These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#361 - 2016-04-12 12:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Gaius Clabbacus wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The thanatos is great for rapidly killing cruisee sized targets. Just use 2x tp and a drone tracking computer + drone nav. They can be scary good against subcaps amd push 1mil ehp with t2 modules without using ehp rigs.

1.5 mil buffer with decent skills.
Thing is how do you intend to use it?

Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long.

Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers.


Most of the solo carrier hotdrops I have seen are Thannies fitted with Damage Control & Bulkheads. It really takes a lot of cycles of the armor rep to match the EHP provided by a buffer tank. Not expecting that to change in the new system.

Yes this is true and that meta is now all but dead, not unlike all the Thanatos's used for it. It relied on a cheap throw away Thany with usually T1 drones and no fighters. Can't do that anymore, carriers can't use subcapital drones and throwing away 300 or 400 mil in light fighters each time, will surely make players think twice before undocking a suicide thany.

Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta.

For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time.

Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers?

So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare.

Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply.

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.
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2016-04-12 12:18:14 UTC
Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#363 - 2016-04-12 12:27:46 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The thanatos is great for rapidly killing cruisee sized targets. Just use 2x tp and a drone tracking computer + drone nav. They can be scary good against subcaps amd push 1mil ehp with t2 modules without using ehp rigs.

1.5 mil buffer with decent skills.
Thing is how do you intend to use it?

Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long.

Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers.

How about not solo? There are situations where one side will have a decent fleet with logi and be fighting a cruiser fleet. Maybe they need some help and have a cyno ready. You jump into a subcap fleet fight not as an unsupported carrier, but as some extra DPS to turn the tide of battle.

Now in that situation the other fleet would likely just tear up your fighters and/or ignore you till they've killed the logi and/or drop dreads and/or run away. But still, there are uses for a buffer-tanked carrier outside of a fight between capital fleets.
That is pretty much what happens now - Drop Archons with triage. Difference is, if the other side escalates to Dreads, the carriers can currently defend themselves long enough for you to get your dreads or supers on grid.
New meta, if carriers are unable to defend themselves against dreads, they are far less likely to get used without the N+1 factor. Dreads will Always be the best option.
N+1 sucks more than remote repping Archon blobs, yet seems to be Devs design focus for capitals.


But where is the carriers (a capital ship) role in capital fights - So far it seems all they can do is die, that I don't think can be classified as a "role" for ships that cost 2 bil +.

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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#364 - 2016-04-12 12:29:59 UTC
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?

Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now.

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.
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2016-04-12 13:50:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?

Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now.
Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question.

Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis?
I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics...
Gaius Clabbacus
Control Alt Delve
Goonswarm Federation
#366 - 2016-04-12 14:34:28 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta.

For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time.

Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers?

So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare.

Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply.


Well yeah, I think one of the design goals is no solopwnmobiles, so a limited tank on a DPS carrier makes sense.

Currently the unique selling point would be that you don't have to commit to a triage/siege cycle when you drop one (or more) so there is a more opportunity to see how the battle evolves. Tactical positioning will be important in larger battles as I expect dreads to be superior in close range slugging matches. Only time will tell if that ecological niche is big enough for the carrier to thrive.


Silk75
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#367 - 2016-04-12 19:39:59 UTC
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?

Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now.
Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question.

Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis?
I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics...


The cenobite/scarab/etc are Support Fighters that do EWAR.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#368 - 2016-04-12 21:29:16 UTC
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?

Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now.
Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question.

Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis?
I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics...

For Carriers?
They aren't modules, they are Support fighters.
And my opinion is, they are way under powered, extremely too slow and can be destroyed way to easily.

They won't see a great deal of use on carriers

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
#369 - 2016-04-12 21:54:24 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:



I do understand your thinking regarding Buffer fits - My concern is that if carriers are released in their current guise, Archons and Apostles will be all we see, as no carrier is especially good at anything, less DPS for a good tank is a pretty decent trade off.
N+1 continues to rule capital engagements - Nothing changes..

It won't matter that one carrier has a better damage bonus, if it can't survive long enough to take advantage of it.



but carriers are not built for capital engagements if it escalates to that they are mostly useless they have less tank than a dread with HAW (and less dps when in a fleet) and they are just worse than a super. but when it comes to supporting a sub cap fight (what the carriers are now built for) the thanny and the nid are far better

I agree - So we may as well just delete all carriers and be done with it.

As per my ideas a few posts back, I want ti try and see carriers have a roll. Give the Thany and Niddy a reason to be fielded.

