EVE Search - Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1110	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:04:31 - [1] - Quote Hello fellow Eve junkies and theory crafters. First I want to say thank you for all the support and votes for CSMX. I am in awe and humbled by all the support. This has only emboldened me to work harder and strive to make a positive impact on Eve in representation to those have put me in this position. So I wanted to make this thread before I was given my CSM credentials or subject to any possible constraints of NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement). I think it is smart to start this conversation now. I started a similar thread sometime well before Phoebe Force Projection changes. We need to get a head of the curve that will be the revision of Capitals and SuperCapitals. I would like to think that if nothing else my last thread gave CCP Developers more information and who knows perhaps a few ideas to make informed decisions. I was really happy about the last thread ( The link to that thread is HERE ). The discussion was very civil and constructive. I am sure we can all create that outcome again with this topic. So with SOV 5.0 coming summer 2015 this effectively renders Capitals and SuperCapitals irrelevant to the battlefield with just a few fringe exceptions. Furthermore Capitals and especially SuperCapitals have been very out of balance for a long time. CCP has been waiting for the right time or perhaps an catalyst that warrants development time to take up this hard and difficult task. Sov 5.0 is the very catalyst needed to springboard Capitals & Supercapitals higher up on the priority list for developer attention. I am going to paraphrase a few things CCP Developers have said recently please forgive me if the quotes are not exact. CCP Seagull said in the Eve Keynote this year that " CCP wants capitals and supercapitals to have important , relevant & unique value". CCP Fozzie said on Eve Down Under "We want to see a environment where capitals and supercapitals are present in the battlefield in a balanced but impactful presence". From this it's easy to deduce that CCP wants players to strive to obtain them use them and kill them. That they wanting us to do these things will be for good and relevant reasons. So without further Adieu lets get talking about it. What don't you like about Capitals and Supers? What do you life? What do you think should change? If you were given the developers brush what would you do? Be creative but within the bounds of practicality. I have a idea ill post and by no means do I think that I necessarily have the answer but who knows maybe I do or maybe a portion of the answer. Please be respectful of eachother and try to remain positive. It's completely cool to disagree with someone or a position they take or a idea the suggest but try to do so constructively. GÖÑManny @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1110	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:04:42 - [2] - Quote reserved @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1110	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:05:28 - [3] - Quote reserved @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4150	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:15:23 - [4] - Quote I'd like to see capitals allowed in high-sec space - particularly with the new structure system that CCP is proposing (and because with the lifting of placement requirements, the number of these is going to expand significantly). I think the mooring structure is going to be a really welcome addition for capitals (particularly Supercarriers and Titans). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Lugh Crow-Slave 927	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:24:38 - [5] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I'd like to see capitals allowed in high-sec space - particularly with the new structure system that CCP is proposing (and because with the lifting of placement requirements, the number of these is going to expand significantly). I think the mooring structure is going to be a really welcome addition for capitals (particularly Supercarriers and Titans). i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Stellan Crendraven Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 4	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:34:20 - [6] - Quote I might be entirely wrong, but this proposal has already been made some (long) time ago.... I do, however, think that the roles you propose are an interesting idea. As for caps and supers in high-sec, why not, if some roles are limited in some fashion, e.g. logistics and support only. In the beginning, there was pain and despair. And death. Immense tragedies and terrible catastrophies.
