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) |
|
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
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 09:46:11 -
[2] - Quote
The long wait is finally over. Looking forward to more details going forward!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Lair Osen
103
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:06:26 -
[3] - Quote
What does EWAR debuff mean? For stasis debuff, do the ships get slowed, get their webs nerfed/buffed, get webs that are affecting them nerfed/buffed? Please elaborate.
So the weapons timer caused by having bastion mode active means Marauders can't use mobile depots any more?
1-2k seiged dread dps is rather sad, perhaps 2-3k. A pirate BS can do better while still able to get reps.
Focusing the logi into a small number of ships while removing EWAR immunity doesn't seem like it's going to end well. |
Silence iKillYouu
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
308
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:09:20 -
[4] - Quote
Interesting will have to buy a CV in warships to train how to use the new fighter groups
EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.
|
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation Eve Radio Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:13:51 -
[5] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:What does EWAR debuff mean? For stasis debuff, do the ships get slowed, get their webs nerfed/buffed, get webs that are affecting them nerfed/buffed? Please elaborate.
I think it means that any ship that has the debuff applied to them has the Ewar it can project diminished, like you said there webs or nutes get less effective
Lair Osen wrote:
1-2k seiged dread dps is just sad. A pirate BS can do better while still able to get reps.
Remember that is for hitting subcaps, for the Normal guns not much is changing iirc
Live on Eve Radio Thursdays 22:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve
|
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation Eve Radio Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:15:17 -
[6] - Quote
Overall these are some great ideas for the changes and im looking forward to the back and forth discussions that will shape them come Spring 2016. No Doubt I will be talking about it on my Sunday show today and each week as we get more information
Live on Eve Radio Thursdays 22:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve
|
Dorijan
Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:22:20 -
[7] - Quote
I get the whole "involve players in the actual fights" but the mentioned DD mechanics sound like World of Warcraft Boss mechanics to me: don't stand in the fire.
We'll see where EVE's capital ships end up role and gameplay wise. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
582
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:23:33 -
[8] - Quote
I'm curious about a few things:
1. When you introduce capital sized modules, what happens to the modules we have fitted to our supers? Many super owners have billions in modules both fit and as spares on supers. When these changes go live we'll suddenly have modules which are no longer applicable/usable. Would you for instance, make a deadspace energy neut that's fit to a super turn into a capital sized equivalent when it's released be something you'll consider?
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?
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?
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?
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
809
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:23:35 -
[9] - Quote
I like the concept of 20-50 warp strength for super caps instead of immunity.
Would you ever consider trickling down that concept to Battle Ships ? Just idly wondering if a base warp strength above 1 might be an interesting dynamic.
Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together - -áFleet-Up.com
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:26:27 -
[10] - Quote
Limiting capital RR to triage is not the solution to N+1 you are looking for.
This reduces all capital combat to N+1 dreads and renders every other class fully irrelevant. |
|
Korotani
Air The Initiative.
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:29:17 -
[11] - Quote
I look forward to Spring 2016! Bring on the discussions.
Trust no one.-á
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:33:37 -
[12] - Quote
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... |
Servjen
Giant Industrials
50
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:37:40 -
[13] - Quote
Interesting things ahead in spring 2016.
But a question as I miss one capital ship. The rorqual.
Any news on when and how it will get love?
This is where I put my signature, right?
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:40:06 -
[14] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Limiting capital RR to triage is not the solution to N+1 you are looking for.
This reduces all capital combat to N+1 dreads and renders every other class fully irrelevant.
Wow , you figured all that by your self after a single dev blog... you're amazing...
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2301
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:43:07 -
[15] - Quote
Is siege/triage duration being looked at? |
DrZoid Berg
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:43:17 -
[16] - Quote
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. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:46:52 -
[17] - Quote
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. |
DrZoid Berg
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:54:24 -
[18] - 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.
Was just a thought since it takes Geckos out of the picture. |
Anth9rax
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:58:56 -
[19] - Quote
Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it. |
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
374
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:59:41 -
[20] - Quote
The question I have is, will you let them into highsec (to assault those pesky large and XL citadels) |
|
Fishymonster
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:05:38 -
[21] - Quote
from the dev blog you state you want capitals to be viable in most situations. in the same dev blog you strip multiple abilities from every cap. you said you want caps to be viable in most situations, now dreads will either be a giant 3b+ immobile ship that can only do 1 thing at a time. do damage to nothing except citadels(LOL entosis), or cost about 10x that of a battleship while doing the same amount of damage as 2 of them, probably will have comparable tank as well. you said previously that CCP would not take abilities that players have trained for away from players after theyve unlocked it. Except now you are taking away players abilities to launch drones from carriers, and taking away the ability to use triage modules since now players must train again for the ability to fit a triage module to a ship. 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.
Another realization that many players have probably not realized is that living in sov null-sec is punished exclusively with the introduction of citadels. Who is going to get the refund on the hundreds of bil spent building outposts? does all that isk just go poof?
Why even live in sov-null if you can't dock onto your own station becuase you used your nerfed and penalized jump drive the 1 time an hour that CCP arbitrarily determined was acceptable? Why not just move everything to invulnerable, insta-dockable, permanent, always open NPC stations.
Oh well, I will definitely miss caps and living in sov null. theres just no real advantage to living there after this goes live. wont need my 5 accounts after this. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:08:29 -
[22] - Quote
Killing High WH, Thx CCP
|
Nox52
Sudden Buggery
87
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:09:12 -
[23] - Quote
The devil is in the details. While the overall high level changes look ok to interesting there isn't much to say when you plan to rework caps so much. So for example you're changing ehp so you can use armour plates/ sheild extenders so you need to readjust dps and possibly number of slots, and then you stick in t2 versions, so we jsut don't know how it'll end up. We really need the details to comment.
Potential issues: 1) no refitting under weapons timer - this is only available to caps due to their ehp level - if you tweak the ehp - dps - reps balance the refits may not be so much of an issue, without having to resort to timers, Plus it's actually an unique and cap specific game mechanic that should be kept
2) Dreads with sub cap guns for 1-2k dps is underwhelming for the 3-5 bil cost of a dread hull - might as well bring more battleships or hacs/t3 for that effort
3) You will have the new role carriers and dreads will be stepping on each others roles.
4) Oh yes, the C5/C6 balance with cap escalations will likely be thrown out of whack - are you planning on revisiting that and tweaking? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:09:34 -
[24] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Display some adaptability.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
30
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:12:48 -
[25] - Quote
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?
|
Lord ShadowMajere
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:13:07 -
[26] - Quote
Last I checked the Rorqual was a Capital also. Let me guess once again you guys forgot it existed? |
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:13:35 -
[27] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Limiting capital RR to triage is not the solution to N+1 you are looking for.
This reduces all capital combat to N+1 dreads and renders every other class fully irrelevant. Wow , you figured all that by your self after a single dev blog... you're amazing...
I mean you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to see where the numbers go when you propose the conditions "Focus fire capital gun DPS vs Capital local tank".
Either the logi carrier local tanks approach wrecking ball spider tank levels (we can be fairly confident they're not going to do this because it's what they're purporting to solve), the buffer tanks of logi carriers approach titan/super levels (they clearly state titans/supers are getting their buffer nerfed so we can probably assume it's not to transition it to logi carriers), the new ewar mitigates wrecking ball spider tank levels of damage (an ECM cancer dystopia literally worse than the problem they're proposing to solve), or dreads strictly dominate capital tactics in a straight-forward N+1 manner.
If you hop off CCP's nuts for a bit, read the proposals and thought about them critically I'm sure you could see it as well. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:13:44 -
[28] - Quote
Anth9rax wrote:Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it. Watch the Eve Vegas Keynote... ;)
Re: normal drones on carriers. From a technical perspective I can't see any reason CCP can't allow you to launch a squadron of normal drones rather than fighters? Make them controlled the same way, but miss out on some of the special abilities the new fighters will have.
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. Did you even read the blog? Heavy Fighters - Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures.
That sounds like Fighter Bombers to me.... Just with a slightly changed name? (oh noes) |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
298
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:14:18 -
[29] - Quote
In regards to w-space: What will happen with the mass of capital ships? The number of caps we can bring is severely limited by their mass and with these strong nerfs they won't be worth the mass you put on the hole to bring them. For example Triage: Without E-War immunity you can't rely on a single Triage anymore to keep your fleet up. That would turn every engagement into a game of luck. At that point you might as well just bring a bunch of Guardians. Without the need to keep Bhaals alive from Dread fire (lol @2k dps dreads) you don't need the rep power anyway.
Then there is cap escalations... what will you do with them? With the normal Dread guns not applying damage to sub caps and the other alternative being 2k dps dreads I don't see how running them with caps would still be viable. Don't get me wrong: I don't worry about my source of ISK (there is plenty of that elsewhere in w-space) but more from a hunter perspective. Less uses for caps means less opportunities to blow them up. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:15:13 -
[30] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Display some adaptability. adaptability? today group of capitals with support can fight against good t3 fleet with logi jams neuts damp after all. you just die. |
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2545
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:15:23 -
[31] - Quote
The new tactical overlay looks awesome. A pity to limit it to caps, though. The principle looks relevant to practically all drones.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:16:51 -
[32] - Quote
Ilany wrote:
- Won't multiple squadrons of drones significantly increase lag?
Code things its one entity so you actully have less actual drones on the field and thus less lag |
Servjen
Giant Industrials
50
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:17:16 -
[33] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:The question I have is, will you let them into highsec (to assault those pesky large and XL citadels)
I was asking that myself to.
This is where I put my signature, right?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:19:17 -
[34] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Display some adaptability. adaptability? today group of capitals with support can fight against good t3 fleet with logi jams neuts damp after all. you just die. Yes -- you may need to come up with some new tactics.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Maxxor Brutor
Unsettled Unsettled.
89
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:20:26 -
[35] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Plz, we'll adapt. Current farming mechancis are silly anyways.
On a side note... it's sad to see even CCP writing "hangers" :p |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
After watching the Vegas Stream and seeing these it actually makes me want to train into a cap for once. Carriers now look like interesting gameplay vs just a larger drone boat. I can't wait for the new skills to drop and this to arrive. |
Carneval
Bohemian Veterans DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:22:30 -
[37] - Quote
Carriers get fighter squadrons... Guys, seriously, I dont want to play another World of Warships carrier gameplay style. It should be EVE Online, not a bad copy of another game. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:23:10 -
[38] - Quote
Maxxor Brutor wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Plz, we'll adapt. Current farming mechancis are silly anyways. On a side note... it's sad to see even CCP writing "hangers" :p
and we lose another half of wh corps why (3xlarge cannons)x3 slots have dps without siege less than a cruiser?! |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:24:02 -
[39] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:In regards to w-space: What will happen with the mass of capital ships? The number of caps we can bring is severely limited by their mass and with these strong nerfs they won't be worth the mass you put on the hole to bring them. For example Triage: Without E-War immunity you can't rely on a single Triage anymore to keep your fleet up. That would turn every engagement into a game of luck. At that point you might as well just bring a bunch of Guardians. Without the need to keep Bhaals alive from Dread fire (lol @2k dps dreads) you don't need the rep power anyway.
Then there is cap escalations... what will you do with them? With the normal Dread guns not applying damage to sub caps and the other alternative being 2k dps dreads I don't see how running them with caps would still be viable. Don't get me wrong: I don't worry about my source of ISK (there is plenty of that elsewhere in w-space) but more from a hunter perspective. Less uses for caps means less opportunities to blow them up.
Mate, this won't be your issue, quick reshipping of the enemy will as they mentioned clones coming to wormholes at the Vegas event. |
Moe Lesture
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:26:12 -
[40] - Quote
--- DOOMSDAYS ---
Not every sickle doomsday needs to be a racially colored laser... The Vegas crowd audibly boo'd when you mentioned this.
Take for example this crude picture I made: http://imgur.com/68KAXYe
I took inspiration from the shock rifle in Unreal Tournament.
--- FORCE AUXILIARY CARRIER ---
Force Auxiliary is a terrible name. Sorry. The Vegas crowd sounded generally displeased with the name.
Why not make it follow the same naming scheme we already have? Examples:
Heavy Assault Frigate Heavy Assault Cruiser
the new logistics frigates would be called Logistics Frigate (please dont give them a dumb name too) Rename Logistics to Logistics Cruiser Rename Force Auxiliary to Logistics Carrier / Logistics Capital / Support Capital / anything but FORCE AUXILIARY
OR don't name them at all... The tech I frigates and Tech I cruisers don't have special names for their ewar and logi hulls.
--- HIGH ANGLE WEAPON BATTERY ---
More than 2k DPS... It's a capital class vessel... I don't "krab" in W space so this isn't a "cry wh nerf" response.
sig here
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:26:35 -
[41] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Maxxor Brutor wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Plz, we'll adapt. Current farming mechancis are silly anyways. On a side note... it's sad to see even CCP writing "hangers" :p and we lose another half of wh corps why (3xlarge cannons)x3 slots have dps without siege less than a cruiser?! You can jam my dread, sure I want remote tracking comps, and remote sensor booster and remote antijam |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6223
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:27:05 -
[42] - 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
|
|
Fishymonster
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:27:14 -
[43] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote: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. Did you even read the blog? Heavy Fighters - Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures. That sounds like Fighter Bombers to me.... Just with a slightly changed name? (oh noes)
Quote: Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.
Unless they neglected to announce that Carriers will only be able to do anti-frigate/anti-fighter only dps and crap ewar. carriers will be able to launch heavy fighters. |
rvbk
Regicide and Sororitas
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:28:38 -
[44] - Quote
Hooray! Another _wonderfull_ update ... I can say only one thing : "Frameshift drive charging" ! |
Dreekus
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:30:20 -
[45] - Quote
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. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:34:27 -
[46] - Quote
+1 to not really liking the Force Auxiliary name.
Fishymonster wrote:Quote: Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.
Unless they neglected to announce that Carriers will only be able to do anti-frigate/anti-fighter only dps and crap ewar. carriers will be able to launch heavy fighters.
Not sure what your point is? Carriers/Supercarriers will be able to launch heavy fighters. Which sound like they're going to be basically exactly what Fighter Bombers are now. I'd imagine the current skills for fighter bombers will be needed for launching the heavy fighters.
If they aren't required, you'll get your SP refunded so you can put into something you want.
I really don't get how people can get so worked up over specifics, when nothing has had concrete stats detailed. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
884
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:34:47 -
[47] - Quote
Obvious question is obvious but wasn't asked, when hp levels are changed are the built prices changed accordingly?
Even if some farmville online people are getting cranky about their farmlands and produce infinite amounts of isk, other cannot field 100 billion boats every day.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:35:10 -
[48] - Quote
Carneval wrote:Carriers get fighter squadrons... Guys, seriously, I dont want to play another World of Warships carrier gameplay style. It should be EVE Online, not a bad copy of another game. What?
This is a brilliant move; counts as a single entity for server OMGWTFLAG reduction purposes, while doing away with the immersion breaking '"random +XXX% bonus to hit points, +XXX% to damage e.t.c" quick fix approach used currently, AND.... it adds plenty of headroom for future scale-ability and features....
Overall major +1 for what is being proposed.
I'm also curious as to whether this road map could be applied to regular drones? i.e. no more 'super drones', but rather 'hello Dominix drone squadrons'...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:35:18 -
[49] - Quote
Dreekus wrote:As dred pilot, 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. I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:39:54 -
[50] - Quote
Querns wrote:
I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
Yes, after removing endless anoms in nullsek L5 in lowsec and incursions and restrict plexs in K-space I agree
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:41:04 -
[51] - Quote
Moe Lesture wrote:--- DOOMSDAYS --- Not every sickle doomsday needs to be a racially colored laser... The Vegas crowd audibly boo'd when you mentioned this. Take for example this crude picture I made: http://imgur.com/68KAXYe I took inspiration from the shock rifle in Unreal Tournament. +1 on this.
e.g. for the Leviathan you could take a leaf out of the 'how unguided torpedoes were fired in RL by Subs'...
...they (right up to certain 1980's example) were fired as a spread, so as to stitch a perpendicular (or near perpendicular) line at a given range, along which, one or two might intersect the poor sap in the surface ship...
... now imagine humongous missiles from the Leviathan, and blossoming explosions along that sickle line....
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Titus Tallang
EVE University Ivy League
94
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:41:08 -
[52] - Quote
Here's my opinions on the changes. These are given from my point of view as someone who drops triage in relatively small numbers (typically 2-3) on medium-sized fights (50-100 people a side).
- Splitting Carriers and Force Auxiliaries
Yes, this makes complete sense, and has been coming for a while already. A "carrier" being primarily a repair platform was a point of confusion, and combining strong spider-tanking ability with being a drone boat was a clusterfuck to balance. Good call.
- Making capital remote repairs less effective outside triage
Makes sense. No objections.
- Unable to refit with a weapons timer
I feel like this is a terrible idea for triage. Effective combat refitting is one of the things that sets a good triage pilot apart from a great triage pilot, and one of the primary ways you can exhibit piloting skill in a highly immobile ship class. While I understand your notion that combat refitting is broken in the current spider-tanking slowcat meta, I feel like this issue would correct itself with the newly changed role system without needing further intervention. Instead, disable combat refitting for all ships with weapons timer, then give the siege and triage modules an additional bonus "Allows refitting at a friendly Ship Maintenance Bay regardless of recent aggression." This serves to keep refitting in check for larger blobs (triage/siege has no n+1 effect on tank), preserves the incredibly important use case for smaller gangs, and also makes the option of combat refitting both something unique to the class and something that is more readily apparent to newer players than it is now.
- No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity
Makes sense to some degree. Keep in mind that I am once again speaking from the triage/siege use case - I am fine with non-binary electronic warfare affecting the ship in a way that noticably impacts it without crippling it complete. Damping a triage so that it has 20 second lock times should not be possible. Damping it so its 2 second lock time becomes a 4 second lock time is fair game. Also, I feel non-binary ewar (ECM) should be completely resisted by triage/siege mode. On ships such as capitals, regardless of how high the resistance stat goes, as long as it is not 100%, it is still a coin flip that can cause an enormous impact on the fight. If you throw a random jam onto the enemy FAX and it lands, you just disabled the entirety of enemy logistics for 20 seconds, and almost definitely turned the fight in your favor. This happens regardless of whether the chance for this to happen is 1% or 10%.
- Base HP reduced
Bleh. I feel it takes away from the uniqueness and fantasy of the ship class. If a ship is so humongous that it dwarfs its surroundings, let it be a hulk of HP that takes a bit of grinding through - not something that can explode within a few seconds if you look at it the wrong way. Killing triage right now consists of crippling it, then slowly chewing through the behemoth until it finally explodes, turning the tide of the fight. This feels awesome. Crippling it then blowing it up in 10 seconds does not.
- New Capital Modules
Sure, I guess. Prop mods will make supers really hard to catch though. You are giving them 10 second align while tank fit.
- New HAW Batteries
Bleh. I feel blap dreads are currently fine. Why would you bring a 3bil hull that does 3 battleships worth of damage if you can just bring 3 battleships at a fraction of the cost. Especially when the 3bil hull has lots of downsides, but very few upsides, compared to the aforementioned battleships.
- New Fighter gameplay
Indifferent pending details. It could be neat, it could not be neat. Depends on how well you pull it off. Just make sure it doesn't completely fall over and die under server load.
- New super weapons
Eh, sure. Why not. Just make them look awesome, and give an incentive to actually commit a 100b hull to the fight. Y'know, now that it's really really easy to tackle it.
Director of Education - EVE University - http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:44:36 -
[53] - Quote
Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:45:25 -
[54] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:
I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
Yes, after removing endless anoms in nullsek L5 in lowsec and incursions and restrict plexs in K-space I agree Fine by me. Death to all unbounded ISK faucets.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
298
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:51:30 -
[55] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Mate, this won't be your issue, quick reshipping of the enemy will as they mentioned clones coming to wormholes at the Vegas event.
They specifically stated that Med clones wouldn't be allowed in w-space, only clone swapping. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
252
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:03:18 -
[56] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Mate, this won't be your issue, quick reshipping of the enemy will as they mentioned clones coming to wormholes at the Vegas event. They specifically stated that Med clones wouldn't be allowed in w-space, only clone swapping.
They specifically stated many things many times. Guess what's coming with citadels. Per the Structure Q&A |
Baron Holbach
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:03:23 -
[57] - Quote
hmm, i read this dev blog like 3 times and also whats those eve vegas presentations and would like to say you guys should give out this dev blog first and those by the look of them made with mobile phone videos from this eve-vegas was horrible.
however i still 2 big issues here:
first is that it will be big nerf for most titan pilots - bit like back to old area of effect dd, when usually only fc titans was able to use it and everyone else just sit in backrow and do nothing (or was only called in if this say'd fc titan got tackled to save them).
probably biggest issue is that, i quote what was in dev blog
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)
its a quite ****-up, as i don't talk about b-r but even smaller capitals fights - its impossible for triages to stay a live with self rep - they just die - whatever they do. It don't mean that in modern cap fights capitals don't die - but they die if you can overcome enemy reps - and those reps are same ships that do also damage - but not with after citadel. Its same thing for current subcapital fights - if you can overcome enemy logistic reps - ships will start die. And logistics also kind of spider-tank between each other, those new capitals should be able to make it also - ofc triage reps will always stay way superior to standard ones. |
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:05:34 -
[58] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:
I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
Yes, after removing endless anoms in nullsek L5 in lowsec and incursions and restrict plexs in K-space I agree
Quit whinging and adapt.
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:09:33 -
[59] - Quote
helana Tsero wrote:
Quit whinging and adapt.
From noname, ok |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
252
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:10:13 -
[60] - Quote
Baron Holbach wrote:hmm, i read this dev blog like 3 times and also whats those eve vegas presentations and would like to say you guys should give out this dev blog first and those by the look of them made with mobile phone videos from this eve-vegas was horrible. however i still 2 big issues here: first is that it will be big nerf for most titan pilots - bit like back to old area of effect dd, when usually only fc titans was able to use it and everyone else just sit in backrow and do nothing (or was only called in if this say'd fc titan got tackled to save them). (spoking here dd neuting everything near by) probably biggest issue is that, i quote what was in dev blog 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) its a quite ****-up, as i don't talk about b-r but even smaller capitals fights - its impossible for triages to stay a live with self rep - they just die - whatever they do. It don't mean that in modern cap fights capitals don't die - but they die if you can overcome enemy reps - and those reps are same ships that do also damage - but not with after citadel. Its same thing for current subcapital fights - if you can overcome enemy logistic reps - ships will start die. And logistics also kind of spider-tank between each other, those new capitals should be able to make it also - ofc triage reps will always stay way superior to standard ones. Also i find it hard to see any postive things with those new capital guns to shoot subcapitals - why peopls using black dreads (or tracking titans in past) is they massive dps... 10k or so, that can **** subcapitals - but with this suggested dps 1-2k dps, its nothing special and i don't see how this can change be actually relevant as there are subcapitls that can do as much dps even atm (vindicator!)
Don't forget also now everything can interfere with those modes. All outside interference is now viable in conflict. Most likely reps will be allowed in, since ewar and the rest are also now. |
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:26:58 -
[61] - Quote
Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful.
I disagree very much.
Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes.
Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations.
What even is full tank???
Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it?
Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch?
Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time?
Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps?
Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile?
Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive?
If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap?
Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way?
tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:27:19 -
[62] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:I like the concept of 20-50 warp strength for super caps instead of immunity.
Would you ever consider trickling down that concept to Battle Ships ? Just idly wondering if a base warp strength above 1 might be an interesting dynamic.
This x1000.
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
181
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:27:42 -
[63] - Quote
Removing ewar immunity from Siege/Triage seems like a bad idea. |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
152
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:29:35 -
[64] - Quote
No refitting while you have a weapons timer...........good for ships that can receive RR but for siege, triage and bastion.....you just killed any reasonable chance they have of surviving 5 mins of isolation (referring to siege and triage)
Due to the nature of siege and triage there is a finite amount of EHP that can be gained before the ships demise. On top of this the pilot must make the correct choices of what to refit to while managing capacitor, heat damage and still providing the primary function (rep or DPS) all the while being shot, neuted and (in the upcoming rebalance) EWARed to death.
I am strongly against the changes to combat refitting for sieged or triaged ships. Its you vs the entire enemy fleet and it requires skill to survive and be effective. I do not want capitals to become meat shields for less skilled and boring f1 gameplay
I would propose that ships in triage, siege or bastion receive a bonus that allows then to refit when in said mode with a weapons timer.
So Much Space
|
JustSharkbait
V.O.I.D. Shadow Cartel
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:31:11 -
[65] - Quote
First, I would like say that I love these changes. I would like to see the jump range increased some to go along with these, just to make the game less of a chore, but I think these changes are a breath of fresh air and I like them.
I see one glaring problem though:
Even with the changes super and titans are super expensive. If their EHP goes down to be more in line with other ships, then it should stand to reason that the price and build time/costs should go down to be more in line with other ships as well.
The more affordable they are, the more they will be used, which means the more they will die.
Are there any plans to rework the costs of supers and titans? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
691
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:32:34 -
[66] - Quote
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?
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. |
Laendra
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
79
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:34:26 -
[67] - Quote
When talking about new Capital Sized modules, are you going to do something about the size of them...being able to carry modules to refit is going to be extremely difficult when you can only carry a couple... |
Anthar Thebess
1359
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:34:33 -
[68] - Quote
Good changes, especially for supers. Dread guns against subcapitals doing 1-2k damage - this is not even funny.
3-4bil ship that cannot receive reps vs 3 x 400mil battleships capable of moving and receiving reps. If you leave it this way - nothing will change - even after gun tracking nerf webs and paints will be still better options for dreads.
Removing Ewar immunity from capitals is awesome idea.
The problem is again in modules. Triage boost scan resolution Siege nerf it
Solution to make dreads worthless -> drop on them ECM drones. Jamming is chance based , and if 1 of the 50 drones manage to do it you waste 1/2 siege to lock target again - and in this period , you will be jammed again.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2166
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:35:08 -
[69] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements.
The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:37:49 -
[70] - Quote
Hello CCP,
Thank you for a bold move regarding capitals. I know it is hard to keep everyone satisfied while trying to establish a fresh form of gameplay.
I will give you feedback on the proposed changes.
However, my personal main issue with capitals has not been addressed yet, that being, force projection. It is all nice to have new things, but force projection is still issue #1 that needs fixing. You had a feedback round on it and I was hoping that by EVE Vegas you would comment on this issue as well, but sadly it did not happen. If you want to read my feedback post on those issues, please read:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6078209#post6078209
I believe force projection needs to be fixed first, as with the current status quo capitals will just... suck and your capital changes will be naught as no one enjoys flying capitals regardless with the current force projection. Address this, please.
As for the content that has been presented at EVE Vegas:
It is a bold new move in a bold new age. You are willing to take risks when it comes to developing this and I like that. I would need to see the actual numbers in order to be constructive, but for now, good job.
Things I like:
- Fleet/ship hangars + refitting on all caps
- Removal of slowcat/bootcarrier doctrines and switching over to a dedicated logistics ship, bold move but needed, it eliminates a part of the n + 1 gameplay
- New capital mods - **** yeah, maxing capitals will be more rewarded for veterans
- Blapdreads are back - hell yeah
- Fighters being really fighters, I like
- Superweapons - yes please
Things that I am critical about/need addressing/more information:
- Capital ewar immunity removed - for Titans and Supers - I am curious. If a enemy brings a 150 man long rage kiting ewar fleet (think the FYF from the CFC), would they be able to reduce a 30 man capital fleet to useless? This issue would need... careful tweaking.
- Also - What will be the roles of hics (focused points) and hics and dic bubbles with the above changes?
- The new squadron UI looks nice - critical question - how will the new UI and manual flight controls work in a high tidi + module lag + low fps due to a 1000 man fight? Will it be stable enough or very frustrating to interact with? Keep in mind the description that I gave are ingredients to most big fights +1000 people, which you will see if a citadel is critically reinforced.
- The role of supercarriers - They are not fully clear to me. Can you be more specific on them apart from "yeah they can carry like 2 extra heavy squadrons and have some nice debuffs"?
- Make sure you don't screw over people who have invested years of training and isk in specific ships (applies to all capitals) - give skill refunds if some are made redundant etc.
- Rorqual. Where is the Rorqual? I demand a pimped Rorqual that I can fly bling bling style into the gates of Oblivion.
Anyways, that is what I wanted to say. I will notify my alliance members about this thread as well & have them post feedback. |
|
Iam Widdershins
Refit For Thermal
895
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:42:58 -
[71] - Quote
Hey guys,
Everyone prety excited about these changes, they sound interesting to say the least.
We've heard shockingly few details (or questions from the community) about the general stats and end results of capital propulsion modules. Is it only microwarpdrives, or afterburners also? What kinds of speeds are to be expected / are you aiming for in general?
Ever since times of olde, hushed prophesies of nano dreads have been heard. I'm eager to hear what's up.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
152
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:49:32 -
[72] - Quote
Oh I am also going to miss my beautiful triage archon :(
So Much Space
|
thearrowofapollo
Hax. Shadow Cartel
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:49:33 -
[73] - Quote
I mean...WHY NOT?
CCP mashed up the game so much...making titans and supers even more useless i guess won't matter that much. Like it's not enough you pay over 130bil for a titan+fits....and you can't take a dread out with a dd... they have to make it even worse...
Supers? Why not nerf their HP and bonuses even more....they rly are OP now, and abused in daily gameplay....
TBH CCP... your marketing and Guest satisfaction (players in our case) is as ****** as it can get. You cannot have ppl investing all this time in training and buying titans and supers, fitting them with tens of billions worth of items, so you can make those ships worse and worse and worthless with any major patch you're implementing.
It is bad enough the player database is extremely low, and instead of you thinking of ways to get players back, and bringing new ones, you're actually forcing us to leave??? Because this is what you ARE doing if you look at the big picture.
Some more questions ( which i'm sure you have no answers, or there is still decisions to be made upon):
1: If all supers and titans can be tackled by any ship....what will the HICS role be? Will they be immune to the "Hand of God"?
2: If supers and titans can only be docked in XL citadels, that means POS's will still remain fulfilling the same roles they have now? Or you will be forcing every titan player to be in an alliance that owns a XL citadel, so that their titans won't be left to float in space?
3: This new doomsday's, will they give you the same timer like the present doomsday? So if you activate all your doomsday's, will the titan be stuck in the system for 30 minutes, unable to jump out / cloak ?
4: On your next EVE VEGAS, can there be a pre-selection of participants, with guys that will ask proper questions? guys that really care about the game? Like instead of paying all those tickets for the 1000 CCP guys with no oratorical skills to be present there, useless...get the major alliances leaders involved, bring them there, and let them ask questions, let them sit at the round table...because they are the ones guiding and leading your customers, they are the ones bringing numbers, fights, losses...they are the ones that directly or indirectly keep the game you're trying to kill still alive.
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:50:40 -
[74] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements. The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place.
Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. |
Aesir Terona
Fukushima Daiichi Electric Power Co.
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:52:24 -
[75] - Quote
did they get a new furnace installed at CCP HQ? Is there a fume problem in that building, because someone would have to be huffing diesel truck exhaust to think these changes were good.
Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:55:01 -
[76] - Quote
xttz wrote: Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table?
Mentioned, but not "confirmed" was doing something like any carriers wiht a triage fit at patch day morph into the new ones.
May or may not work like that, but that was mentioned yes. |
Titan112
BLACK SQUADRON. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:55:24 -
[77] - Quote
Some thinks sounds good (new cap mods, rebalancing and immunity). But on the other hand i dislike that you inroduce the new logistic carrier, because i-¦m enjoy to be a logi and a dmg dealer at the same time. I think this is one of the best to manage your drones and your remote stuff.
ok the fighter changes sounds gut but why you introduce a new system and don-¦t make it old school and let supper have all drones with an 100 or 200% dmg boost? |
Izmaragd Dawnstar
EVE University Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:57:39 -
[78] - Quote
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. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2073
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:59:54 -
[79] - Quote
"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.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:59:55 -
[80] - Quote
Aesir Terona wrote: Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
Maybe you should read the blog before posting rubbish. Triage modules will be fitted to the Force Auxiliary. They will replace the Logistics Carrier.
ITT - people jumping to conclusions and solid proof you can't please everyone. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3349
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:00:01 -
[81] - Quote
Great move. These changes will require capital and supercapital pilots to think, anticipate and adapt if they want to succeed, so I can understand why the usual suspects are shrieking and wailing about how the sky is falling.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:00:46 -
[82] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here.
Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what at's stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules.
Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:02:13 -
[83] - 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.
Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:02:30 -
[84] - 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?
"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:04:11 -
[85] - Quote
Dograzor wrote: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. Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit. I would take 4 vindicators with 2k dps(each) for just one moros costs.
|
Rossi Tenmar
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:04:18 -
[86] - Quote
Was really hoping for a slight increase of the current capital jumprange |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:06:47 -
[87] - Quote
Rossi Tenmar wrote:Was really hoping for a slight increase of the current capital jumprange If you think combat capital jump range will ever be increased, you're dreaming.
Nut up and train shield already.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:18:14 -
[88] - Quote
Having watched CCP Dev's mirror talk to themselves loudly at Vega's as they try in vain to convince themselves that what there about is there way of preserving EVE for the future, That there is room full of players providing back ground noise only encourages them to continue along this path and reminds me of Nero and his fiddle backed up by the crackle flames and collapsing buildings.
Player Risk Aversion will prevent engagement with this pitiful train of thought CCP is currently peddling already players are scrabbling around selling off Supers at EVE base prices simply to recover at least a percentage of invested ISK.
