EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 27 post(s)

CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 6218	Posted - 2015.10.25 09:33:31 - [1] - Quote With the Expansion EVE Online: Citadel this spring, we will see also a full revamp of Capital ships and warfare including Supercapitals! The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective will have diminishing returns. Instead, the individual game play will become more interactive and meaningful. Revamped fighter gameplay will introduce completely new aspects of warfare into New Eden. New capital modules, weapons, and superweapons add more options. Ewar immunity for supers will be gone, effective remote repair only possible in Triage, refitting in space with a weapons timer a thing of the past ... and we will get a set of new Capitals: Force Auxiliaries! Check out the blog Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins! and please provide feedback, suggestions and your thoughts! CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager


CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 6223	Posted - 2015.10.25 11:27:05 - [2] - Quote Anth9rax wrote: Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it. The XL Citadels are coming with EVE Online: Citadel in Spring 2016. CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1748	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:43:54 - [3] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: 2. With the talk on reduction of hit points on Supers and Titans, don't you think people will be even more risk adverse with capitals? That people will only commit them to the field if they have a guaranteed chance of not losing any? A question for (all of) you: Do you think that being able to deploy with a guarantee that you won't lose anything is healthy/good for the game? Not even high-sec makes that promise. knobber Jobbler wrote: 3. In respect to Ewar immunity, can you provide clearer details on this? Will it work in a similar manner to how warp strength and warp disruption mechanics work? Similar but not the same - it isn't as binary as warp strength. As a hypothetical example: If your ship has a 50% web immunity, then a web that normally lowers your speed by 40% would only lower it by 20%. knobber Jobbler wrote: 4. What will happen to the Shadows on my super? Will they turn into a faction squadron? What happens when they take damage? Can I call them back to repair to full strength or are fighter squadrons now disposable items like ammo? The migration plan isn't set in stone yet, but N fighters of type X will get grouped in to a squadron of type X when you put them in to the Launch Deck (think of the 1-5 launch decks as 1-5 fighter slots similar to module slots), and then if you bring them back safely, they can be unfitted back in to the fighter bay as a stack of N fighters. If the squadron is damaged so that it loses one fighter's worth of health, it will then return as a stack of N-1 that you can then top up from your bay, or unfit back in to a stack of N-1 fighters. Where N might be 6 for a carrier and 12 for a super. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1748	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:44:43 - [4] - Quote Fishymonster wrote: ...You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that. No, Fighter bombers aren't going away. They'll probably come under the Heavy Fighter category. We're actually adding new types of fighter, rather than removing any. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1748	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:45:29 - [5] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: DrZoid Berg wrote: Sadly you're going to kill a lot of the usability of a normal carrier by taking away the "normal drones". Carriers are used in large scale fights (which I get that you're trying to promote these with the changes) but there are countless other uses, ratting, home defense, etc. Nothing in the devpost states that the fighter squadrons will have the same stats as current fighters. I'd not worry about Carriers not being able to rat etc yet. Exactly. There's no reason that fighters in their new form won't be able to perform a variety of tasks such as ratting. Sure, they'll do it differently, but having to adapt and learn new techniques isn't a bad thing. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1752	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:46:53 - [6] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: This all sounds awesome :D The blog and keynote mention multiple times projecting your drones hundreds of km away, this implies to me that the 250km lock range limitation is going? Interesting... Yes. This is also getting changed to support the Citadels as they will potentially have very long targeting ranges. This might mean there's one or two other places we'll need to poke at to prevent unexpected issues! "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1752	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:48:58 - [7] - Quote Ilany wrote: Great ideas - it will be interesting to see how this develops and whether it can actually cause a change in null sec. Will any of the mooted bonuses (e.g. ewar resist, warp strength) be available to sub-caps (obviously a lower bonus)? Don't forget the Rorqual. It needs a better raison d'etre Won't multiple squadrons of drones significantly increase lag? Technically there's no reason why we couldn't apply the resistance mechanics to any type of ship once it is implemented. However for now it will be one of the exclusive perks of capitals. Agreed Hopefully not. A squadron behaves as a single item in space - it has one position, one target, one set of stats etc. Much like a grouped missile represents up to 8 missiles as one. No ship will be able to launch more than 5 squadrons (though a carrier squadron might represent 4 fighters compared to a supercarrier squadron might represent 8) and so the number of objects in space that we have to track will actually go down as a result of these changes, even if your effective deployed ehp/dps might be higher. As a squadron takes damage and its 'effective fighter count' goes down, then its damage output will also be stepped down accordingly. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1752	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:51:58 - [8] - Quote xttz wrote: Regarding the new super-weapons; will these all be individual modules, or will there be a single "Doomsday Weapon" with scripts to alter the functionality? Each type of superweapon will be a different module. We won't be using scripts to alter them. There might be fitting restrictions of only one superweapon at all, or only only one of each type. That is TBD xttz wrote: Also are there any plans to have racial bonuses for these weapons? For example, any Supercarrier can fit any Projected Electronic Warfare module, but the Hel gets a slight bonus when using the webifier variant while the Aeon will get the best performance from the energy neut. I'm not sure if there's any plans for this yet, but it is an interesting idea. xttz wrote: Quote: We understand that a lot of capsulers purchased their carrier as a logistics platform. We don't have defined plans for a transition between existing Carriers to the new Force Auxiliaries, but I can assure you it is on our radar, and we'll be announcing the transition plan with plenty of time for everyone to get ready. Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table? Yes that is an option. One possibility that has been raised is that on patch day, any carrier with a triage module fitted will be turned in to a force aux. *But this is still very much something we want to get your input on before we nail down the final plan.* "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1752	Posted - 2015.10.25 13:52:20 - [9] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: "New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)" I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships? I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight. No, the new XL anti-subcap guns will be a second type of capital gun. The existing XL guns will still be around, but will be focused on anti-cap/structure damage application only. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law


CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 640	Posted - 2015.10.25 14:06:41 - [10] - Quote Dreekus wrote: As dred pilot, I WANT to be optimistic but without numbers all I hear is "nerf tracking and nerf dps of normal guns, add some weak guns that do max 3x dps of BS, nerf EWAR immunity while in siege, still disallow remote assistance, nerf tank" Sorry if that sounds like whine but without numbers is not very nice. It is nice that we will get T2 modules. I just ask that CCP will keep in mind wormholers and how they use capitals ATM dred needs more than 30sec to target BS. What if he get jammed? Are you going to remove scan resolution penalty from Siege? In PvP it seems you expect ppl to use ship that is 10times more expensive than BS(in Wspace this is not big problem), have 3x dps of BS but weights like 10 BS (and THIS is problem). When adding FAX machine pls remember also about mass. It should not be heavier then carrier if you hope that ppl will use it in wormholes during offensive. In PVE In dev blog you said you are going to lower EHP of dreds and their current guns dps to compensate. So Dred will do less dps and tank less, are you going to nerf Sleeples Guardian to compensate? Just please keep in mind that if you nerf too much wh farming another region of space will just move to incursion as source of income. What I like now about Wspace now is that after you make some preparation you get high return. We do not have luxury of just logging in and warping to anomaly to earn some isk, everything takes time and everywhere is cloaked proteus. Waiting for more detailed devblogs to come. I am somewhat optimistic. It's not my place to give specifics but I just want to let you know that the application of capitals in wormholes is definitely being considered alongside these changes. We appreciate your cautious optimism! The devil is in the details of course so please continue to provide feedback as we nail down the exact stats and mechanics CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski



CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 640	Posted - 2015.10.25 14:19:10 - [11] - Quote Smertyukovitch wrote: So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital? And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this. Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place. Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski


CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 653	Posted - 2015.10.27 14:41:37 - [12] - Quote Thanks for all the feedback so far folks, just want to let you know that we're still reading this thread, and will be answering some points once our jetlagged colleagues have all returned CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:50:59 - [13] - Quote Darirol wrote: hand of god doomsday: basicly you could warp some smartbomb battleships in a perfectly scattered blobb of enemy ships, use the doomsday and a few seconds later you have 50 or 100 enemy ship right on top of your smartbomb squad. with like 10 smartbomb battleships you could basicly "pipe bomb" enemy fleets. does it work that way? iam not sure how the warm up phase works and if it is possible to escape the doomsday. depending on this it could be kind of broken or just fine. The titan pilot can't select where the ships teleported by the Hand-of-God (or is that Hand-Of-Bob?) Class Doomsday will go, thats random :) So I'm not sure how the smart bombing battleships could take advantage of it?