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 33	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:37:15 - [7] - Quote Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0 They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4150	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:37:15 - [8] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage This is a valid point. I think the wardec mechanics could use an overhaul, so perhaps this could be done with high-sec capitals in-mind. Princess Cherista wrote: Capitals in highsec is ridiclulous, they are balanced around being able to be engaged and killed at any time in 0.0. They would become the default lvl 4 boat and of course the station campers delight. Simply dismissing the idea based on current capital mechanics (which are subject to change) is a tad shortsighted, as is the notion that carriers or dreadnoughts would become the new L4 mission of choice (as this disregards the fact that the majority of L4 missions are gated and would be incredibly easy to restrict). Quite simply, there are cheaper and faster L4 alternatives. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4150	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:45:24 - [9] - Quote Manfred Sideous wrote: Modes Modes would be a new mechanic for all capital and supercapital ships. Mode bonuses will vary based on Ship Class and Race. The overarching strategy would be to make capitals very flexible and able to perform in a multitude of roles but not all roles at once. Each mode will have bonuses and penalties. Furthermore swapping modes will take a longer time on capitals and even longer on supercapitals. Mode skills are a possibility with supplementary skills to affect mode change time. I like the idea. Not that it's necessarily feasible, but instead of an 'aura' an animation for each mode would be pretty slick. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 74	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:46:13 - [10] - Quote I have a habit of little making little pedantic points that don't really contribute to the greater discussion I feel. In this case, I'm wary of having raw hit points being modified in-space as modes change - maybe instead a minor penalty to resistances (although that already sounds awkward and awful), as already pictures of archons with negative hull hit points due to shenanigans spring to mind. Also wouldn't the electronic mode role bonus need the ability to fit a warp disruption field generator? :P Back to silently reading this thread + replies with a box of popcorn Shamelessly stole this line, Alternatively, QFT One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1286	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:54:30 - [11] - Quote Well it's certainly an improvement over the current proposed non-place for them in 5.0. Would supercarriers be the same except bigger or do you envision a separate role for them?
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1113	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:58:00 - [12] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Well it's certainly an improvement over the current proposed non-place for them in 5.0. Would supercarriers be the same except bigger or do you envision a separate role for them? Yea every capital and supercapital would gain modes. Perhaps not all the same Modes perhaps different bonuses/traits/penalties per Mode. The MODE system allows the ships to be very flexible and allows CCP to tweak add/remove change things without effecting the overall ship. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
J Mcclain Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:11:41 - [13] - Quote I like the Idea of the modes. Just take a look at T3 destroyers and how dynamic it can make gameplay to have mode switching. Which would also potentially lead to pilot error which can swing fights and make things interesting. Not to mention the potential for ship animation that mode switching could bring to caps. Creator and operator of the "Best of Us" channel for Military outreach and Veteran suicide awareness. https://bestofuscommunity.wordpress.com/
Lugh Crow-Slave 927	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:14:02 - [14] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i would love caps in HS the only issue i see with it is all the groups that dec newbros that already can't do anything but log for a week now being camoed in with triage This is a valid point. I think the wardec mechanics could use an overhaul, so perhaps this could be done with high-sec capitals in-mind. even then you come across the issue that you could never really fly a freighter i have no problem spending 1.9b on a nag +fits to troll some guy in a charon and good luck flying JFs in HS Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 672	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:20:36 - [15] - Quote How would you deal with supers and titans? For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Memphis Baas 245	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:23:21 - [16] - Quote You're presenting the modes from the point of view of one capital ship being fielded, but with a blob of them all "modes" will be covered to saturation, making mode selection per each ship just a statistical exercise. In addition to color-coding, I'd like to suggest shape-changing (like T3 destroyers), because the bright nebula backgrounds will render the colors difficult to see. Or, color-coding in the overview. CCP seems to want very few capital ships to be fielded per fight. The null alliances have many capital pilots (with ships), who are going to suddenly feel unwelcome when it comes time to x up. I wonder how CCP will handle that. How would you?