Here's a slightly better proposal, an arranged disposal fleet, jumped into an announced system, Titans, Supers, Dreads and Carriers unfitted by the hundreds simply for players to come in and blow them up, A petition then to CCP to create another memorial of wrecks, Suggestions welcome as to what too call it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:23:28 -
[89] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Having watched CCP Dev's mirror talk to themselves loudly at Vega's as they try in vain to convince themselves that what there about is there way of preserving EVE for the future, That there is room full of players providing back ground noise only encourages them to continue along this path and reminds me of Nero and his fiddle backed up by the crackle flames and collapsing buildings.
Player Risk Aversion will prevent engagement with this pitiful train of thought CCP is currently peddling already players are scrabbling around selling off Supers at EVE base prices simply to recover at least a percentage of invested ISK.
Here's a slightly better proposal, an arranged disposal fleet, jumped into an announced system, Titans, Supers, Dreads and Carriers unfitted by the hundreds simply for players to come in and blow them up, A petition then to CCP to create another memorial of wrecks, Suggestions welcome as to what too call it. The game already has self destruct. We don't need to waste developer time on this.
Also, if anyone is seriously trying to recoup the pitiful amount of ISK involved in owning a supercapital ship because of a handful of vague presentations and devblogs, then I weep for both their grey matter and their inability to pay attention in gs_isk.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
99
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:28:20 -
[90] - Quote
It's awesome as I read it. However, if you're thinking this way... Could there be any reasonable point defence system? I mean capital ships without point defence of any kind are just weird! And smartbombs don't fit well in that role, IMO. Would be good to have something like a FOF smartbomb with lots of tiny guns shooting hostile stuff in 5-10 km radius around the ship (and suppressable in some ways. Idk how to do this though). Not insisting though, that wouls just be fun IMO. Also, regarding anti-subcap guns... Why that low dps? I think you could safely double that without really hurting anyone, dreads are big beasts and I expect them to have teeth... And don't forget capital warp stabs, they might need those. Some other thoughts got lost while I was reading through the rest of your blog.
|
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:30:03 -
[91] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here. Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules. Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense. e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little
Jockeying for the static hull / fitting advantage can easily devolve into a stalemate which produces no content with or without a time constraint. Quite often the contesting force doesn't want the objective, they want to force a feed. They won't contest the objective for the objective's sake until the defenders commit and they can reship or refit a hard counter, or out of spite when the defenders stand down. The defenders can't contest the objective without feeding until the aggressors get tired of waiting to be fed. In pretty much all cases, the window of contestability leaves AMPLE room on the table for this stalemate to continue for hours (POS self-repair) or indefinitely (current fuzziesov node mechanics). This isn't what I'd consider meaningful strategic depth or an engaging interaction for anyone involved.
One guy, the FC, has to familiarize them self with the full range of the ship's capabilities to call for refits before committing to static fits.
In the case of combat refitting, everyone has to familiarize themselves with some useful range of the ship's capabilities to approximate an optimal fit for their ship within the constraints imposed by being shot at. It emphasizes individual pilot skill and defuses the static fitting advantage stalemate. In some cases you can even refit to minimize a reshipped hull advantage. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2073
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:30:40 -
[92] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Dograzor wrote: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. Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit. I would take 4 vindicators with 2k dps(each) for just one moros costs.
That's what i'm saying... If you the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their role in additivity to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1840
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:38:05 -
[93] - Quote
Drone Squadrons for subcaps in the future ?
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
Clu Nimbus
Sage-Art
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:40:54 -
[94] - Quote
Hi CCP
How will the removal of Sentries/heavies effect carrier ratting? be they in nullsec or in lowsec level 5s? will the new fighters be able to apply damage as well the ones we currently have? might be worth considering giving carriers sentries/heavies but nothing smaller.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:41:50 -
[95] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Mr Floydy wrote: "NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
You misunderstand. That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead. Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me.
Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing. If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1748
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:43:54 -
[96] - 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
|
|
Hal Morsh
Hmmzor.
424
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:44:23 -
[97] - Quote
Fishymonster wrote:You said previously that CCP would not take abilities that players have trained for away from players after theyve unlocked it. Except now you are taking away players abilities to launch drones from carriers.
wont need my 5 accounts after this.
Hey dufus, there are more ships that fly drones, go get an ishtar like everybody else. Also a suggestion, play one account instead of those 5 that wont be missed.
CCP wrote: The Swiss-army knife nature of refitting capitals makes trying to balance them impossible. Anything you bring to fight them can be countered in seconds.
I had no clue such a thing existed, looks like you got it covered though.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1748
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:44:43 -
[98] - 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
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:45:18 -
[99] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mr Floydy wrote: "NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
You misunderstand. That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead. Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me. Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing. If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame.
Yes, for the price of a single dread you could get maybe 10-15 tempests at 1500 dps each.
Sure, less tanky, but....I feel the cost/benefit just isnt there. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1748
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:45:29 -
[100] - 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 -
[101] - 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 -
[102] - 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
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:49:37 -
[103] - Quote
afkalt wrote:[quote=Mr Floydy][quote=Rek Seven]
Yes, for the price of a single dread you could get maybe 10-15 tempests at 1500 dps each.
Sure, less tanky, but....I feel the cost/benefit just isnt there. Removing some tempests, adding one reps cap better tank, better projection you dont need dreads. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:50:37 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: As a squadron takes damage and its 'effective fighter count' goes down, then its damage output will also be stepped down accordingly. [/list]
I meant to ask, are you doing anyhting with their resists/HP pool?
Otherwise, it's skewed towards EM to get the inital teeth off the field.
Omni resists? |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1752
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:51:58 -
[105] - 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 -
[106] - 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
|
|
Monasucks
BLACK SQUADRON. RAZOR Alliance
157
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:52:24 -
[107] - Quote
Hi CCP,
To say, most of your changes sounding promising, let me list those first:
What sounds good: - Fleet, Ship Hangers for everyone plus refitting form dreads - Dreads will get more used - Finally again anti sub capital warfare - Dedicated capital logistics - The new Doomsday, but don't remove the old one - still let us do 3m damage to capitals if we want - More love for the minmatar capitals
What I don't like - No refitting in fight Gùï This has been a mastery for everyone -º Mobile depots where heavy used as well as nestors -º This should be still in the game -º I personal think this should still be in the game as this is a skill of its own kind doesn't matters if capital or sub capital Gùï This will have another ugly side effect: -º Capitals will get used less as you will wait out too long or even don't commit due to having the wrong fitting -º Same goes for extreme expensive sub capital fleets with nestors and mobile depots -º Just leave it in the game - The energy source of the new Doomsdays Gùï This will make Shield even more obsolete as their tank totally relies on energy to work - That the old Doomsdays is gone it still should be in there, as it's a massive anti capital weapon + the new Doomsday features - Hic's will get obsolete - EHP Remove, they are more easy to kill with the ewar immunity gone.. Even today it's a question of 5 to 10min for those big ships to die ( calculating the TiDi and the lag out or lookigng at non TiDi fights )
Values your where asking our feedback to: - The remove of eware immunity, I didn't like it in the past but thatGÇÖs too easy. You should need at least 10-20 Falcons to make a titan blind, you should need at least 50 to 100 points to tackle it or a bubble or a hic. - Rorquals what about those? Give them some love as well
What sounds good but I'm still curious about: - Anti-sub capital weapons DPS Gùï 1-2k DPS is to less -º Just image what a good fitted faction BS can do as DPS many DPS as a dread.. Give it like 5k. It should still be an advantage - New fighters Gùï Still thinking how this could work in a 2000+ person fight - The effect on shield capitals with the new logic's Gùï Meaning every entity in eve has to decide to fly shield or armor and shield will not be chosen due to that it still is weaker and the bad side effects on it from the new DD. Plus you need to get two logi types in fleet. -º Sadly I don't have a solution to it yet
Can I haz you're stuff?
[i][b]A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Pa
|
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:56:01 -
[108] - Quote
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.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2073
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:59:57 -
[109] - Quote
I'm not experienced with low sec or null sec cap warfare, just in wormholes but it would seem to me that the use of dreads will become as follows...
Small/medium groups will not field dreads to kill sub caps because if they do and they get dropped by even one hostile dread designed to kill caps, they will not be able to fight back because they will be massively outgunned.
At the other end of the scale, large groups will be able to have all their dreads fit with High Angle Weapon Batteries and have the freedom of being able to obliterate sup capital fleets and smaller cap fleets alike, through shear number superiority.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:00:06 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Can you tell me What DPS have you new super anti-subcap weapon without siege? 240dps? 3x3 large cannons really? |
|
MtyRoyal
Laryngospasm
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:00:08 -
[111] - Quote
"The incredibly talented and endlessly creative players of EVE Online have taken combat refitting to its extremes. "
So I don't get your aim here. You appear to be punishing the GÇÿTalentedGÇÖ and GÇÿCreativeGÇÖ to enhance the mediocre. IsnGÇÖt refitting with a combat timer just part of mastering the gameplay? That fact that so many caps get killed already shows that players are already compensating for the refitting on their own. IGÇÖd say kill this change. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
283
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:01:02 -
[112] - Quote
Monasucks wrote: - Hic's will get obsolete Values your where asking our feedback to: - The remove of eware immunity, I didn't like it in the past but thatGÇÖs too easy. You should need at least 10-20 Falcons to make a titan blind, you should need at least 50 to 100 points to tackle it or a bubble or a hic.
HIC won't be obsolete. The Devblog mentions that Supers will have high warp strength (exactly as your second point says) so that HICs will still have a critical job, it just won't be vital in the same way as before. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
566
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:05:17 -
[113] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
But thats exactly what You are saying - In WH You will no longer need capitals, except for citadel bashing. escalations will take 5-10 times as long as it is now, no one will use them for PVP (its cheaper to get 2 BS or 3-4 T3's to get the same damage with much better application)
I think DPS on dread using those new guns need to be rethinked
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Abulurd Boniface
Serene Vendetta Brawls Deep
167
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:06:27 -
[114] - Quote
I'm seriously pleased with these new initiatives to give more creative weapons technologies to super capital ships.
I would want to see something that's designed to take out the small fry: frigates and cruisers.
It would be an omni-directional short-range weapon for ships that are circling the super capital ship such that they can't be tracked by its weapons.
It would be glass shards [abrasive nano-silicates], they serve to shred smaller ships.
This would not be the old-style DDD burst that blew everything off of the grid. This is only to fend off the small fry. It seems rational to have that kind of ordnance intended for use against targets the main batteries cannot track.
Obviously the module that fires these shards takes up a slot that is then not available for something else. As ever: no freebies in EVE.
I want these technologies to be available and deployable in many different ways. In war having the weapon is not always the deciding factor in the outcome of the fight, it's how the weapon is used. It would be great to have weapons systems that are functional as separate entities but that augment each other when used in combination.
These ideas are very creative. I like them a great deal. Keep doing more of that, but keep in mind that you don't have to balance the ordnance used by super capitals versus frigate / cruiser class ships. You build a bigger ship precisely so that it can do more damage. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
640
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:06:41 -
[115] - 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
|
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
284
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:08:56 -
[116] - Quote
I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying WH pvp won't include capitals yet. We're yet to see stats and actual application from the redone carriers and we don't know how the Force Auxiliary will compare to a triage carrier either.
I'd certainly not think about Escalations right now, CCP have been intending to change the mechanics around escalation waves for some time now. I fully expect it to be shaken up around the same time this all happens. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:11:19 -
[117] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote: But thats exactly what You are saying - In WH You will no longer need capitals, except for citadel bashing. escalations will take 5-10 times as long as it is now, no one will use them for PVP (its cheaper to get 2 BS or 3-4 T3's to get the same damage with much better application)
I think DPS on dread using those new guns need to be rethinked
Farming escalation you earn 10kkk isk/hour for each member of fleet without any danger. now experts from hi- null- and low- sec tell that you. o/ |
Beta Maoye
82
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:11:31 -
[118] - Quote
If you make cap more vulnerable, please shorten the time of manufacturing and reduce the material cost in cap blueprint. Cap has to be more replenishable if you want more reworked cap to be deployed in the field. Cap needs to be more affordable and faster production cycle is required to keep up with the pace of higher rate of casualty. |
Memphis Baas
712
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:12:49 -
[119] - Quote
Cool ideas; looking forward to actual implementation.
A few comments:
- Subcapital drone ships are much more versatile than subcapital gunships, but the gunships do have the theoretical chance to neutralize the droneships via destroying the drones. In a carrier vs. dread fight, will the dread be able to kill the carrier fighters? The "high angle" guns don't seem suited for this purpose.
- Currently pilots are training triage / siege skills for their dreads / carriers. Hopefully you will refund capital skillpoints so we can either re-focus on the changed roles of carriers or switch to logistics.
- For the doomsday weapons, the Sickle and Pike sound like they will be too easy to dodge compared to the penalties suffered by the titan and his fleet for firing the weapon. I would like to suggest letting the pilot also choose beam width, at the expense of beam angular velocity (i.e. wide slow moving beam vs. narrow fast beam).
- Also for doomsday weapons, your examples show only small angle swing arcs. What happens if the pilot chooses a 180 or 360 degree beam swing? If you are limiting the weapon to small arcs, what happens if the pilot shoots it (across the directions of) straight up or straight down? EVE has issues with ship rotation through the straight up and straight down directions.
- Any changes to the cyno mechanic for moving these ships? Anything to reduce the need for so many cyno alts?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:13:40 -
[120] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here. Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules. Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense. e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little Jockeying for the static hull / fitting advantage can easily devolve into a stalemate which produces no content with or without a time constraint. Quite often the contesting force doesn't want the objective, they want to force a feed. They won't contest the objective for the objective's sake but instead wait until the defenders commit and they can reship or refit a hard counter, or out of spite when the defenders stand down. The defenders can't contest the objective without feeding until the aggressors get tired of waiting to be fed. In pretty much all cases, the window of contestability leaves AMPLE room on the table for this stalemate to continue for hours (POS self-repair) or indefinitely (current fuzziesov node mechanics). This isn't what I'd consider meaningful strategic depth or an engaging interaction for anyone involved. One guy, the FC, has to familiarize them self with the full range of the ship's capabilities to call for refits before committing to static fits. In the case of combat refitting, everyone has to familiarize themselves with some useful range of the ship's capabilities to approximate an optimal fit for their ship within the constraints imposed by being shot at. It emphasizes individual pilot skill and defuses the static fitting advantage stalemate. In some cases you can even refit to minimize a reshipped hull advantage.
I've got little sympathy for people who try to bait fights out by contesting a sov/pos objective with no intention of actually completing the contest. If there's a strategic advantage available for the defenders, who have much more at stake than the attackers, gained by abusing the intentions of the attackers, then the defenders have every right to seize it. Demoralizing the enemy and discouraging them from fighting at all is a perfectly valid strategy!
I'd agree more with the "skill" angle if refitting had some sort of cost that limited the amount of times it could be done or the efficacy of doing it. (I'm not going to bother spitballing potential "costs.")
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Tarra Nobilii
Forged Souls
11
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:15:31 -
[121] - Quote
I think we all need a bit more details to fully provide effective feedback (what are some general numbers of ehp rebalance are we talking about, the supercarrier role is not very fleshed out, and lots of general but unfocused concerns all around). 1. Since there is not a ehp bar for my fighters and I will eventually lose one, without much of a notice or ability to do anything about it, will the fighters repair themselves while 'docked' in the super? I am not comfortable in pvp or pve with fighters that will magically drop off and effectively lower dps. The cost of replacing fighters under this system seems super high. Under our current system, if a singular fighter/bomber is getting low on ehp, I can recall. Under this new proposed system, it seems like my squadron will get hit and there isnt much I can do about it. So, as stated, will they repair/replenish or be built in the super? (since this is so much like a Homeworld mechanic). 2. Will dreads/carriers be getting their EHP nerfed? They already easily die to subcaps. I dont fully understand how they are unbalanced at present. Unless their ability to kill subcaps is MUCH greater (which may or may not be part of the rebalance; again details were sparce), then I think this is a problem. This is also couple with their build cost. Will build cost remain the same for these ships with less ehp? 3. Supers already take 20-30 seconds to warp. If we are putting plates on these already slow ships, should we expect align times of 1 minute or will base agility be looked at? This may be mitigated with capital MWD...but again we dont have many details to have any opinions of things atm. 4. With the new citadels, I have concerns about bumping and tethering. So, if I am in a system and using a Medium Citadel...will i have to make sure local is completely clear to avoid my titan bumping 50km off the station model or will tethering grab me in some way? Will bridging create a weapons timer? Will I be able to bridge while tethered? If i am untethered to bridge, will i then bump off if i am being held by the tether to the station model? This whole mechanic raisers a number of concerns. Having a 70b base price POS (essentially a citadel) is not something we can throw up in many/all of the systems we may operate out of. I would like to know how vulnerable my titan/super will be in these situations. 5. Other than XL weapons specialization, will any other skills be added for the new weaponry? 6. Will capital hulls get racial bonuses of anykind? The statement was made about the nidhoggur not being the black sheep and there are also statements about remote repping not being effective on capitals...so, will there be any differences from one capital to another (bonus wise)? 7. any details on capital tackle mods? (range for example)
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:18:57 -
[122] - Quote
MtyRoyal wrote:"The incredibly talented and endlessly creative players of EVE Online have taken combat refitting to its extremes. "
So I don't get your aim here. You appear to be punishing the GÇÿTalentedGÇÖ and GÇÿCreativeGÇÖ to enhance the mediocre. IsnGÇÖt refitting with a combat timer just part of mastering the gameplay? That fact that so many caps get killed already shows that players are already compensating for the refitting on their own. IGÇÖd say kill this change. This is a sound business decision. "Talented" and "creative" players pay much less subscription fees than those who are less "talented" and "creative."
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
640
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:19:10 -
[123] - 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
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3349
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:19:48 -
[124] - Quote
A few questions (edit: ok, more than a few) that come up as I go through the devblog (ALL DEM WERDS):
Fleet and Ship Hangars -
- Are you anticipating that the existing hangar sizes be adjusted for caps which already feature these? - Will dreads get the same hangar space as carriers? - Did you/would you consider splitting away the hangars to another specialised class of ships ("Fleet Transporters?") as you are doing with the remote rep abilities? We already have the Bowhead, but something with a jump drive and fitting options/EHP in line with the rest of the cap fleet?
Remote Repair
- Will carriers be completely barred from capital remote rep usage, or will it remain as a less powerful choice through adjustments/removal of base stats and bonuses? The idea of a 'ghetto slowcat' fleet of carriers with unbonused/nerfed repping power akin to a remote-rep battleship fleet could still be interesting without being nearly as broken as the current status quo.
E-war Immunity - Will immunity be one statline or vary according to the ewar being used? It could be interesting thematically if, say, Minmatar supercaps had greater vulnerability (or perhaps greater resistance?) to Amarr e-war types, and that's something you could implement if the immunities/resistances were split out. You're already talking of web resistance as a separate stat so taking that further seems logical. - Energy Warfare resistance? Just throwing that out there.
Total EHP - Will the massive variations between armour and shield hitpoints on supercaps be bought back in line? It always felt weird that post-Dominion the relative hitpoints of each defence layer varied so wildly on supercaps whilst on smaller classes the two hitpoint totals were much closer together.
Capital Warp Disruptors and Scramblers - You state that Officer points and scrams are capital modules, but at the present time they can be fitted to a battleship without much trouble - its rarely a great idea, but is certainly possible. Does this mean we can expect changes to be made to the fitting and effects of these modules?
Fighters - Are the hitpoints going away completely, or just moving 'behind the scenes'? If my fighter status is 'damaged' is that from a hitpoint reduction or a diceroll outcome? Does a damaged fighter have reduced abilities? - Can fighter squadrons actually be targeted and attacked by our ship weapons, or only by other fighters? - If a squadron flies into a smartbomb activation or other AoE effect is every fighter hit individually or is the hit resolved against the squadron as a whole? - Will there still be the racial variants of each fighter type with their own characteristics? Will we be able to launch mixed squadrons? Will there be more faction fighters (Wraith and Spectre!)? - Are fighter squadrons limited to the 250km range cap of our ship targetting? What happens if a fighter squadron crosses a grid boundary? - Can fighter squadrons decloak ships?
Superweapons - Are the new doomsdays replacing the existing ones or are they alternative options? - Are they still limited to 1 per ship? - Will subcap ships rendered immobile (such as those with active cyno fields or in Bastion mode) be affected by Hand of God?
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:21:33 -
[125] - Quote
I look forward to the exciting and compelling tactical gameplay available to my seiged dread when hit by a new doomsday.
The navigational options alone are mindboggling, let alone the potential for refitting to survive.
Refitting is a problem with endless RR. It is however of vital importance to any ship that is cut off from remote support.
Mastering a dread is now a matter of here is a corp fit, insure it and die when primed. Follow targets. Enjoy having compelling gameplay.
Mastering triage is now rep until they bring neuts. Die.
I'm so glad that super can now make target painters 12% less effective. Seems like a great investment of 20 bil.
Will you by apply the refitting changes to all ships, or just the ones that take years and billions to acquire? If the former, do you have any idea of what to do with the nestor?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
691
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:24:30 -
[126] - Quote
If ewar immunity is being removed, does that mean remote assistance will be possible again? |
Darirol
FEROX AQUILA
20
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:28:59 -
[127] - Quote
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. |
Prt Scr
569th Freelancers
155
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:32:33 -
[128] - Quote
The rorqual.
The rorqual.
The rorqual.
You forgot the dam rorqual again
With the squads. of fighters will they be getting a change , i.e. 1 fighter becomes 5? (or something along this line) with the corresponding changes to material needs to build, and the same with the fighter skill, will it be I squad. per level or will we need to train up a pile of extra skills to make max. use of a ship?
u+É-¦ssn+¦ p+ɦ¥+¦ -ç,u+É+ö -¦ -çnq -Ä+¦+¦os +»,-¦
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:34:27 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: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
Smert is drawing assumptions based exactly on what you have said.
EHP nerfs, incoming. Ewar immunity, gone. Defences. If triage is the barrier of entry to killing that super fleet, then yeah, seeing as 5 guys in subs can kill a triage without breaking a sweat. Jump Fatgiue, still a cancer for everyone who doesnt want solo frig pvp, or move more then 6 ly. DPS limits, set in the citadel dev blog.
This is the vision you have. Someone has pointed out that it looks kinda ****** for caps and supers. Don't insult them by saying they are working from the wrong assumptions.
You want to make it awesome, easy. Give everything that cannot receive remote assistance the ability to refit, off themselves, always. Give everyone else the ability to refit off of ships with fleet hangers. Acknowledge that mass refitting is only really a problem when combine with endless RR.
Oh, and consider doing something other then a target painting debuff for supers. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:37:38 -
[130] - Quote
Whats about refitting caps just in triage/siegej or no 1 min aggro timer? |
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
691
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:39:45 -
[131] - Quote
Now would also be a good time to review the blanket ban on non-ammo/charge cargo within ship maintenance bays.
This was added to prevent loophole that is no longer remotely feasible thanks to the jump drive nerfs. All that's left is an arbitrary rule that heavily hinders the utility of SMAs; spare ships can't carry all sorts of useful gear from ozone and stront, to alternative fittings, to deployables like mobile depots and anchorable bubbles. Having a ship hangar in a supporting role rewards prior preparation, and this game mechanic becomes far more valuable when fully equipped ships can be supplied at a crucial moment.
The two most obvious solutions I see for this are: a) Allow any cargo except for containers, preventing further nested contents. and/or b) Allow cargo up to the ships' base cargobay size before skill, module and rig bonuses. Ships can bring their typical essentials, like stront for entosising or alternative mods, but still can't be used for bulk transport.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2073
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:40:39 -
[132] - Quote
Oh yeah CCP, you forgot to include an item in the "New Capital Modules" section...
We are going to get Capital Target Spectrum Breakers, right?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:50:22 -
[133] - Quote
thearrowofapollo wrote:I mean...WHY NOT?
CCP mashed up the game so much...making titans and supers even more useless i guess won't matter that much. Like it's not enough you pay over 130bil for a titan+fits....and you can't take a dread out with a dd... they have to make it even worse...
Supers? Why not nerf their HP and bonuses even more....they rly are OP now, and abused in daily gameplay....
TBH CCP... your marketing and Guest satisfaction (players in our case) is as ****** as it can get. You cannot have ppl investing all this time in training and buying titans and supers, fitting them with tens of billions worth of items, so you can make those ships worse and worse and worthless with any major patch you're implementing.
It is bad enough the player database is extremely low, and instead of you thinking of ways to get players back, and bringing new ones, you're actually forcing us to leave??? Because this is what you ARE doing if you look at the big picture.
Some more questions ( which i'm sure you have no answers, or there is still decisions to be made upon):
1: If all supers and titans can be tackled by any ship....what will the HICS role be? Will they be immune to the "Hand of God"?
2: If supers and titans can only be docked in XL citadels, that means POS's will still remain fulfilling the same roles they have now? Or you will be forcing every titan player to be in an alliance that owns a XL citadel, so that their titans won't be left to float in space?
3: This new doomsday's, will they give you the same timer like the present doomsday? So if you activate all your doomsday's, will the titan be stuck in the system for 30 minutes, unable to jump out / cloak ?
4: On your next EVE VEGAS, can there be a pre-selection of participants, with guys that will ask proper questions? guys that really care about the game? Like instead of paying all those tickets for the 1000 CCP guys with no oratorical skills to be present there, useless...get the major alliances leaders involved, bring them there, and let them ask questions, let them sit at the round table...because they are the ones guiding and leading your customers, they are the ones bringing numbers, fights, losses...they are the ones that directly or indirectly keep the game you're trying to kill still alive.
Tackled by any ship? Warp strength around 50... What ship points for a strength of 50!? You would need around 25 frigs to hold it down while surviving the onslaught from light squadrons |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
345
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:54:24 -
[134] - Quote
I'm sure everyone is all juming up and down cause they know now whats coming..
however dear devs,
WHAT ABOUT THE RORQUAL??????
That's a capital ship remember.
|
Ardden
Critical Mass Project The Void Collective
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:04:03 -
[135] - Quote
So when a drone/fighter dock to "re-arm" do they repair as well or is that still "target-rep-send it on its way"? |
Leeluvv
Polarized
44
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:08:08 -
[136] - 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 Eve Vegas footing of Titans undocking from Citadels implies that you finally will be able to dock up and use the public toilets there..
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
888
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:10:46 -
[137] - Quote
I am very pleased with the proposed changes to carriers.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to brag and point out that I am so ahead of the meta, I proposed this exact change over 20 moths ago.
[/bragging]
Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:10:53 -
[138] - Quote
Aesir Terona wrote:did they get a new furnace installed at CCP HQ? There must be a fume problem in that building, because someone would have to be huffing diesel truck exhaust to think these changes were good.
Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
ummm... LOGI CARRIER will be AWESOME for triage pilots! We get our own LOGI carriers! Logi all the things! Watch the damn vegas videos |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
485
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:13:33 -
[139] - Quote
Nerf to dreads - boo Can't refit due to weapons timer - boo. You are killing the best part of flying capitals. Anyone want to buy my Nestor? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2183
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:15:23 -
[140] - Quote
Ardden wrote:So when a drone/fighter dock to "re-arm" do they repair as well or is that still "target-rep-send it on its way"? It looks like fighters become more like ammo than a drone. Damage is expressed as a reduction in the count of fighters rather than damage done to a drone.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:16:36 -
[141] - Quote
Dograzor wrote: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. Negative, XL guns will still exist but won't do a lot of damage to subcapitals. This new XL gun is specifically made to go anti subcapital, so players need to carefully choose what they will fit.
Incorrect. Even when Webbed and Painted Anti-Capital guns (Current XL) Will do nothing to Sub-caps. The new "High-Angle" guns for dreads will be needed to hit subcaps. Was said at Vegas. Propper decision for Engagement will need to be made before you drop the dread into battle, are you killing that cap, or fighting off support.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
36
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:17:40 -
[142] - Quote
Interesting new features. Will add a whole new layer to the current dull capital warfare.
A few questions:
- The new Force Auxilary (FA): will they be in the price range of carriers or dreads or will they be more expensive? - What range of local tank are you looking at for a FA ( as in how many dreads / carriers ? ) - From your picture of the different classes I can only draw the conclusion that a third super based on the FA is possible as well. Are you guys working on such a ship or not? - Do you have a timeline for releasing the relevant skills and blueprints? Right now you have fe perfect Triage Pilots in game, I'd love for them to be able to be (near) perfect when these new ships hit.
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3002
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:26:16 -
[143] - Quote
After reading this blog, I have but a few reservations and some answers to some unclear sticky points, or considerations to level the playing fields between classes or to change some numbers would go a long way....
1) Will capital remote repair modules no longer work on carriers at all, or will they merely be so ineffective as putting a small local repper(s) on a battleship and facing off against a large group hoping to tank their agro?
2) Will capital remote repair modules only work in triage mode? If so, why don't we change sub cap logistics to mirror capital logistics to win the fight against N+1 once and for all for all ship classes? Why sub capital ships should get favorable treatment under different rules in this regard, while cutting the legs from under existing capital game play based on the same rules, leaves me staggered and in a state of bewilderment, bordering on resentment with hints of injustice. If non triage spider tanking encourages N+1, then kill it everywhere. And to counter, apply damage mitigation to all ship classes so Omega doctrines don't become the new slowcats flying the N+1 flag.
3) Anti sub capital weapons. Thank you CCP. Thank you. But before you finalize your thought processes on this weapon class, consider this: i) These modules should allow capitals (carriers, dreads, supers and titans) to engage and take on (wipe out) isolated attackers or very small groups of attackers depending on the number of modules fitted.... outside of siege mode in addition to in siege mode. ii) I would expect siege mode to give the cap pilot a boost to the damage / optimal / tracking / falloff / RoF / ability to hit smaller ships and larger groups depending on how well the ship is supported, or tanked / repped by its fleet, while not providing such bonuses outside of siege at all. This will not only force caps with anti-sub cap weapons to commit to be more effective, but also give them value for doing so outside of a pure dps boost against large structures that dont move or shoot back. iii) Smaller capitals should be able to fit less of these new abti-sub cap weapon hard points than the larger ones. If the T3 module slot fitting layout would be used in this instance (assuming no other layout is being considered while keeping the existing slot layouts intact), then I'd expect that: iiia - carriers / dreads can have 1-2 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiib - dreads can have 1-3 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiic - supers can have 1-4 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiid - titans can have 1-5 anti sub cap weapon hard points
4) Warp strength on supers (I know you said the numbers are subject to input from us): i) I'd expect supers to have a warp strength of about 50ish (Why allow 20 rifters - at a fraction of the cost - to do what 1 HIC already can) ii) I'd expect Titans to have a warp strength of about 100ish (Again, why allow 20 rifters to do what 1 HIC already can)
5) Will my fighter squadrons be able to engage sub caps I can target on grid in this new UI, or will I only be able to engage ships in my ships targeting range? 5b) If you remove fighter warp from fighter squadrons, how do I get them to engage said targets beyond the 100km camera range if my targets use a micro-jump drive or warp to a safe beyo9nd my targeting range on the grid? 5c) Will I be able to assign my squadrons to players?
6) Can the Titans also get some new fleet based AoE toys like the supers will get?
7) New ship hulls? a) I'd like 2 - 3 different Dreadnaught flavors (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls) b) I'd like 2 - 3 different Carrier flavors c) I'd like 2 - 3 different super carrier hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls) d) I'd like 2 - 3 different titan hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
Aside from the above points, hell yea... I'm down with all of it.
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:27:09 -
[144] - Quote
Something I'm surprised not to have seen mentioned yet is an alternative to Force Auxiliaries / Triage mode when deciding on a fleet composition. It seems as though everyone is just assuming these ships will be mandatory for any capital fleet to be effective, despite no other kind of capital being like this.
It's worth having a conversation about the alternatives; specifically how to make capitals viable without triage support. With the erosion of ewar immunity and lower EHP, there should be new defensive options to make these ships worthwhile to field. These ideas could include:
a) Rebalancing local capital reps b) Capital-class Target Spectrum Breakers as mentioned above. They're pretty much the ideal candidate for these modules. c) Applying some form of the structure Damage Mitigation mechanic to (super)capitals.
All of these can increase confidence in these new ships enough to get them fielded more often without making Triage the no-brainer pre-requisite to use them. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs
106
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:29:19 -
[145] - Quote
Anth9rax wrote:Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it. ^Hasn't been paying attention at all over the last several months.
_#portDust514
Don't let interactions like this become only a memory.
(EVE alt> Sarayu Wyvern. Dust 514 alt> Mobius Wyvern.)
|
Seven Koskanaiken
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1684
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:38:20 -
[146] - Quote
Change the Fax names pls. Also lack of refitting sounds like dumbing down, and combined with citadels being self repping leaves the Gal/Min Faxes being even more useless than their previous carrier incarnations. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1172
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:47:54 -
[147] - Quote
What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2184
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:48:43 -
[148] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus? Ideally, the replacement will be a super-cool bonus for intelligent, attractive people.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:54:19 -
[149] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus?
+5% ship-spinning speed per level. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2184
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:57:53 -
[150] - Quote
xttz wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus? +5% ship-spinning speed per level. Capsuleers don't know bout my nanohel
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
455
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:07:53 -
[151] - Quote
Over all it sounds very interesting. And well killing slow cats one way or another was inevitable. Adding more cap mods and well making them much more like other ships only bigger also makes some sense. However all those skills at lvl 4? now am i going to need to do those 45days trains? so much for hitting 50M sp :/.
