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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 27 post(s)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2308	Posted - 2015.10.27 20:57:04 - [451] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Lady Rift wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps 1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range. that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500. Most aren't saying useless, what people are rightly asking is: Is the step up enough to justify the cost and the massive limitations of it? The tank will be less impressive seeing as refitting is dead, or the dps won't be up to snuff. They're not as good as you're making out.
Luscius Uta 176	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:00:51 - [452] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Luscius Uta wrote: Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness. When has this ever happened? I can recall plenty of times when a handful of drama queens made wildly hyperbolic claims that some skill had been nerfed into uselessness, but I don't really recall it ever happening. I found Advanced Large Ship Construction to be a prime example of CCP trolling us with skill changes. Even if you're a dedicated industrialist, spending a month or so just to reduce build time of Blopses and Marauders by 1% is utterly silly. Also, don't forget that for some time Exhumers skill gave pathetic 1% reduction to strip miner and ice harvester duration. Generally, if a skill isn't worth training to L5, then I consider it to be poorly designed. Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
Pestilen Ratte Artimus Ratte 30	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:43:12 - [453] - Quote I have a radical idea. How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use? You know, so that people keep playing the game, and subscribe to it? Just an idea.
Pestilen Ratte Artimus Ratte 30	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:53:09 - [454] - Quote ..
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 918	Posted - 2015.10.27 23:07:52 - [455] - Quote CCP Phantom wrote: 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. OK, I'm not trying to defecate on your parade here-- the reimagined scheme for fighter combat looks like it has the potential to be really cool, I like the refitting change, I love the notion of making all flavors of cap be useful from a personal logistics standpoint, and I like the idea of the HP / module rework for caps. That said, I absolutely do not understand how you're going to balance these ships. The new fighter scheme, the new anti-subcap weapons for dreads, and the new AOE damage / ewar tools for supercaps strongly suggest that you want to make capitals strong combatants VS subcaps. This makes sense in light of your decision to implement damage mitigation on strategic objectives-- a change that largely destroys the usefulness of capitals as siege weapons (why bring clumsy, expensive ships to do a job that can be done just as effectively by simply bringing along a few more doctrine-fit subcaps?). If your new role for capitals is as bruisers that can repel large numbers of opposing subcaps though, how is this not going to lead to the same, stale N+1 gameplay that people have been complaining about for years with existing caps and supers? I understand that you're going to nerf the spider-tank, and that the idea is that a team's ability to tank will be limited by the ability of their auxiliaries. But how is that actually going to make a difference? If caps remain strong against subcaps as well as structures, the answer is still always to bring more caps. The only difference between the proposed paradigm and the "wrecking ball" type apex-force paradigm that people have been complaining about for years is that the resulting fights will presumably be a lot bloodier as a result of logistics not being able to keep pace with damage. That will do little to affect the strategic outcome though: the side that can field more caps will still win; the bill will just be larger.
Circumstantial Evidence 232	Posted - 2015.10.27 23:20:18 - [456] - Quote Pestilen Ratte wrote: How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use?.... CCP tries to do both things in parallel. This thread is about a capital ship overhaul, but *before* this hits, we will see 13 new ships in a Winter update. That's a lot, IMO :) Tech Two Logistics Frigates, Navy Disruption Frigates, new Tech II Destroyers, and an ice mining frigate. These are going to provide new options for light-and-fast gameplay. And, all subcaps will be helpful in battle against redesigned super-capitals, since they are losing immunity to ewar.
