Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3918
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 22:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Set capital warfare apart from sub-capital warfare while creating a interdependency between capitals and sub-capitals for capital warfare. This would require a slew of changes. For sake of discussion, pretend this change is coming and it's your job to expand on it and fix any holes you may find.
All capitals:
- Resistance of 90% to sub-capital weapon systems before any other modifiers. While you may still be able to take down a lone, lost carrier with sub-capitals, it will be much more efficient to have even a single capital of your own in the engagement.
Carriers and Supercarriers:
- Can no longer use drones.
- Can no longer command fighters and bombers themselves but need to assign them to a sub-capital.
- Can still target normally to use logistics.
- Damage of fighters and fighter bombers against sub-capital ships probably need to be reduced in this scenario.
Dreadnaughts and Titans:
- Can no longer target on their own but need to assign a sub-capital as target caller in the fleet interface with whom target locks are shared.
- Cannot hit targets on the same grid and cannot apply any damage to sub-capital ships.
- Weapon systems get their range increase to 0.01 AU for every current 1km range.
- Delay between firing and impact depends on the weapon system and distance. Lining up shots between targets is important to avoid breaks when switching targets.
- Possible additional restriction for DDDs: A high-slot target painter needs to be cycled by the target caller on the target before the DDD can be deployed against the target.
POSes:
- Large batteries are under the same restrictions as Dreadnaughts; they cannot hit targets on the same grid and need a target caller in fleet with the POS gunner controlling the batteries.
- This will allow the creation of deathstar POS defence grids, though only effective if the POSes are manned with enough gunners to make use of all the turrets.
Consequences:
- Capitals are now a league on their own with game mechanics setting them apart from sub-capitals while still depending on sub-capitals to be effective.
- Cross grid combat will allow for tactical deployments spread over several grids instead of piling everything on the same grid with a single cyno.
- Requiring sub-capitals for applying damage will make sub-capital combat a essential part of capital warfare instead of threatening obsolescence of sub-capitals. A superior capital fleet can be broken if the accompanying sub-capital fleet is decimated.
- The interdependency will require more mixed fleets and tactical consideration for engagements.
Disadvantages:
- This will not fix sovereignty.
- This will not lessen the superiority by numbers.
- This will require more resources to implement than a simple stats tweak.
- This is complicated.
Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Chopper Rollins
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
866
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 22:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Carriers and Supercarriers:
Can no longer use drones. Can no longer command fighters and bombers themselves but need to assign them to a sub-capital. Can still target normally to use logistics. Damage of fighters and fighter bombers against sub-capital ships probably need to be reduced in this scenario.]
So no ratting carriers? What's a carrier then? A logi that can space taxi?
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good. |
Saelem Black
Savage Knights
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
This seems a bit much to me, but I do like the idea of cross-grid fights. I'd propose something like: median engagement range of caps is 1000km. Caps have the capability to see and engage at those ranges while other ships don't. Nerf tracking accordingly. Just my .02 isk. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2724
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Have you ever actually flown a capital? This is among the worst cap rebalance ideas I've seen, Well done.
Also, off grid POS strikes would do hilarious things when combined with gatecamps. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
300
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Have you ever actually flown a capital? This is among the worst cap rebalance ideas I've seen, Well done.
Also, off grid POS strikes would do hilarious things when combined with gatecamps. Yeah this post sums it up. Attacking off grid? OK that straight away tells me you're on drugs OP. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3918
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 00:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Have you ever actually flown a capital? This is among the worst cap rebalance ideas I've seen, Well done.
Also, off grid POS strikes would do hilarious things when combined with gatecamps. I see you haven't read a thing. One, it's a rework, not a rebalance. Two, gate camps target sub capitals coming through the gate, capitals can't hit sub-capitals.
Also, ratting with carriers would be possible if you assign the fighters to a sub-capital. You just can't use drones anymore. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Arden Elenduil
Scary Devil Monastery
101
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 02:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
all i gathered from your "idea" is that it's frickin' ********. 90% reduced damage from subcapitals to caps, are you high? thank you for just making a slowcat fleet pretty much indestructible aside from massed doomsdays and even then plus, off grid strikes??? yeah, no thanks
you have obviously never been in a major capfight as a decent participant, but this suggestion is really really really bad, so yeah, no |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2724
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 05:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Have you ever actually flown a capital? This is among the worst cap rebalance ideas I've seen, Well done.