I am not so sure about the refitting restrictions. It make sense, since well yea you never need to make a choice with the fit. Its DPS or Tank or ... whatever. So the idea of restricting this seems logically motivated. (anyone see solo carriers desperately rep there mobile depos). I personally do a bit of in combat fitting. We use a nestor mostly for this reason. I would miss it, but i get it.
Most of my concerns have already been voiced. Namely i never bothered with drones. I use carriers for triage only. A easy progression to the new ship would be grand.
As a WH dweller and currently in a c5 (but moving out right now. need more than 2 ppl to run that show), escals will need a rework. Not that they didn't already need them. If the new subcap guns are only doing 2k DPS they can't even break a marauder, and well that is not even enough for some sleeper sites. Well not really.
So yea subcap guns do sound great. but 2k is just too low. A rattlesnake does just over 1k DPS.
My other concern is mass and WH connections.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
lisa 8
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:08:51 -
[152] - Quote
Some bold changes CCP,
I don't think that removing the ewar immunity from sieged Dreads is such a good idea, hell they are in siege and cant move anyway, why make them that much more vulnerable than they already are, it isn't like they aren't already sitting ducks in that state. Also given the logistics changes which will make cap fleets survivability much odds much lower than present, nerfing the HP on Super's isn't that great an idea either.
I do have a some questions though & are in no particular order;
1. Most alliances require dread pilots to have both short and long range guns atm (for example pulse lasers & beam lasers), but now with these new anti-subcap guns as well that we will have to have, will the size of the cargo bays be increased accordingly so that pilots can carry the 2 extra sets of guns, plus their other fittings in the cargo, when they are moving from deployment to deployment? Just giving us fleet hangars will not solve that issue. Or is it the intention that the anti capital / structure guns will just be a generic type that will do same damage both short and long range, thus removing the need for both short and long range guns ?
2. How will people be compensated for the modules they have fitted to their capitals come patch day ? Will Meta 2 guns, Dead Space & Faction variants be swapped automatically for their capital equivalents ?
3. Given the depth of the changes planned, will there be a rebalance of the slot layouts for Dread's, Carriers, Super's & Titans ? It seems only logical there should be, given how impacting the planned changes are, especially for Dreads, Carriers & Super's at least. I may be wrong, but I am thinking, Dreads will need a extra high slot in order to be ale to for the new Dread DD which CCP Larrikin hinted at, while Carriers / Super's will need extra mid / low slots depending if they are shield or armour ships & less high slots. Has this even been considered, if not it should of been.
4. The hand of God Doomsday - maybe I missed something, but how is this even remotely useful ? When a Titans doomsday weapon is activated, it prevents the Titans jumpdrive from activating for what 10 minutes?. The Doomsday device its self also has a reactivation delay of what 1 hour?. So what is to stop those teleported sub caps from just warping directly back since they will only be sent to random point within the same solar system ?. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:09:28 -
[153] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:After reading this blog, I have but a few reservations and some answers to some unclear sticky points, or considerations to level the playing fields between classes or to change some numbers would go a long way....
1) Will capital remote repair modules no longer work on carriers at all, or will they merely be so ineffective as putting a small local repper(s) on a battleship and facing off against a large group hoping to tank their agro?
2) Will capital remote repair modules only work in triage mode? If so, why don't we change sub cap logistics to mirror capital logistics to win the fight against N+1 once and for all for all ship classes? Why sub capital ships should get favorable treatment under different rules in this regard, while cutting the legs from under existing capital game play based on the same rules, leaves me staggered and in a state of bewilderment, bordering on resentment with hints of injustice. If non triage spider tanking encourages N+1, then kill it everywhere. And to counter, apply damage mitigation to all ship classes so Omega doctrines don't become the new slowcats flying the N+1 flag.
3) Anti sub capital weapons. Thank you CCP. Thank you. But before you finalize your thought processes on this weapon class, consider this: **** Give all capitals and supers a new slot type to fit this module, allowing Carriers/Dreads/Supers/Titans to fit for both anti structure / anti-capital and anti-sub cap combat. Forcing us to use the same hi-slots for these new guns seems lame and in your face nerfish. i) These modules should allow capitals (carriers, dreads, supers and titans) to engage and take on (wipe out) isolated attackers or very small groups of attackers depending on the number of modules fitted.... outside of siege mode in addition to in siege mode. ii) I would expect siege mode to give the cap pilot a boost to the damage / optimal / tracking / falloff / RoF / ability to hit smaller ships and larger groups depending on how well the ship is supported, or tanked / repped by its fleet, while not providing such bonuses outside of siege at all. This will not only force caps with anti-sub cap weapons to commit to be more effective, but also give them value for doing so outside of a pure dps boost against large structures that dont move or shoot back. iii) Smaller capitals should be able to fit less of these new anti-sub cap weapon hard points than the larger ones. If the T3 module slot fitting layout (Fitting screen) would be used in this instance (assuming no other layout is being considered while keeping the existing slot layouts intact), then I'd expect that: iiia - carriers / dreads can have 1-2 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiib - dreads can have 1-3 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiic - supers can have 1-4 anti sub cap weapon hard points iiid - titans can have 1-5 anti sub cap weapon hard points
4) Warp strength on supers (I know you said the numbers are subject to input from us): i) I'd expect supers to have a warp strength of about 50ish (Why allow 20 rifters - at a fraction of the cost - to do what 1 HIC already can) ii) I'd expect Titans to have a warp strength of about 100ish (Again, why allow 20 rifters to do what 1 HIC already can)
5) Will my fighter squadrons be able to engage sub caps I can target on grid in this new UI, or will I only be able to engage ships in my ships targeting range? 5b) If you remove fighter warp from fighter squadrons, how do I get them to engage said targets beyond the 100km camera range if my targets use a micro-jump drive or warp to a safe beyo9nd my targeting range on the grid? 5c) Will I be able to assign my squadrons to players?
6) Can the Titans also get some new fleet based remote assist AoE toys like the supers will get? 6b) Can we keep the existing doomsdays and have these new ones work as script or module variations?
7) New ship hulls? a) I'd like 2 - 3 different Dreadnought flavors (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls) b) I'd like 2 - 3 different Carrier flavors c) I'd like 2 - 3 different super carrier hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls) d) I'd like 2 - 3 different titan hulls (including the possibility of T2 and modular / T3 hulls)
Aside from the above points, hell yea... I'm down with all of it.
You totally need to watch the Capital video. fighters work totally different now. You position them on the system map where you want them and give them orders. If you ever played the Homeworld Series of Games it works like moving squadrons around in it. Set where you want them to move issue orders. They do move around the map again and now have a multitude of commands you can issue them
We now have Squadrons insteads of individual fighters. With a Max of 5 Squadrons that can hold up to a max of 12 fighters There will be 3 Types of Fighter Squadrons Light ( Anti-subcaps) Heavy (Anti-Capital) Support (ewar, nueting, scramming etc)
Squadron will have certain abilities depending on the type which could include a max of 3 Anti-capital torpedos Anti-fighter missile swarm Bombs Evasive maneuvers EWAR - scramming, neuting Microwarp Microjump Special Weapons
Carriers and above will no longer use Drones and fighter bombers get Wrapped into the new types of Heavy Fighters. The Range limitation is gone because now you have system control and move the drones over the system. Much akin to an actual carrier. You have no place on the battlefield, You launch fighters from safety and send them into the Combat Zone. Using an all new control scheme Akin to Homeworld. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
583
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:10:20 -
[154] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Sorry, but that's not particularly helpful in the grand scheme of things. I don't think you'll find a single person that would say yes to that question. Yet people are risk adverse right now with Supers and Titans. Organisations don't commit them on a whim or deploy them when there is a significant chance of losing them and no gain which is at least equal to the potential loss.
What do you think they'll do with a reduction in their current EHP and mechanics which force them to operate in smaller numbers in a more distributed pattern? Suddenly become less risk adverse?
How did you get your Super or Titan in EVE and are you willing to use it in your new meta? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:10:36 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: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
So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset. So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really |
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:18:53 -
[156] - Quote
drunklies wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: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 Smert is drawing assumptions based exactly on what you have said. EHP nerfs, incoming. Ewar immunity, gone. Defences. If triage is the barrier of entry to killing that super fleet, then yeah, seeing as 5 guys in subs can kill a triage without breaking a sweat. Jump Fatgiue, still a cancer for everyone who doesnt want solo frig pvp, or move more then 6 ly. DPS limits, set in the citadel dev blog. This is the vision you have. Someone has pointed out that it looks kinda ****** for caps and supers. Don't insult them by saying they are working from the wrong assumptions. You want to make it awesome, easy. Give everything that cannot receive remote assistance the ability to refit, off themselves, always. Give everyone else the ability to refit off of ships with fleet hangers. Acknowledge that mass refitting is only really a problem when combine with endless RR. Oh, and consider doing something other then a target painting debuff for supers.
The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages. Before this summer is was DPS to structures, ratting support, home defense support etc. With the changes outlined in citadels dev blog and this capital ships rework dev blog it still feels like there's no actual sense in owning capital ship and having 2-3 years old char just to pilot it decently. I'd be happy if you prove me wrong with actual numbers CCP but as i said this is how i see upcoming changes based on my experience with EVE Online.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2185
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:20:31 -
[157] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: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 So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset. So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really Carriers can take gates now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2185
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:21:25 -
[158] - Quote
Smertyukovitch wrote:The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages.
How can you look at the history of Eve and say this with a straight face?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2073
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:22:41 -
[159] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:I'm not experienced with low sec or null sec cap warfare, just in wormholes but it would seem to me that the use of dreads will become as follows...
Small/medium groups will not field dreads to kill sub caps because if they do and they get dropped by even one hostile dread designed to kill caps, they will not be able to fight back because they will be massively outgunned.
At the other end of the scale, large groups will be able to have all their dreads fit with High Angle Weapon Batteries and have the freedom of being able to obliterate sup capital fleets and smaller cap fleets alike, through shear number superiority.
I was just talking to a corpmate and he made a good suggestion for dreadnaughts...
Dreadnaughts should be able to fit a full rack of both the anti-capital weapons and the anti-subcapital weapons but only be able to use one type at a time.
Since refitting during combat is being removed, you could add a mode switching option (like T3Ds) to dreads that lets them switch to either capital guns or sub-cap guns. Add in a time delay between mode switching and maybe a activation capacitor cost to balance the ability.
Thought?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:27:16 -
[160] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
No, but that's what people have been used to for years.
They'll be less happy about this, than phoebe.
|
|
Lando Cenvax
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:27:31 -
[161] - Quote
Interesting and welcome changes. Especially the weapons timer for refitting. Highly appreciated. I realize this is about PvP, but any news on the Rorq? That needs a make-over as well following the recent passive nerfs... compression-arrays are POS-Modules now and Jump-Clones are available at every corner...
Given the new modules: A little bit more please. Like T2.
Although, the logic you apply to warp drives should not end at supercarriers:
Quote:Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Please introduce this to all ships of New Eden. The larger the ships, the more difficult to tackle. Vice-versa their own warp-core-strength is their warp-scramble-strength (if a scrambler is fitted, T1 disruptor get 50% penalty on scramble strenght). Interceptors (also their T1 counterpart) should get massive bonus to scramble-strength. I think that would make people a lot more willing to undock their precious carrier, battleship,... if not any random frig can easily tackle it. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
455
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:30:38 -
[162] - Quote
Smertyukovitch wrote:drunklies wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: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 Smert is drawing assumptions based exactly on what you have said. EHP nerfs, incoming. Ewar immunity, gone. Defences. If triage is the barrier of entry to killing that super fleet, then yeah, seeing as 5 guys in subs can kill a triage without breaking a sweat. Jump Fatgiue, still a cancer for everyone who doesnt want solo frig pvp, or move more then 6 ly. DPS limits, set in the citadel dev blog. This is the vision you have. Someone has pointed out that it looks kinda ****** for caps and supers. Don't insult them by saying they are working from the wrong assumptions. You want to make it awesome, easy. Give everything that cannot receive remote assistance the ability to refit, off themselves, always. Give everyone else the ability to refit off of ships with fleet hangers. Acknowledge that mass refitting is only really a problem when combine with endless RR. Oh, and consider doing something other then a target painting debuff for supers. The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages. Before this summer is was DPS to structures, ratting support, home defense support etc. With the changes outlined in citadels dev blog and this capital ships rework dev blog it still feels like there's no actual sense in owning capital ship and having 2-3 years old char just to pilot it decently. I'd be happy if you prove me wrong with actual numbers CCP but as i said this is how i see upcoming changes based on my experience with EVE Online. I know its a radicle idea, but just maybe you could more than one ship per character. See this character. It can fly dreads *and* battleships and a few other things besides. also it is less than 20 days away from a carrier. My other accounts can also fly more than one ship.
Also for a lot of people these ships just aren't that expensive anymore. And i see more people losing them getting welped now than before.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
693
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:30:41 -
[163] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Since refitting during combat is being removed...
Refitting during combat is ~not~ being removed. All they're doing is preventing you from changing your fit while you're actively attacking someone else. You'll still be perfectly able to adjust your ship during a fight, it just requires you hold off firing guns for a minute. |
The Mach
STEEL CITY. Illuminati Confirmed.
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:32:12 -
[164] - Quote
Swinging the NERFBAT at NullSec and WormHole ISK making with the Dread nerf isnt a good idea. You are devaluing two of the largest regions of space. Here are my Issues, some in question form"
- -Why make dreads the "Gun" platform if you're nerfing their guns to the point where a carrier is probably more effective at doing damage?
- -Highsec incursions have devalued Nullsec space.
- -What is the point of owning a Citadel or contributing to one If the average nullsec player is risking more for less reward than just hanging out in HighSec?
Please look at the value of each type of space (High, Low, Null, WormHole).. I think CCP has lost sight of this slightly but this is a great opportunity to fix it. If I'm willing to Risk a $5,000,0000,000 ISK Dread than I ought to be able to make more than a highsec incursion..
I just hope someone who can understand reads this... |
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3002
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:32:36 -
[165] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:You totally need to watch the Capital video. fighters work totally different now. You position them on the system map where you want them and give them orders. If you ever played the Homeworld Series of Games it works like moving squadrons around in it. Set where you want them to move issue orders. They do move around the map again and now have a multitude of commands you can issue them We now have Squadrons insteads of individual fighters. With a Max of 5 Squadrons that can hold up to a max of 12 fighters There will be 3 Types of Fighter Squadrons Light ( Anti-subcaps) Heavy (Anti-Capital) Support (ewar, nueting, scramming etc) Squadron will have certain abilities depending on the type which could include a max of 3 Anti-capital torpedos Anti-fighter missile swarm Bombs Evasive maneuvers EWAR - scramming, neuting Microwarp Microjump Special Weapons Carriers and above will no longer use Drones and fighter bombers get Wrapped into the new types of Heavy Fighters. The Range limitation is gone because now you have system control and move the drones over the system. Much akin to an actual carrier. You have no place on the battlefield, You launch fighters from safety and send them into the Combat Zone. Using an all new control scheme Akin to Homeworld.
I totally have and i get their moving towards a homeworld direction, but I'd like more specifics than what the video provides.
More over, they can't bring basck skynet (not that I'm complaining if they do, long liv skynet) and then complain about it later on in the sense of "risk free off grid pvp is bad mmmkay"
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2186
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:32:40 -
[166] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. No, but that's what people have been used to for years. They'll be less happy about this, than phoebe. Good riddance.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2186
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:33:53 -
[167] - Quote
The Mach wrote:Swinging the NERFBAT at NullSec and WormHole ISK making with the Dread nerf isnt a good idea. You are devaluing two of the largest regions of space. Here are my Issues, some in question form"
- -Why make dreads the "Gun" platform if you're nerfing their guns to the point where a carrier is probably more effective at doing damage?
- -Highsec incursions have devalued Nullsec space.
- -What is the point of owning a Citadel or contributing to one If the average nullsec player is risking more for less reward than just hanging out in HighSec?
Please look at the value of each type of space (High, Low, Null, WormHole).. I think CCP has lost sight of this slightly but this is a great opportunity to fix it. If I'm willing to Risk a $5,000,0000,000 ISK Dread than I ought to be able to make more than a highsec incursion.. I just hope someone who can understand reads this... Please tell us where you're doing PVE in nullsec with dreads.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Nou Mene
Out of Focus Odin's Call
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:34:00 -
[168] - Quote
Albeit I'm not too concerned about cap warfare. Even when I'm almost getting into a dread with PvE purposes (imo caps should shust be erased). I have 2 concerns:
1) You giving caps (dreads) a specialized anti sub-cap weapon. Can sub-caps get a specialized anti cap weapon?. The concept I would like/suggest is something like Starcraft's void rays, where a weapon does more damage the longer it's been shooting at the same target. You could add heavy penalties for it, high cap usage, 100% speed reduction; and making only fittable in certain ships (marauders? blops? new t3 bs? or just only BS).
2) Weapon timer refitting. Again, I'm a strange to cap warfare so I'm not going there. My case is for Nestors. Is it possible to add an exception for them? The Nestor is a complex and rich ship, its interesting to fly because it can refit, refitting in battle des-incentivises multiboxing, current Nestor pushes the pilot tactically, strategically and mechanically. Even when i understand the argument for carriers, Nestors just don't have the ehp to be played exactly like carriers. You are making it a glorified logi. PLZ don't kill Nestors.
I'm actually more psyched for structures than caps. While ehp on caps is getting nerfed, the buffed dps and tools they are getting makes them probably more overpowered vs sub-caps than before. From my small group point of view this means less and less chances to punish bad cap pilots.
Greetings. |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:35:04 -
[169] - Quote
Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: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 So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset. So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:38:54 -
[170] - Quote
The new DD weapons will work great with Tidi/nobrackets/lowsettings we will totally see them coming :p |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:39:33 -
[171] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:42:40 -
[172] - Quote
Playing since 2008 people frequently ask me why I don't fly capital ships. I'm one of those pilots that CCP curses at every turn because I enjoy flying solo or perhaps with just one person or a very small group. This type of gameplay has always been lacking due to handicaps in the gameplay mechanics. Changes here continue the move in this direction and confirm in my mind that CCP wants to discourage small gang and solo pvp players.
Some of the changes such as the area of effect weapons look outstanding and will surely enhance medium and particularly large fleet battles but I definitely have no personal desire to shoot at structures. As for myself I will continue to play the game as I see fit and not move down the deceivingly linear path CCP is attempting to draw up for me. These change confirm that players like myself will not be flying capitals anytime soon.
Instead I will continue in the areas where there is more freedom to use my personal prowess such as dominating markets to acquire vast sums of isk and in this way exercise my will. Some days I wish I could roll back the clock on eve ten years so that I could pvp the way I was meant to without being forced into a box. |
The Mach
STEEL CITY. Illuminati Confirmed.
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:44:59 -
[173] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Can you not evade this question in every post? And just answer it? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:45:15 -
[174] - Quote
Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live? My old "suitcase" carrier did not need them. Was part of my point. Maybe I should gank miners and freighters in high sec to prove my point :) |
Soridar Ravencroft
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:46:15 -
[175] - Quote
I am a bit confused, as during the Vegas presentation, I am sure I heard that Cap Remote Reps can only be used in Triage, but the blog states that they will only be effective in Triage. This means two entirely different things.
Remote Reps should work on capitals in the same way as on sub-caps, where in an unbonused role, they are relatively weak and only have limited usefulness. When you combine the new fall-off changes with the loss of bonuses, remote reps no matter what size or classification, will be of limited usefulness. So removing them as an option not only reduces variation in game play, but defeats the nature of the sandbox.
Before making a knee-jerk anti n+1 reaction, look at how far the current changes for Remote Assistance are going to limit unbonused ships. Then remind yourselves that with many of the new proposed capital changes and additions, clumping capitals together is going to be a tactic of the past. This means that in a fleet fight, even if combat carriers wanted to fit for reps, like today, without the current bonuses, they would have to make a choice. 1) Either be sitting in a relatively close manner, and risk massive penalties, or dmg, via the new AOE mechanics, or 2) sit at near max rep ranges and receive a large penalty to Remote Assistance.
I understand you are thinking, but large groups will just bunch in tighter, meaning n+1 will still be the effect, and this just might happen a time or 2. Until the handful of Titans pop in, hit AOE DDs and even if they didn't kill the entire fleet, they would have put in such a hurting that the stealth bombers just come in and mop up.
So as I have pointed out, with your current new effects, combined with upcoming nerfs and removal of bonuses. The current Pantheon meta for carriers is over, and there is no need to just remove fitting options, when the new mechanics will make them undesirable.
This leads you to ask, "Why then do you want to keep the option?", which would be a valid question. The answer is simple, variation and limited resource options. I use the RR Domi as my example, this style of Dominix fitting, allows a small group to increase it's abilities mildly, but in no way out performs the T2 logistic hulls it is trying to. the point here, is some small groups, being WHers, LS gangs, and even null groups, tend to do a lot of small gang action much more often than any large scale battles. This gives those everyday pilots more function, even if it is at the cost of limited range or effect.
Also this allows for a single capital, which gets tackled, to have a response force show up, and assist it rather than just watch him die as you couldn't find a FAX pilot in time.
Options are a backbone of Eve, even if you wanna do something stupid, like using hybrids on an Amarr BS that is sheild tanked, you can. Doesn't mean it is gonna work the greatest, but that is still your right, in the sandbox. |
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:48:57 -
[176] - Quote
The Mach wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Can you not evade this question in every post? And just answer it? Wait, what question are you trying to get answered? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
455
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:49:04 -
[177] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live? My old "suitcase" carrier did not need them. Was part of my point. Maybe I should gank miners and freighters in high sec to prove my point :) Wait you point is that you can't travel around from one end of new eden to the other risk free?
If so then working as intended.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Kej Lacitis
Gagrantua corp Solar Citizens
14
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:50:41 -
[178] - Quote
Hello. What about damage control on fighters squadrons? Today, I can see shield, armor and hull on each fighter, and I can call it back or use remote shield/armor/hull repair on it. In case of squadrons, can I see percents of health of each fighters, or not? If not, on what basis I can make a decision on the return of the squadron? Can I use remote shield/armor/hull repair on it? And what about Drone Damage Amplifier, Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Drone Durability Enhancer and other modules and rigs? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:51:29 -
[179] - Quote
I don't like the sound of this ewar resistance. have you thought about doing something with the stacking penalty, to make it so you can still damp a capital down to -x%, but it just takes, say, 12 damps rather than 3? a resistance to ECM means you can still just bring a lot of ECM. a resistance to other stuff means you're really cutting how much they can be affected. I don't want to be on field in a damp ship and be reducing a dreadnought's targeting range from 250km to 150km with 4 bonused damps when it's brawling at 40km.
making capital ships tacklable is nice, but have you given any thought to lowsec in particular, where we can't just drop a load of bubbles? HICs are effectively garbage because they can't receive remote reps. I think if it's ok for everything else in the game to receive remote reps, HICs also should be able to. some kind of lowsec capital tackle bubble would be nice though.
and regarding capital warp strength, will this be a separate thing from jump drive? or will it be that you can jump if you can warp?
any changes to capital travel? currently you can move the biggest ships in the game by having 1 noob cyno alt, and people can't really do much about it. how about some kind of interruptable activation on jump drives, and a timer before a cyno becomes jumpable? |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:53:52 -
[180] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:You totally need to watch the Capital video. fighters work totally different now. You position them on the system map where you want them and give them orders. If you ever played the Homeworld Series of Games it works like moving squadrons around in it. Set where you want them to move issue orders. They do move around the map again and now have a multitude of commands you can issue them We now have Squadrons insteads of individual fighters. With a Max of 5 Squadrons that can hold up to a max of 12 fighters There will be 3 Types of Fighter Squadrons Light ( Anti-subcaps) Heavy (Anti-Capital) Support (ewar, nueting, scramming etc) Squadron will have certain abilities depending on the type which could include a max of 3 Anti-capital torpedos Anti-fighter missile swarm Bombs Evasive maneuvers EWAR - scramming, neuting Microwarp Microjump Special Weapons Carriers and above will no longer use Drones and fighter bombers get Wrapped into the new types of Heavy Fighters. The Range limitation is gone because now you have system control and move the drones over the system. Much akin to an actual carrier. You have no place on the battlefield, You launch fighters from safety and send them into the Combat Zone. Using an all new control scheme Akin to Homeworld. I totally have and i get their moving towards a homeworld direction, but I'd like more specifics than what the video provides. More over, they can't bring basck skynet (not that I'm complaining if they do, long liv skynet) and then complain about it later on in the sense of "risk free off grid pvp is bad mmmkay"
I think more of the Skynet issue was OTHER players having the control of the fighters. Here you will actually have to shift cameras around to your groups to see whats going on. With Skynet you assigned them to your Alt or another player and he could relay whats on grid and whats happening.
In this new situation if you have multiple combat situations occuring in your area (Node defense perhaps, maybe multiple spawned and you have fighter squadrons deployed around the nodes) you will be more micromanaging your squadrons or risk losing them quickly. You also have no control over what they target. Before if fighters were assigned to me, I engaged with my Ceptor they attacked that target. NOW if that squadron is assigned to an area, you just have the ability enabled for what you want it to do. You have no way of saying.. at least so far that I have seen... "Focus Fire" Or "Priority x ship", in this case.. Skynet is literally Skynet. It's all AI once deployed. Thats a major difference between our skynet and the upcoming. |
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:56:48 -
[181] - Quote
The Mach wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Can you not evade this question in every post? And just answer it?
what part of "Focused on Anti-Cap/Structure damage" are you not reading. WATCH the vegas streams. READ the Blogs.
EVEN if you WEBBED and PAINTED a SUBCAP with the XL GUNS.. They wont do anything to a subcap. ONLY the high angle guns will. It's been clearly stated at Vegas and on the Blog. And in the above quote. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
68
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:57:50 -
[182] - Quote
How are you phasing in these changes? Particularly how are you planning on introducing the changes so that there isn't a gap where a particularly capability (triage for instance) isn't available at all? |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:02:00 -
[183] - Quote
I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:03:22 -
[184] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game.
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:04:05 -
[185] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: EVEN if you WEBBED and PAINTED a SUBCAP with the XL GUNS.. They wont do anything to a subcap. ONLY the high angle guns will. It's been clearly stated at Vegas and on the Blog. And in the above quote.
for what reason How many dps have DREAD WITH NEW GUNS WITHOUT SIEGE? To understand this 3x3 Large cannons |
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:06:45 -
[186] - Quote
CCP, could you rebalance subcapital logistics ships in the same way as FAX machines? Removing the ability of repping logi to receive remote reps or cap would do a lot to encourage fights at the subcapital level as well. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:07:17 -
[187] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
capitals escalation? isnt it? |
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:08:07 -
[188] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: EVEN if you WEBBED and PAINTED a SUBCAP with the XL GUNS.. They wont do anything to a subcap. ONLY the high angle guns will. It's been clearly stated at Vegas and on the Blog. And in the above quote.
for what reason How many dps have DREAD WITH NEW GUNS WITHOUT SIEGE? To understand this 3x3 Large cannons With the new guns, dreads without siege will have very limited dps. The 2-3k number for the new guns was in siege, I'm sure you can scale that back based on how siege improves current gun damage. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:08:17 -
[189] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
capitals escalation? isnt it?
capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. |
SCom Thor
Erebus Innovations Erebus Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:08:59 -
[190] - Quote
Am I the only one around here who sees this as the final nerf of capital ships? With repping capability only under triage and ewar vulnerability, caps and supercaps will be quickly decimated by swarms of F1 monkeys with 5mil SPs each. Mentioning the n+1 rule there was a huge irony, while you also mentioned that enough subcaps will be able to ewar supercaps. GG SWARM
GG Mittani, really GG, you won it.
There's a high chance that there won't be a New Eden anymore by the time these changes will be ready, but for what it's worth you won EvE. |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1172
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:09:02 -
[191] - Quote
The Mach wrote: Can you not evade this question in every post? And just answer it?
he did answer it you idiot
dreads will have existing anti-cap guns or can use a new kind of anti-subcap gun |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:09:07 -
[192] - Quote
Garrett Howe wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: EVEN if you WEBBED and PAINTED a SUBCAP with the XL GUNS.. They wont do anything to a subcap. ONLY the high angle guns will. It's been clearly stated at Vegas and on the Blog. And in the above quote.
for what reason How many dps have DREAD WITH NEW GUNS WITHOUT SIEGE? To understand this 3x3 Large cannons With the new guns, dreads without siege will have very limited dps. The 2-3k number for the new guns was in siege, I'm sure you can scale that back based on how siege improves current gun damage. 200dps Large cannonsX9 REALLY?
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
456
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:10:15 -
[193] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
Clearly false. The red boxes i shoot only spawn if i warp in capitals.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:10:27 -
[194] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Garrett Howe wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: EVEN if you WEBBED and PAINTED a SUBCAP with the XL GUNS.. They wont do anything to a subcap. ONLY the high angle guns will. It's been clearly stated at Vegas and on the Blog. And in the above quote.
for what reason How many dps have DREAD WITH NEW GUNS WITHOUT SIEGE? To understand this 3x3 Large cannons With the new guns, dreads without siege will have very limited dps. The 2-3k number for the new guns was in siege, I'm sure you can scale that back based on how siege improves current gun damage. 200dps Large cannonsX9 REALLY? That's what siege mode is for. If you want high subcap damage without siege, use a battleship. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1172
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:10:43 -
[195] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks
read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:14:55 -
[196] - Quote
Garrett Howe wrote: That's what siege mode is for. If you want high subcap damage without siege, use a battleship.
you can answer the question? 9xlarge cannond doing less than destroer dps. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:17:39 -
[197] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live? My old "suitcase" carrier did not need them. Was part of my point. Maybe I should gank miners and freighters in high sec to prove my point :) Then the nerfs are working as intended. Suitcase carriers were a truculent cancer and Eve is truly better for their death. Consider putting down stakes, building something, and fighting for it instead of being the Eve equivalent of a vulture.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
692
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:21:06 -
[198] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:helana Tsero wrote:
Quit whinging and adapt.
From noname, ok
Quit whinging and adapt, or more helpfully get on the capital feedback thingy and tell CCP what you think is wrong and what you would suggest in its place, you knopw like theyve been asking people to do ever since they made the first broadcast.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:22:28 -
[199] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Garrett Howe wrote: That's what siege mode is for. If you want high subcap damage without siege, use a battleship.
you can answer the question? 9xlarge cannond doing less than destroer dps. Yes, what's hard to understand about that? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:26:17 -
[200] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
capitals escalation? isnt it? capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Agreed -- it's time for CCP to admit their failure of design and remove all loot from capital-escalation-spawned rats.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
40
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:28:13 -
[201] - Quote
"We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
Big fat no to that from me. Why? Because FAX machines will be the new combat triage and for them to have any chance of surriving on a battlefield instead of just being expensive throwaways they need the ability to refit. 30 Seconds being locked out from refitting due to weapon timer from repairing your fleet is planty enough. To refit you'll have to stop repping for 30 sec and be able to surrive 30sec in your current fit. (If what was said about weapons timer being reduced to 30sec is true).
But if you give siege and triage weapon timers we are talking 5:30 minutes or 6 minutes depending on what the weapons timer will end up being. That removes any concideration towards FAX machines and will lead to us just bringing 50 subcap logis to do the job. If they have no means to surrive they wont have a place.
Another issue I'd like ask about if armor supercapitals and capitals will get a slot layout revamp. Because with the change of refitting shield capitals and supercapitals have such an advantage that its not even worth the concideration to enage a shield capital / supercapital force with armor capitals and supercapitals unless you have at least twice the numbers. Dunno but the ability to fit for maxium tank and maxium tank seems out of balance once that change is though. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:30:14 -
[202] - Quote
Garrett Howe wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Garrett Howe wrote: That's what siege mode is for. If you want high subcap damage without siege, use a battleship.
you can answer the question? 9xlarge cannond doing less than destroer dps. Yes, what's hard to understand about that? tracking largesize cannon have more dps that most dps midsize cannon i shot many times from dreads without siege. in my opinion tracking cannon would have ~1/2 dps of dreadnout for example moros have 15k dps from blasters tracking would have about 7-8k
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:31:27 -
[203] - Quote
Querns wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
capitals escalation? isnt it? capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Agreed -- it's time for CCP to admit their failure of design and remove all loot from capital-escalation-spawned rats. https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/1543191737/ WH expert lool
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:34:35 -
[204] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:"We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
Big fat no to that from me. Why? Because FAX machines will be the new combat triage and for them to have any chance of surriving on a battlefield instead of just being expensive throwaways they need the ability to refit. 30 Seconds being locked out from refitting due to weapon timer from repairing your fleet is planty enough. To refit you'll have to stop repping for 30 sec and be able to surrive 30sec in your current fit. (If what was said about weapons timer being reduced to 30sec is true).
We can fix this counter-intuitive mechanic by making siege/triage apply a 5 minute weapons timer (or one equal to whatever siege/triage length is.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alex Lenin
Providing of the first medical aid SOLAR FLEET
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:35:06 -
[205] - Quote
2devs What about skill for new capital modules (shield extender\armor plates)? It will be require standard skill such as Shield Upgrades\Hull Upgrades or you make new capital "size" skill with x10 multiplier? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:41:50 -
[206] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live? My old "suitcase" carrier did not need them. Was part of my point. Maybe I should gank miners and freighters in high sec to prove my point :) Wait you point is that you can't travel around from one end of new eden to the other risk free? If so then working as intended. Never said that. For you to read that into what was said is daft. But thanks for whatever that attempt at logic was. I'm sure you will become better once you try it a few times. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:42:59 -
[207] - Quote
These new dread HAW guns are a joke, sorry but 1-2k DPS is laughable. Even if the T2 are 3K, its still funny.