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1115	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:28:07 - [17] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: You're presenting the modes from the point of view of one capital ship being fielded, but with a blob of them all "modes" will be covered to saturation, making mode selection per each ship just a statistical exercise. Will they though? You put all your caps in one mode i'll obliterate you. Split them up i'll cull the weakest. Memphis Baas wrote: In addition to color-coding, I'd like to suggest shape-changing (like T3 destroyers), because the bright nebula backgrounds will render the colors difficult to see. Or, color-coding in the overview. Yeah fair enough I don't think I hit the bullseye on everything. Memphis Baas wrote: CCP seems to want very few capital ships to be fielded per fight. The null alliances have many capital pilots (with ships), who are going to suddenly feel unwelcome when it comes time to x up. I wonder how CCP will handle that. How would you? I don't think thats accurate at all. I think they don't want them to instantly dominate the battlefield by sheer presence. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Dirk MacGirk Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team 128	Posted - 2015.03.21 03:20:46 - [18] - Quote First, let me say that I think its great you're already active in communicating. You communicated before but I honestly believe you'll step that up as a rep. I think the idea of modes is not a bad idea for capitals. It's probably not a bad idea for a whole number of ships, but I see how it could be useful for trying to fix capitals. Hell, even the dread could get in on the game, but obviously carriers will garner the most immediate attention. On the other hand, just be done with supers. Or, in case you're going there, Super supers. As you've said, EVE may need more ships. I'm not convinced they need ships larger than capitals. Supers were a grand idea back when the game was younger. However, as ISK and skillpoints accumulate in the game over time, especially a game this old, they eventually just chase the big ticket items. That eventually just leads to the arms race we've witnessed in recent years. It wasn't just the sov system that led to this arms race. It was the age of the game, the wealth and skillpoints acquired over time, and the easy access to PLEX-based pay-to-play alts. Tack on the endless ISK and resource faucets in the game and its just a constant spiral. I fully recognize that players will want something to do with their wealth and something new to train for. In other words, end-game "stuff". But that doesn't have to be ships that play into the old n+100 meta. Then again, without players being able to push farther, they may just get bored. But larger and larger ship classes aren't the answer to that dilemma. Real content is. In the end, I think you're going down an interesting path with the modes. But let's not look back 2 years from now and see that we've just continued to kick the can down the road with the fact that we and CCP can't figure out that bigger and more expensive isn't a better path for the game. Getting rid of supers will be a difficult choice, and one I am quite certain will result in unsubs from all those alt accounts that were built around them or from people who only play Supers Online. Thus I don't ever see that decision being made. I don't see how we ever put the genie back into the bottle with supers. For their cost, they need to have value and that's the issue we continue to battle: nobody wants them to have a commensurate value because that makes them OP when used on the scale that EVE is capable of producing. It might be better to simply kill the genie and take the entire game down a different path altogether.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 890	Posted - 2015.03.21 03:51:48 - [19] - Quote Personally, I like the modes idea, but I am not sure it goes far enough towards balancing out the power of Carriers. In short, I think Carriers need to lose the ability to employ all drones, other than Fighters. Fighters could then be buffed proportionately to compensate some for the loss of versatility. Additionally, if necessary, Carriers could then gain bonuses to smart bombs or another point defense system. Bottom line, I don't like seeing 200 Carriers dropping sentry drones and forming their own Apex fleet. That sort of "line-of-battle" role should be filled by Battleships (and maybe Dreadnoughts), not Carriers. Supercapitals should either be nerfed in power to the point that they are simply T2 Carriers and Dreadnoughts (while retaining the ridiculous price markup) or turned into mobile, destructible stations. I have outlined the basic concept elsewhere. I say this as someone who currently owns 22 Capitals and 2 Titans. Capital ships are by far my favorite ships to use in combat, but they need some serious work. I don't think Titans are in as much need of rebalancing as Supercarriers. Perhaps that is because I have more experience fighting against massed Supercarriers than massed Titans, but I don't think Titans are too unbalanced. The only thing I like about my Titans is the "finger-of-god" aspect of the Doomsday. I have had precious few opportunities to use it, mostly due to real life commitments, but when I get the chance to Doomsday a Carrier off the battlefield it is simply awesome. Carriers should not be allowed into High Security space. It is not balanced around them. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Major Spag GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 137	Posted - 2015.03.21 04:58:40 - [20] - Quote Perhaps a tiered approach? Carriers and Dreads get 2 modes. Supers 3 and Titans 4? I'm not opposed to your suggestion. There is merit in this. Let's not make capitals into the next drakes: nerfed to complete uselessness.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1637	Posted - 2015.03.21 05:35:30 - [21] - Quote Every addition to the "versatility" or cap/super will also add to how much large group can "abuse" them. Remember that nobody really cared about sentry carrier until some people decided to try to put 100+ on the same grid. The stupidity of tracking titans also only really became obvious when people put too many on the same grid. Whatever feels balanced in a vacuum when you pipe up ideas really need to be evaluated withing the "EVE online" framework where any perceived advantage will be capitalized on the the very limit. For any capital rework idea to ever be done, the questions "How will PL/GSF/NC./whoever push this to the very limit and will be the result then" really needs to be answered. The first "iteration" of caps/supers was obviously though with too short a term for it's scope of potential effect on the game since they didn't take into account the amount that would get built. Don't make the same mistake.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 11	Posted - 2015.03.21 05:40:26 - [22] - Quote I think it should work kind of like stacking penalties. Not sure how exactly. Dropping a couple supers on grid will be really effective, dropping more will be more effective, but eventually you can reach a point where dropping past a certain amount won't be any more effective at all in the tide of battle. I assume this is the goal if they are looking to make them more effective as a fleet support role in fleets....