Also, off grid POS strikes would do hilarious things when combined with gatecamps. I see you haven't read a thing. One, it's a rework, not a rebalance. Two, gate camps target sub capitals coming through the gate, capitals can't hit sub-capitals. Also, ratting with carriers would be possible if you assign the fighters to a sub-capital. You just can't use drones anymore.
I am a capital pilot. Please explain why I should be nigh immune to subcaps, and why they should be completely immune to me. A bullet is a bullet, it's not going to avoid hitting a target because you're shooting something smaller than you.
Also, please explain why my autocannon shouldn't be able to hit the guy next to me. And why I should be able to blow up a POS without even going near its defences. Or nail a POCO from the safety of the edge of my POS shields.
Capital and subcapital pilots are playing the same game. Stop trying to push us out. |
Maz Ngomo
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 08:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
Interesting ideas but as far as capitals are used in the real world, I don't understand the concept behind most of these proposed changes. If you could clarify why you made these decisions I'd be very interested.
If I bring a triage carrier with 90% damage resistance vs subcaps into a lowsec subcap engagement, I am now indestructible unless the enemy bring a lot of neuting (which my fleet will prioritise and remove from the field ASAP, natch). Not just very tough like they are now, but *literally* indestructible. Carriers would need to be restricted to a single repper, in which case you then kill triage viability in capital engagements.
Supercarriers haven't been able to use drones for a long time now, but I see absolutely no valid reason to restrict carriers from using them. Losing sentries would be a pain since it would mean I couldn't ***** on POS killmails anymore and ewar drones have saved a few capital pilots' bacon so I'd feel naked without them, but that's just a personal thing.
Dreads that cannot hit targets on the same grid? Um. What? I mean it's certainly an interesting concept, like IRL artillery bombardments which I guess is the intention behind this, but I just can't see it being useful in-game. You'd need to split your fleet into dread artillery on one grid and your main fighting force on another, and never the twain should meet. In this one change you'd make dreadnoughts only useful for shooting static structures and off-grid triage carriers.
POS guns always requiring gunners to fire is a bit unfair to smaller corps who have few people online at the time and would need to split between ship-based defence and turrets. Wormhole corps spring to mind especially.
One thing I agree completely with is that this is a highly complex system to look into. Kudos for taking the time to consider it, but these are not the changes I am looking for. o7 |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
19
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 08:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
While i am flat out against this idea, i can see where the OP is coming from in this.
I played ALOT of starlancer as a young(er) me, and there the way it works is that fighters zip around busting up torpedo strikes and damaging important subsystems (effectively doing the same thing as eve's HEROTACKLE) and then the capital equivalent ships jump in to bust up the capitals. Very striking and very awesome looking.
I recall the feeling when your little fighter jet's all sorts of jacked up from tangling with the heavy stuff and then the capitals jump in to blast their capitals off your back. Really sweet visuals, very effective at reinforcing the notion that small **** is there to support the cap pilots. And do the **** they cant do themselves.
Problem is that in eve online we're goddamn capsuleers, we ARE the people who come charging over the horizon we're not the guys who need the rescuing.
Now thats all non mechanical work. but i recommend the OP to check the first itteration of doomsdays, when they still deployed from off grid, and slapped an enitre subcap fleet into rubble. Not fun.
Also i doubt making a grid something like 1000-1500km a side for capital pilots only would be as easy as it sounds. I mean thats a grid between 8 and 27 of the current base grids cubed. Now grid-fu is a thing and all that stufff but that's ALOT of grid for the servers to need to keep track off... and i doubt the subcaps would like it if they were getting slapped down by massively tracking fitted dreadnaughts from LITERALLY over the horizon... Somehow burning 800+kilometers into the teeth of enemy fire for a herotackle seems a bit excessive especially since they'll be long gone when you get there... |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3921
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 09:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Funny how all arguments are either based on assumptions or on a lack of reading/understanding the OP. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Bakuhz
The Horny Heron's Horny Empire
158
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 19:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Set capital warfare apart from sub-capital warfare while creating a interdependency between capitals and sub-capitals for capital warfare. This would require a slew of changes. For sake of discussion, pretend this change is coming and it's your job to expand on it and fix any holes you may find. All capitals:
- Resistance of 90% to sub-capital weapon systems before any other modifiers. While you may still be able to take down a lone, lost carrier with sub-capitals, it will be much more efficient to have even a single capital of your own in the engagement.
Carriers and Supercarriers:
- Can no longer use drones.