Honestly though, if you are right and carriers are indeed not intended for capital fights, why are they even still in the game. Any group fielding carriers against subcaps is going to find themselves at the mercy of any dreads the subcap group drops in. So what really are carriers meant to be for?

I'd like to hear from CCP Larrikin regarding Devs thoughts on the role of Carriers in the coming meta.
Probably won't though because Devs are taking a lets wait and see approach, as they have no clear vision for carriers. Just lots of micro management crap (with 2 over sized UI's to deal with) leading to less than desirable damage and application.

What started out with good intentions, removing the ability for invulnerable remote repping Archon fleets, has degenerated into carriers with no real role on a capital battlefield.
The over riding presumption being, carriers will be an anti subcap platform with no role or defense against other capitals is somewhat demeaning to every carrier pilot who has wasted his or her time training carrier skills.

The "opportunities" team was able to find 5 mins to "waste" answering concerns of players in regard to something that is not going to have anywhere near the impact on TQ these changes will bring.
Is team "game of broken carriers" so up against it they can't address some of the player concerns?




because using carriers like this is a way to cause escalation you have a sub cap fight so you drop a carrier the other side can now match your carrier or bring in dreads that you can then either match or escalate further. or you can use the high dps carriers and try to finish the fight b4 they can get caps in to back them up.

this is why i think carriers need bonuses that go beyond killing sub caps either with local or fighter e-war so that after the escolation there is still a point to have them on field

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#370 - 2016-04-12 22:37:41 UTC
Gaius Clabbacus wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta.

For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time.

Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers?

So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare.

Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply.


Well yeah, I think one of the design goals is no solopwnmobiles, so a limited tank on a DPS carrier makes sense.

Currently the unique selling point would be that you don't have to commit to a triage/siege cycle when you drop one (or more) so there is a more opportunity to see how the battle evolves. Tactical positioning will be important in larger battles as I expect dreads to be superior in close range slugging matches. Only time will tell if that ecological niche is big enough for the carrier to thrive.

By saying "a limited tank" on a DPS (limited to bonuses only), you mean one where you need 2 or more fitting upgrades or leave empty fitting slots - Right?
So not only a limited tank but an inferior one from the start because even with fitting upgrades you still need to use a lot of meta modules. Or you can choose the other way and use a lot of the new faction modules, turning your carrier into a nice expensive lossmail. If that is intended then there really is no hope for carriers after this change.

I can't wait to see Fax's volleyed off the field by dreads because they just don't have the PG or CPU to put decent fittings on them. Unfortunately we are likely to see few Fax's in the average capital/subcap fight - They just don't have a role, unless they are used to rep subcaps, sitting "at range" of them. LOL so much for strategy and tactics.

See, right now the only carrier class ship that could be used as a solo PWN mobile - Is a Super (that isn't changing, in fact they will be a lot better at it)

Carriers have never been solo pwn mobiles - They have ALWAYS been used in a support role and die quite easily to any small gang if caught alone somewhere - This too isn't changing, except that now carriers will be completely defenseless against every other capital ship too.

Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all.

In large battles, the best tactical position for carriers, will be docked in the closest station. Or plonked right next to a few squads of Fax's, which is funnily enough pretty much how carriers work now except they can rep each other.

Static capital battlefields due to the new logi needing to be in triage to be the slightest bit effective - So much room there for tactical and strategic positioning, right?
This is a whole new era of capital fighting - Oh wait, no it isn't - It is exactly what we have now, just with extra ships (Fax's) needed and carriers made all but redundant.

As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant.

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.
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#371 - 2016-04-13 09:42:21 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all.

As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant.
Well, I had so far no possibility to join in on Sisi to check the values, so my suggestion is to be treated with caution...
But to give carriers the ability to deffend themself against other capitals it could be a possible to give them the ability to control one flight of heavy fighters.
This would give carriers roughly 1/3 of the damage potential of a super, which I think is too much...
Still I think it should be considered because they could be put in the right place with a role bonus like "30 % reduction to Heavy Fighter hitpoints and damage".
The height of this reduction and if both or just damage should be affected is of course up to debate to find the sweet spot of not-OP but viable.
Oxide Ammar
#372 - 2016-04-13 10:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxide Ammar
Sekeris wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sekeris wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest.


Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank.

I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor?


Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu.


Seriously CCP, Nid needs to be fixed (CPU). I'm quoting this again so they might look into it. Nid can't use active tank or dual CSE without sacrificing so much in its fit.

3 FSU II

1 Adaptive
2 x Hardners
2 x CSE II
1 MWD

3 x DDA II
DC
1 PDS II

You have to sacrifice 2 hi slot empty to make this work, even if you dropped MWD it doesn't work. If you replaced the 2 CSE with amp and capital booster dosn't fit either even if you dropped MWD for something like Omni tracking link. This is all under condition of full set of Geno What?