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:54:00 - [14] - Quote Izmaragd Dawnstar wrote: I'm by no means a capital expert, but since I'm mostly flying logistics, the force auxiliary would probably be my next choice. I'm okay with separating carriers and logistics ships, but restricting remote reps to triage only is a dangerous thing to do. If we consider the subcap version, it's basically if the guardians flying around would be unable to rep other guardians. I understand that you're looking to reduce the effectiveness of "slowcats" and "wrecking balls", but this is probably a bit overboard. I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms. A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc. An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar. Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :)


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:00:13 - [15] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Quote: Under the Citadel expansionGÇÖs capital changes, the bar to killing capitals is limited to what a single Force Auxiliary in Triage can tank. If you can kill that, eventually you can kill the entire capital fleet...assuming you can stay alive and keep them tackled (smile) So does this mean, only 1 Force Auxiliary can be active in a capital fleet at a time? How many capitals is it expected 1 force auxiliary capital in triage can rep? What is to stop the largest groups from having multiple Force Auxiliary ships on standby to jump in as each one dies? Or more likely, stop them fielding multiple small fleets each with its own. Or is the wording in the blog just very vague and meaningless? I should have gone into more detail on the devblog. Current Triage Carriers have a maximum they can tank. Somewhere in the 20-40k DPS range. If your facing a group of 100 triage carriers, assuming you have enough DPS to kill a single triage in a single cycle, you can eventualy kill the entire group of 100 triage carriers. Current RR Carriers (also called Slowcats) don't have any maximum they can tank. Whatever Slowcat you primary will refit to maximum resists, while all his/her friends will repair that Slowcat. Every slowcat added to the fleet increases the total tankability of total fleet. We fully expect that large groups will have multiple Force Auxiliary ships, in some cases 100's of them, but the fleet won't ever be completely unkillable. Clear as mud? :) Quote: Force Auxiliary Capitals will also have Fleet hangars Ship hangars, and refitting abilities to all their fleet mates like any other capital. Isn't this a little pointless if your adding no refitting during aggression timers?[/quote] There are plenty of times you refit outside of combat. Also you can wait the 60 seconds (in combat) and refit then.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:57:34 - [16] - Quote MrQuisno wrote: no one asked the hard question whats going go happen to "CURRENT" doomsdays removed or remain ? Current Doomsdays will remain, but their damage is going to change.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:59:00 - [17] - Quote Emmy Mnemonic wrote: So, in all a lot of nice and shiney new features and functions! Did CCP mention the rough time-schedule for launching these capital-changes? Will it be an expansion or several smaller updates? The ETA is the Citadels Expansion. http://updates.eveonline.com/coming/spring/


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:02:22 - [18] - Quote nospet wrote: One big issue I am concerned about is: With new scramble strengths and Capital Warp Disruptors & Scramblers where does this leave heavy interdictors? Heavy interdictors were newly re-balanced and this seems like it is going to take them out of use almost entirely. We've talked about Super-Carriers and Titans having 20 to 50 Warp Strength. Capital Warp Disruptors and Scramblers would have simmilar warp disruption and scramble strength to the existing officer modules (-2 for warp disruptors and -3 for scramblers). We're not locked to these numbers, so tell us what you think! HIC's with their focus point will be able to solo tackle a titan.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 255	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:06:55 - [19] - Quote Querns wrote: Lelira Cirim wrote: Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary. I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post. "Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do. Awesome post. CCP Antiquarian would be so proud! The internal name for quite a while was 'Tenders', i.e. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaplane_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_torpedo_boat_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_boat_tender All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships. However...Chicken Tenders...


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 255	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:08:10 - [20] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Are freighters, jump freighters and Bowheads included in the "give them all FH/SMB, ewar changes" thing, especially the web resistance? At this stage, no.



