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 [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2151	Posted - 2015.03.21 23:17:35 - [1] - Quote Remove friendly effects from supers. Institute immunity to non targeted interdiction (focused HIC still works). Watch the fireworks
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2155	Posted - 2015.03.22 23:02:04 - [2] - Quote One way to nerf the carrier blob might be to give capital reps the same treatment dreadnought guns have with siege. Reduce the base despair amount significantly while increasing the triage module bonus.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2228	Posted - 2015.04.06 23:15:41 - [3] - Quote Does anyone remember why the XL turrets had reduced tracking and the penalty from siege removed?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2262	Posted - 2015.04.16 00:30:31 - [4] - Quote I would Like to suggest adding some of that same utility to dreadnoughts, in a limited fashion. A Ship Maintenance Hangar on a dread would give it a little more utility and less of a reason to own a carrier if you only wanted the asset movement capabilities. Now, I do not wish to see it on par or exceeding current SMH in other ships, but definitely enough space to make it a more viable option, rather than having to own multiple capitals at once or making the choice to leave the dread/other ships behind. I propose the size of 600k-700k/m3 which makes it large enough to hold the largest battleships and possibly a few smaller ships. A caveat to this: the SMH on a dread would not have the ability to allow in space fitting services. I really enjoy having my dread on hand, and if I could leave the carrier behind instead I think I would definitely choose that option. d0cTeR9 wrote: People that do not own supers or regularly use caps, shouldn't have any say in this... And what reason would that be?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2282	Posted - 2015.04.16 17:52:40 - [5] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Karash Amerius wrote: d0cTeR9 wrote: People that do not own supers or regularly use caps, shouldn't have any say in this... We are having a good discussion here...lets not muck it up with opinions like this. Actually we are not. There's a LOT of people who clearly do NOT use caps and/or supers that think they know what they are talking about. That's a problem, because there's a lot more of those people than of players that actually use the damn things. It's the same thing as the carrier nerfs. Anyone with a bit of knowledge and brains knew how to deal with skynet, which is why you never saw those players complain about it. Just noobs that got their precious t3 cruiser (or faction cruiser) popped when they jumped a gate with a small gate camp defending their SOV/space and they had carrier support... CCP bends over backward to listen to them, its always been like that, and now the game is a washed down version of what it was before. Yes caps and supers are strong... that's the point of them (they are far from OP... they used to be 5-6 years ago, not anymore). With the way things are going, a LOT of us are worried mooring will be a death trap to supers (and yes caps). Personally, i use a POS to log into my super and safe log off. Without that bubble, its a LOT more work simply to log in and out (and logging always require me to log my alt in system first). Without that safety 'mechanism', some (maybe a lot) of us would have to abandon this part of EVE (personally i really like flying supers, i do wish they were more useful though). You are trying to disregard others' conflicting opinions by claiming they don't own the ships (which is entirely irrelavent). If they don't have knowledge about them or don't know what they are talking about, it will be clear. You don't need to own a super to have a valid opinion on it. Otherwise we are left with a club of super-owners who refuse to change anything because they have invested in them and want more from it, which is not bad, but definitely a stacking of opinions.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2287	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:03:48 - [6] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: Dreads: Just give them something meaningful to shoot at in FozzieSov. Maybe it's time to unleash them upon the battleship hordes?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2292	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:57:54 - [7] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Rowells wrote: You are trying to disregard others' conflicting opinions by claiming they don't own the ships (which is entirely irrelavent). If they don't have knowledge about them or don't know what they are talking about, it will be clear. You don't need to own a super to have a valid opinion on it. Otherwise we are left with a club of super-owners who refuse to change anything because they have invested in them and want more from it, which is not bad, but definitely a stacking of opinions. In other words... /Incarna... Nobody had incarna, but there were a few wanted the change... but the opinions of those who didn't want the change or who felt offended by incarna gate / monicle gate, vented their frustration publicly enough for ccp to halt that direction..... That being said... the changes wanted by caps and super cap owners who actually fly these ships.... do NOT align with the changes wanted by rifter lovers.... sub cap pilots need to know their place through cold hard roles and ingame inabilities based on hull size.... and its NOT supposed to be at the top of the food chain. Are you hoping, that by painting anyone who disagrees with your opinion as a greedy subcap pilot, is going to make your arguments any stronger? There is no reason to believe that their opinion has no validity based on their cap status. Otherwise, you're going to have the same argument thrown in your face for wanting to protect your prize pony. Who's to say you're not highly biased based on your status, and should therefore be disregarded as not having uninfluenced reasoning? Something, something, ad hominem. Also: I wasn't very involved in the community yet when incarna rage was going around. So got nothing to say there.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2293	Posted - 2015.04.17 08:02:10 - [8] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: I'm not hoping. I know. And I am highly biased. Proudly. Then how can you honestly say someone else's biased opinion is unworthy, when you yourself admit to having one? Asuka Solo wrote: If you see some 10 day old character talking politics in CAOD, yet he's never been in a 0.0 alliance in his 10 day career.... then his opinion isn't worth the e-page its written on.... In exactly that way, sub cap pilot opinions should be cast aside when balancing supers. If the opinion holds merit under scrutiny then it shouldn't matter if my duck or his grandmother said it. It's usually pretty easy to debunk those kinds of statements if its that obvious how uninformed they are. I hate to bring up real-life examples but, would you say anyone who doesnt smoke pot shouldn't be allowed to make rules on it? You can't voice opinion on being gay if you are not gay yourself? Or that you shouldn't have any say in politics, because you are not a politician? Might as well start having to request API checks before posting in any feedback threads, in case anyone who doesnt meet the preferred requirements tries to make an argument.