Gremoxx The Ostrogoths Curatores Veritatis Alliance 20	Posted - 2015.03.21 07:01:35 - [23] - Quote Nice idea But I don-¦t think that currently Capitals needs what you are proposing. I see what has been done with Caps in general and what you are proposing and I become very sad Panda. You and PL are in unique position to point out how ludicrous the current Super-Cap and Cap ownership and deployment is in the current game meta. I think we need Titans, Super-Carriers and other Caps. But there needs to be limit on how many can be deployed each time, perhaps then - what you are proposing is an excellent idea. Take for example PL current incursion into Catch, the current victories have not been won on numbers or clever use of sub-caps - But on-mass use of Super-Capitals. EVE is an superb sandbox game, we are allowed to do nearly anything we can think up.. but the sandbox is only "so" big, Phoebe made that sandbox little bigger but now we need to limit how deep you can dig before you hit dirt. -1 due to current game meta.
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1115	Posted - 2015.03.21 07:09:46 - [24] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Every addition to the "versatility" or cap/super will also add to how much large group can "abuse" them. Remember that nobody really cared about sentry carrier until some people decided to try to put 100+ on the same grid. The stupidity of tracking titans also only really became obvious when people put too many on the same grid. Whatever feels balanced in a vacuum when you pipe up ideas really need to be evaluated withing the "EVE online" framework where any perceived advantage will be capitalized on the the very limit. For any capital rework idea to ever be done, the questions "How will PL/GSF/NC./whoever push this to the very limit and will be the result then" really needs to be answered. The first "iteration" of caps/supers was obviously though with too short a term for it's scope of potential effect on the game since they didn't take into account the amount that would get built. Don't make the same mistake. If you drop offensive mode caps and supers on grind unsupported I will push their $hit in. Capitals and Supers need to be good @ things but not all things at once. Furthermore they need to be supported by other ships. I invented Slowcats they are absurd. They nerfed drone assign thinking they killed slowcats. They failed they boosted them reason being is they are more fun to fly now as the pilot is actually involved in the killing process vs assigning and going afk. Currently nothing beats Wrecking Ball except a larger Wrecking Ball ( B-R). However in Sov 5.0 era with Jump Fatigue and Constellation wide objectives Capitals won't be able to dominate the field. This would only be enhanced with MODE. You run a Defensive Mode Cap Fleet ( Green Aura , Turtle Mode) ill ignore you , your dps and mobility will be laughable. Run a Offensive Mode Cap Fleet ( Red Aura Tiger Mode) ill pick you apart and suicide cheap ships to kill something shiny and expensive since you won't be able to tank. However if you weave elements of Capitals and Supers into your overall comps you will be much harder to deal with. Because they will be supported properly and augmenting the subcapital components using there different forms. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1115	Posted - 2015.03.21 07:17:15 - [25] - Quote Gremoxx wrote: Nice idea But I don-¦t think that currently Capitals needs what you are proposing. I see what has been done with Caps in general and what you are proposing and I become very sad Panda. You and PL are in unique position to point out how ludicrous the current Super-Cap and Cap ownership and deployment is in the current game meta. I think we need Titans, Super-Carriers and other Caps. But there needs to be limit on how many can be deployed each time, perhaps then - what you are proposing is an excellent idea. Take for example PL current incursion into Catch, the current victories have not been won on numbers or clever use of sub-caps - But on-mass use of Super-Capitals. EVE is an superb sandbox game, we are allowed to do nearly anything we can think up.. but the sandbox is only "so" big, Phoebe made that sandbox little bigger but now we need to limit how deep you can dig before you hit dirt. -1 due to current game meta. CCP isn't going to tell its customers "Sorry you cannot play Eve because the arbitrary limit has been reached". That would be the equivalent of telling Goons " Sorry you have to many people and can blob too hard you have to reduce your size". I have said it many times you cannot place artificial limits on social paradigms. They aren't going to remove them because they have had many chances to do so over the years. The problem with most capitals and supers is the same as The Tengu. They can do to many things too well all at once. This is why I think MODEs make so much sense. Making them able to still do really cool things and new cool things but not all at the same time. Instead giving players conscious choices based on their current circumstances. Perhaps the MODE shift needs to be longer. That way if you commit to a MODE you cannot simply switch away to avert danger. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2804	Posted - 2015.03.21 07:48:56 - [26] - Quote [Part 1 of 4] Manfred Congrats. Interesting idea. Give us tactical capitals. +1. But it should not be the only form of capital ship in my mind. Getting back to your OP. What don't you like about Capitals and Supers? 1) Jump range nerf. -my poor JF. See point 1.2 1.2 Jump fatigue. I used to be able to move some PI 1 night at the end of the month, just a few jumps up a gloomy ghetto pipe to hisec, a few times that same evening. Now it takes me days and given teh effort and drama i stopped bothering. So sad. 1.3 Fighter control delegation mechanic removal We used to be able to assign "almost frigates but surely better than a heavy geko drone- thingy that costs a crap ton for a t1 version only" with people piloting them from my carriers to other broskies in the system for more pew while boosting afk like a boss. So sad. 2) Building requirements The sheer cost of manufacturing something only 3-5 times the size of a BS.. but having to fork out 9 times more in raw materials. 3) Cyno requirement for jump drive I'm not opposed to precision jumping with cynos the way we do now. But I'd expect a capital ship to be able to jump to a star, a planet, a station or with a capital only GUI, to anywhere in a system within its jump range to within a relatively large margin of error..... And why cant jump signatures be picked up on your ship scanner as a temp warpable anom signature.. i dont know... if local kills eve, then an all knowing overview needs to go. 4) Supers & Sub caps play a more dominant role of pvp in eve These sub cap ships are the most over developed types of ships in Eve, the most hull ranges, t2, specialized roles. there are hundreds of different types that people can choose from. And the design philosophy current followed says that sub capitals are more important. if sub capitals are supposed to support a capital ship, it should be for a good reason both ways (mutually beneficial), not just a one way street of protection by smaller numbers. And not having the smaller numbers operate under those same rules of engagement. Capital ships should be allowed to operate under slightly different rules of PvP compared to the smallest of ships, because of what the ship is and how its supposed to be applied, giving them more teeth and awe, but within the same realm of feasibility that sub capitals & super capitals operate in. By expanding the capital ships class and empowering it to enough to operate both against (or with) sub capitals, other capital types and super caps sufficiently, we can start tearing away the indomitable super cap wings without starting another B-R and in smaller engagements. In short, the capital class needs to become more of a threat to supers and allow engagement against less hull types more effectively. 4.2 Capital class vulnerable to tackle from the smallest of ships -Reckon e-war gets split into module size and affect limited number of classes based on size. This would align them with other modules in eve. While capsules and shuttles will be affected by all module sizes, the effectiveness of the module in tackling a ship below or above its size type decreases with size. This would create a reality where supers are no longer immune to all e-war (points, tackle and webs specifically), but at the same time, give the smallest of sub capitals immunity from super ewar (points, tackle and webs specifically). This change will also force players to bring bigger toys to engage bigger targets, and force bigger targets to bring smaller broskies to help them engage you, forcing the great "mix of all hulls to have the best chance of victory, no longer the blobbing of 1 or 2 ship hulls scenarios in battle. This means that: Small modules should point / tackle / web: pods 100% eff. (sustained) small hull ships 100% eff. (sustained) medium hulls 60% eff. large hulls 30% eff. capital hulls 0% eff. Super hulls 0% eff. Medium modules should point / tackle / web: pods 100% eff. (sustained) small hull ships 60% eff. medium hulls 100% eff. (sustained) large hulls 60% eff. capital hulls 30% eff. Super hulls 0% eff. Large modules should point / tackle / web: pods 100% eff. (sustained) small hull ships 30% eff. medium hulls 60% eff. large hulls 100% eff. (sustained) capital hulls 60% eff. Super hulls 30% eff. Capital Modules (New) should point / tackle / web: pods 100% eff. (sustained) small hull ships 00% eff. medium hulls 30% eff. large hulls 60% eff. capital hulls 100% eff. (sustained) Super hulls 60% eff. Super capital Modules (New) should point / tackle / web: pods 100% eff. (sustained) small hull ships 00% eff. medium hulls 00% eff. large hulls 30% eff. capital hulls 60% eff. Super hulls 100% eff. (sustained) 5) No hisec. Nuff said. 6) No docking for supers Nuff said. 7) Manufacturing requirements for Supers Proportionally not in line with capital build requirements, esp considering the latter compared to battleships with relation to size of the vessel.... Cost isn't a balancing factor, so stop hiding behind it to lock people out from getting them. revamp (lessen) t1 hulls, give us more expensive t2 hulls etc. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2804	Posted - 2015.03.21 07:56:09 - [27] - Quote [Part 2 of 4] 8) The extreme lack of different hulls for capital ships Freighters - no Damage control & lack of hulls & fun... -Carriers only have a logi / drone boat hybrid hull.... resulting in a slowcat spider tanking combo nightmare blob role. -Dreads are just 3 gun marauders with a jump drive and nothing else to do except shoot stuff that's hardly or not moving at all.... -Super Carriers - See deathtrap carriers on steriods. - Titans - hardly used otherwise - unless in mass numbers for pew and DDs - 0.0 bridging toon deathtraps that have counted & named each square inch of the inside of their tower / POS shields... many times. 9) Capital ships can't use gates while tackled regardless of timers. Sub capitals can jump through, Capitals cant. I feel this i is crap game design. Either we all can jump gates if aggressed but not aggressing or nobody should. 9.2) Capital jump drive disabled by anti-warp modules? Rly? Totally different system of travel, yet is succumbs to the same anti-warp drives used to kill only 1 of 2 different sub light travel modules (MWD and Afterburner) 10) that capitals target forever... Cap ships are huge... they have more computing power per tonne than a rifter. The targeting system hates capitals by design. This has to change. If I'm going to be forced to sit on a gate to play with these things... then I want to be able to engage sub cap ships with something other than drones from time to time. And I'd like to do it before I die of old age now that skynet is going the way of the dodo because of game changes to modules. Capital ships need a scan res buff, major. 10.1) No dumb fire targeting for capitals or supers.. If i can't lock you before the server goes into downtime or with 10 sub caps need to be remote SEBO boosting me... why not allow me to fire at you without having to target you... using AoE weapons other than the ship fitted smart bomb. Like in the WWII movies.. point flak gun and shoot in that a way direction thingy.. 11) No Space barbie with benefits No incarna like game play on capitals. I'd love to be on the bridge, docked, or even in space. Bar in the belly of something large in the station open to various people for fees, new types of hi-sec agents that could be bought, stored and put to use starcraft style to generate new player driven content for players or w/e. So sad. 12) no t2 No T2 ammo. No Capital propulsion mods No T2 capital guns. No T2 Capital missiles. No T2 fighters No T2 FighterBombers No T2 anything that makes boom for anything bigger than battleships. no AoE doomsdays or capital smart bombs.... so sad. 13) no t3 or modular caps Don't see why we are only doing this to smaller ships and not these "important and impact full ships" CCP are selling Eve with to future generations... O the fun that could be had with t3 capital(s). 14) No anti-sub capital guns. Why no anti-sub flak? Dumb fire small range AoE weapons that do damage to the smallest ships, but increasingly less effective against larger more powerfull ships (unless concentrated in large numbers). 14. No dedicated anti jumpdrive modules Self explanatory. Warp scramblers and disruptors should not prevent jumping. more modules needed. What do you love? 1. The awe 2. The size 3. Jumpdrives 4. Sheer fire power 5. notion of strategic force projection (i.e. fighter assigning) 6. Doomsdays 7. Not vulnerable to most ships in this game Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2805	Posted - 2015.03.21 09:52:44 - [28] - Quote [Part 3 of 4] What do you think should change? Capital ships need to be boosted to play more of a lynchpin role between the fight against sub capitals, capital and super capital ship hulls. If support from the bottom up is the focus of sub capitals to capitals, then the notion should apply to all hulls including supers and subs, where support from the bottom most link in the chain (subs) is no longer the deciding factor in your survival at the top (supers). The moment the hull size hits large or above, sub caps should no longer factor into the equation of threat from the top of the scale down. This will ensure the role of sub capitals are to support and help their capitals to survive, who in turn are there for super support. While this top down - bottom up scale approach will work both ways, it should predominantly be limited so we can find an equilibrium between supers online, caps online and subcaps online. Before a long term solution for that can be achieved, we need to give capitals and supers some TLC. To this end, I'd like to see: 1) More Capital hulls for Carriers. Why do we have turret, missile, drone and e-war hull sub capitals, yet this design notion is dropped for capital ship and supers? This rule needs to be taken out back and shot. Twice. So we can start by giving players some new carrier types: 1.a) T1 Drone boat specialist carrier(s) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - +2 drones per level - Can use fighters / bombers - More drone DPS / buffs - More drone control range - Bonus to tanking abilities - Better bonuses to fighters that make them lethal to Large sub caps, Capitals and supers. 