Why on earth would I pay 3.5K for a dread hull, another 500M (poor) or 1B (proper) to fit it, to achieve the same fire power as 1 Vindi (2.4b) or 2 Machs (1.5B each). Oh and both of those BSs have mobility, utility and the ability to receive remote assistance.
The trade off seems less than desirable with the current proposal.
I feel that Siege and Triage for that matter both need to have their cycle times evaluated. You are giving Caps, capital level MWDs which means cap fleets are going to be much more mobile than they are now. So in a fleet battle carriers/supers/titans are going to be constantly moving, and Dread/FAX are going to be locked down.
This is horrible, basically you are providing Titans with easy targets for the new point and shoot DDs while making the backbone of the fleets DPS and Logi absolutely vulnerable.
If this is the case, then while removing EWar immunity, they need to be allowed remote assistance. Else they are just Titan fodder and 10-15 malus will make a FAX unable to ever save anyone. |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
298
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:44:07 -
[208] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out.
Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that?
|
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:47:01 -
[209] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. |
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:47:26 -
[210] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:These new dread HAW guns are a joke, sorry but 1-2k DPS is laughable. Even if the T2 are 3K, its still funny.
Why on earth would I pay 3.5K for a dread hull, another 500M (poor) or 1B (proper) to fit it, to achieve the same fire power as 1 Vindi (2.4b) or 2 Machs (1.5B each). Oh and both of those BSs have mobility, utility and the ability to receive remote assistance. . 4-5 thats cheap fit) my one costs about 7-6 ***
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:48:56 -
[211] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that?
idk, it's just what I remember hearing back in the day. maybe it's wrong. equally it wouldn't make sense for ccp to add a special extra money thing for people who like using overpowered ships.
but it's not like wormholes are short on broken game mechanics. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
457
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:49:29 -
[212] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Because they don't like something that makes more isk than incursions. At least that is the best I can come up with.
But to be fair the isk you can pump out of them is kinda crazy. 600M per site in blue loot alone.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:50:04 -
[213] - Quote
Reading dev post brings up a UI space allocation concern as we approach an overload of information and deployment windows. These need to be small enough that people don't HAVE to use multiple screens just to play EVE.
Also the tactical overlay bubble 'use of range visibility' is Already crippling the visual field with it's whiteness. This gets worse the more there is on grid. You get enough interdiction bubbles going on top of this and all you can see is an abstract painting of black and white. The Relic/Data site UI is another example of being bigger than needed obscuring views.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:50:14 -
[214] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:51:46 -
[215] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
41
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:55:46 -
[216] - Quote
Querns wrote:Baki Yuku wrote:"We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
Big fat no to that from me. Why? Because FAX machines will be the new combat triage and for them to have any chance of surriving on a battlefield instead of just being expensive throwaways they need the ability to refit. 30 Seconds being locked out from refitting due to weapon timer from repairing your fleet is planty enough. To refit you'll have to stop repping for 30 sec and be able to surrive 30sec in your current fit. (If what was said about weapons timer being reduced to 30sec is true).
We can fix this counter-intuitive mechanic by making siege/triage apply a 5 minute weapons timer (or one equal to whatever siege/triage length is.)
So having a brain knowing what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Is now counter-intuitive wow eve really is becoming WoW. |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
300
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:56:47 -
[217] - Quote
Querns wrote:Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site.
|
Nuhrp
Short Bus Holding Short Bus Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:17 -
[218] - Quote
Requests from W/H perspective.
It seems like the changes you created for the dread create a battlefield that is more in-line with what you imagined. However, these do not apply very well in w/h ratting. The risks in w/h's atm are well balanced with the rewards. Any mistake in attention, fitting, lag, etc... results in the loss of several billion. Also, the isk making is high per hour but limited to the anoms a system has - thus allowing people time to go kill in K space. Please consider the following:
1 - W/h effects to be considered specifically for capital guns damage and tracking just like you do on wolf-rayat for small guns. This also forces attackers to commit their own dreads to a field in a w/h.
2 - The DPS suggested in K space for a sieged dread against a sub-capital is too low. It needs to be proportional to the value of the ship.
3 - The tank suggested in K space is not known due to the added mods. It needs to be proportional to the value of the ship. Specially for Titans.
4 - Consider that perhaps the reason it is difficult to balance all this is because you are missing a line of ships. Carriers - Super carriers but dread - not Super Dread. No the Titan is not it; something in the 20B range.
5 - Disagree with the statement that ref-fitting under fire is bad for the game because it makes it hard for the designer to balance. Everyone that flies capitals says it enhances gameplay, requires skill, brings more mods into the field, and can be countered by the enemy changing as well. So what if life is harder for the developer to balance? Get a helmet, life is not easy.
6 - Keep the time balance of w/h people the same. So that they have time to come out and play with the nice people. If you balance it equally to null, then they will have to rat and completely live in there all the time. Maintain the risks high and rewards high with a lower time bound to allow for null content.
Rest in my opinion is good. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
457
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:20 -
[219] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once. A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts.
When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:59 -
[220] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it.
At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment?
Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically. |
|
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
248
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:00:10 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective... Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention?
I guess it works.
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.
So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow.
Force Aux = FAUX
Force Aux Pilot = FAP
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:00:44 -
[222] - Quote
Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.
Actually the blog doesn't comment either way about if squadrons auto engage an area or require you to manually engage them. They only comment about them being able to be moved using the new interface. Thus my concern. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:01:02 -
[223] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site. They appear in nearly all C6 sites.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:03:08 -
[224] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Querns wrote:Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once. A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts. When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life. Well, obviously, we know that now. CCP may have thought differently in 2009.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:05:18 -
[225] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it. At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment? Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.
it's a battleship with a teleporter. how can you not move them? I really expected to see ccp getting rid of 10s warps and cloaking on capitals in these changes, but you guys got off easy, but somehow you're still complaining. |
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
41
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:06:53 -
[226] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it. At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment? Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.
Carriers no longer able to use drones is a income nerf for nullsec from 90-100m/h down to 45mil/h what that represents is the downgrade from carrier to ishtar/VNI. Not sure about you but thats a pretty steap income nerf when you concider that nullsec income is already subpar. And it certainly won't help roaming killing ratting ishtars and VNI's gets old after 10 or so. A carrier in an anomaly at least presents the chance of getting a fight out of it. Pretty sure people will now say but you can use Mauraders or faction battleships instead sure you can but you're still making less isk/h then a carrier for almost the same cost of a carrier. With not even a fraction of the chance of surivial if you get yourself tackled so ya they wont see increased usage. |
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad Angeli Mortis
112
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:07:10 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Have you considered how bad these numbers are in terms of DPS? You're saying that with specially designed sub-capital guns a dreadnought will do less DPS in siege than a vindicator. What's the point of them? |
Judas Lonestar
Stryker Industries
126
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:09:25 -
[228] - Quote
Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.
I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap. |
Junot Nevone
Devlon Industries Phoebe Freeport Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:09:25 -
[229] - Quote
What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2190
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:10:20 -
[230] - Quote
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.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:12:56 -
[231] - Quote
Judas Lonestar wrote:Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.
I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap. they cannot do lower dps without siege! then 3 cannons from one bs noone turret break that rule. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
359
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:15:23 -
[232] - Quote
I like the ability for sub capitals and capitals to do more things to each other, but I do not like capitals being able to fit smart bombs. The only reason they do is to GTFO instead of a means to stay and engage the enemy. Capitals should still desire to have sub capitals with them as support. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
360
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:17:16 -
[233] - 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. I'm always looking up the origins of words and sayings. Unnecessary etymology? I don't think so. Please, carry on. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
360
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:18:24 -
[234] - Quote
Junot Nevone wrote:What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. To acquire the new capital components, you reprocess Rorquals. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:18:48 -
[235] - Quote
yeah what's the point in range and tank, these things are useless. let's all fly void blasters, 6k range is super practical for a fleet battle. |
Drammie Askold
Phoibe Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:19:05 -
[236] - Quote
Although as I've yet to fly a capital I can't make any specific comments, this all sounds very interesting |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
300
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:26:14 -
[237] - Quote
Querns wrote:They appear in nearly all C6 sites. Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space. Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:27:21 -
[238] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective... Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention? I guess it works. 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. So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow. Force Aux = FAUX Force Aux Pilot = FAP :) +1 internets for this |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2193
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:29:41 -
[239] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:They appear in nearly all C6 sites. Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space. Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then? They weren't meant to be run with capitals in them, no. Or, it was meant to be discouraged. I wasn't even playing Eve in 2009, so I can speculate at best.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:34:24 -
[240] - Quote
Im not a Cap pilot yet, but of many things mentioned ..I have only one or two suggestion for CCP.
The hot swapping of mods in repping carriers during combat (or anyone with a combat timer) Please reconsider that one,
1. What of the guys who carry multiple fits while traveling? if they get ambushed they are stuck with a travel fit and unable to refit to a PvP fit (IE;, using a mobile depot or friendly fleet hanger). Otherwise u have to sit and tank damage (so not to get that combat timer) until u can swap mods. and That ain't gonna happen.
2. I agree that swapping is very frustrating but its a mechanic and people learned to use it. On the other hand - I agree that it is too huge of a force multiplier... so why not just make hot swapping SLOWER? Especially if the mods are overheated (it takes time to do it in real life so why not make it so u get one quick swap (see above why that's important) after that it takes longer and longer to actually swap and online the new modules? This solves your bigger Niche issue while allowing others to still use it.
But the blog started off with this:
"Remote-Repairing Carrier & Super-Carrier fleets will be a thing of the past. The N+1 nature of these tactics encourages enormous blobs and currently the best counter is to bring an even bigger group of your own capitals. The more carriers and super-carriers you bring, the more your entire fleet can tank. 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..."
Isn't that the same logic for bringing more carriers that is used now?, just bring N+1 Force Auxiliary's? or did i miss that u can only have one in a fleet. I know i seems like an insurmountable problem, but N+1 always wins.. truly wished there was a way to fix that. |
|
nospet
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:38:43 -
[241] - Quote
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.
|
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
210
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:40:28 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
No one is going to deploy a fleet where it all depends on a single type of ship. We currently see this problem in subcap fleets staying docked cause no boosters are available. Despite popular belief, this is something the vast majority of sov blocs suffers from.
As the changes currently stand, the answer to literally everything is throwing more dreads at it. With the size of the Imperium we will never again be in a capital fight cause no one will ever want to escalate against us cause we will outblob them with Dreads, without ever putting our Titans or Supers on the line. There simply isn't a counter to dread blobs. It used to be Supers and Titans but with the proposed changes Supers and Titans are simply too weak after the Triage carriers have been nuked off the field. As the blog so proudly states, it will be all about holding tackle on the hostile capitals which will be reasonably easy with the removal of Ewar immunity.
Tl;dr The changes further reinforces the N+1 but instead of it being Titans, the role has now been given to dreads.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2194
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:40:33 -
[243] - 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.
Bubbles are pretty good at tackling lots of things at once. Capital Warp Disruptors will likely be single-target devices.
According to updates.eveonline.com, hictor points are due for a balance pass soon. I don't actually know what that will entail, but I feel like it's a decent chance that they'll be adjusted to match the state of capitals at the time.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two
52
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:43:15 -
[244] - 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.
They said Heavy Interdticors and Interdictors will work as they work now; i.e. when bubbled or focused script-warp disrupted, every capital till be tackled. So there will be a place for them after this aswell!
I guess the capital disruptors and scramblers are so that one capital kan hold another capital tackled. But there has to be 20-50 subcaps to tackle one capital with "ordinary" disruptors/scrams. That number is to be tuned i understood.
CEO Svea Rike
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two
52
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:44:40 -
[245] - Quote
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?
CEO Svea Rike
|
Tatiana Nixx
Ruby Dracos
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:49:16 -
[246] - Quote
I didn't read the whole thread TLDR.
Regarding POS bashes, if carriers are no longer going to be logistics, can you extend the firing range of the fighters so they can effectively damage a POS tower? This could also be used against any stationary targets. This would encourage anybody in a fight to move instead of just sitting there (more dynamic gameplay).
Many if not most POS's in the local area don't have any defense and bringing my carrier to a POS bash is effectively useless unless a large fleet shows up, which they haven't yet., which is why I brought the carrier (insurance). Yes I know sentry drones do some damage, but not compared to a fleet of fighters.
[posting on sub-alt] |
Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:54:26 -
[247] - Quote
Another good point is Bubbles. Don't troll me if I get this wrong please, but isn't it true that all ships caught in a bubble end up IN or on the edge of the bubble? If so - I would propose an Inertia effect on ships that hit bubbles. The bigger and /or faster u warp the farther u travel thru the bubble? I belive this is the case somewhat now, but I'm proposing it be expanded.
For instance -- a titan/super hitting a bubble will end up passing clean thru and beyond, but will have dropped out of warp and dragged out of alignment with their destination and have to realign and re-warp away before being tackled.
While an astero being both light and fast ends up only at the leading edge. and adding higgs modules means u end up 200-250k beyond the bubble, lol |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
30
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:56:18 -
[248] - Quote
Maybe some backround first, since people will poke at that anyway at some point (you can skip that of course): I am still too young to fly caps myself, so it is mostly a picture from outside - what I do like to fly is logistics, so my interest are mainly carriers or now force auxilliaries, as that will maybe end up beeing what I eventually will fly. The uni obviously has not a lot of caps. If we fight battles on that scale it is usually us bringing Neuts to take those dragons down (at most we have a few triage carriers or dreads). So the only time I see supers or titans, is when they jump in and driveby our triage carriers and end the fight doing that.
That may result in bias, so that might be useful to start. Now my thoughts on that topic:
Titans and supers don't seem underpowered from my perspective - if they are basically the - "I win"-button in those fights. But that might just be perception. Now you buff titans with AOE doomsdays. Subcaps can maybe evade that but triage carriers and sieged dreads won't, because that is what triage and siege do, right? Now you reduce the HP of caps and introduce plates, also you stop carriers, from beeing able to refit. Now put that into perspective: Now:
- A driveby titan appears
- Case 1: our triage carriers manage to refit in time and actually survives
- Case 2: our triage carrier is too slow and dies - End of the fight
After Changes:
- A driveby titan appears
- Case 1: our triage carrier can't refit anymore, it's HP is reduced - dies in a fire - End of the fight
- Case 2: wait no there is no Case 2...
Well... sounds... nice
To explain it in a bit more general terms - what is wrong with combat refitting? It just makes individual players and their actions meaningful - if the fit is fixed it is more n+1 than before. It was also unique to capitals - you can perform better in sub caps by manual piloting (increasing and decreasing range, change transversal, you can't do that with capitals) but in exchange you can refit, because you have enough buffer, that this works. On top of that, combat refitting is something individuals do, while making doctrine fits is usually done by the Leadership, wasn't there something about: "Line members should matter more" (fleet warp changes - anything rings a bell?)
It just seems like you remove a feature for no reason at all. I mean refitting does nothing in n+1 terms. You can't make someone refit his carrier better, by bringing more carriers to the field this just doesn't make any sense.
And dreads - well before you actually needed sub cap support to hit things with your guns. So it makes interactions and synergies possible means, more roles in a fleet. Now you give dreads just guns that track better but have worse dps, making them more standalone - do you want that?
All in all, I was kind of ok with the dreads and carriers as it was - triage and siege mean, that you can neut them out in those vulnerable phases and kill them before they get out of that. They might be powerful in this state but also weak. So kind of balanced. And again, I didn't see supers and titans that often... |
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
250
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:01:09 -
[249] - Quote
Querns wrote:I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post.... 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. Personally I agree with you, I was parroting the audience quote. Calling "healers" "logistics" is one of the strangest appropriations in EVE. I don't need very many fingers to count duplicate and confusing terms, but this is one of the biggest.
My point was rather, replacing one nonsense term for a new set of nonsense acronyms isn't elevating the (faux) profession. Naval accuracy certainly won't stand in the way of FCs calling for FAPs. And don't forget PAPs for FAPs.
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
254
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:03:46 -
[250] - Quote
Junot Nevone wrote:What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming.
CCP plans on removing the Rorqual from the game. That's why it was not part of the Capital Balance. This is also why they removed the compression BPCs that were unique to the Rorqual, then they removed compression from being unique and gave it to all areas of space, regardless of skills. Then they made the clone bay useless by letting everyone get clones regardless of Standings.
The writing is on the wall for the Rorquak, CCP plans on deleting it, just doesn't know how to openly say so. This is why they repeatedly state they don't know how to approach it. They "it" is actually the pilots who use them.
Give it until summer and CCP will finally break the news that they will be removing it from the game. It's roles will be replaced by a service module or new anchorable in the Citadel system that will provide system wide boosts equal to the Rorqual or better. This will help get rid of the Rorqual and make the Industrial crowd want to get Citadels built in the systems they are in.
It's coming.. Or some form of this... You watch. System wide mining booster module thing will come and that will be the final bullet for the Rorqual. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2194
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:07:12 -
[251] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Junot Nevone wrote:What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. CCP plans on removing the Rorqual from the game. That's why it was not part of the Capital Balance. This is also why they removed the compression BPCs that were unique to the Rorqual, then they removed compression from being unique and gave it to all areas of space, regardless of skills. Then they made the clone bay useless by letting everyone get clones regardless of Standings. The writing is on the wall for the Rorquak, CCP plans on deleting it, just doesn't know how to openly say so. This is why they repeatedly state they don't know how to approach it. They "it" is actually the pilots who use them. Give it until summer and CCP will finally break the news that they will be removing it from the game. It's roles will be replaced by a service module or new anchorable in the Citadel system that will provide system wide boosts equal to the Rorqual or better. This will help get rid of the Rorqual and make the Industrial crowd want to get Citadels built in the systems they are in. It's coming.. Or some form of this... You watch. System wide mining booster module thing will come and that will be the final bullet for the Rorqual. Frankly, aside from the bit where I would prefer the rorqual to be repurposed rather than eliminated, I'm on board with your "doomsday" scenario. Right now, mining relies far too much on boosts to be effective. Miners produce more than twice the amount of ore/ice/gas per cycle when they have mining boosts. Bake the cycle reduction and capacitor use boosts into the mining modules, and either remove all mining boosts or relegate them to utility things like laser range.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Garrett Howe
Spectres
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:12:24 -
[252] - Quote
One thing to remember about dread dps with the new guns is that, while 1-2k dps doesn't sound like much, dreads are significantly more mobile and tankier than battleships, so if they had more dps than battleships against subcapitals, why would you fly anything else? Cost would be a factor, but as is well known, cost can never be a factor when it comes to balancing ships e.g. titans. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
275
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:12:49 -
[253] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Let people build them from scratch. Ships are always being rebalanced or changing roles, and so their is no precedence for converting once ship into another. Carriers are still going to be useful ships.
I've seen example of where CCP has changed skills to a completely different and useless role from their originally intended purpose and their was no reimbursement or replacement for those.
Manufacturers should be the first ones to build and seed new items onto the market.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:18:47 -
[254] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:Maybe some backround first, since people will poke at that anyway at some point (you can skip that of course): I am still too young to fly caps myself, so it is mostly a picture from outside - what I do like to fly is logistics, so my interest are mainly carriers or now force auxilliaries, as that will maybe end up beeing what I eventually will fly. The uni obviously has not a lot of caps. If we fight battles on that scale it is usually us bringing Neuts to take those dragons down (at most we have a few triage carriers or dreads). So the only time I see supers or titans, is when they jump in and driveby our triage carriers and end the fight doing that. That may result in bias, so that might be useful to start. Now my thoughts on that topic: Titans and supers don't seem underpowered from my perspective - if they are basically the - "I win"-button in those fights. But that might just be perception. Now you buff titans with AOE doomsdays. Subcaps can maybe evade that but triage carriers and sieged dreads won't, because that is what triage and siege do, right? Now you reduce the HP of caps and introduce plates, also you stop carriers, from beeing able to refit. Now put that into perspective: Now:
- A driveby titan appears
- Case 1: our triage carriers manage to refit in time and actually survives
- Case 2: our triage carrier is too slow and dies - End of the fight
After Changes:
- A driveby titan appears
- Case 1: our triage carrier can't refit anymore, it's HP is reduced - dies in a fire - End of the fight
- Case 2: wait no there is no Case 2...
Well... sounds... nice To explain it in a bit more general terms - what is wrong with combat refitting? It just makes individual players and their actions meaningful - if the fit is fixed it is more n+1 than before. It was also unique to capitals - you can perform better in sub caps by manual piloting (increasing and decreasing range, change transversal, you can't do that with capitals) but in exchange you can refit, because you have enough buffer, that this works. On top of that, combat refitting is something individuals do, while making doctrine fits is usually done by the Leadership, wasn't there something about: "Line members should matter more" (fleet warp changes - anything rings a bell?) It just seems like you remove a feature for no reason at all. I mean refitting does nothing in n+1 terms. You can't make someone refit his carrier better, by bringing more carriers to the field this just doesn't make any sense. And dreads - well before you actually needed sub cap support to hit things with your guns. So it makes interactions and synergies possible means, more roles in a fleet. Now you give dreads just guns that track better but have worse dps, making them more standalone - do you want that? All in all, I was kind of ok with the dreads and carriers as it was - triage and siege mean, that you can neut them out in those vulnerable phases and kill them before they get out of that. They might be powerful in this state but also weak. So kind of balanced. And again, I didn't see supers and titans that often...
Sorta funny how a pilot, who never has flown a cap, understands this more than the dev team.
While I like many of the changes, this one is such an obviously unneeded one. |
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
250
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:24:39 -
[255] - Quote
xttz wrote:Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table? One of the dev quotes from the Vegas Q&A was -- very offhand -- along the lines of "maybe any carrier with a Triage module fitted that day converts to a Force Aux? We'll think about options."
As hundreds of industry moguls cry out in terror.
But it could be nice to have an immediate transition of hulls, rather than lose fleet functions while waiting for the builds.
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:26:24 -
[256] - Quote
Garrett Howe wrote:One thing to remember about dread dps with the new guns is that, while 1-2k dps doesn't sound like much, dreads are significantly more mobile and tankier than battleships, so if they had more dps than battleships against subcapitals, why would you fly anything else? Cost would be a factor, but as is well known, cost can never be a factor when it comes to balancing ships e.g. titans. Also, dreads will have longer range with these new guns than battleships, which is something else to keep in mind, balance wise.
More mobile? You are joking right? They warp slower, align slower, and then are forced to sit in place for 5 min in siege. Oh they can jump, effectively once per hr, which means they fall prey to anything faster. If you apply 1 hr of travel time, say to get to a big fight. You can actually get BSs to the fight faster, unless you travel fit, which then leads to getting caught and having fitting issues do to the weapons timer issues they are proposing. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:31:53 -
[257] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Let people build them from scratch. Ships are always being rebalanced or changing roles, and so their is no precedence for converting once ship into another. Carriers are still going to be useful ships. I've seen example of where CCP has changed skills to a completely different and useless role from their originally intended purpose and their was no reimbursement or replacement for those. Manufacturers should be the first ones to build and seed new items onto the market.
This is not realistic, what you propose is a 4-5 day window where there are NO capital class remote reps. It takes 4-5 days to produce these (basic cap production times), during which time all Citadels and capitals would be completely vulnerable to attack. Having the ability for carrier to fit a triage to them on patch day means you have dedicated pilots, who likely wanted to be cap logi, available. This also means that only those who can fly them, get them. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:36:25 -
[258] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:Moac Tor wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Let people build them from scratch. Ships are always being rebalanced or changing roles, and so their is no precedence for converting once ship into another. Carriers are still going to be useful ships. I've seen example of where CCP has changed skills to a completely different and useless role from their originally intended purpose and their was no reimbursement or replacement for those. Manufacturers should be the first ones to build and seed new items onto the market. This is not realistic, what you propose is a 4-5 day window where there are NO capital class remote reps. It takes 4-5 days to produce these (basic cap production times), during which time all Citadels and capitals would be completely vulnerable to attack. Having the ability for carrier to fit a triage to them on patch day means you have dedicated pilots, who likely wanted to be cap logi, available. This also means that only those who can fly them, get them. You can't apply remote repair modules to Citadels. They self-repair after defenders clear the field of incoming damage.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:51:59 -
[259] - Quote
I'm really not keen on the removal of combat refitting from subcaps, this was interesting and fun gameplay, it's only really problematic with capitals.
Ewar resistance seems too strong if I'm reading this right when combined with the stacking penalties of multiple ewar effects of the same type applied to the same ship and makes the difference between strength bonused ewar and unbonused ewar even more pronounced. |
Tie One
Synchronized Dysfunction Vanguard of the Phoenix
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:55:19 -
[260] - Quote
i think the high angle weapon batteries should do more dps. 1-2k is a bit low for a dread in siege. if you throw me with a pebble (bs) it will hurt less than a boulder (dreadnaught). a mac can out dps it. hell you can get 1600dps+ on a t1 typhoon. i know you have way more tank but size people common XD. atleast lift it to 3k to be better than a pimped bs |
|
HiddenPorpoise
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
402
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:02:28 -
[261] - Quote
You know, the cruel irony here is that the phoenix will be the only dread to outshine its marauder equivalent in the role I think is being pushed.
Why did they nerf the weakest dread? It matters not; the RCML shall cure all. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4700
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:11:26 -
[262] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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. Battleships could really use some TLC, so please consider extending these to Battleships in the near future.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1399
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:16:22 -
[263] - Quote
Force Auxillary Caps - more capital ships. But more specialized rather jack of all trades and master of most. Good idea. Also gives more things for cap pilots to train towards. I am excited to see what you have planned for this new role.
No more EWAR immunity - This is so awesome! I've been a proponent of exactly this for years. So very glad to see it happening. However, I see no reason to make titans quite so easy to tackle. IIRC, a focused-point HIC has a 100 warp core disruption strength. So give Titans a 100pt warp core strength. Big ships, big stats.
No more refitting under fire - Good choice. I support this. But, just running your triage or siege module should not grant a weapons timer. Firing weapons should generate a weapons timer. Remote reps could generate a weapons timer. Just sitting with your triage running.... well.... bait I guess.
EWAR Resistance: For caps, this is perfect. Just what is needed. This could also be applied to subcaps. But it would have to be very carefully balanced to avoid completely nullifying EWAR in those cases.
New and rebalanced capital modules. Cool. Another good idea. Will High-Angle weapon batteries be equivalent to Rapid launchers in purpose and general usage?
And that new fighter management mock-up looks really sweet. Can we get that for carriers and sub-caps, too?
Fighter abilities seems like a lot of technical overhead. Some of the effects listed would probably be either OP or just weird to have on fighters. MJD? Why would they not have an MWD? Some abilities are just things they should never go without. Bombs on fighters is a very bad idea. Can we not just stick with racial variants having racial benefits?
Nice work on the control scheme, tactical overlay, and camera control. Can I presume that will be the end of the 100km Look At distance limit? Please say so.
New Doomsdays: omg yes. Sickle will be oh so sweet when it sweeps through a fleet and wrecks all the things. Will it discriminate between friendlies and enemies? Because i fnot, that would really be great. IT would penalize poor targetting and reward good targeting. Cap Overload looks like it can be pretty awesome. Big AoE centered on the firing ship. Maybe call it Hammer of Thor? Hand of God... hue. Ok I'll just warp back. Pike: ok. Cool.
More projected EWAR. Ok I'm down with that.
Overall, I like what I'm reading.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
609
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:26:54 -
[264] - Quote
How about adding a new class of weapons, which are designed to be used by sub-capitals, against capital ships only?
These anti-cap-ship weapons would be ineffective against sub-cap ships, and consume a lot of power - perhaps even draining the ship's capacitor completely after each round of shots - thus, making ships which are equipped for anti-cap-ship work much more vulnerable to counter-attack by normally-fitted sub-cap ships.
There could be such weapons for each class of sub-cap ships, even down to the lowly frigs. This would allow even relative noobs to seriously participate in taking down a super-cap. Note: I'm not suggesting that a single frig should be able to take down a Titan, but, perhaps a hundred of them should be able to do so, if specifically equipped with anti-cap-ship weapons.
This would also give capital ships more reason to fit those new anti-sub-cap weapons, and makes sub-cap support for caps even more essential.. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:30:21 -
[265] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:How about adding a new class of weapons, which are designed to be used by sub-capitals, against capital ships only?
These anti-cap-ship weapons would be ineffective against sub-cap ships, and consume a lot of power - perhaps even draining the ship's capacitor completely after each round of shots - thus, making ships which are equipped for anti-cap-ship work much more vulnerable to counter-attack by normally-fitted sub-cap ships.
There could be such weapons for each class of sub-cap ships, even down to the lowly frigs. This would allow even relative noobs to seriously participate in taking down a super-cap. Note: I'm not suggesting that a single frig should be able to take down a Titan, but, perhaps a hundred of them should be able to do so, if specifically equipped with anti-cap-ship weapons.
This would also give capital ships more reason to fit those new anti-sub-cap weapons, and makes sub-cap support for caps even more essential.. Most ships can already be fitted with modules that kill capital ships, though you'll need to train skills in the Gunnery and Missiles skill groups to use them.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:31:38 -
[266] - Quote
Seen a few posts worrying about the Capital RR transition between Carriers to Force Auxiliaries... I'm not keen on the turning carriers into FAs during a downtime, but I also don't want to see the game without Capital RR whilst people build them...
CCP - Any chance of a phased overlap? Where the Force Auxiliaries are released but Carriers remain as they are for a week or so to give people a chance to move from one to the other? |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:35:42 -
[267] - Quote
Do something thing witht eh old doomdays to, keep them simple like they are now but something more fun other then lock and shoot. |
Aesir Terona
Fukushima Daiichi Electric Power Co.
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:39:01 -
[268] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Aesir Terona wrote: Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
Maybe you should read the blog before posting rubbish. Triage modules will be fitted to the Force Auxiliary. They will replace the Logistics Carrier. ITT - people jumping to conclusions and solid proof you can't please everyone. I didn't train for a goddamn Force Auxiliary
either way, it ends up nerfing all capitals more for the sake of making more "options", which, following CCP's record at balancing, means one thing will be outstandingly good, and the other two will languish in disuse because CCP isn't very smart. |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
48
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:42:56 -
[269] - Quote
As a long time super pilot I am excited for these changes and support the direction were heading for capitals as a whole.
I would like to see the super special weapons include buffs for friendly fleets, not just debuffs for enemy fleets. I.E. an ability that raises friendly ewar resistance in a specific area of space. |
Tiana Makarov
UNITAS. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:54:24 -
[270] - Quote
As a player who is training for their first dread/carrier, is it actually worth it now with even more skills added and and less utility? Just seems like everytime i train for something it gets nerfed and now even longer training times...
Skill que online ;p |
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
312
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:55:34 -
[271] - Quote
This is all cool for capital pilots but what does it mean for sub-capital pilots?
This seems to only reinforce proliferation of capitals and super capitals, so how will sub-capitals, in particular battleships be able to compete once titans are the new battleships? Will null alliances make prioritising capital pilots over sub-capital pilots a reality so that those who choose to only fly sub-caps be made into second class citizens? |
Velarra
453
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:56:19 -
[272] - Quote
I read that you intend to decouple the camera from a ship the deploys fighters/bombers/drones etc mmm?
If you mess too much with the camera controls and how they pan & move the players' viewpoint for this feature, and start making people sick and nauseous....Caps will not be all that appealing for everyone debating whether or not to train for them who may or may not be rather motion sickness susceptible.
In general, you really should keep the 180 rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180-degree_rule ) in mind, and hopefully the lessons CCP is learning while developing VR games for the occulus VR toys. Primarily as constant and repeated camera movements that disorient the viewer, eventually make people sick. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
312
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:58:44 -
[273] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:How about adding a new class of weapons, which are designed to be used by sub-capitals, against capital ships only?
Drifter doomsdays for battleships, allow battleships to use cynos and add a hic like sphere warp disruption module for battleships maybe? I hope the next ship class CCP look at next will BE battleships. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:05:35 -
[274] - Quote
Velarra wrote:I read that you intend to decouple the camera from a ship the deploys fighters/bombers/drones etc mmm? If you mess too much with the camera controls and how they pan & move the players' viewpoint for this feature, and start making people sick and nauseous....Caps will not be all that appealing for everyone debating whether or not to train for them who may or may not be rather motion sickness susceptible. In general, you really should keep the 180 rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180-degree_rule ) in mind, and hopefully the lessons CCP is learning while developing VR games for the occulus VR toys. Primarily as constant and repeated camera movements that disorient the viewer, eventually make people sick. I believe that the new camera views were optional. Useful, perhaps, but not required.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
48
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:11:13 -
[275] - Quote
What will happen to Drone Control Units? The +1 fighter will be worthless with the transition to squadrons. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1155
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:13:47 -
[276] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:This is all cool for capital pilots but what does it mean for sub-capital pilots?
This seems to only reinforce proliferation of capitals and super capitals, so how will sub-capitals, in particular battleships be able to compete once titans are the new battleships? Will null alliances make prioritising capital pilots over sub-capital pilots a reality so that those who choose to only fly sub-caps be made into second class citizens?
all ECM all the time
or damps and tracking disruptors if they adjust the stacking so they can be useful with the ewar resistance. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:15:31 -
[277] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:What will happen to Drone Control Units? The +1 fighter will be worthless with the transition to squadrons. Who knows right now. It might be an extra squadron, it might be extra fighters in a squadron.
