|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
1748
   |
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:43:54 -
[1] - 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 -
[2] - 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 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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 -
[5] - 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 -
[6] - 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 -
[7] - 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
|
|
|
|
| |
|