1.b) T1 Turret / Missile boat specialist carrier(s) (Battlestar concepts) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - +1 drone per level - Can use fighters / bombers - DPS / buffs to turret / missile systems - Bonus to tanking abilities - Can fit anti sub capital weapons (flak weapon concepts) and gets bonuses to those systems - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion 1.c) T1 E-war specialist carrier(s) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Can fit Capital E-war modules that affect Medium & Large hulls, Capitals and Supers - Buffs to e-war capabilities - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion - Can use fighters / bombers 1.1) Tech 2 Carriers 1.1.a) T2 Turret / Missile boat specialist carrier(s) (Battlestar concepts) (anti-Subcap flavour) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - Buffs to large guns / missiles tracking/ damage / RoF / range - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Can fit anti sub capital weapon systems (flak weapon concepts) and gets bonuses to those systems - Buffs to sub capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion - Can use fighters / bombers - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire 1.1.b) T2 Turret / Missile boat specialist carrier(s) (Battlestar concepts) (anti-cap flavour) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - Buffs to large guns / missiles tracking/ damage / RoF / range - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Bonuses to fighter / bomber Damage / RoF / Speed - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion - Can use fighters / bombers - 50% bonus to Large Turret / Missile damage against capital hulls 1.1.c) T2 Turret / Missile boat specialist carrier(s) (Battlestar concepts) (anti-supercap flavour) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - 150% bonus to Large Turret / Missile damage against super capital hulls - Buffs to large guns / missiles tracking/ damage / RoF / range per level - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Bonuses to fighter / bomber Damage / RoF / Speed - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion - Can use fighters / bombers - Buffs to armor / shield hit points 1.1.d) T2 Recon Drone boat specialist carrier(s) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - +2 drones per level - Increased dronebay size & jumprange per level - warpable while cloaked - Can use fighters / bombers - More drone DPS / buffs - More drone control range - Bonus to tanking abilities - Better bonuses to fighters that make them lethal to Large sub caps, Capitals and supers. - Can use Fighters to scout local system, warp to gate, view what fighter is seeing. - Can jump to and use CovCynos 1.1.e) T2 capital E-war specialist carrier(s) (Cap version of HICs - anti sub capital flavor) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit large guns / missiles (all hi-slots become weapon / turret slots, not just utility) - Can fit Warp Disruption Generators (Cruiser sized module - only effect sub capital ships). Scripts for Anti-warp and Webbifier AoE effects - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Can fit Capital E-war modules that affect Medium & Large hulls, Capitals and Supers - Buffs to e-war capabilities - 50% bonus to Large Turret / Missile damage against super capital hulls - 50% bonus to capital e-war module effectiveness against capital & super capital hulls - Can fit triage / siege / Bastion - Can use fighters / bombers Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2805	Posted - 2015.03.21 10:08:49 - [29] - Quote [Part 4 of 5] 1.1.g) T2 capital Logi specialist carrier(s) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - 50 % Capital Remote Capacitor Transmitter and Capital Remote Armor Repairer range per level - 15% Reduced fitting requirements / activation cost for capital remote Repair / Transfer modules per level - 4% Bonus to all Armor Resistances - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can use fighters / bombers - 200% to Drone & Fighter Control Range - buffs to drone / fighter / hit points / speed per level - Can Fit Triage / Bastion module 2) More Capital hulls for Dreadnaughts. Big useless stationary target shooters, blobbers or unused machines of death? Nah. We need to put the awe back in "Ohmawegawd!, Dreads!" 