I'd really not worry about it right now. It's unlikely to get turned into a bit of cargo and dumped into the cargo of your ship ;) |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
48
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:16:08 -
[278] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:This is all cool for capital pilots but what does it mean for sub-capital pilots?
This seems to only reinforce proliferation of capitals and super capitals, so how will sub-capitals, in particular battleships be able to compete once titans are the new battleships? Will null alliances make prioritising capital pilots over sub-capital pilots a reality so that those who choose to only fly sub-caps be made into second class citizens?
Null alliances will need subcaps for the command node part of the sov ystem. Caps won't be hunting those down due to their lack of mobility. Both subcaps and capitals will be important in nullsec. |
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum. The Bastion
374
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:33:09 -
[279] - Quote
I would absolutely love it if you redesigned dreads to have 6-8 guns. And as for the 1-2k damage in siege (if i read correctly) on those subcap targeting turrets, it is not worth it.. 3-4k would be reasonable due to cost/damage scaling as many battleships can reach 1.5k dps and the highest is around 2.4k. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1234
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:43:14 -
[280] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:The question I have is, will you let them into highsec (to assault those pesky large and XL citadels)
very against capitals ever getting into highsec, so will supercapitals get a seperate skillbook from carrier as you've previously admitted should have been the case along?, since you're adding the new capital auxilary one
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
|
Anikitos Monomaxos
Tyrant's Short Bus Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:57:10 -
[281] - Quote
Sounds very interesting, looking forward to see the changes |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
209
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:58:22 -
[282] - Quote
I still don't see why anyone would use those high angle weapon batteries. If they only give 1-2 battleshipsdps why even bother taking out you hugly more expensive and slower dread then actualy using some battleships? In pve those won't be of any use, 2 bs will warp in faster, have more mids(and more utility). The only thing bether would be tank. It will take longer in clearing capital escalations. In pvp the only use i see is big bait tank, but for pvp the lack of dps will be a big turn off. It won't be used against many subcap fleets. Even in wh space it would be more mass efficient to use 2 bs's. In PVP bs will be cheaper, in pve bs will be cheaper. Even for capital escalations in wh's it would be easier to just warp em in and out right away. So when are we going to use these things again? Never!
I don't like the removal of the refitting during fights. That will hurt smaller but more skilled capital users far more then blob capital users. Tiping the balance to capital blobs more.
The other changes look interesting, looking forward to it.
No local in null sec would fix everything!
|
Centurax
Unsettled Unsettled.
69
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:03:38 -
[283] - Quote
Really excited about the changes and caps again, so good work!
Some hopefully quick questions:
1. Carriers and Supercarriers, would it be possible to have some kind of anti ship/fighter weapons on them, flack cannons or something similar? 2. Is there any thoughts as to making the fighter types for the new squadrons similar to the fighters found in Valkyrie, because even if there is no actual connection yet it would be a cool addition even if it is faction squadrons? 3. Also will squadrons be available to use with Citadels? 4. With the addition of Citadels and the other structures, how long till we can have and use Capitals in Empire? |
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
351
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:14:54 -
[284] - Quote
If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2197
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:39:51 -
[285] - Quote
Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
40
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:47:00 -
[286] - Quote
The estimated DPS from the high angle weapon batteries seems really low. How does this not still leave dreadnoughts worse off than carriers in fleet combat? You're giving carriers all this combat versatility with squadrons, and dreads get battleship DPS? WTF.
A 60 second timer is not going to solve the swiss army knife refit problem for capitals.
What happened to the idea that structure bashing is super boring? Seems like CCP has given up on that, and boredom tanking with citadels will still be a thing. Also, can't wait for the thousands of abandoned citadels to pile up in low class WH space because you can put them anywhere and caps can't get in to bash them. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
457
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:52:43 -
[287] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:The estimated DPS from the high angle weapon batteries seems really low. How does this not still leave dreadnoughts worse off than carriers in fleet combat? You're giving carriers all this combat versatility with squadrons, and dreads get battleship DPS? WTF.
A 60 second timer is not going to solve the swiss army knife refit problem for capitals.
What happened to the idea that structure bashing is super boring? Seems like CCP has given up on that, and boredom tanking with citadels will still be a thing. Also, can't wait for the thousands of abandoned citadels to pile up in low class WH space because you can put them anywhere and caps can't get in to bash them. What happened was we all didn't want entois links taking out our structures. So this new damage mitigation thing has been introduced, and its pretty cool.
It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH. Note that 50 odd T3s will be close to the mitigated damage limit of an XL. It will take just 30 mins at that level.
Also lots and lots of questions asked here are answered in the dev blog. Try reading people.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
MrQuisno
Steelmaze Blacksmithing
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:58:40 -
[288] - Quote
no one asked the hard question whats going go happen to "CURRENT" doomsdays removed or remain ? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1846
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 23:00:16 -
[289] - Quote
oohthey ioh wrote:Do something thing witht eh old doomdays to, keep them simple like they are now but something more fun other then lock and shoot.
As a Titan pilot, there is nothing more fun than locking and shooting a Triage Carrier with the current Doomsday. I don't need to have a more interactive module to have more fun with it.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kopaka Newton
Sanctuary of Shadows Triumvirate.
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 23:20:47 -
[290] - Quote
First off, I've never flow a capital before, I am just now (this week) finishing base training to get in a carrier. However, I've joined EVE after seeing RnK's Iron Clad video, so I've been interested in logistics, capitals and carriers since the beginning. Seeing the carrier's logistics role stripped off before I can even participate in a capital fleet brings me mixed feelings, more on that later.
-Force Auxiliary Capitals
Not my favourite name and not my favourite models either (from what I've seen in the vegas videos) but that's not the point. Hanging around more experienced carriers owners, I see most people usually have a Triage carrier, a Ratting carraier and a slowcat. So I guess having two classes instead makes sense, especially if the goal is to kill slowcats. I just hope that the prerequisite skills are similar for the two classes. One thing I liked the carrier class for though, is that it is a very versatile ship and I'm sad to see that go away.
-You will be unable to refit while you have a weapons timer
An integral part of operating in a triage group, people and myself are concerned that this would make a challenging and fun gameplay element much more dificult to use. Triage carriers are more hard to use than in RnK's days because of the bigger fights. Again, we don't know much about Auxiliaries, and their model looks 2x to 4x that of a freighter so they might be much more effective than a single carrier.
-No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity
This is good. I'd like to know if normal capitals (carriers, dreads, auxiliaries) will have a base warp strength? The dev blog only mention super-capitals. I allways feel beter using my Deep space transport in null-sec and in wormholes knowing that a single frigate probaly won't be an issue for me.
-High Angle Weapon Batteries
I've never been interested in a dread before. They were only big trebuchets designed to bash a structure or break triage, usually by scuiciding themselves. I've seen solo dread PvP videos before though and that is very cool. Now I am much more interested.interested.
-Carriers, Super-Carriers & Fighters
I trained for carriers because of both logistics and drones. My first time using a Tristan, or my first time using sentries, I felt it was a very cool mechanic, being able to control a swarm of drones. However drone gameplay became old quickly. I will make the same paralel people have done before, the new fighters looks like World of Warships's fighters. To me it is a good thing, because I enjoy the carrier class in WoWs the most. I can't wait to see how it actually feels on SiSi.
-New 3D targeting
Unrelated to capitals, one thing I've allways wanted in EVE is the ability to warp anywhere in the solar system. Right now we can only do that by warping to planets and creating bookmakrs in between planets. It would be nice if we could warp to, or make bookmarks on points we would do using this targeting UI on the solar system map.
Thank you for reading my feedback! |
|
Morgan Agrivar
Happy Endings Massage Parlor
118
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 23:30:18 -
[291] - Quote
Guess it sounds good if you fly capital ships. I won't because of the outrageous price tag and I am space poor. I am sure Eve Welfare won't cover it....
Just something about me...
|
Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 23:35:41 -
[292] - Quote
Im totally down with this! Specially the Carrier / Supercarrier line sounds pretty interesting!
I do think however, dreads seem a little weak - Siege already comes with a lot off downsides and at least should give you *ECM* Immunity, the other Ewars are fine imho.
But most importantly: Please consider drastically reducing the Cost of Titans and Supers.
Aim for a Target price off 20b/Hull for Titans and 5-10b/hull for Motherships and reimburse current pilots simply with additional hulls in the redeeming system.
This would remove a lot of the risk aversity in using them and allow you to more freely balance their use. |
Fishymonster
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:04:57 -
[293] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:06:01 -
[294] - Quote
Querns wrote:Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.
But seeing as citadels will have real teeth, you'll likely need double, perhaps triple this number.
I have no problems with caps in high sec, provided the Cyno ban stays. Make them forced to be gated.
Caveat: I don't live in highsec but there's no use in carebear land that makes their resistance to concord relevant. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2844
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:12:22 -
[295] - Quote
First, CCP can read my blog.
overall, I am excited by the whole thrust of the capital rebalance. I think that it's a direct attack on the current meta, which is overall a good thing.
There's nothing wrong with the current meta of EWAR-immune triage carriers and RnK-style refitting on the fly, however it IS hard to balance capitals and introduce different gameplay options when the current meta still exists - why would you try being a mobile capital with MWDs when you are better served glomming up with your buds for refits?
Weapons timer / siege and triage Overall I support this. However, it is worth considering whether the FAX and Dreadnought siege time should be 5 minutes, or whether it should cause total immobility. if the goal is to break up the giant capital blobs we see now, and create mobile carriers and dreads playing a positional game in space (and trying to avoid doomsdays and remote EWAR weapons, etc), then it is worth considering whether immobility is necessary, because this will still encourage static deployments.
One option to consider is reducing siege timers to 1 minute with a cooldown; to make them essentially a capital class Bastion module (the Marauder's Bastion is a very, very good model here for how Dread siege can work).
Another option is to have Siege and Triage impose a 50%, 60% or 90% speed nerf on the capital using it, and having a short cycle time.
EWAR vulnerability I am a bit 50/50 on this. Your capitals are going to become vulnerable to Falcons and EC-300's. I have previously had great success jamming slowcats with EC-300's from time to time. That's 5 light drones wirth 15K ISK jamming a Chimera or Archon. Now you'll have this happening to probably static Dreadnoughts in siege.
Unless you are unaware, Dread scan res is so abysmal that if your dread is even 10% vulnerable to a Falcon or a flight of EC-300's, it will lose lock and take 30s to reacquire a target. The jamming drone or Falcon will get 2 more stabs at jamming the capital before it completes its re-lock.
Damps will make this even worse - you don't even need to jam, you ust put 5 resolution-scripted damps on a Capital and it will take 5 minutes to lock something. It will be the easiest way to take capitals out of the fight permanently. Even a 25% reduction in scan res will trash Dreads, let alone TDs, Missile Disruptors, etc.
EWAR immunity is a difficult thing to countenance, but it has its place.
HAWs Firstly why not rename this to Point Defence Battieries? High Angle Weapons as a name makes absolutely no sense. I mean, i'll take Force Auxilliary on advisement, but HAWs? Haw haw haw.
Secondly, 1K DPS is a no. it's a Dread, not a fat BS. 2K DPS needs to be balanced against Carrier DPS, basically. Currently a gank Thanny can top 3K DPS, and whilst this will change after the Citadel expansin, carriers will (obviously) gain amazing force projection with whatever DPS they have per squadron. Like, they just drive their fighters 500km away, they do 1500 DPS @ 500km.
This leaves Dreads in a terrible place if their subcap DPS is nothing, or a fraction of a carrier's DPS. So this needs to be balanced. Yes, you are obviously trying to get rid of blap dreads, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with blap dread balance (+/- phoenix edge cases) at the moment. If you have to use HAWs and you have 50km projection @ 2,000 DPS and are totally immobile while doing it, you could be unable to wipe out a carrier before it slowboats out of your range with its capital MWD. In which case....why even use Dreads?
So, yeah, i think you have to explain why no blap dreads a bit better. To properly blap dread you need multiple characters on grid +/- OGB's (+/- OP Phoenix edge cases in black holes). Enemies generally know how to avoid being blapped or how to counter it. If your capitals are moving around grid now (i hope so) and carriers have amazing damage projection you really need Dreads to actively hunt carriers down.
Restricting dreads to shooting structures or just having wet paper towel DPS ignores their use in killing supercaps. I wonder how you'll go balancing Dread weapons along a binary choice of "can ONLY shoot structures" and "can shoot subs" because the blap dread mechanic relies solely on maths. The only way you can mathematically deal with capital guns so they cannot hit subcaps means that they won't be able to hit even slow-moving capitals or supers effectively (ie, basically zero tracking, ridiculous ER/EV stats) or capitals at the edge of falloff.
If you screw dreads over, it'll just be carriers everywhere. I mean...from the looks of it carriers won't suffer from having to triage, so they will MWD about the joint at whatever speed (200-30m/s?) laying about with squadrons of fighters at 500km range, doing 1,000-3,000 DPS against totally immobile Falcon-jammed, celestis-damped, Sentinel-disrupted Dreads.
That's not such a great way of getting rid of Slowcats. It'll just be Fastcats.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2794
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:16:52 -
[296] - Quote
"Why would you take out hear dreads when they only do 2-3 BS? Just bring the BS."
Why bring the BS when you could bring 3-5 frigates? Just bring the frigates.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
232
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:40:40 -
[297] - Quote
xttz wrote:Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table? CCP Masterplan wrote:#105 - 2015-10-25 13:51:58Yes 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. How about this idea: Players could contract carriers with triage fitted, to a special CCP character just for this purpose. On patch day, a script runs to check that the correct items are in the contract, and returns a Force Aux ship (with all fittings, rigs, etc) to the character making the contract. This should ensure the most players have the best chance to request a swap, no unwanted swap is automatically done. If the special script and character could be maintained for some length of time beyond patch day, that would help other players who "didn't get the word" in time, to make the swap, if they want it.
Edit: As I posted, I realized I made the common mistake, "what about WH?" sorry. Lower class WH would be unable to put a carrier up for contract :(
I would like some mechanic for players to request the swap, versus it being automatic, and some players get swapped out without really wanting it. |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:40:59 -
[298] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:This is all cool for capital pilots but what does it mean for sub-capital pilots?
This seems to only reinforce proliferation of capitals and super capitals, so how will sub-capitals, in particular battleships be able to compete once titans are the new battleships? Will null alliances make prioritising capital pilots over sub-capital pilots a reality so that those who choose to only fly sub-caps be made into second class citizens?
A lot of null fleets are cruisers or smaller. Capitals have languished since introduction of fatigue.
Battlecruisers and Battleships could use some love but this is about Capitals and Citadels in Spring for the moment. |
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project Vendetta Mercenary Group
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:49:01 -
[299] - Quote
Some good idea, but the part on the refiting for carrier is total bullshit.
It's just a "blob win" now, the first who engage their carrier will just die, and the first who will engage their MS will die too, even if the trap is not perfect. Just a "batphone" move, brainless.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
232
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:51:25 -
[300] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote: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 Um, what changes, if I have N+1 Force Auxiliary ships in my fleet? Still N+1 gameplay, not that this is a bad thing. Many battles start with assumption that the other side has less, only later to discover that the other side has more friends. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1670
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:57:27 -
[301] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dev Blog wrote: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 Um, what changes, if I have N+1 Force Auxiliary ships in my fleet? Still N+1 gameplay, not that this is a bad thing. Many battles start with assumption that the other side has less, only later to discover that the other side has more friends. The difference I would imagine is that each +1 doesn't scale both offensive and defensive capabilities in a substantial way. If both are in the same package it boils down to number alone over balanced fleet composition. |
Manes Avatarr
Frontier Adventurers
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 01:05:26 -
[302] - Quote
I dont like a way how citadel is being deployed. Throw it out of cargoold and then it "lights itself in and out", cmon.. its childish. At least deployment should have some stages: 1. throw out from cargohold 2. basis is being build by tiny drones 3. structurals put in place, platings added.. 4. alot of zip zaps of electricity etc 5. other stuff added 6. lights put on eventually and structure is anchored
Something like this. Its not a hangar array, you know? Its hucking enormous structure, put some immersion in it, even in deployment process.
And YES.. i love all proposed changes to capitals, citadels etc. Look exciting and all. Keep up a great work!
FRONTIER ADVENTURERS Corp. | To explore, build & fight! | recruitment topic
|
Imagined Self
The-Ultraviolet-Realm
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 01:15:15 -
[303] - Quote
some changes are cool, most are not and i feel cheated out... and no one is gonna care not even sure why i post anymore. |
Circumstantial Evidence
232
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 01:16:49 -
[304] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dev Blog wrote: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 Um, what changes, if I have N+1 Force Auxiliary ships in my fleet? Still N+1 gameplay, not that this is a bad thing. Many battles start with assumption that the other side has less, only later to discover that the other side has more friends. The difference I would imagine is that each +1 doesn't scale both offensive and defensive capabilities in a substantial way. If both are in the same package it boils down to number alone over balanced fleet composition. Good point, thanks. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2794
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 01:20:34 -
[305] - Quote
So glad I can finally suitcase my nag.
Just not entirely sure what to do with thissuper-alt I trained now...hmmm. |
UnholyGreed
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 02:12:05 -
[306] - Quote
60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
wtf is science |
Darkwalker Star
Steel Fleet Phoenix Company Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 02:20:38 -
[307] - Quote
I have a suggestion. A doomsday deflector module that can link to a friendly doomsday weapon, but only 1 at a time. By reflecting the energy back onto itself can reduce or prevent damage from that doomsday. This allows friendlies to stay on field and tackle hostiles. By taking up a module slot, causes some loss to offense but gains an offensive advantage being on field. What do you think?
DW
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
256
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 02:22:20 -
[308] - Quote
UnholyGreed wrote:60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
wtf is science
Don't forget the Larrikin asking Grath if he's poor! Because alliances won't foolishly throw assets around. That just shows how much the devs are drifting from the player base once they leave and join CCP. Let's see how well all these chnagea + the recruiting of aria to bring in money will change their minds. While I am not against the changes, I do think the devs have drifted far from remembering how eve is played. If there is nothing to risk, no reason to fight. Currently why risk capitals in other distant parts of space when our alts can fill the wallets in areas outside of null. Our flags are planted and our wallets fill from more lucrative areas. All this does is make tactics change and things more interesting, it has yet given any reason to risk then. Citadels will not be the reason either. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 03:10:53 -
[309] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:A few questions (edit: ok, more than a few) that come up as I go through the devblog (ALL DEM WERDS):
Fleet and Ship Hangars - - Are you anticipating that the existing hangar sizes be adjusted for caps which already feature these? - Will dreads get the same hangar space as carriers? - Did you/would you consider splitting away the hangars to another specialised class of ships ("Fleet Transporters?") as you are doing with the remote rep abilities? We already have the Bowhead, but something with a jump drive and fitting options/EHP in line with the rest of the cap fleet?
Remote Repair - - Will carriers be completely barred from capital remote rep usage, or will it remain as a less powerful choice through adjustments/removal of base stats and bonuses? The idea of a 'ghetto slowcat' fleet of carriers with unbonused/nerfed repping power akin to a remote-rep battleship fleet could still be interesting without being nearly as broken as the current status quo.
E-war Immunity - - Will immunity be one statline or vary according to the ewar being used? It could be interesting thematically if, say, Minmatar supercaps had greater vulnerability (or perhaps greater resistance?) to Amarr e-war types, and that's something you could implement if the immunities/resistances were split out. You're already talking of web resistance as a separate stat so taking that further seems logical. - Energy Warfare resistance? Just throwing that out there.
Total EHP - - Will the massive variations between armour and shield hitpoints on supercaps be bought back in line? It always felt weird that post-Dominion the relative hitpoints of each defence layer varied so wildly on supercaps whilst on smaller classes the two hitpoint totals were much closer together.
Capital Warp Disruptors and Scramblers - You state that Officer points and scrams are capital modules, but at the present time they can be fitted to a battleship without much trouble - its rarely a great idea, but is certainly possible. Does this mean we can expect changes to be made to the fitting and effects of these modules?
Fighters - - Are the hitpoints going away completely, or just moving 'behind the scenes'? If my fighter status is 'damaged' is that from a hitpoint reduction or a diceroll outcome? Does a damaged fighter have reduced abilities? - Can fighter squadrons actually be targeted and attacked by our ship weapons, or only by other fighters? - If a squadron flies into a smartbomb activation or other AoE effect is every fighter hit individually or is the hit resolved against the squadron as a whole? - Will there still be the racial variants of each fighter type with their own characteristics? Will we be able to launch mixed squadrons? Will there be more faction fighters (Wraith and Spectre!)? - Are fighter squadrons limited to the 250km range cap of our ship targetting? What happens if a fighter squadron crosses a grid boundary? - Can fighter squadrons decloak ships?
Superweapons - - Are the new doomsdays replacing the existing ones or are they alternative options? - Are they still limited to 1 per ship? - Will subcap ships rendered immobile (such as those with active cyno fields or in Bastion mode) be affected by Hand of God?
85% of what you asked was taped by TMC.com in either tha announcement or the roundtables
Watching one of the streams or you tube uploads will provide you quite a bit of insight |
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome
166
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 03:51:42 -
[310] - Quote
What are CCP's plans / thought's on new or complimentary skills for these changes?
Specifically, two or three come to mind..
- Prereqs for T2 capital weapons/modules.
- The E-War 'resistance' ability. Any thought / plans to introduce skills to compliment / enhance inherent ship stats?
Also, agree with the many previous posts on the high angle dread weapons. Seems to me to be a relatively pointless introduction - too low a DPS and they won't be used. Too high and they become O/P. Why even bother?
|
|
Sarrian Calda
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 03:52:05 -
[311] - Quote
16 pages at the time of beginning this post, so I'm not gonna sift through every post before me. Pardon me if I have repeated an existing idea.
So, allow me to add on to existing or suggest some other potentially interesting Super-Weapon-class stuffs.
Overall impression about beam weapons All beam-type doomsday weapons should have an insanely long range, but with a catch. The weapons should deal maximum damage within its optimal. The damage output would degrade as it extends beyond its optimal and reaches its maximum falloff. The damage would drop drastically to negligible amounts (e.g. 0.000001%) beyond its maximum falloff, until the beam completely dissipates. Chance to hit is always 100% so long as you're in the beam's path.
All crafts and structures would receive damage accordingly as long as they are in the path of the beam. I believe this would add an immense sense of awe like in the old days where Doomsdays were system-wide weapons. And, I think the energy output of such weapons is so immense that you can't really expect them to just dissipate after several kilometres. In deep space, free energy goes a long way unless interrupted.
Doomsday: Sickle How will the damage be applied here? Looking at this, this just reminds me of beam weapons of Gundams (think Buster Rifle) or that from Freespace 2 or Homeworld. Traditionally, the longer a sustained beam strikes a target (e.g. another Titan along its length from bow to stern), the more damage the target would receive.
It doesn't make sense to strike a target for longer than other targets and the former targets still receive just "1 tick" of damage as the rest.
So, assuming that the Sickle would cause multiple waves of damage as it strikes a target over multiple ticks, you'll have a lot of balancing work to do to ensure that:
- It allows tactical manipulating of the beam path so as to land the most effective damage on the intended targets.
- It doesn't unnecessarily over-power other super-weapons, such as the Pike.
Suppose that the beam will always take 10 seconds to cross any length in space (perhaps may need to limit the arc of firing and add visuals to inform the user of the maximum arc he can swing that beam).
Point 1 should allow the user to instead only move the beam over a smaller arc and allow longer sustained beam strike on his intended target, such as another titan or a massive citadel. This would concentrate the beam's damage onto the intended targets and anything unlucky enough to get in the path of this focused, sustained beam.
Point 2 should keep Point 1 in check so as to prevent over-powered gameplay from using Point 1 to generate a beam that is akin to Pike but with a higher damage output due to it dealing sustained damage to a single large target over 10 seconds of DPS. A simple formula may be something like: 1m raw damage / 10 s = 100k DPS for each second something gets hit by the beam, where the 1m raw damage is the maximum output of both Sickle and Pike, so if a player decides to wield the Sickle like the Pike, the final damage output would be similar.
The width of the Sickle beam should be smaller than that of Pike's, which I believe is already mentioned in the Dev Blog.
Doomsday: Pike Target, locked on.
Doomsday: Hand of God Another way of doing this is perhaps to trigger an emergency warp of the affected ships which uses their remaining capacitor. Meaning, the more capacitor they have, the further they'll warp away to a random point in the system. This is a serious force-dispersal version compared to the mere jumping-away version as stated in the Dev Blog, because ships like Battleships will be warped far, far away and they'll take a looooong time to get back to the battlefield, therefore effectively serving as a more crippling version than the "jump" version.
If in the future the "jump" version did not have the desired impact, perhaps could try the "warp" version.
On a serious note, would bubbles and warp scrambling (from scramblers and focused interdiction) effects stop ships from getting jumped away by this super-weapon? If they do, then that would be an interesting counter to this weapon by bubbling yourself in the face of this weapon.
To be continued... |
Ravaging Lust
Bound And Determined
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 04:09:37 -
[312] - Quote
Anth9rax wrote:Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it.
Obviously you havn't payed attention to past blogs. They specifically stated that you can dock them in the upcoming citadels. Not sure how you missed it |
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
40
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 04:09:57 -
[313] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:...It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH...
You have a source for that? Don't think I've seen any numbers for the packaged volume of citadels. |
Sarrian Calda
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 04:11:47 -
[314] - Quote
...continued from previous post.
New Doomsday: Stasis Why slow down ships when you can actually stop them in time? Recall the time-freezing field used by Athena in Tomorrowland when she first encountered and saved Casey from the automatons at around 44th minute into the film.
The Titan generates a massive stasis field that freezes all objects within the AOE radius. How this stasis bubble is projected will affect its gameplay. If the AOE is only around the Titan itself, then it sort of becomes a defensive weapon, freezing the Titan itself and its surrounding. If the stasis field can be projected like the Hand of God, then it will become a flexible, tactical weapon for both offense and defense.
Upon projection of the stasis field, all objects, including missiles and drones, become frozen in time. All ships from outside will break their lock on the affected objects as their systems cannot interact with them. The ships within simply just "pause". Their target locks, shield amount, module cycle timer, and even their weapon timer and jump fatigue gets frozen for as long as the stasis field is active.
Any object that ventures into the stasis field becomes frozen as well, unable to extract itself until the field collapses.
This field does not affect structures unless it covers the entire structure. This means, you could potentially freeze part of a structure if its service module is caught entirely in the stasis field but would probably never be able to freeze the entire station.
Ships undocking into the stasis field will be caught immediately, and still retain the invulnerability timer after the field collapses. Ships warping past or landing in the stasis field will be caught immediately and stopped in their track. However, they'll continue their warp once the field collapses.
And yes, cloaked ships do not get decloaked when in stasis unless normal cause for decloaking is present. Otherwise, for example, a cloaked Falcon which got caught in the stasis field while warping past it will not get decloaked, and will continue its warp as it were once the field collapses. Technically, nobody would know that the Falcon was ever there because it's still cloaked.
However, because the cloaking system is frozen in time, you can actually see a shimmering effect from the cloaking field, as if we caught the bent light through a polarized lens. Those with keen eyes will notice these if they're observing the stasis field manually, but they cannot lock them or whatsoever as they are technically still cloaked.
Doomsday: M.A.D. Your forces are decimated by the enemy, and you are the last blue Titan on the field, and you're getting grounded into dust by the opposition. What would you do?
Would you just sit there and tank til your inevitable death? Or would you bring down as many ships as you can in your death throes?
Why not go super-nova? *wink*
This is a module that is practically a "safety override" against the failsafe mechanism of the Titan's systems. Upon activating this module, this module would initiate a self-destruct that will spell certain doom to those who are near it. While spooling up, the Titan's modules will cease to work as all energy are diverted into the capacitors. The shields will no longer recharge and will drain slowly towards the capacitor. All modules will stop functioning after its current cycle.
Within seconds, the Titan will explode in a devastating nova that will assure the destruction of sub-capital ships and serious damage to capital ships that are on grid. Even ejected pods of destroyed ships are destroyed due to the massive wave of destruction generated.
Mutually Assured Destruction. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 04:28:38 -
[315] - Quote
Dear CCP,
This should have happened last year instead of the game crippling phoebe patch that has turned many players away. While there are a lot major changes trying to make up for its lateness please keep in mind that too much nerf isn't going to go over well and too much shiny buffs is going to lead to poor gameplay.
Things I dislike
1) Removal of Combat Refitting; This is a core gameplay component of capital gameplay, the argument that this causes massive imbalances in balancing isn't valid as you're changing other mechanics that effectively balance it. 2) Spider tanking / Force Auxiliary Capitals; While the logic is solid to split the logistics and combat roles of the carrier it effectively makes the new ships complete tombstones to shoot every time with relative ease. Specialized logistics hulls work for subcapitals due to their speed, but having a specific set of ships that will always repair and get shot at seems poor. I propose using rigs or subsystems to define a carriers role's and abilities, obviously not able to refit in combat. While spider tanking needs a nerf i don't believe it needs to be completely removed and placed on a ship that can only effectively repair in triage. 3) Squadrons - the concept of taking a fighter apart cutting it into bits and calling it a squadron for the purpose of not being able to repair the fighter is a bit dull. You're not only removing the repair ability of the ship to repair the fighters you're removing the ability to repair them in general? I'm not opposed to the new abilities but the squadrons thing I'm not sold on. 4) Nerfing hitpoints on supers / titans while also nerfing repair ability severely. 5) High Angle Weapon Batteries, the current advertised stats of these are laughable and it seems their entire purpose is a poor excuse to nerf the current ability of blap dreads. 6) Removal of carrier regular drones
Things I Like 1) New Modules, Except hitpoint and *high aspect* guns 2) New Fighter GUI and Functionality 3) Fleet hangars and ship hangars for dreads.
Things I'm Conflicted about 1) New Doomsday's and balance issues for when they're implemented. 2) New E-war for supercarriers 3) E-war Immunity and resistance. When I initially read the thing about E-war Immunity being removed I was happy thinking about how it will be possible to kill low sec supers that cant be bubbled. Then this dev blog was like 20-50 points resistance and remote ewar and I got kind of sad. Somehow I feel supers / titans shouldn't be promoted for usage in lowsec, with the force projection nerfs they've gained a lot more super activity in low sec, If bubbles cannot be used in low sec to catch these then many of the combat abilities of them should also be restricted in lowsec such as Current/Future Doomsdays, Remote ECM bursts, and FIghterbombers. |
Miner Hottie
Haywire. Haywire Collective
176
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 04:34:50 -
[316] - Quote
xttz wrote:Now would also be a good time to review the blanket ban on non-ammo/charge cargo within ship maintenance bays.
This was added to prevent loophole that is no longer remotely feasible thanks to the jump drive nerfs. All that's left is an arbitrary rule that heavily hinders the utility of SMAs; spare ships can't carry all sorts of useful gear from ozone and stront, to alternative fittings, to deployables like mobile depots and anchorable bubbles. Having a ship hangar in a supporting role rewards prior preparation, and this game mechanic becomes far more valuable when fully equipped ships can be supplied at a crucial moment.
The two most obvious solutions I see for this are: a) Allow any cargo except for containers, preventing further nested contents. and/or b) Allow cargo up to the ships' base cargobay size before skill, module and rig bonuses. Ships can bring their typical essentials, like stront for entosising or alternative mods, but still can't be used for bulk transport.
This.
Not being able to load a ship into an SMA because it has a module on board is stupid, frustrating and outdated.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
99
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 05:24:52 -
[317] - Quote
After sleeping with it. I'd actually prefer each individual fighter to have its own HP, like fighters in homeworld do: we choose squad, target squad, and they all end up shooting one of the hostile squad, but they can choose a different one and so multiple fighters can take damage at a time. Also, AOE. And yeah, cost.
P. S. and yeah, I think it actually looks better now when you allowed refitting to everyone, than to remove it completely. Caps still get killed, just leave it as is. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2795
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 05:34:26 -
[318] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:...It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH... You have a source for that? Don't think I've seen any numbers for the packaged volume of citadels. Other than fitting in a freighter, no specifics. I don't know how the lower holes spawn in size. |
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3002
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 05:42:44 -
[319] - Quote
On the HAW tracking:
I believe it should be closer to cruiser level ish tracking speeds.... battleships (or even tier 3 battlecruisers) are not renowned for shooting frigates on the move...
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2795
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:01:48 -
[320] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:On the HAW tracking:
I believe it should be closer to cruiser level ish tracking speeds.... battleships (or even tier 3 battlecruisers) are not renowned for shooting frigates on the move... I didn't realize frigates were the intended target. |
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
458
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:12:29 -
[321] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:On the HAW tracking:
I believe it should be closer to cruiser level ish tracking speeds.... battleships (or even tier 3 battlecruisers) are not renowned for shooting frigates on the move... I think the idea is that dreads even at their best also can't track and shoot frigates without support.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
458
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:37:53 -
[322] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:...It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH... You have a source for that? Don't think I've seen any numbers for the packaged volume of citadels. It was answer to a question asked in the stream. They specifically stated that Large and XLs need a freighter to deploy. ie larger than 60000m3
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
William M Blazkowicz
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:42:26 -
[323] - Quote
Everything in this update sounds good and all - I just don't agree with the HP reduction part. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
458
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:43:05 -
[324] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:After sleeping with it. I'd actually prefer each individual fighter to have its own HP, like fighters in homeworld do: we choose squad, target squad, and they all end up shooting one of the hostile squad, but they can choose a different one and so multiple fighters can take damage at a time. Also, AOE. And yeah, cost.