CCP Antiquarian C C P C C P Alliance 166	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:11:59 - [21] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Querns wrote: ...donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post... ...CCP Antiquarian would be so proud!... I am! I am so proud! Let's all wear etymology hats! (I'm a 7 5/8s in standard comparative linguistics!) "Singularity pilots are helpful pilots." @CCP_Antiquarian - for immediate fulfillment of your archaic social media needs.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 255	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:12:32 - [22] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Don't forget the Larrikin asking Grath if he's poor! Awh, I love Grath. He's a bro. His question is something that the the CSM, and Manny inparticular, have brought up. We're looking at it, but at this stage don't intend on making any changes to the cost of construction for capitals. If we did, we wouldn't announce them at a round table where some players could get a financial advantage.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 255	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:23:11 - [23] - Quote Harry Saq wrote: 1. Since the fighters are now in a squadron, and damage bars were replaced by remaining fighter indicators, will the effectiveness of the squadron diminish with the number of fighters lost (i.e. DPS drop and other effect strength/likelihood diminish)? Yes :) Harry Saq wrote: 2. Can you add tactical overlay UI circles to the vertical plane similar to the ones on the horizontal plane to aid in not getting Kirk'ed because our only frame of reference is in line with Khan's thinking? [quote=Harry Saq]3. Can we get color fill and line brightness controls to help us customize the tactical overlay so it is not always so bright? 4. Can we customize the placement of the distance indicator circles according to preferences such as setting our own intervals (say every 5km instead of 10km) and have "always on" settings for weapons range spheres of our liking (like a UI checkbox or something)? 5. When we detach and move the camera from our ships, can we have the tactical UI center on our squadrons/drones, or centered on the camera, or any spot of our choosing? Would it be ridiculous to have that tactical overlay added instead of replacing our current (or maybe even a different color so we know that is not our ship's tactical UI but our floating one)? These are all good ideas, I'll pass it on to Team Psycho Sisters!


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 264	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:26:10 - [24] - Quote Luke Lamarr wrote: I am assuming you have a way to prevent titans from using the DD to teleport ships that are inside a POS shield? We do :)


