CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. Thanks for the continued feedback.
We understand the concerns some of you have with the CV changes, and we'll be watching them carefully. However the combination of larger cap pools, increased cap regen (up to 33% more in C6) and the huge bonuses to remote repair combine to create an environment that we are pretty confident clever players can use to their advantage.
Even with the cap transmitter penalty logistics cruisers can generate much more cap than they use, and combined with the added internal cap regen there will be tons of defensive options.
Yeah it is possible to circument the nerf to cataclysmic by fitting 3 remote cap transmitters to basiliks and Guardian alike or in addition bring some Battery Osprey/Augoror (solely purpose to relay cap via large remote cap transmitter) with into the battle or sites or something similiar ...
but this doesn-¦t by no means change the fact that you have to either bring more ships to get the same out of them like before (Battery Osprey/Augoror) or to cripple the capapbilities of your Logistic ships in every other given enviroment GÇô what is gonna put you at an great disadvantage whenever you are forced to pursue the enemy through a wormhole ...
But what you didn-¦t address was any form of Capital Ship use within a CV-hole.
It is safe to assume this will kill most uses of capitals within PVP -
in K-Space going into siege is already a do or die GÇô but within a cataclysmic, where your self repair amount is greatly reduced and would force you to run an additional rep module just to get on same level or repair amount you would have had in k-space which is gonna require a flat 100% increase in used capacitor by this additional module the increased 33% cap recarge rate isn-¦t gonna change much since those setups aren-¦t even stable on a long shot. And here i didn-¦t even lay out the fact that an additional rep module requires a slot which now can-¦t be used to boost your resistances therefore hindering the effective rep further ...
But nonetheless let-¦s assume you would field a Dread and despite the odds this dread might survive a siege cycle under the heavy neut pressure normally used on dreads GÇô he would need to end siege to be repped and recharged with cap GÇô a now near impossible task since the remote cap amount is nerfed by up to 50% - not that it already took ages, compared to the fact how valuable time is in close engagments, to replenish this under normal circumstances, it now takes even longer.
And is practically impossible to do with sub capital modules ... what means it is required to field a carrier to do this job GÇô a ship that is now practically the most useless ship, aside from escalating a site in high class , you could have inside a CV GÇô hmm well aside from perhaps deal some damage it still has a great buffer and potentially decent dps ...
but let-¦s be honest that-¦s not the role those ships are meant to take -
they are ships meant to support the fleet, reapir them, recharge them and to keep them alive ...
a role this class might no longer be able to fulfill GÇô the nerf to remote rep amount practically kills any pantheon setup, and the already existing nerf to local rep isn-¦t exactly helping to triage ... (most triage setups require 2 reps to be fitted to give you a chance to survice a cycle ... in CV you would need 4 to get the job done .... reducing the mods to fit resistance cap mods and the like ...)
It-¦s probably safe to assume that CV is gonna be an anti-capital environment and since my corp choose to live in one to make use of the home advantage carriers offered so far in defending your home, your assets GÇô (then contrary to common believe Pantheon Carrier in CV can be brought down GÇô but not with neut ... but there are other forms of e-war that can be utilized ...)
we will most likely vacate our CV home because this change is gonna inconvenience us far too much by offering little to no benefits ... we will need more Logistic ships, therefore pilots in PVE and PVP reducing our number of Pilots within other kinds of ships ... by offering us nothing in return ...
the fact this assesment is coming from us, a group of people who thought this is the best variable by a long shot, should be considered a substantial argument.
So you shouldn-¦t be suprised to find your future activity numbers of CV to be far behind the numbers of Black Holes of today.
And to emphassize my argument GÇô if the CV variable would be considered to strong or even imbalanced by the players shouldn-¦t your graphs show an inverse activity behaviour, with CV being number 1 ? - i mean i-¦ve never played a game where people were this fast to figure out things that are gonna put them ahead. It-¦s a fact that CV is second last, so you would have needed to make it more attractive not the opposite of that.