These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Capital Q&A

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#121 - 2015-11-17 13:39:56 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Esteban Dragonovic wrote:
Any thoughts about the Capital Remote Armor/Shield/Energy transfer skills? Considering the logistics role is being stripped from carriers entirely, most carrier pilots (those that didn't intend on flying triage) could have up to 7.5 million SP locked into effectively useless skills.

Those skills are not required for the carrier skills, so anyone who has trained them has actually used remote reps deliberately or trained to be able to. This means there is no need in the slightest for any reimbursement. Since the skills will still exist and do exactly what they used to do.


Here is the solution: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/exploring-the-character-bazaar-skill-trading/?_ga=1.233019163.401580728.1412185802

No need to give reimbursement anymore Cool
Not really a solution at all - Having useful SP is far more beneficial than a bit of isk.

Nevyn - Large projectile turrets isn't required to fly a Mach but how useful would the ship be without them - That is the worst argument for not reimbursing kills ever.
Carriers, which right now have bonuses to remote reps will no longer have them - CCP should give players the option to have those skills reimbursed - Not all carrier pilots will want to switch to a disposable logistics ship.



By this line of reasoning, my Supercarrier and Moros pilot should have been reimbursed a bunch of skills when they lost the ability to field normal/any drones. I currently have a Titan/Supercarrier pilot with 13 million SP in drones -none of which can be used in his Avatar. It's part of the game.

CCP should give every pilot a straw this Christmas. The item description should simple say, "Suck it up."

Now see again your wrong. Removing drones from titans and dreads is very different to moving the roles to a completely new class of ship - You can still use your titan - I will need to train for a whole new class of ship to use existing skills

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.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#122 - 2015-11-17 14:56:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Those skills are not required for the carrier skills, so anyone who has trained them has actually used remote reps deliberately or trained to be able to. This means there is no need in the slightest for any reimbursement. Since the skills will still exist and do exactly what they used to do.


Here is the solution: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/exploring-the-character-bazaar-skill-trading/?_ga=1.233019163.401580728.1412185802

No need to give reimbursement anymore Cool
Not really a solution at all - Having useful SP is far more beneficial than a bit of isk.

Nevyn - Large projectile turrets isn't required to fly a Mach but how useful would the ship be without them - That is the worst argument for not reimbursing kills ever.
Carriers, which right now have bonuses to remote reps will no longer have them - CCP should give players the option to have those skills reimbursed - Not all carrier pilots will want to switch to a disposable logistics ship.



By this line of reasoning, my Supercarrier and Moros pilot should have been reimbursed a bunch of skills when they lost the ability to field normal/any drones. I currently have a Titan/Supercarrier pilot with 13 million SP in drones -none of which can be used in his Avatar. It's part of the game.

CCP should give every pilot a straw this Christmas. The item description should simple say, "Suck it up."

Now see again your wrong. Removing drones from titans and dreads is very different to moving the roles to a completely new class of ship - You can still use your titan - I will need to train for a whole new class of ship to use existing skills


Not just a new ship class. A disposable ship class that can't receive remote reps.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#123 - 2015-11-17 23:37:01 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I have some observations and questions in regards to the roles of capitals. In the Dominion capital meta, capitals stepped all over one another's roles (supers replacing dreads, dreads doing what supers do but cheaper, etc). This was very problematic with the capital meta.

In the new design, titans/supers will be focused around their special abilities making them unique, and force auxiliaries have a completely unique role as well.

But things get murky when it comes to carriers and dreads. Consider they both now get:

Fleet hangers to move ships.
Refitting services.
Weapons to kill smaller ships (fighters/High angle weapons)
Weapons to do damage to structures and other ships (Heavy fighters/Regular Dread Guns)

...they seem to be accomplishing the same role on the battlefield. Yes, they do it differently: carriers get support squadrons, don't need siege and have longer range....but I don't really see that as enough separation given that they're still both capable of accomplishing the same tasks.

So the question is do you think dreads and carriers are stepping on each other too much in the proposed design?


Not to be rude, but your concern is a non-factor.
Sure, there's not much difference between carriers and dreads in the fact that their damage dealers, but the same can be said for the majority of the ships in each class.

Take tech 1 battleships as an example.
Most of them are damage dealers, with only slight variations in the hulls, but the ultimate difference being how they deal damage.
Be it missiles, drones, long range, short range, and so on.