P. S. and yeah, I think it actually looks better now when you allowed refitting to everyone, than to remove it completely. Caps still get killed, just leave it as is. If you haven't worked it out yet, probably 90% of the reason to group fighters into squads and have the server treat them as a single entity is TiDi. It is 5-12 times less drones to track. Hence you may even have a large cap fight without tidi even.
Of course there is the bubbles that still tidi things a bit.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
458
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:50:14 -
[325] - Quote
Fishymonster wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design. Or train for a fraction of the time to level 4 for only a 10% or is it 20% damage output hit. Yea lvl 5 skills are really overrated.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rawthorm
D.M.T inc Circle-Of-Two
80
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:56:05 -
[326] - Quote
Great changes, long overdue! I was wondering however if any thought had been given to the use of Gecko drones and carriers? At the moment the carrier is the only ship with enough bandwidth to use a fair number of these. I highly doubt any consideration will be given to whats basically a limited item, but will the new Faux carriers provide sufficient bandwidth for these, and if not are there any plans to change the Gecko into a special fighter unit? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
458
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:59:49 -
[327] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Dev Blog wrote: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 Um, what changes, if I have N+1 Force Auxiliary ships in my fleet? Still N+1 gameplay, not that this is a bad thing. Many battles start with assumption that the other side has less, only later to discover that the other side has more friends. Err no. If the only way to rep is with triage and you can't receive reps. Then no amount of FAX ships can increase your reaping power above what you get with local reps. So you start shooting FAX ships out of the gate unless your stupid.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 08:04:05 -
[328] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Fishymonster wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design. Or train for a fraction of the time to level 4 for only a 10% or is it 20% damage output hit. Yea lvl 5 skills are really overrated.
I think he was moaning about fighter bombers potentially becoming needed for carrier pilots...at least that is the best I can make of it.
And if that were the case that is a bit of a PITA for a lot of people. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6901
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 08:28:35 -
[329] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. True, but then there never was that guarantee. The only thing that guaranteed that was that other player won't engage beyond a certain point (especially following B-R). It seems that this is more about making capitals less flexible (nice sandbox bro) at the same time as reducing their ability to hold their own. All it's likely to do is reduce their use even further and increase mass subcap blobs. At the end of the day, players are risk averse so they will take the option that offers the lowest chance and value of loss. Making their ships terrible won't fix that.
By the way, what genius came up with "let's bring back AOE doomsdays but let's make it more like WoW bosses"?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Monster Dude
Raging Angels Mordus Angels
29
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 08:55:36 -
[330] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote: Please remember: These are not finished designs and may change!
It is trully interesting that big changes for capitals are going to come. New classes and modules probably will bring more variations, setups.
However with an critical eye I want to note something. 1) In my opinion it is not good idea when "50 rifters can tackle titan"... In modern EVE there are no problems to tackle supers, we have special ships for that! Which means if you want to tackle one - you have to have devotion, be ready for it!!! Scenario like kitchen sink gang roaming here and there accidently crosses their way with super and tackling it only makes me rather sad. Because modern eve is no like that roaming will be fighting with it alone... those "50 rifters" will shout out loud to relevant people and then whole pack of killer whales will come on scene. So my vote is for devotion! You want things like that - bother for proper ships for that. And lets still keep supers warp engines immune to ordinary points.
2) Nearly same applies to supers ehp/buffer/.. They all are killable right now, and taking into account how many of them in game, nerfing them might just lead to when supers fleets are clashing they will die just as fast as rifters are dying (aka no fun). - You may say that too few supers are duying withing a month... - I would answer reason for it not EHP at all. Long ago CCP taken away drones usage from supers... If supers could use drones - they would be used lot more (aka ratting) - and that would cause them to die lot lot more. Of course some adgustments are still would be needed e.g. if you are recieving remote reps - you can not control your drones/fighters...
3) Removing some ewar immunity is good though. E.g. if you could jamm supers - sounds good, but then again not with griffins please... Could it be made so that the bigger originator of jamms - the higher chance for it to work on super? E.g. dummy example of modificators for ewar towards supers: - frigate class: 0.5 - cruiser class: 1 - BS class: 2 - Capital: 3 when supers sensors level is still very high so that chances for cruisers for success are pretty low. This approach would again bring more devotion and lead to more usage e.g. BlackOps's as ewar ships for such scenarios, or even capitals which is totally unexpected (aka LOL) |
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
459
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:00:09 -
[331] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Fishymonster wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design. Or train for a fraction of the time to level 4 for only a 10% or is it 20% damage output hit. Yea lvl 5 skills are really overrated. I think he was moaning about fighter bombers potentially becoming needed for carrier pilots...at least that is the best I can make of it. And if that were the case that is a bit of a PITA for a lot of people. What? Supers should have them trained anyway. And carrier pilots? well i am not sure they will get heavies/bombers, at least it is not clear that they will get them to me.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Engelheim
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:07:42 -
[332] - Quote
These changes are very exciting and I'm very enthusiast about them.
However I have some concerns not regarding the changes in themselves but regarding the transition phase between the day prior and the day after.
I'm thinking specifically about the logistic capital role being transfered to a brand new ship. Quoting from the devblog:
Quote:They will be the only class able to fit the Triage module and the only capital class with bonuses to remote repair modules. This transfer means that all current "doctrines" using carrier as remote repair platform will become obsolete over night. And it could take months before some players are able to adapt to the change.
We're talking about capital ship production here. It takes a lot longer to produce from scratch than subcaps. Add to that the skilling for this new class and it could potentially mean several weeks even months without any capital remote repair option.
That is quite scary if you have assets to protect...
On top of that, it offers a potential lever for the bigger organisations as they will be the first ones to obtain these ships and potentially they would be able to delay the acquisition by applying some form of market pressure for the smaller groups. In this kind of scenario, even if this would only mean a 1 or 2 weeeks delay for the smaller group, it would still be enough for the big fish to swipe assets easily.
So the question is: how does CCP plan to work on this transition phase? Will the new ship be released while actual carrier will still be able to remote rep or is there some other idea behind the transition period? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:15:38 -
[333] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote: What? Supers should have them trained anyway. And carrier pilots? well i am not sure they will get heavies/bombers, at least it is not clear that they will get them to me.
I don't disagree, was just the best I could make of that guys post (not yours). In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have bothered but my shitposting detector runs on caffeine and I'm short this morning. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2306
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:17:01 -
[334] - Quote
Engelheim wrote:These changes are very exciting and I'm very enthusiast about them. However I have some concerns not regarding the changes in themselves but regarding the transition phase between the day prior and the day after. I'm thinking specifically about the logistic capital role being transfered to a brand new ship. Quoting from the devblog: Quote:They will be the only class able to fit the Triage module and the only capital class with bonuses to remote repair modules. This transfer means that all current "doctrines" using carrier as remote repair platform will become obsolete over night. And it could take months before some players are able to adapt to the change.
We're talking about capital ship production here. It takes a lot longer to produce from scratch than subcaps. Add to that the skilling for this new class and it could potentially mean several weeks even months without any capital remote repair option. That is quite scary if you have assets to protect... On top of that, it offers a potential lever for the bigger organisations as they will be the first ones to obtain these ships and potentially they would be able to delay the acquisition by applying some form of market pressure for the smaller groups. In this kind of scenario, even if this would only mean a 1 or 2 weeeks delay for the smaller group, it would still be enough for the big fish to swipe assets easily. So the question is: how does CCP plan to work on this transition phase? Will the new ship be released while actual carrier will still be able to remote rep or is there some other idea behind the transition period?
If only they'd said in the presentation they were well aware of this and would be discussing options......
Or even in the damned blog
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.
|
Engelheim
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:23:47 -
[335] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Engelheim wrote:These changes are very exciting and I'm very enthusiast about them. However I have some concerns not regarding the changes in themselves but regarding the transition phase between the day prior and the day after. I'm thinking specifically about the logistic capital role being transfered to a brand new ship. Quoting from the devblog: Quote:They will be the only class able to fit the Triage module and the only capital class with bonuses to remote repair modules. This transfer means that all current "doctrines" using carrier as remote repair platform will become obsolete over night. And it could take months before some players are able to adapt to the change.
We're talking about capital ship production here. It takes a lot longer to produce from scratch than subcaps. Add to that the skilling for this new class and it could potentially mean several weeks even months without any capital remote repair option. That is quite scary if you have assets to protect... On top of that, it offers a potential lever for the bigger organisations as they will be the first ones to obtain these ships and potentially they would be able to delay the acquisition by applying some form of market pressure for the smaller groups. In this kind of scenario, even if this would only mean a 1 or 2 weeeks delay for the smaller group, it would still be enough for the big fish to swipe assets easily. So the question is: how does CCP plan to work on this transition phase? Will the new ship be released while actual carrier will still be able to remote rep or is there some other idea behind the transition period? If only they'd said in the presentation they were well aware of this and would be discussing options...... Or even in the damned blog 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.
It's not just about the fact capsuleers as individuals trained for the remote carrier. It's about he fact it could bring a huge unbalance in powers of only for a few weeks in Sov/pos/moon warfare |
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
62
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:36:23 -
[336] - Quote
Moe Lesture wrote: --- TACTICAL OVERLAY ---
Considering the tactical implications of the doomsdays and squadrons, i would add bearing and elevation indicators to the tactical overlay. Obviously everyones overlay will have an identical North, regardless of system so people can relay coordinates.
I like this idea! It would necessitate, however, that the origin of the coordinate system can be anchored to different points in space. Bearing, elevation and distance are only uniquely specifying a location if the two tactical overlays have the same North (rotation) AND the same origin (translation).
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
Royal Methodd
Project Valhalla. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:39:48 -
[337] - Quote
I just read the "REWORKING CAPITAL SHIPS: AND THUS IT BEGINS!" arcticle and I have to say very nice rework to begin with!
Would just like to add this to the rework of capital ships:
- Capital ships should spawn (after jumping) 10-15km away from each other. - Capital ships (titans and supers) should be unbumpable. (exp. to industrials/transport/carriers) - Refitting range should be set towards 15-20km range (since it will not be as viable at it used to be)
These changes only make the game look more cleaner and a bigger apple for the eye.
Royal. |
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
62
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:50:54 -
[338] - Quote
Darkwalker Star wrote:I have a suggestion. A doomsday deflector module that can link to a friendly doomsday weapon, but only 1 at a time. By reflecting the energy back onto itself can reduce or prevent damage from that doomsday. This allows friendlies to stay on field and tackle hostiles. By taking up a module slot, causes some loss to offense but gains an offensive advantage being on field.
I would rather have something that warns friendlies in advance what is going to happen. So they can reposition and tackle from outside ground zero. Extend warmup time First half: show danger zone to friendlies only, second half: show everybody.
In addition, make the tactical overview coordinate system unique for the whole fleet (FC chooses anchorin point of coordinate system) and add bearing / elevation and distance rulers so that people can communicate locations.
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2077
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:58:25 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Ilany wrote:Great ideas - it will be interesting to see how this develops and whether it can actually cause a change in null sec.
- Won't multiple squadrons of drones significantly increase lag?
- 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.
I suggested this a while back for all all drones (i.e. the server views a group of drones launched from a single ship as one item). My reasoning is that i assumed it would reduce lag. Are normal drones going to be grouped rather than individual, in the future?
Also, would it be possible to add new ship based drone upgrades that gives a fighter/bomber wing the ability to local repair?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2077
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 10:06:54 -
[340] - Quote
"It is not impossible to refit...but you will have to wait out your weapons timer and, effectively, be out of the battle while you do so. We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
I think it's enough that you have to sit there, under fire for 60 seconds, before you can equip yourself to fight back.
Will the cargo hold on dreads be increased enough to allow them to carry a full rack of extra large guns?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
|
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
64
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 10:09:31 -
[341] - Quote
Expanding on the fleet-wide tactical overview idea:
Make the coodinate system unique for all fleet members on grid. Origin of the tactical overlay coordinate system is anchored by the FC. Give fleet members the possibility to opt out and reanchor the tactical overlay on their own ship again.
Give the FC the ability to broadcast basic markers in the tactical overview. This would allow them to command things like: "Light tackle, burn me a perch here" (a blue marker appears at a point on the overview). "Logi, position in this area." (a green arrow appears). "Firewall ships, put up firewall on this plane" (two red lines, spanning a plane in space appear).... Maybe markers could even be shared between FCs by dragging them to a chat (but, then... spais! :) ).
If markers seem OP, maybe using coordinates are more challenging. "Dictors, burn towards 60-¦ (bearing) / -40-¦ (elevation) in 60clicks distance and cloak up." For this the tactical overview could get a simple ruler tool.
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
Tau Phoenix
Eternal Darkness. Blades of Grass
47
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 10:56:46 -
[342] - Quote
Some intersting ideas in this dev blog and it is good that CCP realise that curretnly the Capital ship has little value to game play in the current climate. Whilst most ideas seem to have a valid point and i can see advantages i am concerned that the bread and butter capital, the Carrier, will be reduced to an oversized burden on a ship, especially given the potential new logistacal capitals.
Owning a capital is and planning its movements within the game is a task that on its own needs planning in order to work out the requirements to have the ship in place without to much Jump Fatigue. Whilst having a new logistics capital is exciting i do not think that the logistical attribute of a carrier fitted for the task should be removed....in fact this is an oportunity to have the new logistis capital but also keep carrier able to fit logistics modules...just ensure that are not as effective as the dedicated capital calass logistcs.
This also gives the game more choice in logistic planning. I think you need to keep the carriers ability to rep in battle, just to a lesser extent of the dedicated carrier.
Maybe of topic but whilst we are talking about capitals, will CCP give bonus to Jump Fatigue reduction for jumping capitals in the sov that you own? That would also stimulate more local capital movements. |
Zduhac Aldent
ROC Academy ROC.
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:09:25 -
[343] - Quote
Everyone is whining,but i think ccp will listen to your whining and make dread do at least 5000dps to sub capitals in siege. I personaly like changes because i always thought that heaving a capital is bad thing because you will only use it in specific situations and it will be more like jump in,fire ,get out ,repeat but now carriers get new gameplay as do dreads as do titans so now you can have specific fun with every capital and about lowering EHP on capitals i think its a good thing since if it lowers their base EHP it will also lower their price so we will see more capitals in fights,only thing im consirned with is being able to ECM capitals,and titan DD might be gamebreaking if they dont make it right |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:10:06 -
[344] - Quote
ccplease! NO CAPITAL SCRAMS! Seriously, are you insane? Who has even came up with this idea? Do you understand why HICs cannot receive reps, and dictors have like 10k EHP? This design is done on purpose - do you understand this purpose? Because to me it seems that you dont. You suggest a ~capital hic~ that thas millions of EHP, can be repped, has a huge sensor strength and a jump-drive on top of that. Freaking genius!
Alright, I'll give you a clue about that old design purpose. Fielding a super-capital fleet is a big risk. Especially for an underdog. That risk becomes manageable if you have a support fleet that can clear tackle if something goes wrong. So people take that risk and then something goes wrong, and than it goes hugely wrong - and titans die.
With ~capital hics~ 1. The risk becomes overwhelming, unless you're in PL/NCdot or CFC. Means less groups will use their capships. Means more rifter gangs! (I guess it was your design goal, right?) 2. Support fleets become mostly irrelevant in capital fight. Oh wait, those fights will not happen anyway. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
751
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:20:32 -
[345] - Quote
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?
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?
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
2307
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:30:17 -
[346] - 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.
It's fairly obvious.
Provided you can hold tackle, it doesn't matter if they have 1, or 100 FAX ships, if you can kill one, you can ~eventually~ kill all the capital reps and thus the entire enemy fleet.
Because they can only rep in triage and in triage they are limited to local tank only - overwhelm that and they will all die, one at a time.
As opposed to today, where 300 archons can all spider as one unit and you'd need to either a) alpha the caps or b) out DPS 300 archons worth of non-triaged reps. |
Grey one
EU Borg Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:39:55 -
[347] - Quote
I suggest that High Angle Weapon Batteries damage should not depend on being in siege (or have a very small dependence). They role shoud be the defence against supcaps not only when you are in siege but during the travel (through the gates) too. |
Luscius Uta
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:46:24 -
[348] - Quote
I don't like most of the changes.
While I agree that Carriers are the swiss army knife of EVE, since they can be ultimate drone boats (with potentially near-endless supply of them), provide good repairs even when not in triage, can be used for refitting in the heat of battle, store other ships and can even be used to move your ships and assets around, splitting Combat Carriers and Logistics Carriers is about the only good thing that will come from these changes (I also think that more thought should be put into naming the new Force Auxilliary ships - my suggestion is "Capital Projection Ships").
Removal of EWAR immunity is really bad. I loathe at the idea of Dreads and Titans being tracking disrupted, sensor dampened or jammed since they already have terrible tracking and scan resolution (goodbye blap dreads). The only problem of EWAR immunity in its current form is that you need a special class of ship to point a super. Giving them a warp strength of 20-50 as proposed in the blog is one way to fix it. Another way would be to make officer scrams, points and webs affect supers. This would be balanced not only due to their high cost but also due to their high powergrid requirements, making the choice of ships that can fit them very limited. Also in one of the posts, a dev mentioned 40% webs, yet the weakest webs have a strength of 50%. Even in a hypothetical situation, I expect to see valid, realistic numbers and not something that dev pulled out of his ass, showing his lack of knowledge of the game he is in charge of changing.
Being unable to refit with a weapons timer will also limit much of Marauder usage in PvE (since Bastion also gives you a weapons timer and I tend to have a depot next to my Vargur), something that I'm sure nobody in the dev team thought of.
T2 capital modules will negatively affect market for metalevel modules - those who can be built exclusively with blueprints purchased in Concord LP stores. But I guess that's one way to give Incursions much needed nerf.
Also, does intorduction of anti-subcap guns for Dreads means that we shall finally see Rapid Cruise Launchers for The Phoenix (something that some of us desire so much)?
New doomsdays: I would keep them a single module, but make them use ammunition, just like you can put all kind of bombs in a single bomb launcher. This ammunition should have large volume (1000 m^3/unit at least)to prevent putting too many of it in a single Titan.
That's all I can think of for now, though I haven't read much posts in this thread (except for the dev ones).
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
Senjiu Kanuba
Indentionally Tense Bad Intention
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:54:07 -
[349] - Quote
I like most, if not all, of these changes. I'm definitely looking forward to it.
There's one thing I'm a bit worried about though. By limiting the dps that can be applied to citadels you might discourage the use of capital ships. If the dps is limited to, let's say, 30k for mediums then it would make no sense for a 50man fleet to bring capitals, they might as well bring a fleet of battlecruisers and shoot it with T1 ammo. So basically, it comes down to getting the right numbers for all that stuff.
Senjiu |
Malou Hashur
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:00:30 -
[350] - Quote
Why are you removing the facility of fighters/squadrons to warp after their host carrier ?
I would have thought that would be of more use after this expansion, seeing as you have stated that fights can happen a very long way from the host carrier.
CCP Philosophy ==>>
If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.
|
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:00:57 -
[351] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Another way would be to make officer scrams, points and webs affect supers. This would be balanced not only due to their high cost but also due to their high powergrid requirements, making the choice of ships that can fit them very limited... Limited to capships. Chessur freaking rice! How can you people be so short-sighted? If only you allow capships to tackle other supers - everything goes nuts. Support fleets will mean nothing. The biggest blob will dominate without a single chance for a little guy. Eve will become even more polarized. Capital fights will not happen. Do you want to be a part of that game? I dont. |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1055
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:01:18 -
[352] - Quote
Instead of fixing the system that has worked for 10+ years their throwing it all out and making changes for the sake of changes.
Seagull is bound and determined to think outside of the box which is commendable but I'm not sure you can pull this off.
Not a chance in hell these changes make into a spring release.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:08:30 -
[353] - Quote
Sexy Cakes wrote:Not a chance in hell these changes make into a spring release. You forget: this is Team Fozzie. These changes go live no matter what. |
Luscius Uta
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:19:58 -
[354] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Another way would be to make officer scrams, points and webs affect supers. This would be balanced not only due to their high cost but also due to their high powergrid requirements, making the choice of ships that can fit them very limited... Limited to capships. Chessur freaking rice! How can you people be so short-sighted? If only you allow capships to tackle other supers - everything goes nuts. Support fleets will mean nothing. The biggest blob will dominate without a single chance for a little guy. Eve will become even more polarized. Capital fights will not happen. Do you want to be a part of that game? I dont.
Wrong, Battleships have enough PG to fit officer scrams/points/webs easily, I've seen several Bhaalgorns with officer webs, and even a Loki with one.
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
154
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:35:54 -
[355] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Sexy Cakes wrote:Not a chance in hell these changes make into a spring release. You forget: this is Team Fozzie. These changes go live no matter what.
only if it screws wspace :P
So Much Space
|
fenistil
Space-Brewery-Association Habitual Chaos
110
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:49:41 -
[356] - Quote
Dear CCP,
these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters.
There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities.
With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map.
Request:
Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals.
I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place.
Thanks!
.
|
Monasucks
BLACK SQUADRON. RAZOR Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 12:52:05 -
[357] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks!
oh Dear.. If you all are willing to put it together you will get your titan, with char etc. f++r 140-160bil.. And a single person can easily farm 1-2bil a day.. do a few weeks a corp / alliance op and here you got your titan.. EVE is about the teamplay...
Can I haz you're stuff?
[i][b]A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Pa
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
189
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:12:38 -
[358] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks!
Do you know how the first alliance made the first titan? They worked hard. they did not beg CCP to change the game to let them do something others can do without all the hard work. |
Aves Asio
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:15:35 -
[359] - Quote
All the changes look too much gimmicky. I'm not a capital pilot but it was something i was looking forward to, i guess ill just stick to subcaps... |
Prt Scr
569th Freelancers
161
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:31:02 -
[360] - Quote
So will T2 Cap ship module BPO's be inventable, or will we need to run drifter incursions to get the concord LP as they the only supplier of BPC?
u+É-¦ssn+¦ p+ɦ¥+¦ -ç,u+É+ö -¦ -çnq -Ä+¦+¦os +»,-¦
|
|
Tau Phoenix
Eternal Darkness. Blades of Grass
47
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:44:21 -
[361] - Quote
Whilst we are discussing apital changes. Another comment i'd like to suggest and this will either go down well or in flames:
Will CCP ever consider letting subcaps (including their pilots) dock in the carrier to allow them to be jumped to a location and then undock from the carrier?
This could be a good mechanic that may be used for various activities in game. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2047
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:54:02 -
[362] - Quote
Are freighters, jump freighters and Bowheads included in the "give them all FH/SMB, ewar changes" thing, especially the web resistance?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
288
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:01:13 -
[363] - Quote
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.
|
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:15:54 -
[364] - Quote
Aesir Terona wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Aesir Terona wrote: Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
Maybe you should read the blog before posting rubbish. Triage modules will be fitted to the Force Auxiliary. They will replace the Logistics Carrier. ITT - people jumping to conclusions and solid proof you can't please everyone. I didn't train for a goddamn Force Auxiliary either way, it ends up nerfing all capitals more for the sake of making more "options", which, following CCP's record at balancing, means one thing will be outstandingly good, and the other two will languish in disuse because CCP isn't very smart. +1 I feel your pain. I want to know if I don't like what you did to the ship class can I have my isk and skills put back into something I would like to use in the game? :) |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
36
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:34:23 -
[365] - Quote
First Post To elaborate my point against the change to combat refitting:
The entire point of those changes is, to get more fights as I got it. That is why you want to make capitals more useful (thus more used) and eliminate the n+1 problem.
Now we all don't want to lose our ships, so we try to predict the outcome of battles and try to foresee if we will win or lose. And we won't engage if we forsee that we will certainly lose - I mean we are not that stupid. So if the outcome of a fight is predictable and both of the parties know the game very well and are intelligent, the party which will lose, can predict that and will avoid the fight.
So if you ignore ganks ("fights that happend because one party was bad at the game") you can only get people to fight, if the outcome is not predictable from the outset. Because then both partys can think they got chances.
And factors that are determined IN the fight are less predictable than factors that are already determined beforehand. Now in case of fixed fitting, you have a fixed factor making the outcome more predictable resulting in less fights. But if the outcome depends on your performance IN the fight - your refitting in the fight, the fight becomes less predictable. Which is good as I we proved before. This is the same reason, why I like the idea of trickshot doomsdays because the outcome is determined in the fight and not before, making people more likely to try their luck.
On a sidenote: Keep in mind, that you can never eliminate the n+1 problem completely. By introducing a upper limit to your defensive capabilites (triage) you don't eliminate the advantage of having one more damage dealer to kill the enemy faster don't eleminate the advantage of having backup when your meatshield dies If there is "the best" doctrine, then the group with more people will always perform better with that doctrine than all the other groups. So the only thing that can ease the n+1 problem, if you make the doctrines and the interactions between ships more complex, that it become harder to know "the best" doctrine. Basically you need to give people an advantage if they know the mechanics better, but also make sure that they will never understand the mechanics fully or else at some point the word of "the best" tactic will spread to everyone and even the "blobber" will use them. As an example: Rooks and Kings found out that logistics are powerful and dominated larger groups using them but at some point other people learned that aswell. So you always need that new tactic that is even better - and given that people are crafty, they will eventually hit the roof and find "the best" tactic in the given meta.
You can only really eliminate that by constantly shifting stats and attributes and trying to obscure what you do, so that people will never perfect their playstyle, because when they find out something that works really good, the meta already changed. So maybe create a plan constantly changing stats before people reach that point of knowledge and tell you which ships are op and should be nerfed. The game doesn't have to be balanced - it just shouldn't be possible to know which of the ships are the good ones. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2204
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:53:37 -
[366] - Quote
Tappits wrote:fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks! Do you know how the first alliance made the first titan? They worked hard. they did not beg CCP to change the game to let them do something others can do without all the hard work. I, too, fetishize BoB.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 15:01:30 -
[367] - Quote
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? |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 15:23:58 -
[368] - Quote
So in the image of Home World and Sins of a Solar Empire. I would like to ask that corvettes be added to super carriers. A slower ship that is able to stay on the field against subcaps longer but with fewer ships per squadron. I think it would still give supers a uniqueness and provide a missing part the the carrier class arsenal. |
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:03:44 -
[369] - Quote
How will this RTS interface for fighter control interact with fleets? If you can't engage on a locked target or aren't locking targets to engage them, will you be able to direct them to attack a broadcasted target? If you are able to engage on a broadcasted target, will it be possible via interaction with the broadcast status line and broadcast log, or will you have to find it on overview or (worse) direct the fighters at the target's bracket in space?
Will there be assist or guard mechanics for the new fighters? Drone mechanics have long been preferred by multiboxers for their ability to allow some limited scaling. Fighters almost gained this with the skynet nerf but then lost it before the skynet nerf left sisi -- if fighters don't gain something comparable to assist for this iteration in place of the lost drone assist mechanic, multiboxers will be largely shut out of capitals and you can expect hundreds if not thousands of subscription losses to result.
Fighters are too expensive to carry hundreds of or send waves of on a 100km death march to the target currently. You can fit a 20 man frigate gang out for the cost of a single wave of fighters at current costs and the frigate gang will shred the wave of fighters inside of a minute with no losses. Will fighter and fighter bomber cost be adjusted to reflect the reality that they're pretty much kamikaze against even modest opposition? If not, carriers and supercarriers will not have a viable damage dealing mechanic as launching fighters for 300M per wave is an invitation to be trolled and nothing more.
Will fighter volume or the fighter bay volume be adjusted to accommodate extended engagements where AOE DPS or free fire on fighters can under current mechanics rapidly render carriers and particularly supers pretty much helpless when they're reliant on fighters for damage?
A major concern for many players who use capitals in PVE is that fighters don't currently auto-aggress NPCs. Will fighters auto-aggress NPCs after this iteration which removes the ability to use regular drones which do auto-aggress NPCs?
edit: also embedding fighter staging / launching in the inventory screen as shown in the preview is pretty much ebola, have you considered not doing that? |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
227
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:18:46 -
[370] - Quote
Nerfing HPs on Caps/Supers is all well and good but is the build cost going to be reduced proportionally? No one is going to fly 100bn ISK ships with **** Hit Point values.
As for the ECM vulnerability, I'm not convinced. It's the one thing that makes Supers different to Capitals. Changing that just makes them a bigger version of the previous class. If they're going to have an inbuilt warp strength that's so high then why bother making it overly and unnecessarily complicated? Just leave the immunity in place.
Again, like above, if you're going to do that then their build cost (and so sales cost) needs to be reduced to reflect their increased vulnerability on the battlefield.
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
|
Niclas Miula
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:18:50 -
[371] - Quote
To be honest, I like it pretty much.
This, the new structures... Nice stuff is coming to EVE it seems.
But I still hate the Fatigue stuff and the new SOV. And I want more trailers. What do I pay ya for? Work for it Lazyboys |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:27:12 -
[372] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements. The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place. I'm curious why do you dislike the utility of the current carrier platform? |
John Selth
Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:37:46 -
[373] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks!
Titans are supposed to be an alliance or corp wide effort to achieve. Rally your corp together and get them working for one. I don't like to say #nopoors but LITTERALLY nopoors. Go out and earn it like every other corp has done in Eve history
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:10:30 -
[374] - Quote
The changes are very intriguing, and I have a few follow on questions:
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)?
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?
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)? |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:10:48 -
[375] - Quote
Great buff for dreadnoughts and titans.
Carriers will now become 'meh', and supercarriers will become even more 'meh'.
Been around since the beginning.
|
Flavious Signtai
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:30:40 -
[376] - Quote
The idea of changing the triage mechanic to a totally different capital ship is crazy, and not in the good way. Like was mentioned in the blog, many of us bought and use our carriers specifically because it is a capital logistic platform.
Carriers and Supercarriers will now become obsolete, as dreadnoughts will become the DPS platform, with carriers serving no role. Yes, supercarriers have the remote ECM, but now... that's really the only thing going for it.
This is a horrible idea to create a new ship class, stripping carriers of their one good trait.
However, if you gave carriers greatly increased damage/hp bonuses to fighters and drones, all may not be lost.
Do not nerf the hitpoints... capital ships are, well, capital ships, and shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a few tackled orthrus'. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1849
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 18:39:53 -
[377] - Quote
Definitely excited to see Dreadnoughts retaining a good role and to see Carriers becoming less jack-of-all-trades, master-of-all-trades. I look forward to trying out the new dedicated Force Auxiliary ships.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Marius Vuld
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 18:52:50 -
[378] - Quote
As someone who is inching closer to fly a carrier, and was training for the logistics role, I am eager to know what is happening on the skill side of things.
Will the prerequisites for FAUX captials be the current carrier skill book?
Or will I require another 500m isk skill book with a x14 multiplier to fly each of the new racial FAUX ships?
If so would you consider giving the same number of SP for the new FAUX skill book as the racial carrier already trained? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:01:21 -
[379] - Quote
So, with capital neuts, will we see dreadnaughts with utility highs or is it going to be a similar scenario in terms of "pre-assigned" fittings for the highs?
any idea if the naglfar will experience any issues in terms of fitting balance with the reduced turret need?
Will the meta versions of modules follow similar suit to subcap meta (post module balancing)? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:03:21 -
[380] - Quote
Flavious Signtai wrote:The idea of changing the triage mechanic to a totally different capital ship is crazy, and not in the good way. Like was mentioned in the blog, many of us bought and use our carriers specifically because it is a capital logistic platform.
Carriers and Supercarriers will now become obsolete, as dreadnoughts will become the DPS platform, with carriers serving no role. Yes, supercarriers have the remote ECM, but now... that's really the only thing going for it.
This is a horrible idea to create a new ship class, stripping carriers of their one good trait.
However, if you gave carriers greatly increased damage/hp bonuses to fighters and drones, all may not be lost.
Do not nerf the hitpoints... capital ships are, well, capital ships, and shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a few tackled orthrus'.
None of the changes are for the player base, you know the ones that played a game loyally for years. Suddenly your years of skills and organization force projection was discouraging new players. So they nerfed and nerfed til it was miserable to play the game, felt like your first year all over. But making the game easier for new players to skill into the needed ships seems to have backfired. Turns out the new players really wanted to pay their dues just like the bitter vets. :) they wanted to be in big groups fighting in doctrine ships that people fit tooled and theory crafted over for weeks, they just did not know it then... Only thing is a lot of those players left when they saw the game changed every time someone complained about the game not being fair/null warfare is broken or too hard to start playing. So 60k counting bots turned into 40k, so they said fix it some more, then it went down to 30k. Now with the same logic applied comes a bigger nerf but with bling and promises of more fun. If only someone would say wow remember when Saturday's had 60k players maybe we should see what worked best back then and build from there. Then use that old trick, convincing players the game will be easier if you have more stuff and more skill points. *evil laughGäó* " Hope, I'll take that first." *** Remember when people had goals like get logi to V, learn to sit in a Guardian, all the while your next four hundred days or more will be carrier skills. That goal was worth something back then, billions in skill books then billion or more in hull and fits. Suddenly you have the ultimate utility ship (if it is gold in color) ;) ... You could be useful in really big fleets and say I was there... back when we would complain that bashing outpost and blowing up blockade units is dull. Wow if we only knew then what we know now... :) |
|
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
26
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:12:42 -
[381] - Quote
I just have one question:
Will the existing ratting carrier still be functional? (A Carrier that rats with its fighters and remote reps them or that takes part in team ratting as a repair platform.)
That's what a lot of people are going to complain about going away since they've trained skills to use it for that purpose. As a non-cap pilot, I've been training in that direction because it seems like a fun form of gameplay.