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 264	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:41:43 - [25] - Quote Destoya wrote: Are you going to give titans a reason to use their guns? You commonly quote titans as having a role of a supercapital version of a dreadnought, but currently the guns are incredibly underwhelming. Against subcaps you might as well be shooting wet paper towels unless it's a battleship MWDing at zero speed, and against caps the effective range just isn't enough to do any significant amount of damage compared to the doomsday. In the future with new doomsdays as well as capital tackle mods and neuts, I struggle even more to find reason to dedicate 6H/2-3M/3+L slots to use guns that do, in a best case scenario, barely more damage than a dreadnought. I'd really rather you just remove the guns altogether and focus the role of titans to their doomsday, ganglink, and bridging capabilities. This would give space for a supercarrier-priced superdreadnought that I feel could really make use of the guns. Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield. While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 264	Posted - 2015.10.30 12:30:32 - [26] - Quote xttz wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Titans will be able to use the HA anti-sub-capital guns that dreads can use, without going into siege. This, combined with the new DDs, we think will give a unique place for Titans on the battlefield. While dreads have an upper level on the amount they can tank, Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support (which admittedly can be killed) don't. Can you confirm how the existing capital functions/modules not yet mentioned are being treated? Specifically: Use of warfare links on capitals (plus the built-in Titan fleet bonuses) Capital local reps Drone Control Units Clone Vat Bays (at best a niche module for over a decade now) Are these all being reviewed / removed / revamped alongside all the new toys? They are :) Capital Local Reps will be re-balanced based on the new HP and change in capital RR mechanics, along with having Meta, T2 and Faction variations introduced. Drone Control Units don't make a lot of sense under the new fighter squadron mechanics. We've got some ideas, but nothing we're willing to announce yet. As for the others, we're looking into them but don't have anything to announce yet.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2015.10.30 13:35:12 - [27] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms. A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc. An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar. Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :) I'm looking at a low sec Guardian fit right now that has over 300k omni EHP with HG slaves. It costs ~1.4b on top of the implants (no purple, lots of blue), but you know better than to under-estimate how much people will spend on ships to get a pvp edge. Unlike the fleet auxiliary, it can also receive remote ECCM / r-sebos which can largely negate hostile e-war, and that triage carrier is probably easier to alpha than a 300k EHP Guardian with a frigate-sized signature. The slave set alone on that Guardian is 2b or so. Although the pilots pod is very likely to survive given :lowsec: That said, the Triage Archon puts out considerbly more reps than the Guardian. Slave up the Triage pilot and I would argue your point about which gets alpha-ed out is probably moot. Especially if there are Vindi webs on the field, that Sig on the guardian won't save it at all. Again, its going to depend very much on the situation. In some cases, guardians are going to be the better choice (mobility being kinda important for a bunch of fleets), in others Triage. Bring the right tool for the job. Alexander McKeon wrote: Along those lines, could we please have a serious look at the interaction of various implant sets and capitals? If Slaves end up affecting armour Auxiliaries and there is no comparable set of shield, that has a significant potential to skew the meta. The same goes if Crystals were suddenly able to affect shield ships. Balancing EHP with the assumption of slaves might make the nullsec meta shield heavy, and balancing without thinking about them will make the lowsec meta very armour heavy since every cap pilot living there likes 'em. I think this is a good idea. Alexander McKeon wrote: Oh, and here's a few other questions for good measure: CCP is removing the swiss-army knife nature of supercarriers and appears to be grooming them for more of a 'flagship' role with powerful abilities, while removing incentive to field them by the dozen. Given this, there are a great many supercarrier pilots who might wish to fly other ship while retaining the ability to put their super into combat at need. In light of how dependent supercarriers often are on high-value implant sets, could we please get a more elegant clone-swapping solution (perhaps only to other clones in the same citadel) so that I can fly Triage in a clone with 3% implants, then swap over that evening to my super clone to support a major offensive? This is a good point. I'll pass it on to Team Game of Drones who are the ones working on Citadels. I know they are looking at doing some clone work for WH's, but I don't know what the scope is. Alexander McKeon wrote: Has CCP examined elementary probability theory in connection to ECM and the loss of e-war immunity for siege / triage? It's very easy to get a large number of rolls against a triage carrier with a dozen cruisers fielding ECM drones, and you only need one success. They spoke about giving very high e-war resistance, but I feel that warp disruption and ECM/TDs/Damps should be examined separately rather than lumped together. Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together? Alexander McKeon wrote: Given how complex the new carrier fighter interface appears to be, my conclusion is that flying one carrier and nothing else could offer fun gameplay which rewards player skill... but that multiboxing them in PvP could be prohibitively difficult. The problem I see with this is not one of one player no longer being able to fly a fleet of carriers, but rather of how difficult it might be to fly a carrier and subcap alt; given an inability to multibox and how caps are often kept in reserve but not committed, I see many chances for blue-balled capital pilots who would of previously been able to participate on a subcap alt but can no longer do so because they must commit to their carrier. Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging thats bad? I think you have an interesting point. I don't think making carrier gameplay less engaging is the answer though. Do you have any suggestions? Alexander McKeon wrote: More of an open-ended question to CCP; what about the current state of Dreadnoughts as employed against subcaps do you find problematic, and why does it seem necessary to prevent well-supported capitals from applying damage to subcaps? While a useful tool, blap dreads do not appear to be significantly harming the current pvp metagame. This sort of coordination between capitals and subcaps creates interesting gameplay and has significant implications for fights in WH space. It comes down to balance. Currently, any changes we make to XL weapons on dreads, we need to look at the effect it has on sub-cap blapping too. For example, we can't buff the tracking of XL weapons without buffing sub-cap blapping. By splitting these weapons up into dedicated Anti-Capital and Anti-Sub-Capital systems, we can separately balance them. Alexander McKeon wrote: With a decrease in EHP, there could be far fewer 'supers tackled, form up to save them' operations, which can often spark larger fights (such as Asakai) because the capitals might well be dead before help could possibly arrive. Are viable active tank options for supercapitals being considered at all? They are being considered, yes. Alexander McKeon wrote: When coming up with new numbers for capitals, will they be balanced against the current state of capitals, current state of subcaps, or both? This question is aimed primarily at the degree to which subcapital DPS has crept upward in the last several years, while capital dps hasn't to the same extent. Where does CCP see the appropriate ratio between capitals and subcaps with regard to EHP, DPS and cost lying? I know Grath already tou...

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.