- Can no longer command fighters and bombers themselves but need to assign them to a sub-capital.
- Can still target normally to use logistics.
- Damage of fighters and fighter bombers against sub-capital ships probably need to be reduced in this scenario.
Dreadnaughts and Titans:
- Can no longer target on their own but need to assign a sub-capital as target caller in the fleet interface with whom target locks are shared.
- Cannot hit targets on the same grid and cannot apply any damage to sub-capital ships.
- Weapon systems get their range increase to 0.01 AU for every current 1km range.
- Delay between firing and impact depends on the weapon system and distance. Lining up shots between targets is important to avoid breaks when switching targets.
- Possible additional restriction for DDDs: A high-slot target painter needs to be cycled by the target caller on the target before the DDD can be deployed against the target.
POSes:
- Large batteries are under the same restrictions as Dreadnaughts; they cannot hit targets on the same grid and need a target caller in fleet with the POS gunner controlling the batteries.
- This will allow the creation of deathstar POS defence grids, though only effective if the POSes are manned with enough gunners to make use of all the turrets.
Consequences:
- Capitals are now a league on their own with game mechanics setting them apart from sub-capitals while still depending on sub-capitals to be effective.
- Cross grid combat will allow for tactical deployments spread over several grids instead of piling everything on the same grid with a single cyno.
- Requiring sub-capitals for applying damage will make sub-capital combat a essential part of capital warfare instead of threatening obsolescence of sub-capitals. A superior capital fleet can be broken if the accompanying sub-capital fleet is decimated.
- The interdependency will require more mixed fleets and tactical consideration for engagements.
Disadvantages:
- This will not fix sovereignty.
- This will not lessen the superiority by numbers.
- This will require more resources to implement than a simple stats tweak.
- This is complicated.
Go check how long you can stay under water... http://rakah.griefwatch.net/?p=pilot&pilot=%3CBakuhz
Recruiting PvP minded pilot's new pilot friendly teachers available in various timezones |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 21:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
I am by no means a cap expert, so my only comment on this is that I do really like the idea of a system wide fight that can span across multiple different grids, with the capitals only able to target something off grid!
There is something to that idea that is truly interesting to break off the blobs, while keeping large numbers of players concentrating in a single system, and forcing more difficult command decisions than align, warp, anchor, press F1....
One of the ways to rein in blobs power in Eve is to make commanding large groups more difficult, and this would force a fleet to really work on different points of contacts at the same time....
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2725
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 21:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Saisin wrote: One of the ways to rein in blobs power in Eve is to make commanding large groups more difficult, and this would force a fleet to really work on different points of contacts at the same time....
Who do you think is going to be able to do this better, the CFC, with dozens of FCs, each with their own speciality and plenty of experience in co-ordinating multiple fleets in multiple places, or a small group or loose coalition of small groups trying to fight them? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6194
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 04:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Saisin wrote: One of the ways to rein in blobs power in Eve is to make commanding large groups more difficult, and this would force a fleet to really work on different points of contacts at the same time....
Who do you think is going to be able to do this better, the CFC, with dozens of FCs, each with their own speciality and plenty of experience in co-ordinating multiple fleets in multiple places, or a small group or loose coalition of small groups trying to fight them? Blobbers have to be able to make use of large numbers of characters/players.
So... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3113
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Removed an off topic post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Iain Cariaba
In Over Our Heads
68
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 16:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Funny how all arguments are either based on assumptions or on a lack of reading/understanding the OP. Funny how OP that's been around as long as I have seems to have no clue how the blobs will utterly abuse this idea.
Your idea does nothing but give more power to those able to field a bigger fleet. As it currently sits, one carrier flown by someone who knows what they're doing can drastically turn the tide of a subcap fight. Your idea will totally negate this and relegate cap ships to structure bashing roles only.
Its not an assumption that anything that can be abused will be abused. This is EvE, it is a fact that it will be abused by someone. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:15:00 -
[18] - Quote
What. The. ****?
This is the most stupid idea I've ever seen my entire playtime in EVE, hell it's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard anyone come up with in my entire life... (Except for my friend who wanted to smoke a cigg after spilling gasolin over himself)
Carriers without control of drones and fighters... Then what the hell is the point of having them?
Target painter for Doomsday Device? Dude, they can't even shoot them damn thing at a building...
I'm amazed by your stupidity...