Having said that, carriers and dreads actually have more significant differences than damage dealing BSs.

The dread is a direct attack vessel, and also has siege.
With the new guns they're being given, they'll be able to effectively counter a sub cap fleet.
2k dps with BS application is no joke, especially when you consider the vast tanking capacity.
It's a good way to counter a sub cap fleet without simply bringing more numbers, yet it can easily be countered with 1 dread fitting capital guns.

Carriers, on the other hand, will be more mobile, and has indirect damage, allowing it to stay further from the fight, essentially making it a support vessel.
It will be able to launch a set of drones the fits the situation on the fly, where as a dread has to dedicate itself to the situation it is fitted for.
Also, carriers will not be that great at assaulting structures, as the new citadels will have the option for a smart bomb.

To recap, the dread is a siege vehicle with the ability to counter a small sub cap fleet, while carriers are a support vessel with the ability to bash structures in niche situations.

Carriers are going to be something that you want close by and readily available, while dreads will be relied upon of the "oh sh|t" moments or for sieges.

Just 1 comment on your "subcap" dread guns - Go read the blog again, then read Larrikins comments at the beginning of this thread. I think he made it pretty clear, Dreads are going to be the ship of choice, in very rare situations.

""Carriers will be more mobile?"" How do you get that? Carriers will need to sit as close to a FAX as possible or die very fast.

With FAX triage becoming the only viable source of reps - Capital ships will (more often than not) land on grid and not move again until the fight is over.

Considering you can move and use the fighters without lock and set them up while on the move, trying to constantly drop close range guns on them will be a factor determined by subcaps. They will remain as the ships that tackle and protect from the very same. The Fax will be handy, but if you do it properly, you won't need it much.

We don't play the same game.
Even so, I'm not sure what having 60 fighters, sitting around a grid not necessarily doing anything has to do with capital reps (or lack thereof)

HM Cerberus with average skills can hit out to 145k - Any fighters just sitting there are going to be dead or at least disabled very quickly. Fighters don't warp, a few ceptors will be able to chase down your MWDing fighters and they will be dead or disabled very quickly, fighters can't shoot while MWDing, ceptors can.. Your group is famous for it Harpy blobs, what chance do you think a flight of fighters is going to have against a bunch of frigates they can't track to hit?

Being able to position X amount of your 60 fighters around a grid, to wait and see if a target lands near them, is a pretty bad idea - Unless you belong to a blob every bit of damage you can apply is critical; Is the ability to have fighters just hanging around really a good idea (for anyone other than the blobs)?
As for "using fighters without lock", I'm hoping you are wrong here - Drop fighters, position 50 off bubbled in gate and just let them do their thing? How OP is that likely to be?

If you land on grid with a small group of dreads, carriers and a fax - Your carriers and dreads are going to need to be as close as possible to the FAX - Or die very quickly. Add a few supers and titans into the mix, being in range of the only thing that can rep you becomes even more important. Once you land on grid, you don't move until the FAX is dead, then you run, as fast as you can.
Do me a favour though, if the most capital risk averse alliance in the CFC ever decide to drop caps without FAX support, be sure to let me know. Haven't had a good laugh for a while.

Quote:
They will remain as the ships that tackle and protect from the very same.
This I'm sorry, I don't understand - Are you saying, fighters positioned "somewhere on grid" are going to protect you from being tackled or that they will tackle something that is attacking you?

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.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#124 - 2015-11-18 07:50:25 UTC
Can you clarify how fighter groups are going to work mainly how a carrier is being limited to a only so many of a one type at a time


Like are suppers just going to be able to feild more of any particular class or will supers be able to feild more heavy and carriers be able to feild more light fighters

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#125 - 2015-11-18 16:09:05 UTC
As it stands, fighters of any type are going to be useless for supercarriers.

Small blob warps in, apply ewar on supercarrier(s). Dispose of subcap defense fleet while disposing of said fighter squadrons.

Chew out the supercarrier ehp/tank while it sits there not being able to do anything.

Enjoy easy supercarrier killmail.


Or are we back to needing 50+ subcaps to protect 1 supercarrier, which encourages blobing?

Been around since the beginning.
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2015-11-18 16:15:00 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Well you just killed supercitals...

They must retain their wear resistance against web/damp/painter/etc.

And if able to point them, their native warp core strength needs to be quite high.

Otherwise... Why should we pay 30 BILLION isk for a fitted super an close to 90 for a Titan.....

Makes no sense.


You bought it for the extreme low risk. Now it has a smidge of risk attached. Welcome to the world of risk vs reward.


You are VERY clueless. I have been flying supers before most of you chaps even heard of this game. I'v seen first hand of the changes throughout the years.

Way back we had true ewar inmunity, it was VERY difficult to tackle supercarriers (and titans). After all the nerfing, this goes beyond anything from before.

Again, taking out whats left of the ewar inmunity is basically killing those chips. There's already a INSANE amount of ewar in the game, ask any guy that goes around pvping in something a bit bigger than a cruiser. It gets damped, neuted, jammed, painted to death.

So once again, WHY should we use a 30+ billion isk supercarrier if it's basically the same as a carrier. Now, we don't even war ewar inmunity against points/damps/painters/etc... Might as well pile up cheap DPS throw-away carriers... I can buy them at 900 million isk for the hull, put in some t2 stuff and some fighters, done! 1.5 billion isk MAYBE... Might as well it will mostly be the same as a supercarrier...

tldr: supercarriers (and titans) need to retain their ewar inmunity.

Been around since the beginning.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#127 - 2015-11-19 12:45:11 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
As it stands, fighters of any type are going to be useless for supercarriers.

Small blob warps in, apply ewar on supercarrier(s). Dispose of subcap defense fleet while disposing of said fighter squadrons.

Chew out the supercarrier ehp/tank while it sits there not being able to do anything.

Enjoy easy supercarrier killmail.


Or are we back to needing 50+ subcaps to protect 1 supercarrier, which encourages blobing?


True this. I'd like to think CCP are drinking tainted coolaid.

By their reasoning, capital N+1 is bad for eve. So they redesign capital game play focused around a handfull of t1 hulls with very limited niche roles to prevent any remote assistance within the realm of N+1, while allowing sub capital meta to overpower capital and super capital meta for the sake of new bros.

But CCP also believes that Sub-capital N+1 meta is good for eve. By ensuring that sub-capital meta is ALWAYS relevant and NEEDED irrespective of cost, function, scenario, skillpoints or numbers, capitals and supers won't be dominant and will have to rely on lesser ships to have any value on the grid. This is purely a one way relationship in favor of sub caps.

So, should the Eve balance not favor any ship class meta (as we all thought this was the goal), or should CCP take a step back and realize that supers will need to be as detached as possible from sub-cap interference as to allow a capital meta to exist?

I'd like to think sub caps should become pointless once the target hull size reaches the higher end of the capital range. As such, I am of the mind that super capital e-war immunity should be converted into "sub capital e-war immunity", forcing sub cap blobs to bring capitals (which they should be supporting, not dominating) to the party to deal with the bigger dogs.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Anthar Thebess
#128 - 2015-11-20 10:53:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Still no answer.

Will skills for carriers will be spited to separate skill books for Carriers and FAX?

Do you consider possibility to create (Pirate) Faction Fighters?
- Higsec Faction , more EHP at the cost of DPS
- Pirate Faction, More DPS at the Cost of EHP

Will you introduce missing faction mods to pirate LP stores - as currently is the plan to create Capital Faction Guns.
Can we get all other capital faction gear in lp stores?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#129 - 2015-11-20 21:18:59 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
As it stands, fighters of any type are going to be useless for supercarriers.

Small blob warps in, apply ewar on supercarrier(s). Dispose of subcap defense fleet while disposing of said fighter squadrons.

Chew out the supercarrier ehp/tank while it sits there not being able to do anything.

Enjoy easy supercarrier killmail.


Or are we back to needing 50+ subcaps to protect 1 supercarrier, which encourages blobing?


True this. I'd like to think CCP are drinking tainted coolaid.

By their reasoning, capital N+1 is bad for eve. So they redesign capital game play focused around a handfull of t1 hulls with very limited niche roles to prevent any remote assistance within the realm of N+1, while allowing sub capital meta to overpower capital and super capital meta for the sake of new bros.

But CCP also believes that Sub-capital N+1 meta is good for eve. By ensuring that sub-capital meta is ALWAYS relevant and NEEDED irrespective of cost, function, scenario, skillpoints or numbers, capitals and supers won't be dominant and will have to rely on lesser ships to have any value on the grid. This is purely a one way relationship in favor of sub caps.

So, should the Eve balance not favor any ship class meta (as we all thought this was the goal), or should CCP take a step back and realize that supers will need to be as detached as possible from sub-cap interference as to allow a capital meta to exist?

I'd like to think sub caps should become pointless once the target hull size reaches the higher end of the capital range. As such, I am of the mind that super capital e-war immunity should be converted into "sub capital e-war immunity", forcing sub cap blobs to bring capitals (which they should be supporting, not dominating) to the party to deal with the bigger dogs.


I like that idea! Supercapitals ewar immunity against subcaps.

It forces sub caps to tackle it the hard way, using interdictors and heavy interdictors then apply enough DPS to chew through the ehp or try to break it's tank!

Otherwise use capitals and/or super capital to use capital size ewar against supercapitals.

Bloody brilliant and makes a lot of sense too!

Been around since the beginning.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#130 - 2015-11-21 02:43:38 UTC
The point of the exercise is to move reps away from ships that also dps. The point of the exercisw was to remove an artificial barrier to entry for big fights by reducing the need for startups to train for capitals straight away.

The point of the exercise was to allow for other forms of ships to actually have an impact and be worth taking.

Just vet glad supers and titans get resistance to ewar because there's a precedent which could start an ugly trend.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#131 - 2015-11-21 06:07:58 UTC
Are we going to get any updates from you Larrikan?
CLOVNEA
Scrap Iron Flotilla
Electus Matari
#132 - 2015-11-21 15:14:36 UTC
Q) With the removal of ewar immunity, will remote assistance be possible?

I am referring to remote sensor boosting titans and motherships for example to counter the damps or remote tracking computers to counter the arbitrators or to make the titan a battleship killing machine.
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2015-11-21 21:24:43 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The point of the exercise is to move reps away from ships that also dps. The point of the exercisw was to remove an artificial barrier to entry for big fights by reducing the need for startups to train for capitals straight away.

The point of the exercise was to allow for other forms of ships to actually have an impact and be worth taking.

Just vet glad supers and titans get resistance to ewar because there's a precedent which could start an ugly trend.


I just don't see the point of taking supercarriers out anymore, when a dps carrier can do a similar job for a VERY small fraction of the price. Sure it will lack some of those 'high slot ewar' but so what? No one even thinks twice about the current supercarrier ewar module (lol what a joke).

Titans at least will have the proper tank/dps (and doomsday's) to help itself. But again... take away ewar inmunity and it's bye bye supercapitals. Everyone and their mother's sister's uncle's, will come put a point/damp/painter on them.

Been around since the beginning.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#134 - 2015-11-22 14:29:27 UTC
I've found this focus group concept to be excellent so far. It has been very interesting reading the views of experienced capital pilots on the restricted subreddit without all the chaff that usually gets posted. I have confidence that capitals are going to be in an excellent position after having been looked at by this focus group.

Great job keep up the good work.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#135 - 2015-11-26 03:07:03 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Q) Can a capital MWD be shut off by a normal scram, or maybe just capital ones? (#1)
A) The current design has a Capital MWD can be shut off by a normal Scram.


Well, there's a module which will be as useful as the Target Spectrum Breaker.

Lets see.

"Oh, hey guys, I've fot a MWD to my Dread!"
"LOLOLOL noob."

"Oh hey guys, I fit a MWD to my FAX!"
"LOLOLOL noob!"

"Hey guys I fit an MWD to my Carrier"
"Eh, good luck with that."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Super"
"LOLOLOL scrub."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Titan"
"u wat now? *boots from corp*"

500m/s under MWD and you can be scrammed? MWD's on ships that go immobile for 5 minutes? Pffft.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Vandarra Deneroth
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2015-11-26 04:02:09 UTC
Q) With the changes to Caps coming and the addition of capital modules can/will all supers/titans have their rigs removed and placed into the cargo. As literally every super will have either Trimarks or Core field extenders. With better/varied fitting options incoming these will no longer be the "Only" option and id rather not have to throw away 500-700 mill because you changed my internet spaceship :)

P.S it would be cool if you gave the Hel a local repping boost and Fighter damage tracking bonus to be inline with every other Minny ship

#rust4lyfe
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#137 - 2015-11-26 04:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Trinkets friend wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Q) Can a capital MWD be shut off by a normal scram, or maybe just capital ones? (#1)
A) The current design has a Capital MWD can be shut off by a normal Scram.


