 750m³, then it's equal again.

Why bother?
Because right now you can fill your launch tubes with Inteceptor Fighters to extend your hangar space by one full squadron of lights / supports as opposed to carrying all your interceptors in hangar and filling launch tubes with fighter/support squadrons.






Additional Feedback:
You introduced capital warp disruptors, which are only good if you have several of them, as you'll either be tackling subcapitals or have to plow through 25-50 warpstrength.
So either a subcapital point would suffice, or you'd need to throw several capitals at one other capital, but could use one Hictor instead and save about a midslot on each of your capitals.
Also, they don't offer better point range or anything. They are harder to fit, they eat about 15 times more cap/s.

So, here's a proposed change:
#1: Make their range extreme. Talking about 100km here for Disruptors.
#2: Make their warpscramble strength extreme: talking about ~15 here for Disruptors.
#3: Give them signature resolution like you plan on capital neut/nos.
#4: If the signature of the target is smaller than the signature resolution, then the warpscramblestrength gets lower. ALL VALUES GET ROUNDED DOWN.

Effects: Capitals can tackle other capitals on long range, and with 2 - 4 points total.
Capitals can tackle MWDing battleships and maybe mwd battlecruisers on long ranges.
Capitals can't tackle anything that's smaller than, say, 1000 meters of signature, because the scramblestrength would be below 1.
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#131 - 2016-05-13 22:24:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie McPewpew
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Hi CCP Larrikin,

Effects: Capitals can tackle other capitals on long range, and with 2 - 4 points total.
Capitals can tackle MWDing battleships and maybe mwd battlecruisers on long ranges.
Capitals can't tackle anything that's smaller than, say, 1000 meters of signature, because the scramblestrength would be below 1.

Why do sub caps have to be protected from caps so damn much? Nerfing applicable dps made a ton of sense but it shouldn't have gone any farther than that. Now capital neuts are essentially useless against anything other than other cap ships and capital points are pretty much over glorified regular points. Might as well bring a hictor, the caps won't hit it for anything.
Funky Junk9
Black Aces
Goonswarm Federation
#132 - 2016-05-15 06:56:12 UTC
Just a quick interjection but after looking around and playing in sisi and with pyfa i have come to realize that shields are better in every way Buffer, active tanking, remote repping all around armor is being heavily shadowed by shield capitals at the moment
Lugburz
Fiction.
BlackRose.
#133 - 2016-05-30 10:18:03 UTC
Instalocking carriers? wtaf?
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#134 - 2016-06-19 15:51:25 UTC
Ok carriers can finally defend themselves vs. a random ceptor, but sitting 1000km from gate, on a citadel, and being able to command drones 0 at the gate, blapping people is a joke. Shuttle bombing 2.0
ApolloF117 HUN
Cranberrie knuckles
Mordus Angels
#135 - 2016-06-29 12:02:04 UTC
Blade Darth wrote:
Ok carriers can finally defend themselves vs. a random ceptor, but sitting 1000km from gate, on a citadel, and being able to command drones 0 at the gate, blapping people is a joke. Shuttle bombing 2.0

No they can't , they now unless just like the old one
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#136 - 2016-07-02 06:01:48 UTC
Judging by the overpowered nature of Citadel carriers and the hasty subsequent patch, I'd wager CCP didn't give too much weight to the focus group's recommendations.
eVRiAL
Reveka.
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#137 - 2016-07-09 12:24:39 UTC
MardiOBoy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2016-08-05 00:57:17 UTC
Try this one on for size..
Since the carrier change, using a carrier limits you to using either 3 dps squadrons or 2 dps and one support squadron, which is limited to only one type of fighters each..

What about letting people mix their fighter sqoudrons?? For Dps they would still act as a squadron, hitting only one target at a time. (not really sure about this one)

Or maybe just that 1 support squordron.. but for these - since there's only 3 in a squadron - you should be able to have them go for individual targets, if you choose. (but you guys will have to find a way to make that work with the new Fighter UI)

If you could choose to have, maybe two webs fighters and 1 disruptor fighter - seeing you mostly only need one disrupter fighter to hold one target from warping - the two web fighters would be nice for holding a target from going too fast.
Or having 2 disrupter fighters to hold more targets from warping, but again sacrificing "the tank on your dirusptor ability" for each target.. Your target would have an easier time killing just that one scramming fighter to be able to warp off, but that is the choice you have to make...

Having to evaluate your set of support fighters would be more rounded for using your carrier for actual fighting, and not just dropping on people.
Having 3 of the same kind doesnt really seem logical - atleast not for the Siren(disruptor fighters), other than having it be really hard for them to kill the fighters who is pointing them (like if you tackle somthing really tanky)..
It could be the multi the functional ship it was supposed to be..
and Supers could have as many as 6 individual fighters from their 2 support squadrons, also making them bad ass for dropping on subs... if you dare

But again, this comes with having to change the support fighter squadrons into 3 individual fighters, or letting people choose whice one to shoot first when only one of them are pointing you.

Allso... Along side Alliance tournemant...

" MOM BATTLES!! " \o/

Super carriers... 1v1..... in a closed arena.....
No officer stuff, but all the faction, deadspace, T2 and implants you want to risk...

With dank prizes..