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 20:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Saisin wrote: One of the ways to rein in blobs power in Eve is to make commanding large groups more difficult, and this would force a fleet to really work on different points of contacts at the same time....
Who do you think is going to be able to do this better, the CFC, with dozens of FCs, each with their own speciality and plenty of experience in co-ordinating multiple fleets in multiple places, or a small group or loose coalition of small groups trying to fight them? I am not saying that to hamper the CFC or any big alliances. It is very logical that bigger coordinated structures will always be more efficient at everything, especially with huge amount of resources.
My point is that in that kind of spread out fight, the CFC could indeed align different FC and fleets, and still cover the grounds but instead of having 2000 or 3000 on the same grid, which is fairly easy to coordinate, they would have to build the experience to coordinate across multiple grids. you could envision 200 to 300 per grid for example, and also each smaller wing of that huge blobs become an easier target for smaller groups....
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
835
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 21:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
In my opinion, this idea doesn't 'reinvent' captial warfare as much as use it like toilet paper... http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4035
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 12:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
Doesn't surprise me this thread got the response it got, considering it would reduce the usefulness of ratting carriers and utterly annihilate slowcats. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
597
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 12:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
I don't fly caps (yet) but could never agree with caps not being able to target on grid. If anything off grid targeting accuracy should be less effective as it is more of an area barage than direct fire. It would be better to be able to equip smaller ships (new dessie hulls maybe) with anti-cap torpedos like old MTB's. Now to be most effective the caps should be on grid giving direct fire but that puts them at great risk due to proximty of nasty small fast hulls. Now the blob also needs small hull fleets for defence. The torpedos would naturally be too slow to hit anything but caps...
Also i thought the point of a carrier was power projection at range (as in real life). If anything it sounds like the effect of spider tanking them needs curtailing somewhat rather than nerfing the dps projection. |
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1001
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 14:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
...Nah. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |
Anhenka
Daktaklakpak.
598
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 14:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:For sake of discussion, pretend this change is coming and it's your job to expand on it and fix any holes you may find.
Step one : Rent a steam shovel.
Step two : Go dig up everything that was initially dug up to create said hole.
Step three : Fill said hole back in with it's original contents.
Oh yeah, all of WH space tells you to take your idea and shove it. By not being able to hit sleepers with dreads or use drones on carriers, you drastically reduce the ability of most significant WH corps to make money. Would turn into a ghost town within a few months. Our shiny toys don't come cheap you know. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4771
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 20:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
So... while we're messing with capital ships.... uhm.... yeah. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
189
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 23:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Doesn't surprise me this thread got the response it got, considering it would reduce the usefulness of ratting carriers and utterly annihilate slowcats.
Anhenka wrote:Abrazzar wrote:For sake of discussion, pretend this change is coming and it's your job to expand on it and fix any holes you may find.
Step one : Rent a steam shovel. Step two : Go dig up everything that was initially dug up to create said hole. Step three : Fill said hole back in with it's original contents. Oh yeah, all of WH space tells you to take your idea and shove it. By not being able to hit sleepers with dreads or use drones on carriers, you drastically reduce the ability of most significant WH corps to make money. Would turn into a ghost town within a few months. Our shiny toys don't come cheap you know. Hilarious, way to prove the OP's point.
|
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 01:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
so, cap warfare as a slugmatch between people that can't even view each other on screen. I'm sure the white-knuckle, edge of your seat ti-di battles will be so much more interesting with no enemy to be seen. Also someone else gets to target for you, and all you really are there to do is "assign butan" instead of "push butan." So much better than slowcats assigning 50 drones to a single ship. So much more intense than being on grid, in siege, pos guns hammering you and you getting to see the pos going down, instead of just the target picture and the 3 bars of life.
Since they're not on the same grid, and therefore not appearing on overview, the capfight, instead of being "modern" in the way of over the horizon shooting becomes a stationary american civil war mockup, in heavy fog. Line up. stand firm, wait for orders. fire. repeat. yeah they're out there somewhere, just keep firing.
But i see with your last comment the idea is really just to get rid of ratting carriers. someone's bitter, get some friends, take some space.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
500
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 02:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
Let me guess....op and friends came across a jam/scram pos (some call em FU pos', let you guess why...) and didn't like it.
POS mods that can't fire on grid. Check. Dreads can't fire on grid. Check. Dreads in siege are e-war immune and well....don't need the scrams either (only way they move is if bumped lol). Check.
Leaves FU pos at mercy of subcap fleets.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |