When considering new roles and uses for SuperCarriers and Titans their current build costs are too restrictive. Very few organizations can afford to use and lose them even with current incomes, and rental incomes will likely be shrinking soon. This means they are only used sparingly or in overwhelming numbers.

Accept the fact that "proliferation" has already happened and embrace it. Revamp their roles so they are used in combat regularly and die all the time. Reduce their build costs significantly. Imagine supercarrier hulls cost maybe 3-4 bil and Titan hulls 7-9 bil. This would open up a new spectrum of roles in fleet combat previously thought impossible. True, it would reduce the exhilaration in killing one, but at this price point they would be dying in actual combat much more frequently. At their current price point the only possible role they can play in combat is a role where they have an astronomically small chance of actually dying. Also, Sov holders wouldn't feel the need to blue everyone within 9 regions in order to protect their CSAA towers.

When the changes go live compensate all previous owners currently flying super hulls by giving them spare hulls through the Redeem system so that their net investment of minerals is conserved.

As I recall Manny (or Elise?) saying, "the price of admission to a good fight is the ship you are in." Much more dynamic and interesting roles could appear more palatable if the build costs were tailored around the philosophy that they could be used in risky situations and lost frequently without crushing the soul.

10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Range
10% Warp Disruption Field Generators Cycle Time

- Adding a blockade style of module for both the Dreadnaught and Carrier. Similar to the Triage and Siege module this will have multiple effects that can set up a blockade for stations and stargates. Balancing considerations is that they will use stront, and will take up to a minute to deploy, so that you will need to keep continual coverage to try to catch something.

This is really interesting. Movement will be critical with the new command node system, allowing capitals to shut down or otherwise manipulate gates could give them a critical and interesting role. If your cap fleet lets you move more freely (bridging) while restricting the enemy (blockading), building and maintaining one will become highly desirable for fozzie sov warfare.

I agree with your conclusions. It seems to me that the new sov warfare is trying to add a terrain of sorts by implementing constellation level siege mechanics. Capitals need to be part of this system in order to be widely used, what better way use them than to make it so they can effectively counter smaller ships capabilities while at the same time sacrificing there ability to effectively counter other capital ships. Movement and the ability to actively oppose your enemy several jumps away will be a great advantage, a role that Capitals can easily fit into given the right mechanics.

As for the OP instead of pushing MODES onto the capitals, add more variety to the triage/siege modules to give capitals different capabilities. Bringing down the power of the current modules and split the bonuses into 3-4 separate modules and build fits around them. It would be really interesting if they made different animations for the different modules so you can visually see what they are using.

While I agree to an extent, it seems odd that you've chosen the Archon as your example. It is perhaps one of the only capitals that currently has few balance issues, if any - it sees a wide array of uses, and is especially common for triage (I.e. it's not hurting or in need of serious love). Of all the capital ship the archon is probably the one that needs change the least.

Whereas dreadnoughts are the caps most affected by the removal of structure grind, because it removes one of their main purposes.

Completely missing the OP's point. He's using the Archon as an example because it's so good, not because he thinks it needs improvement. Being so good at everything all at once is the entire point of his proposal.

So remove even MORE utility from capitals than CCP already has? What I'm saying is that he's gone to a lot of trouble to lay down a lot of specific numbers for carriers, where you are saying this isn't about carriers (I didn't see any specific modes suggested for other capitals in the OP....).

If you are suggesting that his point is really about other capitals then I'd like to see the very specific suggestions he has for dreads and supers, which could benefit a lot more from this than carriers (which are currently in a fairly good place and IMO don't need to be touched).

What about just removing capital remote reps altogether? This would require taking supercaps with doomsdays and fighter bombers completely out of the equation. If carriers and dreads were forced to be supported by subcap healer magic, would there really be any need for supercaps as we know them today? Hell, you could find a way of giving fighter bombers to standard carriers to give them some sort of genuine anti-capital/structure punch, albeit not at the level of the supercarrier of today. It just seems like the entire idea surrounding the brick-like nature of massed capitals with remote reps is one of the major stumbling blocks.

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.

This would be a bit premature. I would hardly call the ability for heavy spider tanking to be considered OP when the main situations where it was a problem (300 carriers at a sov timer) are being stripped away until they are nearly useless for Sov.

What you suggest is certainly an option as long as it accompanies a new role for carriers. They are hardly in a place atm where they need more heavy nerfs because they are being "OP".

This would be a bit premature. I would hardly call the ability for heavy spider tanking to be considered OP when the main situations where it was a problem (300 carriers at a sov timer) are being stripped away until they are nearly useless for Sov.

Dropping slowcats on the enemy staging system before timers come out will be a powerful strategy and result in N+1 slugfests. Until the POS revamp, POS timers will also be N+1 slugfests. And spending on constellation geography, parking at a key gate with a carrier blob could also be hugely effective in sov warfare.

It's true that the slowcat blob won't effectively bounce around winning 10 minute timers, but parking them at choke points still has a good chance of impacting the meta.

Eh maybe, but that's going to be a strong strategy with subs or capitals. You can camp someone into a station with 100 HAC's and 50 bombers (+ bubble support) nearly as easily as you can with 100 HAC's and 50 carriers.

It's not a problem that's specific to carriers.

POS's are more applicable, but if we take away their role in repping Sov structures, and we take away their heavy spider tanking for defending static locations, and we take away their ability to assign fighters....

What's left? Honestly. I'll still use one to rat, but gatecamping with them really shouldn't the the pinnacle of capital combat.

The way we are going now carriers are becoming 3km domis, and dreads will be like the Maelstrom and Abaddon

we dont need to have modes on every ship. just keep that to t3 destroyers.

Caps need to be fight changes in small doses, not in blobs. For Carriers and Supers perhaps some bonuses to running links; since they can already fit them. None of the nonsense of forcing boosts on grid, the incentive to field the carrier would be links + fighters+ heavy logi. Perhaps make capital only sized links and give dreads and titans the ability to fit links that boost offensive capabilities; ie tracking speed, falloff/optimal, overheating damage reduction.


This might breathe some life into a quickly dying category of ships

This is a good synopses.

Dreadnoughts, Carriers, Super-Carriers and Titans should be specialised weapon platforms like Command-ships. You deploy them in small numbers, within the fleet to boost effectiveness of other weapon platforms. MODE would / could support such boost within fleets, but as I have pointed out before

There should be no added value in mass deployment of Capitals, if anything, you should loose fleet effectiveness with each Capital past optimal in fleet. And perhaps, if capitals are deployed in Cap fleet you will receive negative bonuses.

I don-¦t want to see Caps out of the game, there needs to be role for Capitals, we need BIG toy-¦s or why else would we continue playing the game.