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2296	Posted - 2015.04.17 16:48:11 - [9] - Quote ugh zug wrote: caps don't need any help. -the carrier is still very much a force multiplier in any fleet with plenty of utility to offer. -dreads are still going to be needed to pos bash, wh site escalate, and dispatching the occasional trolling rogue pl titan in lowsec. -the super carriers are very much like their lower priced counterpart a force multiplier, and hey with the jump changes you might actually be able to use fighter bombers outside of tidi. -titans are really just trophy ships... you don't need a role when you have a space ***** 14km in length to ram down unsuspecting gates. that being said they still do just fine killing other capitals, so what's the problem? what you guys are really complaining about is the jump changes that made using your very expensive ship painful, thus you feel you were owed something. really now let's consider the old system. was it balanced to be able to send an army of giant space penii half way across the universe to crush some tiny speck of an alliance trying to start out in null, and be back at home in the same day? no not even remotely. heck if 98% of your space isn't even used outside of moon mining edit and renters, do you really deserve to hold onto it? the primary purpose from induction is becoming less valuable. Dreads intitial introduction was intended for structure bashing, which is expected to go the way of the mullet, restricted to very specific circumstances and not very useful elsewhere. And the same aspect would be applied to supercarriers somewhat, since that is the primary reason they have so much dps at their disposal. Titans have switched roles often enough, so long as capitals are worth killing their job will still be there, albeit less so. And carriers roles as remote repair ships remains mostly untouched, except in the realm of repping structures.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2300	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:47:02 - [10] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: The forums aren't the place to check validity of opinions how are forums NOT the place to check validity of opinions? It seems like you are more concerned with who is speaking, rather than what they are saying. Also, by virtue of your previous statement, regardless of what your opinion is, if you do not fall into those categories you have no say in it. Which kinda invalidate 3/4 paragraphs that you just wrote.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2300	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:50:49 - [11] - Quote Professor Maddoc wrote: Just a question, i dont pretend to know anything about this but it interests me none the less. oh an im newb so go easy on me plz lol Why doesn't CCP just stop players being able to produce these ships and replace them? introduce some sort of new tech, maybe drop from these new Jove battleship with doomsdays, reverse engineer or somein to a whole new tech lvl of battleships ect that replaces the current super training? I mean if these ships are "broke" why fix them? just replace them much like what is being done with sov, but replace them with ships that ppl who currently fly these ships will be excited to fly. Im no pretending to know anything as u can tell, just a question :D This would be a very new pardigm for CCP. I can't recall any ship lines ever being removed entirely. They have a tendency to repurpose them rather than trash them.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2307	Posted - 2015.04.18 22:10:29 - [12] - Quote I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2307	Posted - 2015.04.19 01:00:53 - [13] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Rowells wrote: I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead. Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes. Why do you say that?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2307	Posted - 2015.04.19 02:05:32 - [14] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Rowells wrote: Tiddle Jr wrote: Rowells wrote: I'm starting to think dreads and carriers need be scaled down in terms of tank DPS and reps more toward current subcap levels, it would leave more room for other buffs to put them in a place that's a step or two above, rather than a whole leap ahead. Why not just take them away otherwise there is no need to have them after your changes. Why do you say that? Maybe because your suggestion sounds redicoluos? Maybe an explanation?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2324	Posted - 2015.04.21 17:55:37 - [15] - Quote Karash Amerius wrote: Edit: I guess the only thing they will be good for is fights over moons...that is something at least. Hate to crush your dreams, but...
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2332	Posted - 2015.04.24 17:00:54 - [16] - Quote Haatakan Reppola wrote: WHY do we need large changes to capital ships? Null, low and WH all use carriers for logi as it is now. Dread make short work of carriers, SC and Titan may be a bit costly but not needing siege to do dps is a huge bonus over Dreads (SC do same or more dps than sieged Dread, and have ALOT more range) Titan does good dps, dont use siege, fleet booster (assume it need some changes to strenght) and can bridge fleets around. Make sure Carrier have a good role after sov changes and the rest will follow, that role dont need to be linked sov in any way for it to be good the whole reason caps were introduced was for structure warfare. Not cap killing for the sake of cap killing.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2346	Posted - 2015.04.26 21:02:21 - [17] - Quote Throwing an idea out here: For carriers, we might consider having them take place of the current role logistics cruisers have in the upper end. Currently, when looking at support options you have T1 and T2 logistics cruisers and triage carriers to a different extent. So, we switch the non-triage targets from other capitals, to battleships and work the bonuses up/down from there. Higher scan res, more mobility, less powerful reps, etc. Possibly change the two roles (triage/non triage) so that one has very long support range, and the other has "in the grinder" power. Essentially, you will now have your "battleship class" support (arguably a slight step up) and possibly bringing carriers into a closer subcap role than currently available. As for cruiser logistics? Scale them down to below effectiveness of carriers (untouched if need be) and shift the role to remote boosting capabilities, similar to those rarely used bonuses currently on the hull.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2361	Posted - 2015.04.29 00:27:36 - [18] - Quote There's nothing wrong with Pilots wanting a different role for their ship, especially when the old role becomes obsolete. Like someone said earlier, they did the same thing for the old mining frigates and cruisers after the ore variants took over. Remade ten into logistics ships which was a drastic improvement in my eyes.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2378	Posted - 2015.05.05 04:49:50 - [19] - Quote actually I do remember this one. It has something to do with how the server recognizes ownership of things. If a person is considered to be someone else's object, it throws a fit and soul-crushing lag ensues.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,11s, ref 20250910/2136
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.