Commander Liger Ultimatum. The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.10.27 23:36:42 - [457] - Quote Would it be possible to give the Rorqual a Capital mining laser that acts like the "Sickle" Doomsday? Also, give it the ability to do potential damage to ships in LoS? I am not saying DD LoS damage, but a fair amount to use it as a deterrent.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2800	Posted - 2015.10.28 00:18:00 - [458] - Quote Baki Yuku wrote: Captain Awkward wrote: afkalt wrote: Rowells wrote: E1ev1n wrote: My suggestion is to increase the High Angle battery DPS over the 3k DPS mark, battleships are a heck of a lot cheaper and can do OVER 2k dps already so for a Dread to be stuck under that mark is very shameful. lol, your glass cannon vindi can do 2050dps at what range? With which drones? No, you are grossly overstating your typical battleship. Not to mention the range of the HAWB is supposed to be similar to current short range XL (I wish I had the video handy to source). I'm not against the idea of a bump in dps, but I don't like that kind of justification. If we really balanced damge based on isk, you would be flying battleships either. Not when tier3 BC and pretty much any other ship is laying around. Rattlesnake, 1400 to 84km, well over 200k EHP. Approx 1/6 the cost of a fitted dread. Or the poor mans version, the fleet phoon can accomplish the same albeit at a much weaker tank. Change from 475m. This is a particular factor in WH because of mass - it's not just cost. Wormholes aside, your Rattle as only 1/10 of the EHP of dreads and does not have the option do refit to 6k+ dps when the situation requires it. Those new weapon system are designed to give dreads a way to contibure to a fight where there are no (more) big targets to shoot at. Its makes your dead may more versatile. They don't doh there is no value in bringing a knife to a gun fight and that is what the new dread guns are a knife a blunt knife. Why would you field a ship that costs 3b can not be repped won't be able to refit [If they go though with weapon timer for siege] can be jammed can be damped can be tracking disrupted. And in exchange for all these disadvantages you do a stragering 2k dps. You're better off putting your dread alt into an extra rattlesnake. And we'll just ignore the impressive tank a seiged dread has? Or the fact that it has heavy resistance to ewar in siege where a BS does not? Larger capacitor that would require multiple BS or specialized fits/ships to bring down? If you're going to try and balance against the cost, I'll ask why you don't just spend that isk from the BS on a dozen T1 cruisers which do a better job. Not to even mention the other things the dread could have, like capital neuts or cap boosters. Ship progession has never been linear with isk spent and bonus Received. The best part about a BS tracking dread doing 2k is, where previously you needed support or specialized fits to compete, all those extra slots can be effectively used some other way. Not that they won't help, but not nearly as necessary. And if you're going to include the 'cannot be repped' why have none of the price comparisons included the support ships needed? Notwithstanding the fact that it seems no has considered whether or not 2k is the base or the max.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1854	Posted - 2015.10.28 00:40:28 - [459] - Quote Real humans are Eve's most precious resource. That means that nearly everyone talking about how a Dreadnought's HAW needs to be better because "we can just bring two or three Battleships instead," is just straight up full of nonsense. Most groups don't have two or three extra humans they can bring in Battleships instead of Dreadnoughts. And if they do, why not bring them in more Dreadnoughts? Or one Dreadnought and two or three support ships? And if you don't have more humans, than Dreadnoughts are among the easiest ships to multibox - I've been doing it for the past few years with sexy results. Really what many of these people are concerned about is how they are going to find a way to make lots of ISK if they cannot run Carriers in anomalies or Dreadnoughts in their capital escalations. They are just afraid to come out and say that they are more concerned with PVE than PVP. With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships? With that said, since Dreadnoughts are among my current favorite ships to fly, I will not object if they get more DPS. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Maksmad Perkone Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.10.28 06:05:52 - [460] - Quote Do we have more info on new skill for capital guns/modules? If there will be capital T2 guns, it should be communicated because we will probably need capital guns @5 which not many people have. And those are lv 7 skills. Also for citadels usage/production/management we should know in advance what new skills requirements will be.

lisa 8 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 13	Posted - 2015.10.28 06:35:46 - [461] - Quote Pestilen Ratte wrote: I have a radical idea. How about, instead of devoting all this time and effort into capital ships, CCP reallocate all those resources towards fixing the game for smaller ships that players actually use? You know, so that people keep playing the game, and subscribe to it? Just an idea. So much I could say, but lets be polite. Capitals as a class have not had any rebalance or attention in years, they need it pure and simple because they have reached the point where they are fundamentally flawed given all the changes in and to the game that have taken place. People that have spent their time in training into them & spent their isk on buying and fitting them, no less deserve to have that aspect of the game looked at by CCP, than do the people that have only the desire to fly sub caps. You do realise that the "smaller ships" as you put it have been looked at and continue to be looked at, with far more frequency and changes implemented to them, than any other class of ships. Please, Stop, Think & put your brain in to gear, before saying something which only make you look silly.
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 199	Posted - 2015.10.28 09:02:48 - [462] - Quote Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win?