Well, there's a module which will be as useful as the Target Spectrum Breaker.

Lets see.

"Oh, hey guys, I've fot a MWD to my Dread!"
"LOLOLOL noob."

"Oh hey guys, I fit a MWD to my FAX!"
"LOLOLOL noob!"

"Hey guys I fit an MWD to my Carrier"
"Eh, good luck with that."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Super"
"LOLOLOL scrub."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Titan"
"u wat now? *boots from corp*"

500m/s under MWD and you can be scrammed? MWD's on ships that go immobile for 5 minutes? Pffft.


People already fit 500mn MWD's to these ships... not sure why they would not fit the new capital sized ones? In fact, a deadspace 500mn MWD is pretty much mandatory for a Titan these days... not sure what you are complaining about?

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

Anthar Thebess
#138 - 2015-11-26 11:30:46 UTC
People have MWD on capitals, as they allow you to move faster , and warp off in 1 cycle of MWD.
First thing is possible on supers , as you cannot scram them, so disable MWD.
MWD trick is currently often used on (super)capitals , as you can easily refit at any point on depot or other (super)carrier.

Lets also not forget that size of MWD is small when compared with capital modules.

All of this will change when supers will lose ewar immunity, and you will not be able to refit during the fight.
Making Capital MWD to be disabled by any thing other than HIC scram will make this module not desired in most of the situations.

Capitals are losing base EHP, so each slot will have big impact on ship capabilities.

Maybe Capital MWD will be used on carriers operating in very low numbers , but for sure not when there is a bigger fleet - as you will just scram the last one , and before fleet turn around it will be dead.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#139 - 2015-11-26 12:32:40 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Q) Can a capital MWD be shut off by a normal scram, or maybe just capital ones? (#1)
A) The current design has a Capital MWD can be shut off by a normal Scram.


Well, there's a module which will be as useful as the Target Spectrum Breaker.

Lets see.

"Oh, hey guys, I've fot a MWD to my Dread!"
"LOLOLOL noob."

"Oh hey guys, I fit a MWD to my FAX!"
"LOLOLOL noob!"

"Hey guys I fit an MWD to my Carrier"
"Eh, good luck with that."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Super"
"LOLOLOL scrub."

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Titan"
"u wat now? *boots from corp*"

500m/s under MWD and you can be scrammed? MWD's on ships that go immobile for 5 minutes? Pffft.


People already fit 500mn MWD's to these ships... not sure why they would not fit the new capital sized ones? In fact, a deadspace 500mn MWD is pretty much mandatory for a Titan these days... not sure what you are complaining about?


Big smile Nano Cavalery Phoenix anyone?? Oh wait, some haz to take a look at missiles first.. I choose CCP Xhagen

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#140 - 2015-11-26 14:43:50 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:

"Hey guys, i fit a MWD to my Titan"
"u wat now? *boots from corp*"


People already fit 500mn MWD's to these ships... not sure why they would not fit the new capital sized ones? In fact, a deadspace 500mn MWD is pretty much mandatory for a Titan these days... not sure what you are complaining about?


People don't fit a MWD to a Titan for MOBILITY. You can do a MWD warp or even a cloak MWD warp with a Titan, but you don't chuck a 500MN on a Titan and hope to go 500m/s

And, just in case you missed it, you won't be able to make use of the 500MN trick on a Titan anyway because you'll get scrammed. Right now it works because if there's no bubble on feld you can driveby, and warp around the system till you get a cloak done and jump out.

Once you get scrammed, no MWD tricks. No mobility. Total waste of time.

What Titan is going to plan on going 500m/s around a battlefield? And if they do, they won't be able to do diddly because they get scrammed. A bloody AB fit Maller is going to be able to overhaul them,and with HAW's shooting at it, lolol, it will catch your MWDing Titan and scram it.

And if they don't get scrammed, what's the spool up time to max speed going to be? 45 seconds? 1 minute? It already takes far too long for a battleship to get to top speed. The only BS which really can maintain close to top speed when tackled is the Nightmare, and that's got the handling of a pig.

So, yeah, illuminate me on the future of the MWD fit kitenarok and Cerberthan and Erebushtar or whatever.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~