2.a) T1 Attack Dreadnaught(s) (anti sub capital tanks) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit anti sub capital weapon systems (flak weapon concepts) and gets bonuses to those systems - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire - Buffs to anti-sub capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking - 50% bonus to Capital turret / Missile damage against sub capital hulls per level - 10% bonus to Capital turret tracking against sub capital hulls per level 2.b) T1 Assault Dreadnaught(s) (brawlers - all rounders) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit anti sub capital weapon systems (flak weapon concepts) and gets bonuses to those systems - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire - Buffs to anti-sub capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking - 20% buffs to drone hit points / range / damage / rof per level - 75% bonus to Capital turret / Missile damage against sub capital & capital hulls per level - 75% bonus to Capital turret tracking against sub capital and Capital hulls per level 2.c) T1 Strike Dreadnaught(s) (Anti-super) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire - 100% buffs to drone hit points / range / RoF / Damage per level - 150% bonus to Capital turret / Missile damage against Capital and Super capital hulls per level - 100% bonus to Capital turret / Missile RoF against Capital and Super capital hulls per level - 25% Reduced fitting requirements / activation requirements for capital repair modules per level - 50% boosts to e-war module effectiveness per level (Damps / Tracking Disruptor, Energy Neutralizers / Vampires) against Capital and Super capital Hulls 2.1) Tech 2 Dreadnaughts 2.1.a) T2 Anti Sub Capital Attacknaught (anti-Subcap flavor) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can fit anti sub capital weapon systems (flak weapon concepts) and gets bonuses to those systems - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire - 75% to anti-sub capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking per level - 50% bonus to turret / Missile RoF against sub capital hulls per level - 50% bonus to turret tracking against sub capital hulls per level 2.1.b) T2 Anti Capital Assualtnaught (anti-cap flavor) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Can use Fighters and Bombers - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Can use dumb-fire UI for non targeted fire - Buffs to anti-capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking - 50% buffs to drone hit points / range / damage / rof per level - 75% bonus to Capital turret / Missile damage against capital and super capital hulls per level - 75% bonus to Capital turret /Missile RoF against capital and super capital hulls per level - 50% Reduced fitting requirements / activation requirements for capital repair modules per level 2.1.c) T2 Anti Capital Interdictor (anti-Capital / Super e-war flavor) Roles and Bonuses would revolve around: - Bonuses to tanking abilities - Buffs to armor / shield hit points - Can fit siege / Bastion modules - Buffs to anti-capital weapon systems damage / range / tracking - 75% bonus to Capital turret / Missile damage against capital and super capital hulls per level - 75% bonus to Capital turret /Missile RoF against capital and super capital hulls per level - 50% Reduced fitting requirements / activation requirements for capital repair modules per level - 50% boost to effectiveness of capital E-war modules (ECM / Damps / Tracking Disruptor / Target Painters / Energy Vamps and Neuts) per level against Capital and Super capital hulls - Can fit capital jump drive disruption generator (New - prevents jumpdrive and cynos in a bubble effect). - 50% bonus to range of capital jump drive disruption generator per level Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2805	Posted - 2015.03.21 10:11:21 - [30] - Quote [part 5 of 5] 3) T2 Weapons / Ammunition / Fighters / Fighter bombers / Capital Guns & Missiles / E-war modules that mimic sub capital gameplay for larger hulls - New T2 Ammunition for existing weapon platforms - T2 Guns / Missiles for existing weapon platforms - New T2 Fighters (Fighter interceptors for anti sub cap pew pew & T2 recon / e-war fun) - New T2 Fighter Bombers that do more damage to larger targets - New Capital e-war modules that are effective against Capital & Super Capital hulls (breaks e-war immunity) - New Anti sub capital flak weapons that are like walls of small arms fire designed to wipe out smaller target(s) close to the ship with concentrated / longer term fire (Can be fired using dumb-fire, manual click and pew no targeting system / UI) - Capital Propulsion modules 4. Jump drives without the need for Cynos Allow Capital ships and Super Capitals to jump to Stars / Planets / Moons in their jump range. 5. Allow Supers to Dock Do it moar! 6. Allow Capitals into hisec. Do it. 7. Revamp the targeting system allow capitals to target in relative comparison to smaller ships. We have lives too you know, we'd like to get back to them before we grow old waiting to press f1. 8. More Super Capital hulls and foci (See what was done to Carriers and Dreads in posts 3 & 4 above) 9. Modular & T3 capitals and Supers. Read OP #2 10. Warp Disruptors and Scramblers should no longer effect Jumpdrives, or prevent capitals and supers from using stargates if agressed on the gate. And that's just for a start... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.