Will the Carrier class still be able to use remote repair modules? Hell, even L sized Battleship ones (that T2 Logi can use)?
Also, will "Fleet Auxiliaries" have to be in triage mode to use ANY remote reps, or only Capital class remote reps? Will they be able to use weaker ones without nerfing themselves into the dirt (since I can think of no other way to describe "intentionally become immobile AND completely subject to EWAR simultaneously")?
And will this "great gameplay" decision also apply to ships putting out damage? Will Titans and Dreadnaughts be forced to only be able to deal damage in siege mode and be unable to conduct their primary role without activating a module that makes them a sitting duck?
...sorry if I'm coming on a little heavy there, but this is just annoying after all the SP I've put into going for a functional ship that's about to be not functional anymore.
.
...also, as a person that likes playing healing roles in games, I hate it when people go about nerfing healing classes while buffing damage dealing classes or not subjecting them to the same conditions (e.g. in WoW, making healers super mana dependent while removing mana management from damage classes, or here, making healing dependent on triage mode while damage dealing is still possible outside of siege mode.)
I just like things being handled equally.
.
EDIT: Okay...that was more than one question. My apologies. ^_^; |
Bill Lane
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
101
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:17:48 -
[382] - Quote
Rena you animal. Good questions, and good points. Logi carrier is a great tool for helping younger players get into fleet PVE ops in less-than-ideal ships, especially in sites that would melt t2 logi.
http://www.militarygamers.com/
www.fubar-alliance.com
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:19:37 -
[383] - 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? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw!
I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance.
So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up! |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:21:47 -
[384] - Quote
Mr Floydy 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? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw! I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance. So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up! Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5851
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:38:56 -
[385] - Quote
Will "no EWAR immunity" carry into sensor strength, allowing capitals to be vulnerable to (enough) ECM, dampers and disruptors?
Will this design migrate into marauders and other sub-capitals? I imagine being able to differentiate ships that use similar weapon systems based on which types of EWAR they're most resistant to would be useful for mixing things up a bit: make caracal/cerberus resistant to webbing, while the rupture might be resistant to disruptors (relying on innate speed to provide resistance to webbing).
An interesting rework of capitals so far.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5851
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:47:03 -
[386] - Quote
For the "sickle" doomsday, rather than picking two random points in space, what about selecting two or more ships with the weapon pathing between the selected ships? I would expect this to be faster than picking two points in space. If warning/feedback is required, have the attacking ship illuminate the selected targets with something akin to a target painter effect.
I really don't want patches of space lighting up red: it's a tacky effect in ESO and reduces the need for situational awareness.
(on the flip side, I guess in the scenario that you'd be using sickle doomsday you're probably going to be playing in time dilation, so speed isn't really as important as sheer cool factor)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:51:17 -
[387] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. Ha, I like that. Always realised it could be possible but never thought people would actually do it :p |
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
4720
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:21:09 -
[388] - Quote
Caps can, and do, already fit points. not sure how this is an issue...
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Void Phoenix
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:49:57 -
[389] - Quote
Without getting into details, this has been the most exciting dev blog I can remember in a long time. +1 |
Ahed Sten
83
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:09:39 -
[390] - Quote
Sooooo....Goodbye ratting carriers?
Not only will the micro required to manage fighters be more trouble than it's worth, fighters will also be confined to grid and won't follow you in warp, which, lets face it, is currently the best thing about them.
Otherwise, interesting changes I guess. |
|
Zamrikus
Status Unknown. Manifesto.
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:14:49 -
[391] - Quote
Finally, I've been waiting for some interesting cap changes since 07, it is about time you made piloting caps more interesting.
@everyone whining about how things will never be the same again, ADAPT! If things remained static forever, and continued to work on years old systems; the game would stagnate and eventually die.
PRAISE THE CHANGE!
It'll be very interesting to see how this changes things around in New Eden and I cannot wait for it! |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
489
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:23:41 -
[392] - Quote
I'd think I'd be happy with a dread with about 6k dps with hight tracking, sub-capital guns. Instead of 2 shotting battleships, take them out in about 4-5 shots |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:30:49 -
[393] - Quote
Querns wrote:Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.
While those aren't overly large numbers, you are not accounting for the fact that an XL will be dealing out massive amounts of dmg. While Hsec is rich in numbers, the vast majority of those groups are actually small. This means that only the minority of groups in Hsec will have even the slightest chance for killing an XL Citadel.
Personally I think that XLs should be limited to low and null, places that see larger fleet action and capitals. This makes an incentive to move out of the "safety" of high if you want to have a big boy toy. It also means that those fighting in high over Citadels, will be fighting Meds or Lgs that are more in the range of those groups.
If you can't have big boy ships in Hsec, then big boy stations should be disallowed as well, or all be allowed. |
E1ev1n
Unknown Crusade
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:43:39 -
[394] - Quote
The problem with all of this
The current way Capital Guns work in relation to Sub Caps is apply webs and paints to hit, vaporizing or next to, targets in a few short bursts. This is perfectly fine. It means applying a good amount of DPS to targets that actually can kill Caps in relatively short order through e-war and DPS combined.
This will cripple any fleet in a C5 or C6 wormhole. Making the capital guns hit less well and the Sub Cap guns hit for a terribly low amount is a huge fail. Please reconsider the changes to Capital sized turrets. I have a really hard time seeing this as a Fix and rather seeing it as a way to drive wormholers into empire space and null sec. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
463
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:46:53 -
[395] - Quote
Ahed Sten wrote:Sooooo....Goodbye ratting carriers?
Not only will the micro required to manage fighters be more trouble than it's worth, fighters will also be confined to grid and won't follow you in warp, which, lets face it, is currently the best thing about them.
Otherwise, interesting changes I guess. **** ratting carriers, Since like 100% of can't read a dev blog.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:50:43 -
[396] - Quote
Manes Avatarr wrote:I dont like a way how citadel is being deployed. Throw it out of cargoold and then it "lights itself in and out", cmon.. its childish. At least deployment should have some stages: 1. throw out from cargohold 2. basis is being build by tiny drones 3. structurals put in place, platings added.. 4. alot of zip zaps of electricity etc 5. other stuff added 6. lights put on eventually and structure is anchored
Something like this. Its not a hangar array, you know? Its hucking enormous structure, put some immersion in it, even in deployment process.
And YES.. i love all proposed changes to capitals, citadels etc. Look exciting and all. Keep up a great work!
As I understand it, from the roundtable discussion, these will take 24 hrs to completely online. The video was just a mockup for us to see it happen, not real time. |
McDarila
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:12:01 -
[397] - Quote
At Eve Vegas we ran the number on fighter costs and I am very worried that this had been overlooked. You asked for me to post the numbers on the blog when I brought it up after the Q and A.
fighter
dragonfly TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ 0PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium715 904Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 3 887 359GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 273 926Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 999 490GǻISK MexallonGǻ79 695Gǻ Gǻ49.84GǻISK3 971 999GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 27 526GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ3 164 664GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 697GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 437 743GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 137GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 650 969GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 464GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK545 669GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 18 657 893 ISK
firbolg TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium907 174Gǻ 5.43GǻISK Gǻ4 925 955GǻISK PyeriteGǻ Gǻ249 592Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 733 032GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 425GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 108 062GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻ Gǻ31 931GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻGǻ 3 671 107GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ5 306GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 753 814GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 126GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK 1 634 997GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 515GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK605 645GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 20 432 612 ISK
einherji TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻGǻPriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium1 132 2675.43GǻISKGǻ 6 148 210GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 219 861GǻGǻ10.95GǻISK 2 407 478GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 663GǻGǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK 4 119 924GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 20 673GǻGǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 376 775GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 864GǻGǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 524 416GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 098GǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 594 340GǻISK ZydrineGǻ Gǻ587GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK690 318GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 861 460 ISK
templar TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium936 819Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 5 086 927GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 220 013Gǻ 10.95GǻISK 2 409 142GǻISK MexallonGǻ85 782GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 275 375GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 22 876GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 630 054GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 239GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 200 041GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 122GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 629 189GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 675GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK793 807GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 024 535 ISK
cheepest at 3 squads of 10 fighters plus 30 replacements746,315,720 isk
cheepest at 5 squads of 12 fighters plus 120 replacements3,358,420,740 isk
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:56:27 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
That would be bad, but is how most pilots think, engage only if you feel certain of the win.
The other side of the coin must also be looked at though.
Does CCP think it is healthy for the game to have a capital class ship design that WILL be lost every time it is used as intended? Does CCP think that players want to go into combat knowing they have no chance of living, even if it is required for fleet success?
We are not talking about hero sabres here, where fully fit you are out less than 100M. Instead we are talking about 1.5-2B per loss (estimate based on if hull ~= to a carrier), which many smaller alliances don't replace for the pilot.
I have T2 Triage, in an alliance that will keep me shipped, and honestly will jump in a FAX with zero care that it is primary. This is only because I am part of "The Big Evil Blob". Making it so that a FAX is the key to capital fleet victory helps us rather than hurts us. We can afford to loose these all day long, but can the rest of New Eden do that same?
I state this, simply and honestly, because I want fights. If you make it so that groups like the one I am in are the only ones who can afford real fleet battles, then you will not see any real battles.
The groups, like ours, are well entrenched, and no matter what N+1 fix you try to make, we will only get stronger, bacause the more you remove n+1, the more we can split our forces and maximize fleet variations.
So keep making life harder, keep trying to force pilots to loose ships due to enforced mechanics rather than pilot error. Every time you do this, you make groups like mine stronger, and those CCP professes to wanna help, only become more at risk, and easier to destroy.
Do you wanna see losses, wanna see fights, and wanna see null burning regularly? Stop trying to impose sweeping limitations that honestly don't effect the real gameplay, and instead focus your time on ship balance, features and reasons to own and maintain Sov. That is why pilots move to null and are willing to fight for it, focus on that and you will see ships burning, sov burning and null too busy fighting to care about your buffs to Hsec and lowsec getting 10 new missions... |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:13:32 -
[399] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:"It is not impossible to refit...but you will have to wait out your weapons timer and, effectively, be out of the battle while you do so. We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
I think it's enough that you have to sit there, under fire for 60 seconds, before you can equip yourself to fight back.
Will the cargo hold on dreads be increased enough to allow them to carry a full rack of extra large guns?
This is a very good point. while I wanna say that fleet hangers are an issue, in truth, I think it is the size of capital moduals that are the issue. They are so massively over sized, and arbitrarily so. Every capital modual is 4k in size, which limits the possibilities for refitting drastically. With all of the new capital moduals and variations you are suggesting, they is going to be very little options for cap pilots once they undock.
Cap mods need to be reduced, if even to 1k in size, to allow for variable options. While you can state that strategic decisions are needed when you undock a fleet, I would agree, but there also needs to be a way for a fleet to adapt to changing environments. If I was to take out a capital fleet, with the intent of engaging another capital fleet, only to get there and see that fleet run away and then come back as we are heading home in a subcap fleet, I need to be able to adapt. Currently, with 10k fleet hangers, dreads will be able to refit 2 cap guns to HAWs and that is only if they didn't need that room for capital cap boosters or capital MWDs.
While we don't know the size of these new mods, I point this out, cause of the standardized sizes currently. Something that should be reviewed along with all the other coming changes. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:31:02 -
[400] - Quote
Tau Phoenix wrote:Some intersting ideas in this dev blog and it is good that CCP realise that currently the Capital ship has little value to game play in the current climate. Whilst most ideas seem to have a valid point and i can see advantages i am concerned that the bread and butter capital, the Carrier, will be reduced to an oversized burden on a ship, especially given the potential new logistacal capitals.
Owning a capital and planning its movements within the game is a task that on its own needs planning in order to work out the requirements to have the ship in place without to much Jump Fatigue. Whilst having a new logistics capital is exciting i do not think that the logistical attribute of a carrier fitted for the task should be removed....in fact this is an oportunity to have the new logistis capital but also keep carrier able to fit logistics modules...just ensure that are not as effective as the dedicated capital class logistcs.
This also gives the game more choice in logistic planning. I think you need to keep the carriers ability to rep in battle, just to a lesser extent of the dedicated logistics capital.
Maybe of topic but whilst we are talking about capitals, will CCP give bonus to Jump Fatigue reduction for jumping capitals in the sov that you own? That would also stimulate more local capital movements.
Just an idea here, but what could really be nice is reducing the rep amount on capital remote reps by half (shield/armor/hull/cap) and giving the FAX a bonus not just to range but also rep amounts. So carriers still have remote cap/reps, but at a much more limited range and effectiveness.
This would allow for some interesting variations:
Amarr: 2x rep amt for armor and cap with a bonus to optimal range = to current Gal: 2.5x rep amt to armor and hull, 1.5x bonus to cap with optimal range = to current Cal: 2x rep amt to shield and cap with a bonus to optimal range = to current Min: 2.5x rep amt to shield and armor, 1.5x bonus to cap with optimal range = to current
The added bonus for Mim and Gal being that they are normally the least tanked of the 4 races, and thus get a better bonus with lower survival. Also giving Cal and Amarr the better cap bonuses, which follows racial trends.
Add to this Triage, which becomes FAX only, and carriers cannot even come close to FAX reps, but there are still option in the sandbox. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2800
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:37:37 -
[401] - Quote
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. |
Aliath Sunstrike
62
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:38:19 -
[402] - Quote
(Preface: Having attended EVE Vegas and the Cap ships roundtable and read/skimmed the 20 plus pages of this thread....)
I have one major concern on capital ships...
...Price of ownership.
To me, if cap ships are going to have much less EHP and thus go boom more, their overall total cost of ownership should go down to come in line with that. Let me first clarify and say that I REALLY like the cap ship changes and how CCP has thought out this new "TIER" of ship warfare; I think myself and all the other players agree on this. (Cap ships seem to have a good balanced role versus risk and they seem to have just the right amount of interaction with all the other ships in game as to not make them OP.)
However, the impression I got from CCP was that these would be going boom more accordingly and I have not seen many people talk about this. I don't mind cap ships going Boom more, what I mind is that the price reflects this.
IF regular capitals (Dreads, carriers and force aux) were only a few billions fitted say...
and super caps (Super carriers and Titans) say 10b-15b fitted...
THEN, I think it would make more sense. This is my suggestion. CCP is lowering their EHP so the price should match. This would make them a more affordable group to match their more common loss. More accessible game play to match their more balanced level of gameplay. More losses is good for CCP, good for players (EVE Economy overall) and good for fair/balanced fights which are really what all these changes are about.
I just think price needs to be talked about more here as part of the planning process and not left out to dry. Let me be clear, The cap ship PLAN (and higher planning) taking place right now will NOT work without said discussion and I challenge the devs to look at this idea I present as a microtransaction that is good for the game instead of trying to hold on to huge prices for capital ships that aren't reflective in their survivability / EHP anymore post changes.
Thank you.
Aliath
P.S. Thanks to all the devs for an awesome EVE Vegas.
P.P.S. To all the players asking about the RORQ, we tried to push on the devs for answers and they were extremely tight lipped. Mine (and others) personal two cents was for a mining doomsday that would pop those rocks at a record rate in exchange for the RORQ's risky gameplay (Industrial mode) and over total cost of ownership; the devs wanted nothing to do talking about it imho.
Continuous player since 2007.
|
lisa 8
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:44:10 -
[403] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote: We really need some skill information for those new capital modules. Do we need to start training those level 5's to use t2? We getting deadspace equivalent modules?
The answer at least relating to T2 Guns, from the Capitals Round Table discussion recording was Yes, you must have level 5's in order to use the T2 varient.
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2847
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:49:39 -
[404] - Quote
Some more feedback;
Carriers - will they need to lock targets? if so, they will need to get targeting ranges of up to 500km to utilise these new 'drive by wire' fighters. if not, then....uh. Weird to think of carriers just driving fighters into the vicinity of enemies and the fighters auto aggress. I dunno. - you do realise that carriers will have damage projection of over 500km? OK. just making sure.
Capital scrams - I do hope you make these....rather longer-range. Like, 100km range. Otherwise the laughable situation of Carriers kiting away from dreads, and sicking fighters from edge of grid (250? 300km?) and killing the sieged up dread before it can siege red and move/warp, will be in effect. And if the carrier gets attacked, it just warps out because the dread has 24km point range.
- I don't have any problems with capitals pointing capitals. But you should do it in a progression so that the maths require capitals to work with at least some subcaps to point other capitals.
For example, if you give capitals 20 warp strength and suercapitals 40 warp strength, you either need a HICtor or a bunch of Rifters, or a capital warp disruptor.
Then you can give capital disruptors +18 strength and 100km range (see above for reason) and +36 for scrams and 50km range, so that long-pointing caps with caps requires support fleets, and you need 2 carriers plus 2-4 subs to point a super.
This would prevent capitals from pointing each other, true, which would prevent people say, hotdropping a carrier at 90km from a dread and blapping it. They'd have to drop it at 50km and use a capital scram.
It would also by default give supers immunity from 2 capital dissy's, or 1 capital scram. This would allow a supercap to do what it does now, which is driveby, but as usual a single HIC or DIC, or a counter-drop with capital scram fit dreads and you'd be toast.
This would be a rather sensible kind of setup, IMO.
Dread range If carriers are going to be able to stand off and lay waste with drive-by-wire fighters, Dreads need to have capabilities to threaten the carriers at range.As said above, you need long-range dissy's and scrams, and we'd hope some support fleet, to achieve this. But you also need guns capable of projecting damage to threaten Carriers at the edge of a stretched grid (350km?).
Of course, you run into targeting range issues as well. So you'll want to think about whether 250km is a reasonable limit and whether caps get to break this, or you'll have to limit yourself to 250km for carriers. Which might be most reasonable.
And, by the by, our C4 Black Hole cruise Phoenixes hit to 250km. But torp phoenix outside a BH is 70km. Maybe that's fine, maybe it's not. But the capital turrets are in a worse place for LR weapons at the moment, and targeting range is woeful.
And, again, scan res! Scan res!
Fighters I also believe fighters should be way cheaper than they are now, given each squadron is composed of many fighters. It should cost a hundred or two hundred million to load up a carrier, not 3 billion.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:58:53 -
[405] - Quote
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.
If the numbers suggested stay the same, look at it like this (T2 points on basic hulls):
1 HIC = your tackled (max range 34k) 1 DIC = your tackled (max range 20k) 50 subcap points = your tackled (max range 20k) 10 cap points = your tackled (max range 20k)
This is based off the current statements and suggestions, which still puts HICS as the longest range and cheapest option. While at the same time giving more options and greater chances of forcing a fight. Yes, HICs are more vulnerable, but they keep their role as best single pilot option, DICs coming in second. The real change here is that you no longer have to rely on two specialized ships to keep a fight going.
Oh and unless changed, it will be much easier to break the needed number of locks with an ECM burst or remote ECM, to escape the 50 subcap points, or even 10 cap points, then break a single HICs infinite point and well you can't jam a bubble.
In practical terms, a HIC can lock down a Titan, giving your fleet a chance to get into the fight, then your cap fleet or subcap fleet can maintain that tackle cause by now you should have killed the hero HIC. So the Titan either calls friends or dies. If he gets help, then you fight it out and both sides have to either commit enough numbers to hold or break enough tackle to defeat each other or run away.
This makes cap on cap battles much more in line with subcap style battles, just with much more costly and fun toys. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 03:18:27 -
[406] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:How will this RTS interface for fighter control interact with fleets? If you can't engage on a locked target or aren't locking targets to engage them, will you be able to direct them to attack a broadcasted target? If you are able to engage on a broadcasted target, will it be possible via interaction with the broadcast status line and broadcast log, or will you have to find it on overview or (worse) direct the fighters at the target's bracket in space? Will there be assist or guard mechanics for the new fighters? Drone mechanics have long been preferred by multiboxers for their ability to allow some limited scaling. Fighters almost gained this with the skynet nerf but then lost it before the skynet nerf left sisi -- if fighters don't gain something comparable to assist for this iteration in place of the lost drone assist mechanic, multiboxers will be largely shut out of capitals and you can expect hundreds if not thousands of subscription losses to result. Fighters are too expensive to carry hundreds of or send waves of on a 100km death march to the target currently. You can fit a 20 man frigate gang out for the cost of a single wave of fighters at current costs and the frigate gang will shred the wave of fighters inside of a minute with no losses. Will fighter and fighter bomber cost be adjusted to reflect the reality that they're pretty much kamikaze against even modest opposition? If not, carriers and supercarriers will not have a viable damage dealing mechanic as launching fighters for 300M per wave is an invitation to be trolled and nothing more. Will fighter volume or the fighter bay volume be adjusted to accommodate extended engagements where AOE DPS or free fire on fighters can under current mechanics rapidly render carriers and particularly supers pretty much helpless when they're reliant on fighters for damage? A major concern for many players who use capitals in PVE is that fighters don't currently auto-aggress NPCs. Will fighters auto-aggress NPCs after this iteration which removes the ability to use regular drones which do auto-aggress NPCs? edit: also embedding fighter staging / launching in the inventory screen as shown in the preview is pretty much ebola, have you considered not doing that? That whole UI mock-up is horribly space inefficient, it'd be hard to believe something worse than the existing drone bay interface could exist without being shown that mock-up. Fully a third of the interface area is inherited from the inventory interface and has absolutely nothing to do with fighter functionality. Then you get to the fighter-relevant parts of the interface, where more than half the display area is empty space. 4k monitors are not very common yet, you can't waste that kind of screen real estate in 2015 TYOOL
While many people cry out that capitals are not intended for PvE, it is what many pilots use them for. I would guess, after years of being a cap pilot and knowing hundreds of them living all over the north and south, that at least 50% of all cap pilots spend at least 80% of their time flying caps in PvE usage. That doesn't even begin to describe capital alts, which are dedicated to PvE activities.
I honestly feel that if carriers fail to have auto engaging squadrons, or can't assist squadrons, then there will be a huge decline in active accounts. You will see a major amount of skills being ripped from these alts, and then those accounts will be unsubed. Some might be reskilled into industry or mining, but most will just be lost.
|
McDarila
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 03:22:45 -
[407] - Quote
I am seeing repeat of cost of ownership being a huge issue. I was in the omg with the light fighter cost and them being unrepairable. Its the ammo costing as much or more than half the hull in best . I did not even think of the nerf to the ehp would do unless it is offset by the new mods.
I was more worried that CCP did not realise that they are heading for a clift. All ready the nullsec changes have caused the the majority of regions to become deadly board as no one wants to move out of a defensive posture. Many people unsubbed with the inability for broadcast commands and they compounded this with new sov system and changes to fleets. I was logging on to 120k people now down to 25 to 30k. If this one is fouled up it will get worst. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
146
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 07:23:18 -
[408] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote: If the numbers suggested stay the same, look at it like this (T2 points on basic hulls):
1 HIC = your tackled (max range 34k) 1 DIC = your tackled (max range 20k) 50 subcap points = your tackled (max range 20k) 10 cap points = your tackled (max range 20k)
The Maulus Navy Issue has +1 strength on scramblers - I understand you said basic hulls - so it has the potential to be a powerful tool for small gangs. I like the idea of larger ships have higher warp core strengths and I would like to see that mechanic trickle down to smaller ships.
I don't fly capitals so I don't have any experience to speak from but it looks like these changes would encourage diversity in fleets and might even cause more good fights. They may be hard to swallow but if they are tweaked some they don't seem to be game breaking.
I would change the purposed Dread guns. Dread guns should have a select-able mode (normal - HAW) that worked more like the T3D does now or just use ammo as the deciding factor. The reload time from cap to subcap ammo would make it where they couldn't be insta-swapped. I think having a binary choice isn't a good idea.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2308
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 08:04:25 -
[409] - Quote
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. |
Luscius Uta
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 09:56:12 -
[410] - Quote
CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless?
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
303
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 10:03:41 -
[411] - Quote
E1ev1n wrote:The problem with all of thisThe current way Capital Guns work in relation to Sub Caps is apply webs and paints to hit, vaporizing or next to, targets in a few short bursts. This is perfectly fine. It means applying a good amount of DPS to targets that actually can kill Caps in relatively short order through e-war and DPS combined. This will cripple any fleet in a C5 or C6 wormhole. Making the capital guns hit less well and the Sub Cap guns hit for a terribly low amount is a huge fail. Please reconsider the changes to Capital sized turrets. I have a really hard time seeing this as a Fix and rather seeing it as a way to drive wormholers into empire space and null sec.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.
Stop lying, your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. |
Siliya
Critical Mass Project The Void Collective
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 10:16:48 -
[412] - Quote
1 question I have as a c5 Wormhole resident Currently Escalations are run as 2x carrier, 2x Dreadnaught my question is where do force auxiliaries fit into the equation
Will Aux's count as a Carrier for the purposes of whats what ? or will the structuring of an escalation be reworked with the addition of a new capital
or worst case - is this the long promised end to capital escelations |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 10:41:57 -
[413] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote: If the numbers suggested stay the same, look at it like this (T2 points on basic hulls):
1 HIC = your tackled (max range 34k) 1 DIC = your tackled (max range 20k) 50 subcap points = your tackled (max range 20k) 10 cap points = your tackled (max range 20k)
The Maulus Navy Issue has +1 strength on scramblers - I understand you said basic hulls - so it has the potential to be a powerful tool for small gangs. I like the idea of larger ships have higher warp core strengths and I would like to see that mechanic trickle down to smaller ships. I don't fly capitals so I don't have any experience to speak from but it looks like these changes would encourage diversity in fleets and might even cause more good fights. They may be hard to swallow but if they are tweaked some they don't seem to be game breaking. I would change the purposed Dread guns. Dread guns should have a select-able mode (normal - HAW) that worked more like the T3D does now or just use ammo as the deciding factor. The reload time from cap to subcap ammo would make it where they couldn't be insta-swapped. I think having a binary choice isn't a good idea.
Malus is special case, as is faction points and T2/T3 hulls. Those all have a ton of possible variations so you can't do a fast breakdown. The point though is that if a super runs into a roaming gang, unless a HIC/DIC is with them, odds are super still jumps away.
As for the idea about Dreads having a "mode" like T3D's is a bad idea. That would allow dreads to rappidly switch from cap killing to subcap killing in a snap. As for it being ammo based, you face the same thing, plus the added issue that the tracking and fire rates are turret based, thus the ammo would have to have major bonuses and penalties. |
L iriel
Tillistrian Enterprises Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 11:07:02 -
[414] - Quote
Unless somewhere in this Capital overhaul you fix the fighter support, jump range and timers, Capitals are worthless and will continue to be worthless. |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 11:10:26 -
[415] - Quote
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. |
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
44
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 11:21:50 -
[416] - Quote
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.
|
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 11:23:59 -
[417] - Quote
Querns wrote:Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable. And it will be hilarious to watch an XL obliterate said battleships with ease.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
227
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 11:33:52 -
[418] - Quote
McDarila wrote:At Eve Vegas we ran the number on fighter costs and I am very worried that this had been overlooked. You asked for me to post the numbers on the blog when I brought it up after the Q and A.
fighter
dragonfly TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ 0PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium715 904Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 3 887 359GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 273 926Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 999 490GǻISK MexallonGǻ79 695Gǻ Gǻ49.84GǻISK3 971 999GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 27 526GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ3 164 664GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 697GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 437 743GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 137GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 650 969GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 464GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK545 669GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 18 657 893 ISK
firbolg TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium907 174Gǻ 5.43GǻISK Gǻ4 925 955GǻISK PyeriteGǻ Gǻ249 592Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 733 032GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 425GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 108 062GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻ Gǻ31 931GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻGǻ 3 671 107GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ5 306GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 753 814GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 126GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK 1 634 997GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 515GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK605 645GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 20 432 612 ISK
einherji TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻGǻPriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium1 132 2675.43GǻISKGǻ 6 148 210GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 219 861GǻGǻ10.95GǻISK 2 407 478GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 663GǻGǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK 4 119 924GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 20 673GǻGǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 376 775GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 864GǻGǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 524 416GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 098GǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 594 340GǻISK ZydrineGǻ Gǻ587GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK690 318GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 861 460 ISK
templar TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium936 819Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 5 086 927GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 220 013Gǻ 10.95GǻISK 2 409 142GǻISK MexallonGǻ85 782GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 275 375GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 22 876GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 630 054GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 239GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 200 041GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 122GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 629 189GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 675GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK793 807GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 024 535 ISK
cheepest at 3 squads of 10 fighters plus 30 replacements746,315,720 isk
cheepest at 5 squads of 12 fighters plus 120 replacements3,358,420,740 isk
Damn that's expensive. Carriers would be the only ship in the game whose weapon system was more expensive than the platform they're on. Those values definately need looking at.
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 12:02:01 -
[419] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu |
Syzygium
ISK Unlimited
108
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 12:04:19 -
[420] - Quote
Anti-Subcap guns for Dreads are - imho - a horrible idea.
For large parts, ISK play little to no role in Combat any more, so why in hell should anyone bring a BS when he could simply bring a Dread? Same abilities to shoot subcaps but way more EHP and DPS per pilot, plus the option to refit if larger targets appear.
Dreads should be anti-BIG-target ships and nothing more, structures, capitals, supercapitals. Period. If you want to use them, protect them with stuff that can shoot smaller ships. For example BS or carriers. Yeah, these cannot deal 10.000 DPS if needed, but thats fully intentional. With that "one-ship-to-rule-them-all" concept you are going into the complete wrong direction. And that "yeah but you need one minute to refit!!!" does not make it any better. |
|
Ann Davenport
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 12:26:09 -
[421] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
That would be bad, but is how most pilots think, engage only if you feel certain of the win. The other side of the coin must also be looked at though. Does CCP think it is healthy for the game to have a capital class ship design that WILL be lost every time it is used as intended? Does CCP think that players want to go into combat knowing they have no chance of living, even if it is required for fleet success? We are not talking about hero sabres here, where fully fit you are out less than 100M. Instead we are talking about 1.5-2B per loss (estimate based on if hull ~= to a carrier), which many smaller alliances don't replace for the pilot. I have T2 Triage, in an alliance that will keep me shipped, and honestly will jump in a FAX with zero care that it is primary. This is only because I am part of "The Big Evil Blob". Making it so that a FAX is the key to capital fleet victory helps us rather than hurts us. We can afford to loose these all day long, but can the rest of New Eden do that same? I state this, simply and honestly, because I want fights. If you make it so that groups like the one I am in are the only ones who can afford real fleet battles, then you will not see any real battles. The groups, like ours, are well entrenched, and no matter what N+1 fix you try to make, we will only get stronger, bacause the more you remove n+1, the more we can split our forces and maximize fleet variations. So keep making life harder, keep trying to force pilots to loose ships due to enforced mechanics rather than pilot error. Every time you do this, you make groups like mine stronger, and those CCP professes to wanna help, only become more at risk, and easier to destroy. Do you wanna see losses, wanna see fights, and wanna see null burning regularly? Stop trying to impose sweeping limitations that honestly don't effect the real gameplay, and instead focus your time on ship balance, features and reasons to own and maintain Sov. That is why pilots move to null and are willing to fight for it, focus on that and you will see ships burning, sov burning and null too busy fighting to care about your buffs to Hsec and lowsec getting 10 new missions...
Nid pilot here. What is surviving a fight like? |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
88
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 12:28:01 -
[422] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:Captain Awkward wrote: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.
We have jet absolutely no numbers on how strong ewar will be on capitals in general and dreads in siege in particular. The only thing that is for certan is that your rattle will take the full effect of any kind of ewar to its face.
With a dread you get the flexibility to go bigger if needed, a jump drive and a big EHP pool combined with the top DPS that some, but definitly not all BS can pull.
If you still dont like it, dont use it. |
Heidi Franklin
Blind Assault Silent Infinity
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:08:51 -
[423] - Quote
Certain parts of this dev blog seem okay. Of course Im not one to go over every detail but one thing that stuck out to me are the fighter squadrons and how they are going to be implemented.
I just want to make sure the uses to which a carrier can be used currently at still the same after the change (obviously without logistics of course since you are removing that from them). Can squadrons be intermixed with different types of fighters? Will different types of fighters exist? Can other types of drones be used still? If you condense fighters into a squadron, when the flight returns will you magically get back fighters you have lost? Will you have to replace the fighters/ can you edit a squadron while fighting? And there are practically a limitless number of other questions out there.
Basically I want carriers to be as effective as they are now or better in regards to fleet fights or even ratting/ running anomalies or wormholes.
Just my 2 cents |
Luscius Uta
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:16:46 -
[424] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu
Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two. CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem.
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:22:45 -
[425] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:I just have one question:
Will the existing ratting carrier still be functional? (A Carrier that rats with its fighters and remote reps them or that takes part in team ratting as a repair platform.)
That's what a lot of people are going to complain about going away since they've trained skills to use it for that purpose. As a non-cap pilot, I've been training in that direction because it seems like a fun form of gameplay.
Will the Carrier class still be able to use remote repair modules? Hell, even L sized Battleship ones (that T2 Logi can use)?
Also, will "Fleet Auxiliaries" have to be in triage mode to use ANY remote reps, or only Capital class remote reps? Will they be able to use weaker ones without nerfing themselves into the dirt (since I can think of no other way to describe "intentionally become immobile AND completely subject to EWAR simultaneously")?
And will this "great gameplay" decision also apply to ships putting out damage? Will Titans and Dreadnaughts be forced to only be able to deal damage in siege mode and be unable to conduct their primary role without activating a module that makes them a sitting duck?
...sorry if I'm coming on a little heavy there, but this is just annoying after all the SP I've put into going for a functional ship that's about to be not functional anymore.
.