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#373 - 2016-04-13 10:48:56 UTC
I'm sure the Nid will have its CPU/PG adjusted. It still has the old numbers from before the slot layout changed, so it's quite low on CPU and has a little too much power grid. I bug reported it and it and it seems like they acknowledged the report. They're probably planning to check the CPU/PG numbers for all the ships and change any that need it at the same time.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#374 - 2016-04-13 11:49:40 UTC
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all.

As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant.
Well, I had so far no possibility to join in on Sisi to check the values, so my suggestion is to be treated with caution...
But to give carriers the ability to deffend themself against other capitals it could be a possible to give them the ability to control one flight of heavy fighters.
This would give carriers roughly 1/3 of the damage potential of a super, which I think is too much...
Still I think it should be considered because they could be put in the right place with a role bonus like "30 % reduction to Heavy Fighter hitpoints and damage".
The height of this reduction and if both or just damage should be affected is of course up to debate to find the sweet spot of not-OP but viable.

A much easier fix would be to give Carriers a dedicated Support Fighter launch tube and storage bay (no carrier currntly has a fighter bay large enough for a sustained fight), allowing them to fully utilize existing tubes for Light Fighters and the ability to carry 2 or 3 extra flights of what will be, all but disposable Light Fighters..
In coordinated attacks Carriers could apply sufficient damage to Dreads other Carriers and possibly even Supers or Titans, though you will need quite a few carriers to pull this off due to how easily they can be destroyed by Dreads, Supers and Titans.

Devs really need to look at the new Fax's and Triage mechanics - Designing a completely new meta for capital warfare which will rely on static blobs on a battlefield (even for just 5 minutes at a time) is really poor (and quite lazy) design. Which in the long run will add nothing new to any fight involving capitals - The only difference being instead of self repping Archons in a bubble ball, it will be Archons with Apostles.

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.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#375 - 2016-04-13 12:04:39 UTC
Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now?

Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#376 - 2016-04-13 16:05:20 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now?

Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals.


I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance.
A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that.
When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#377 - 2016-04-13 18:39:19 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now?

Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals.


I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance.
A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that.
When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.

Looking at what we will be getting with carriers, I'd suggest they should have their price halved

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.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#378 - 2016-04-13 21:36:24 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance.
A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that.
When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.


And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again.


Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#379 - 2016-04-13 22:18:50 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Marranar Amatin wrote:
...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance.
A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that.
When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.


And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again.


Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

I think your just a little unbalanced and have forgotten the reasons behind the mineral increases for subcaps.

But just because other ships were balanced to take CCP's changes to reprocessing and minerals etc into consideration, doesn't mean capitals should be treated the same way. You could never reprocess a capital hull and make a profit - Which is why subcaps had the mineral consumption increased. It had nothing to do with balancing their usefulness on a battlefield, it was about the profit in reprocessing them.

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.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#380 - 2016-04-13 22:37:03 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Marranar Amatin wrote:
...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance.
A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that.
When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.


And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again.


Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

I think your just a little unbalanced and have forgotten the reasons behind the mineral increases for subcaps.

But just because other ships were balanced to take CCP's changes to reprocessing and minerals etc into consideration, doesn't mean capitals should be treated the same way. You could never reprocess a capital hull and make a profit - Which is why subcaps had the mineral consumption increased. It had nothing to do with balancing their usefulness on a battlefield, it was about the profit in reprocessing them.


Eh... both wrong.

Elitatwo is wrong because battleships were substantially buffed at the time that the mineral costs increased as a result of Battleship tieracide. Battleships used to be sorted into multiple tiers, with the lower tier BS hulls being both substantially worse, and far cheaper to construct.

CCP buffed tier 1 and 2 hulls to match the power of tier 3 hulls, and then increased the mineral requirements to match. I dunno where you got the "Battleships got worse than ever before" bit from.

Ocker, you are wrong here because that was not the reason they increased the mineral consumption. Battleship tieracide and the changes to mineral consumption were a result of the early 2013 BS tieracide passes.

The "Extra Materials" system was added in from there until the Crius patch of 2014 which added in the base 50% refine rate to all ships and modules. While the two are connected, the first reprocessing changes followed the BS tieracide and not the other way around.

And yes, you could reprocess a capital for profit indirectly. It was fairly common to buy carriers, jump them out, reproc them into their capital components, and then use those components to build Supers in areas without the industrial base to support production otherwise.