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 710	Posted - 2015.10.28 09:05:48 - [463] - Quote Maksmad wrote: Do we have more info on new skill for capital guns/modules? If there will be capital T2 guns, it should be communicated because we will probably need capital guns @5 which not many people have. And those are lv 7 skills. Also for citadels usage/production/management we should know in advance what new skills requirements will be. Considering the effort in recent years to standardise the skill tree as much as possible, it's pretty safe to assume the pre-reqs for T2 capital weapons will be very similar to their smaller counterparts; requiring the preceeding T1 weapon skill to level 5 plus some decent supporting skill like Motion Prediction / Sharpshooter. It's a pretty safe bet to start on Capital Weapon V, plus any supporting skills currently used for Large T2 weapons. That will get you the majority, if not all, of the pre-reqs.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 710	Posted - 2015.10.28 09:21:24 - [464] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? I couldn't agree more. Capital tackle modules is treading too much on the toes of subcap roles imo. If you're able to hold down a hostile Titan with 3-4 carriers, you don't need to be deploying fragile dictors or HICs on the field. Those pilots would then naturally want to be in the best supporting role for those carriers, which typically means dreads or force aux. The end result is a fleet consisting disproportionately of capital ships. With the loss of ewar protection, I think the best scenario is to leave capital tackling with the existing modules they use. Typically that means faction / officer versions, some of which already have decent scramble strength which is a somewhat niche attribute at the minute anyway.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2309	Posted - 2015.10.28 11:58:23 - [465] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships? Well fairly obviously because it is not just cost, is it I think everyone more or less agrees that dreads are pretty well balanced as a class (some specific ships are questionable but the class is solid) today, they get a lot for their trade offs and those trades are fair. I want to say "people" but I'll go with "my" instead because I'm not sure everyone is in actually agreement (and I think you're right about the escalation tears)....my concern is that the reduced DPS in the new turrets coupled with the nerfs on top of existing trade offs feels like it's tipping the scales towards too many downsides. Dreads are getting, effectively, nothing but nerfs and blap fittings rejigged. Thus to my mind the key questions are these: >Will the new weapons of tomorrow be superior to existing blap fit dreads? I.e. will they apply >= dps compared to existing ones? >Will dreads have enough tank to reasonably expect to survive a siege cycle coupled with an inability to refit (either for 60 seconds, or the full timer - TBC)? Remember that today, blap dreads can go from literally 100% gank and quickly refit if primaried - they cannot do that in the future thus will have to either compromise gank, or risk someone hitting that glass cannon with a hammer. Certainly, smaller alliances could potentially use them to shore up pilot shortfall, in theory but in practice, are these going to...pull their weight? In short these might be fine, but the numbers being banded around do give me concerns that they are worth the trade offs when one considers the nerfs coming with it. I don't think the sky is falling and my concerns are at as high a level as the detail, but right now stacking up what we know the numbers seem low. Yes, there are certainly unknowns and variables but it's still worth mulling over.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1855	Posted - 2015.10.28 12:10:51 - [466] - Quote afkalt wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships? Well fairly obviously because it is not just cost, is it I think everyone more or less agrees that dreads are pretty well balanced as a class (some specific ships are questionable but the class is solid) today, they get a lot for their trade offs and those trades are fair. I want to say "people" but I'll go with "my" instead because I'm not sure everyone is in actually agreement (and I think you're right about the escalation tears)....my concern is that the reduced DPS in the new turrets coupled with the nerfs on top of existing trade offs feels like it's tipping the scales towards too many downsides. Dreads are getting, effectively, nothing but nerfs and blap fittings rejigged. Thus to my mind the key questions are these: >Will the new weapons of tomorrow be superior to existing blap fit dreads? I.e. will they apply >= dps compared to existing ones? >Will dreads have enough tank to reasonably expect to survive a siege cycle coupled with an inability to refit (either for 60 seconds, or the full timer - TBC)? Remember that today, blap dreads can go from literally 100% gank and quickly refit if primaried - they cannot do that in the future thus will have to either compromise gank, or risk someone hitting that glass cannon with a hammer. Certainly, smaller alliances could potentially use them to shore up pilot shortfall, in theory but in practice, are these going to...pull their weight? In short these might be fine, but the numbers being banded around do give me concerns that they are worth the trade offs when one considers the nerfs coming with it. I don't think the sky is falling and my concerns are at as high a level as the detail, but right now stacking up what we know the numbers seem low. Yes, there are certainly unknowns and variables but it's still worth mulling over. See, I can agree with you, because you pose reasonable questions. I too am curious to see how well and how far a new Dreadnought applies damage to subcapital ships, when compared to a blap Dread. Without CCP posting any real numbers, however, this is mostly just speculation. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1856	Posted - 2015.10.28 12:25:58 - [467] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 710	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:00:43 - [468] - Quote Will this balance pass include reviewing the existing barely-used capital modules? The obvious candidates here are: Drone Control Units Local reps Clone Vat Bays* *special bold highlighting for a module that has been pointless for a whole decade
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2309	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:18:03 - [469] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules? It does devalue HICs quite badly. However if they altered HICs to block not just capitals but subcapitals from using gates, you'd quite possibly never see me in another hull, ever again.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 758	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:30:08 - [470] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules? I think (as often happens) you missed the point. Right now if PL (or any one of the few super groups) want to drop their blob on someones super, they need support ships to hold it down - Once this unbalanced mess comes into effect, they won't need the support ships. Their overwhelming strength in supers can freely operate without need for subcap support. Of course the biggest group is always going to win - Which is the exact same reason this should never happen. Giving the elitist groups elite tools is a big kick in the ass for everyone else. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care ISD Dorrim Barstorlode - Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2309	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:35:23 - [471] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Once this unbalanced mess comes into effect, they won't need the support ships. Their overwhelming strength in supers can freely operate without need for subcap support. Of course the biggest group is always going to win - Which is the exact same reason this should never happen. Giving the elitist groups elite tools is a big kick in the ass for everyone else. What happens when a 200 man NPSI bomber fleet cynos in? Those supers start to die, because they can be tackled by bombers too. Support for supers isn't going anywhere. The change overall is good (ESPECIALLY if it cascades down to BS hulls), just HICs need a little love to compensate.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 843	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:56:05 - [472] - Quote Not sure if this has been addressed, but if new EWAR fighters are being introduced does this mean we will see the current EWAR drones relooked at? Because currently the only EWAR drone people use are ECM drones. Webbing drones don't do enough, target painting drones don't provide a decent sig bloom (the actual mod is better), and I don't think I have ever seen anyone use neuting drones.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1857	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:14:31 - [473] - Quote afkalt wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Firvain wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed. As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules? It does devalue HICs quite badly. However if they altered HICs to block not just capitals but subcapitals from using gates, you'd quite possibly never see me in another hull, ever again. HIC's are the new HAC's - the rest of Eve just has not caught on to that fact quite yet. They are seriously awesome. They are my primary PVP ships these days. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 201	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:19:54 - [474] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Why should supercapital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Serious answer - because they are strategic assets. In case you lose them, reimbursing takes a lot of time and efforts (isk-wise or whatever). Most probably, your current war campaign will be finished before they are fully replaced. On the other hand, losing subcap fleet is merely a tactical defeat, and most probably all pilots will have new ships for the next timer. Or even reship during the fight! This is a meaningful difference, I like the way it works, and I prefer it remains like that. FT Diomedes wrote: Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Maybe they should. But this must be a well-considered decision, made after a thorough discussion. Not a gimmick like it is presented in the devblog.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:50:59 - [475] - 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?

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2311	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:53:56 - [476] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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? What happens to targets which cannot move if they are hit by this, by the way? Or targets which wouldn't be allowed to warp? So I'm thinking specifically entosising ships and active cynos but also bastion (mostly for completeness).

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 254	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:54:00 - [477] - 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 - [478] - 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.

Valterra Craven 589	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:02:42 - [479] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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 :) Right, but forgive me if I wrong, but while the EHP is different, the Triage archon also loses all mobility for a period of time, and it also doesn't gain that ewar immunity unless its in triage. You had the balance right before. If you want substandard reps and a gtfo card, then you use "regular mode" If you want improved reps and ewar immunity then you have to commit to the whole triage cycle and lose mobility. I don't see how this was out of balance?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2311	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:12:30 - [480] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: 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 :) Right, but forgive me if I wrong, but while the EHP is different, the Triage archon also loses all mobility for a period of time, and it also doesn't gain that ewar immunity unless its in triage. You had the balance right before. If you want substandard reps and a gtfo card, then you use "regular mode" If you want improved reps and ewar immunity then you have to commit to the whole triage cycle and lose mobility. I don't see how this was out of balance? You're missing his point. Triage was and IS balanced. What was broken, was captial reps OUT of triage, when you have enough. So they're killing un-triaged capital reps.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: 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.