...also, as a person that likes playing healing roles in games, I hate it when people go about nerfing healing classes while buffing damage dealing classes or not subjecting them to the same conditions (e.g. in WoW, making healers super mana dependent while removing mana management from damage classes, or here, making healing dependent on triage mode while damage dealing is still possible outside of siege mode.)
I just like things being handled equally.
.
EDIT: Okay...that was more than one question. My apologies. ^_^; I hope a Dev answers your questions. I feel like they do not care what most people were doing with a utility (multipurpose) carrier. They seem to think what were were able to do with it is not good for the game. Regardless of what you want to do with your carrier. That great ship is getting nerfed so you can have more fun. :( say goodbye to your carriers guys and girls they will be only good for one small role in major battles only. Because you will have more fun doing only one thing with it. Trust them with this. Look how much fun we have entosising little nodes scattered across an entire constellation. That's fun right? History of nerfs and buffs for this game tell me the carrier is even more of a spinning ship in station only ship. My only hope is they let us move skill points to a ship we can use. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
653
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:41:37 -
[426] - 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
|
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:43:29 -
[427] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two. CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem. On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so?
Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game. |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:55:49 -
[428] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two. CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem. On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so? Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game. ps. I have an Archon which has CCC rigs, I also have a Revelation that's useless to me since the Nag/Moros are so much better for what I need. *shrugs* I have several ships that were once awesome sadly this trend continues... |
Circumstantial Evidence
232
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:57:22 -
[429] - Quote
CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.
CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
290
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:58:07 -
[430] - Quote
Everyone has. It's part of the game. If this didn't happen it would get really stale like it used to be during the Drakes online period :) |
|
Wolfe copying
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:59:29 -
[431] - Quote
Very interesting changes. No more tanking everything until downtime; which is great because that was a **** mechanic. I will be interested in learning more about the carrier changes and force aux capitals.
I also imagine Fighters will be looking at a cost reduction? what will happen to current fighters with regards to the sunk cost on them? |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
552
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 15:24:06 -
[432] - Quote
Is a potential change to the length of siege/triage time and fuel consumption being considered? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 15:32:55 -
[433] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.
CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread. This might be the first time they took a ship class with skill books required that cost a few bil and said sorry those do not count anymore. Oh wait outpost construction is in the same context now. So happy now. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2103
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 15:54:47 -
[434] - Quote
A few things I wish you guys added...
I recently started to play the game again and found that my capital ships was way down on one side of the map and my corp on the other...
I tried to calculate in jump planer how long it would take to move my ship over... funny thing happened jump planner crashed saying it would take too long to calculate.
I really wish there was a booster that you could take that double jump distance and removed jump fatigue for a total of 24 hours. This booster could only be used once every 3 months or up to 4 times a year.
This would allow me as a player who comes back to the game every now and then the ability to catch up with my bros... it would be balanced by only being active for 24 hours and only can be used once every 90 days.
the other thing i would like you to add is the following: Two tech II dreads Two tech II carriers.
Detla Force Carriers/faxes and Dreads
They have special new Jump drives similar to those found in jump-freighters that reduce jump fatigue and extender jump range up to 7.5 Ly
because more room is used to house the enhanced jump drive delta force carriers/faxes and dreads have lower dps/ehp/reppability then their tech I counter parts
The second class of tech II capitals are designed for home defence and worm hole space: they have no jump drive as jump drives are superfluous in worm hole space.... with all this extra room these tech II juggernaughts have more ehp/dps/reppability then their tech I counter parts... the carrier will get reduced versions of the super carriers projected anti blob weapons and so too will the tech II dread get a mini doomsday
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Luscius Uta
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 16:11:09 -
[435] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote: These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given.
That wouldn't be a problem if upsetting people wasn't a design goal and only a consequence of many changes that were lately introduced by CCP. It is one thing to change few stats and abilities to rebalance a ship class that is too versatile, but when you turn it into something almost completely different (as it is the case with currently proposed changes), then I don't call it a rebalancing but a massacre.
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.
Again, wouldn't be a problem if I could trust that CCP won't nerf skill bonuses into near-uselessness. Imagine if one day they replace a skill like JDC with something like 1% mining yield per level (an exaggeration of course, but still I could imagine a few cases where the new skill bonuses would be a joke but yet would affect capital pilots). Could they still say "The skill is still useful"? Yes. does that mean we wouldn't have the right to be upset? Hell no!
Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1064
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:20:01 -
[436] - Quote
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.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:24:21 -
[437] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:McDarila wrote:At Eve Vegas we ran the number on fighter costs and I am very worried that this had been overlooked. You asked for me to post the numbers on the blog when I brought it up after the Q and A.
fighter
dragonfly TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ 0PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium715 904Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 3 887 359GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 273 926Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 999 490GǻISK MexallonGǻ79 695Gǻ Gǻ49.84GǻISK3 971 999GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 27 526GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ3 164 664GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 697GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 437 743GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 137GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 650 969GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 464GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK545 669GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 18 657 893 ISK
firbolg TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium907 174Gǻ 5.43GǻISK Gǻ4 925 955GǻISK PyeriteGǻ Gǻ249 592Gǻ 10.95GǻISK2 733 032GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 425GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 108 062GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻ Gǻ31 931GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻGǻ 3 671 107GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ5 306GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 753 814GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 126GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK 1 634 997GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 515GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK605 645GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 20 432 612 ISK
einherji TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻGǻPriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium1 132 2675.43GǻISKGǻ 6 148 210GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 219 861GǻGǻ10.95GǻISK 2 407 478GǻISK MexallonGǻ82 663GǻGǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK 4 119 924GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 20 673GǻGǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 376 775GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 864GǻGǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 524 416GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 098GǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 594 340GǻISK ZydrineGǻ Gǻ587GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK690 318GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 861 460 ISK
templar TitleGǻGǻGǻGǻ QuantityGǻ PriceGǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ Price for allGǻ Tritanium936 819Gǻ 5.43GǻISKGǻ 5 086 927GǻISK PyeriteGǻGǻ 220 013Gǻ 10.95GǻISK 2 409 142GǻISK MexallonGǻ85 782GǻGǻ 49.84GǻISK4 275 375GǻISK IsogenGǻGǻGǻ 22 876GǻGǻ 115GǻISKGǻ Gǻ2 630 054GǻISK NocxiumGǻGǻ4 239GǻGǻGǻ 519GǻISKGǻGǻ 2 200 041GǻISK MegacyteGǻ1 122GǻGǻGǻ 1 452GǻISK1 629 189GǻISK ZydrineGǻGǻ 675GǻGǻGǻGǻGǻ 1 176GǻISK793 807GǻISKGǻGǻ In total: 19 024 535 ISK
cheepest at 3 squads of 10 fighters plus 30 replacements746,315,720 isk
cheepest at 5 squads of 12 fighters plus 120 replacements3,358,420,740 isk
Damn that's expensive. Carriers would be the only ship in the game whose weapon system was more expensive than the platform they're on. Those values definately need looking at.
I expect fighters to get a nice price cut, as it would be a bit stupid to have that many fighters otherwise lol |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:24:47 -
[438] - Quote
In Regards to HAW Weaponry, in addition to the advertised DPS being silly low they're likely be balanced around countering battleships. Battleships have severely fallen out of favor of usage due to the warp speed changes, bombers, phoebe. Until there is a reason to use battleships over cruisers there will be no purpose for the HAW Weaponry. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
562
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:30:34 -
[439] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.
CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread. This might be the first time they took a ship class with skill books required that cost a few bil and said sorry those do not count anymore. Oh wait outpost construction is in the same context now. So happy now.
They did no such thing, however so yoh can stop crying. |
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
68
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:37:15 -
[440] - Quote
I don't think the High Angle Weapon Batteries are a good idea, Eve players being Eve players someone will figure out how to turn a dreadnaught into a solo-pwn-machine.
I don't believe that any capital ship should operate without a sub cap escort.
|
|
Deckel
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:39:40 -
[441] - Quote
When I started reading the article I was just contemplating the suggestion of a area ewar effect that could be projected from capitals and then I was pleasantly surprised to see such a thing being proposed.
I would ideally imagine this to work by allowing a Capital to equip, or be built with only a single debilitating effect that they can turn on that will affect all ships that are within range, but ships that are closer to the capital with receive harsher penalty effects for the duration of the debuff, or perhaps the debuff with last longer or have a higher chance of affecting them.
I wonder What kind of area limit they are thinking of applying to this ewar pulse? If they make it an incremental effect with distance I imagine up to 100km could be workable but it will probably be a fair bit less. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1064
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:42:15 -
[442] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made.
No, that has never been the argument. The usual argument is that the skill is still useful, even if it is not useful in the way you prefer.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
888
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 17:44:46 -
[443] - Quote
- Will fighter squadrons take damage one-fighter-at-a-time or will damage be distributed randomly to individual fighters within the squadron?
Example If a fighter squadron gets bombed/smartbombed, will half the fighters explode and leave the other half undamaged or will all the fighters in the squadron go down to half health?
- Can damaged fighters regen lost hitpoints via shield regen as they do now? Will there be "abilities" for them to actively rep themselves?
Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1155
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 18:13:32 -
[444] - Quote
what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
235
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 18:32:30 -
[445] - Quote
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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1155
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:15:05 -
[446] - Quote
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. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
235
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:31:11 -
[447] - 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.
the xl guns now aren't the greatest for range and they implies the ones for sub caps would be even shorter. |
Dun Bar
Inner Shadow Did he say Jump
29
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:34:19 -
[448] - Quote
Just a thought, is the rorqual being looked at as well or no? |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:41:08 -
[449] - Quote
Actually I'm not sure that combat refitting even needs to be prohibited on the rebalanced capitals. The reduction in base hp and the requirement to use plates and extenders to get good ehp (which can't be fitted for instant hp) makes it less powerful than the current state where you can fill a rack with hardeners, no? |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
332
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:42:39 -
[450] - Quote
Excited by a great deal of this.
Worried however about the nerf to refitting on the fly. Especially to sub caps. The dev blog stated that the weapons timer would stop all refitting until the timer has gone, I believe that this has been confirmed for sub caps as well which I strongly disagree with.
Could CCP please confirm / deny that refitting sub caps from capitals is gong to be stopped?
Otherwise it all looks great. |
|
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. |
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
562
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:34:08 -
[481] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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?
There are plenty of times you refit outside of combat. Also you can wait the 60 seconds (in combat) and refit then.[/quote]
The blog only states that capital reps will be effective on fax machines (as in unbonused on carriers)- however, the current slowcats Archon and Chimera only get RR and cap transfer range bonuses, not RR amount bonuses. Will there be more changes to capital RR modules that would actually nerf slowcats?
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
235
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:39:26 -
[482] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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? There are plenty of times you refit outside of combat. Also you can wait the 60 seconds (in combat) and refit then.
The blog only states that capital reps will be effective on fax machines (as in unbonused on carriers)- however, the current slowcats Archon and Chimera only get RR and cap transfer range bonuses, not RR amount bonuses. Will there be more changes to capital RR modules that would actually nerf slowcats? [/quote]
you cant use remote reps without triage
|
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:53:08 -
[483] - Quote
Could we get a Capital ship that looks like a magic carpet?
Only so that CCP Lebowski could spam local on with "Who peed on my rug?"
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
254
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:57:34 -
[484] - 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 -
[485] - 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 -
[486] - 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 -
[487] - 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. -
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 -
[488] - 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 -
[489] - 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 -
[490] - 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 -
[491] - 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! |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2312
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:26:51 -
[492] - Quote
How are fighter resists/shield/armor/hull going to work? Are you reviewing these? Going to just a straight up HP pool of omni resist?
The fighter blob with members dying doesn't lend itself to the triple layered HP style we currently have.
Also what happens if they are bombed does the unit take Y damage, or members*Y damage ?
What about ewar? All jammed out, or a partial DPS loss or something in the middle? Ditto webbing them. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
569
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:42:50 -
[493] - Quote
How will AOE damage like bombs or smartbombs work on fighter squadrons? Will all fighters be damaged or just one?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Alexis Nightwish
338
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:45:15 -
[494] - Quote
I'm super stoked about the capital changes because they're mostly in line with what I wanted capitals to be!
One thing I will say though is that Siege, Triage, and Bastion must NOT generate a weapons timer on their own. There is no compelling argument for why simply being in a different mode should prevent refitting. If you wish to prevent ships from docking or jumping through a gate (which was the original reason for a weapons timer), use another mechanic. For example, infini-pointed capitals cannot use stargates. Utilize something along those lines.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2312
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:46:15 -
[495] - Quote
It could trigger a weapons timer when the module deactivates. That's an acceptable workaround (to me). |
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
127
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 17:08:59 -
[496] - Quote
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 said ECCM, and that triage carrier is probably easier to alpha than a 300k EHP Guardian with a frigate-sized signature.
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.
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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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 touched on the cost point, but the question of balance between 100b worth of capitals and 10b worth of subcapitals is one that should be considered, or capitals won't be worth the potential loss.
- Have the implications of high-alpha weapon setups (Citadel Torps, 3500mm Howitzers) been considered with regards to the new fleet auxiliary ships? If the anti-capital DPS of capital weapons is reduced far below current values to compensate for reduced EHP, then the utility of capitals as weapons against other capitals becomes questionable. Likewise, if damage numbers are not significantly reduced but EHP numbers are, the elimination of supers as logistics platforms functionally immune to non-DD based alpha makes this a very significant consideration. If X arty nags can reliably break Fleet Auxiliaries, then capital fights might well turn into rather uninteresting (and expensive) attrition matches where the skill or tactics of the players becomes less relevant.
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
548
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 17:11:07 -
[497] - Quote
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. |
Luke Lamarr
Black Fox Marauders
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 17:17:24 -
[498] - Quote
I am assuming you have a way to prevent titans from using the DD to teleport ships that are inside a POS shield?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2223
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 18:38:43 -
[499] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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. - All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships. However... Chicken Tenders... Yeah, when I think of "tenders" I think of the train car that holds its fuel (coal, oil) and the water that fuel turns into steam to drive the engine. It is technically the lifeblood OF the train, but it's still a bit of a stretch. "Auxiliary" specifically evokes a "mental flavor" of a thing that tends to damaged things.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
37
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 18:46:45 -
[500] - 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?
That is quite simple - there are no POS shields without POSes |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1858
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 19:03:47 -
[501] - 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.
I am inclined to suggest that all capital guns and missiles become one size - no more short or long range guns. Then give Dreadnoughts and Titans three modes:
1. shorter range (effective range from 0-50km), higher ROF, lower alpha, higher tracking, ineffective against subcapital ships 2. Longer range (effective range from 50-250km), lower ROF, higher alpha, ineffective against subcapital ships 3. HAW mode - effective against subcapital ships (i.e. As effective as the equivalent Large weapons before modules are applied), approximately 2400 DPS before modules and ammo
As with current Dreadnoughts, the new ships would still be largely ineffective unless they were in siege. Titans would still have an advantage, not only from the Doomsday devices, but also from the ability to apply their damage without going into siege.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3002
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 19:23:08 -
[502] - 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 :)
Your still comparing apples to pears Larrikin.
Slowcat carriers (The triageless bane of eve apparently) could also be: 1) Alphad 2) Jammed / Damped Just like all existing sub capital logistics. Its all a matter of numbers. Bemoaning EHP when the damage of sub caps / caps scale much more than EHP does, is a mute point.
Just force all sub capital logistics (including your new shiny t2 logi frigates) to go into triage to use remote repair modules. I anticipate the nerd rage will be the stuff of legend.
Why you persist in failing to see that triage can have its uses, but it must not be forced et mass at all.... is beyond me.
Go on. level the playing field and force sub caps to use triage to rep anything. Balance that nerf with the application of damage mitigation to all ships. Put the changes on Sisi for feedback and then come back here and tell me if you think its a good idea. I dare you.
Capitals must be allowed to repair out of triage (even if it isn't as effective as in triage and without e-war immunity). Then the game design will be on par with sub caps and no class meta will be superior to the other.
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 19:30:29 -
[503] - Quote
Ann Davenport wrote:
Nid pilot here. What is surviving a fight like?
Ty for being a Thanatos meat shield. Which illustrates the point, currently Archons and Chimeras are hell to kill, so we blap Nids then Thans, and then pick then lower numbered of the 2 left. This means bringing a Nid or a Than is basically suicide on fleet battles. Which was one of the key points cap pilots had about needing capital balance, but instead we are just going to see a whole new ship class that is nearly useless.
Why do I say this FAX is basically useless, simple. If it is the only logi for a cap fleet, and can only receive self reps, then all you have to do is alpha the 10-30 off the grid and now each fleet is totally w/o logi support. Why do I say each fleet, because both fleets will be doing the same thing, alpha the guy in triage. Before you know it both fleets are w/o any reps and it is a bloodbath, or it would be, but instead we are going to see the fleet with the lowest number of FAX either not engaging or killing tackle and jumping.
You are doing nothing to make a cap fleet battle interesting, the new DDs are cool looking, but why fit those when each Titan can just DD a FAX and ensure victory. If cap logi doesn't work something similar to subcap logi, or have some way of being able to defend each other, then it's just a matter of N+1 DDs and Dreads to win. Yes carriers will be part of that math, but until we have a better feel for the numbers, I omit that area.
So are you planning to balance FAX to be what 400% stronger than a combat class cap tank, or are we going to see cap dmg fall 400%? I ask this because if a FAX is the ship cap fleets are to base their entire support and tanking on, then it better be huge compared to all the others.
I better get something for being completely gimped from all damage and the brunt of an entire capital fleets focus. Either give me a huge tank and self rep bonus, a 30 sec Triage cycle, reps based off the current model with Triage being a boost, rather than a must. Unless we see things like this, caps are going to be in a worse place. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 19:40:08 -
[504] - 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.
Scrap Metal Reprocessing |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 19:54:21 -
[505] - 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.
Also note that dreads will likely not have that 1M hp after the changes and if they do it is cause of using extenders and plates, thus loosing other options.
the fact still remains, a stationary target, doing the DPS of 2 max DPS T1 BS, or 1 faction BS, is a bit weak. Yes a Vindi can hit 2.4k DPS, with a much weaker tank and shorter range. That Vindi also will have mobility and the option to fight at it's optimal, where the dread is stuck where it is.
So for 3B I get to be locked down with better tank and for 400M (2x BS) I get to dictate range and leave if it goes bad. Doesn't sound like a solid argument for nearly equal DPS. Especially when we know that the "better HP" of the dread is going to be much lower than it is now.
|
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
110
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:13:04 -
[506] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: 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? :)
Dreadnaughts don't have any maximum damage they can deal. Whatever primaries you call will be shot by all your friends in Dreadnaughts. Every dreadnaught added to the fleet increases the total damage of the total fleet.
I fully expect nobody with a head that's not full of **** masquerading as brains will ever drop 100 triage or the carrier/super/titan fleet to justify such large triage numbers because when capital DPS scales and capital tanks do not it takes only a pathetic few minutes of simulation time for a dread fleet to clear the field of all triage and start working on the vastly more expensive supers and titans. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:18:39 -
[507] - 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.
While I agree, HIC points should kill jumping through gates, I don't think that HICs are being as devalued as it seems. I can get a HIC moved 10LY with relative ease in some constellations that a cap just can't compete with. Look at Delve to Fountain, the caps have to basically take the exact same gates for the most part, others also exist. This means HICs have value as a first or second responder for tackle, they also can reach out at better ranges. You will have to slowboat ~10 caps to hold down the Titan that was trying to sneak out of range, or the HIC can rush in and grab him well before others. HICs will also still be able to lock down entire blobs in a single bubble, which far out weighs any focused points.
Trying to say that HICs/DICs are going to be devalued is completely false, all the cap points are going to do is make the HIC/DIC pilots jobs a bit easier. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:36:27 -
[508] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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? :)
Does CCP actually do the math on this, or do you just toss out guesses and assumptions? I say this becausewe have done the math, and quite simply you are wrong. There is an upper limit, where no matter what reps you are receiving will aid you. The Imperium was at war with N3, "kings of the slowcats", which they used with impunity. Thus we had to do the math and find the counter, which we did, and guess what it is nowhere near as high a number as everyone likes to say. Now because we are the "Evil Blobbers" we built in a large redundancy number to make up for bad alpha dmg and server ticks, and even then we could alpha 2 slowcats per volley.
So please before you repeat bad math, and even worse logic, do remember that no amt of reps will save you if you take more dmg in a volley than your hull can allow. This is how it works with subcaps and with caps alike, thus why FCs always take a few shots at the opponents line ships before deciding if they need to kill the logi or just alpha the DPS ships. |
Valterra Craven
590
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:48:00 -
[509] - Quote
Asuka Solo 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 :) Your still comparing apples to pears Larrikin. Slowcat carriers (The triageless bane of eve apparently) could also be: 1) Alphad 2) Jammed / Damped Just like all existing sub capital logistics. Its all a matter of numbers. Bemoaning EHP when the damage of sub caps / caps scale much more than EHP does, is a mute point. Just force all sub capital logistics (including your new shiny t2 logi frigates) to go into triage to use remote repair modules. I anticipate the nerd rage will be the stuff of legend. Why you persist in failing to see that triage can have its uses, but it must not be forced et mass at all.... is beyond me. Go on. level the playing field and force sub caps to use triage to rep anything. Balance that nerf with the application of damage mitigation to all ships. Put the changes on Sisi for feedback and then come back here and tell me if you think its a good idea. I dare you. Capitals must be allowed to repair out of triage (even if it isn't as effective as in triage and without e-war immunity). Then the game design will be on par with sub caps and no class meta will be superior to the other.
Not only this, but if the goal is to alter their imbalance, why are you taking such a heavy hammer to the mechanic when you guys have been dancing around balance changes like the ishtar? Here's a good first step instead. Nerf slowcat reps to max guardain reps. Doesn't kill the mechanic completely but should negate some of the slowcat bit you are trying to curb.
|
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 21:28:47 -
[510] - Quote
Problem: Slowcats are bad, must of New Eden would agree.
Solution: Split carriers into a combat and aux platforms.
That seems like a fair solution.
So why the desire to go even farther and nerf this even more with limiting remote reps to triage only? Do dreads only do DPS in siege? Oh wait, they do dmg but just a lower amount of it.
There needs to be balance in both damage output and reps. Currently RR is much better than dmg because damage suffers from falloff and tracking. This is being addressed, and that is good.
What you are proposing those is moving from the balance you are about it instate with RR falloff, and then push that to where RR becomes not only less effective, but downright useless.
Please explain why I would bring a fleet of:
100 carriers, 100 dreads and 50 FAX
Knowing the FAX are nothing but meat shields, have basically zero DPS application and will take (guessing here until we know real numbers) all the incoming fire with next to no way to defend against it (local reps only are a joke).
or
250 dreads
Whelp the enemy FAX faster and then rip through the enemy fleet. Dreads do to siege have to self rep as it is so lets make the meat shield be a DPS based one rather than one that serves no point. Leave 10 FAX in a safe of in station and have them play the old repairing games of before.
FAX are going to relegated to either useless or off grid repair stations you warp to for a quick fix. Carriers are going to end up being FAX guards, for fast clearing of tackle and as aux support for the dreads doing all the fun work.
So basically, you are taking the lost dog that dreads have become and making them the entire focus of cap fleets, adding in a small bit of use for supers, and giving Titans a bit of variation. All the while making carriers less valuable to both fleet action and general purpose areas. Then to top it off adding a new capital that has basically zero usefulness in a combat arena, other than to die.
This is beyond poor planning, this has the looks of complete contempt. Either that or your teams started tossing out these ideas and they all sounded great, with no one taking the time to look at all the changes, but proposed and in testing.
Making RR be completely centered on Triage, having no ability to get remote assistance, be subject to EWar, have a smaller EHP then current, and be locked into place, unable to refit for 5 minutes. Do the math, this is a zero sum equation, there is absolutely zero chance for a pilot to survive, even small level engagements. Engagements that should rely upon skill and pilot ability are still going to be death for FAX pilots. |
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2850
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 01:09:13 -
[511] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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.
Well, you can get an Archon with 2 x T2 Aux nano Pumps repping over 46,000 DPS in Triage. Which is basically two Moros. We have done some PYFAggotry based around ANP Archon / 2 blap phoenix / Vindi / Hyena gangs for wormhole small gang work based on the extreme application blap of cruise Phoenix, and the need solely for a stronk Triage carrier supporting one actually effective webbing boat (which is all you need) with a cloud of hyenas for TP sig bloating.
But if you're talking nullsec, the FAX will want to have some pretty diabolically huge active tanks. As the guy said immediately above, alpha is a thing in cap fights when the cap fights get that large. Assuming, of course, that dreads are used.
The logic holds true - why bring a FAX which cannot do any DPS and cannot active tank more than a Dread in siege, when you could just bring another Dread or carrier?
C5 wormhole cap brawls are a better model for this than nullsec slowcat blobs (assuming your objective of nerfing slows works). No real fights happen in nullsec where large numbers of dreads and triage carriers get dropped onto field against other dread and triage carriers (because of slows). In wormholes, when the batphnes start ringing and evictions happen, you do get 5 a side, 10 a side or even up to 20 a side cap fights using triage carriers and dreads.
The key thing is that triage carriers are needed to assist subs, to keep vindis, webbers and tackle alive so the dreads can blap enemy subcaps. The triage carriers are vulnerable to enemy dreads, as their local tanks are easily overwhelmed. Dreads are vulnerable to dreads, and if your own subs and carriers are eliminated, eventually other subcaps. So it's a game of rock-paper-scissors versus rock-paper-scissors. if both sides hold all three, the key is choosing what to focus on to eliminate.
So, you are basically going to be moving nullsec cap combat to this type of model, except you are basically moving carriers out to a new role of long-range DPS (or, realistically, short range DPS and capital neuts; basically gigantic Arbitrators), and replacing triage carriers with FAX.
So, in future, your RPS vs RPS fights will boil down to FAX supporting subs, carriers and dreads being DPS, and subs + carriers being tackle. Also, i guess, worth noting the blap dread will basically cease to exist, which means subs become stronger and dreads more important.
You will need your Dreads to break the FAX not to assist in breaking other capitals necessarily, but to break the subcaps. Your carriers can break some dreads with neuts (Moros, Rev), and FAX with neuts, and do anti-subcap work. FAX support carriers and subs, if the enemy FC decides to try winning by clearing EWAR and subcaps. Subs will be there to try clearing enemy subs (anti EWAR/tackle), but without blap dreads existing, their real task is probably going to devolve to breaking FAX.
Who'd want to be a FAX?
Truly, the RPS dymanic of Blap Dread/Triage/Subcaps is good and interesting. Merely introducing a FAX isn't a problem; the problem comes from removing blap dreads and replacing them with HAW-armed tissue paper dreads incapable of blapping through FAX reps.
That's the future: crack the FAX or never crack subs.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Servanda
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
20
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 02:52:51 -
[512] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:How will AOE damage like bombs or smartbombs work on fighter squadrons? Will all fighters be damaged or just one?
As the fightersquad are a sungle entity on the server they most likely share a common HP pool which is represented by remaining fighters. So for X damge to the squad a fighter dies. This would mean you only can damage the squad as a whole and not a single fighter in it. |
peaSTAR
Low Risk
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 06:02:23 -
[513] - Quote
coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
758
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 06:32:01 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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. - All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships. However... Chicken Tenders... Sorry Querns, they are not Auxiliaries per the designated role given them by CCP. They will be a front line vessel (in naval parlance)
Auxiliary is not at all an accurate name; Auxiliary, generally not on the front lines but back behind the lines doing their work in relative safety. What CCP are planning is something that is going to be "the front line", the primary focus of all incoming DPS, with no outside assistance available. Not that it is too much of a problem what it is called really, the only groups who could field enough of these to make them viable are risk averse blobs too scared to fight anyone who may pose a risk. (no amount of balancing or new modules can fix cowardice)
CCP again doing their best to cater for blobs, even knowing, those blobs won't fight each other but use the new toys only to ensure their victory against small targets. It really is a shame Devs are so out of touch with the game, capital re-balancing had so much potential.
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
|
lisa 8
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 06:59:49 -
[515] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:[quote=CCP Larrikin]I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms. 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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 touched on the cost point, but the question of balance between 100b worth of capitals and 10b worth of subcapitals is one that should be considered, or capitals won't be worth the potential loss.
- Have the implications of high-alpha weapon setups (Citadel Torps, 3500mm Howitzers) been considered with regards to the new fleet auxiliary ships? If the anti-capital DPS of capital weapons is reduced far below current values to compensate for reduced EHP, then the utility of capitals as weapons against other capitals becomes questionable. Likewise, if damage numbers are not significantly reduced but EHP numbers are, the elimination of supers as logistics platforms functionally immune to non-DD based alpha makes this a very significant consideration. If X arty nags can reliably break Fleet Auxiliaries, then capital fights might well turn into rather uninteresting (and expensive) attrition matches where the skill or tactics of the players becomes less relevant.
CCP Larakkin, Would definitely like answers to the above, especially " I know Grath already touched on the cost point, but the question of balance between 100b worth of capitals and 10b worth of subcapitals is one that should be considered, or capitals won't be worth the potential loss." . Why because; Under the current situation, a number of caps can mittagate overwhelming opposing sub caps & level the playing field with strength vs numbers, voiding a subcap N+1 situation. It just feels like this aspect is being lost now, because cost and possible loss of said caps due to ehp nerfs, will out weight any decision to field them. Why on earth would anyone spend time and isk on getting into supers and titans which cost so much, yet will be far more easy to kill? The time & cost is just not worth it, taking survivability into consideration, after the proposed changes, without any cost reduction to counter it, people will be far more risk averse & have little desire to even get into caps.. Isn't it also true that the know the whole thinking re the repair changes is based on weakening the N+1 factor towards slowcats, but on the other hand, isn't it true, that all these changes effectively do is transfer the N+1 equation to subcaps numbers? ie bring 2000 sub caps vs said capital fleet, kill the force faxs, then kill the caps = win. Whilst at the same time nerfing the ehp of all capitals making that idea so much more viable. Hardly any individual group can bring 2000 people, but 1 can, so isn't these changes effectively handing them, an I win solution, instead of creating a level playing field for everyone? |
Miner Hottie
Haywire. Haywire Collective
180
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 07:27:38 -
[516] - Quote
CCP Larrikin, can you please consider removing the restrictions on charges in the cargo holds of ships stored in a carrier SMA? Currently you are not allowed to store modules in a ships cargo hold when that ship is in a carriers SMA. The historical logic for this restriction has disappeared. It would certainly be a simple and reasonable qualit
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Shinta Kobi
101st E. Company
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 08:13:29 -
[517] - Quote
The only concern I have now is dreads having anti-subcap capability. It sounds good in theroy for some parts but all I can see in the future is an even further decline of roams, as well as larger fleets that used to me more mobile, due to most people will just sit and spin more in stations while waiting to fly their anti-subcap dreads into a local fight. All of the other capital changes seem interesting to say the least.
I look forward to seeing how this turns out. |
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Get Off My Lawn
140
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 08:21:56 -
[518] - Quote
Personally I feel the image over plays the actual difference in Titan and SC EHP numbers. I look at the Aeon, Wyvern, Avatar and Leviathan, and they actually do a leap frog of EHP in their standard full tank combat setups. Aeon (42m), Avatar (43.2m), Wyvern (44.2m), Leviathan (48.8m). [Max SP, proper implants, appropriate faction/deadspace items were used.] The graph you have suggests their is a significant boost to the Titan's EHP over that of the SC's EHP.
I would like CCP to take consideration of the DPS output of the titan over the dread. Currently the Titan lacks the DPS be a fair balance of cost/risk/performance over that of a Dread. If you feel the DDs are enough to over come that, then great. I however ask you do look at the balance of Titans to Dreads and consider adding more disparity between the two class's DPS numbers. The extreme cost, and even logical pain of using Titans over that of Dreads should weigh in on this. Even with Citadel's coming, Dreads will still have an option to dock in just about all structures with Titans be restricted to the XL. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2320
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 08:23:30 -
[519] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: That's the future: crack the FAX or never crack subs.
I'll take a backhanded bhaal buff any day of the week |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2856
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 09:31:38 -
[520] - Quote
Well, the biggest buff to the Bhaal is a debuff of blap dreads, to be honest. The FAX can't rep something that gets alpha'd off the field.
So, yeah, I think if blap dreads don't exist, or even if they do and get nerfed by TD swarms (i mean, come on guys, the Missile Disruptor thread is a wake-up call), or they get nerfed and suffer TD's-MD's on top of the nerf, then all this really amounts to as a whole is a buff to EWAR.
Think about it - your cap battles go from EWAR-immune triage Archons, to FAXs which can be jammed by EC-300's and Falcons, resulting in a severe nutpunch to triage reps. Meanwhile your EWAR-immune blap dread when it FINALLY locks the subs, is now suffering stacked 10%-ish (or 20%? 30%?) TD's-MD's, SD's, plus ECM from EC-300's and Falcons. Everything gets less EHP.
if it smells like a nerf, sounds like a nerf, walks like a nerf and talks like a nerf, it's a goddamn buff to subcaps vs caps.
Which might be fine, but the question is whether this is all balanced. I guess the sooner we see these new ships and stats and see people in mass tests on Singularity, the better. My gut feeling is that FAX - Carrier- Dread - Subs dynamics are a bit skew-whiff all things considered compared to the well-understood carrier - dread - subs three-way.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2324
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 09:41:48 -
[521] - Quote
Remember from the Vegas presentation the modus operandi for the high angle weapons is high ROF. Which means low alpha, which should raise the bar required for alphaing subcaps and buff logis.
With regards to ewar, I suspect that (res) damps are going to be the way vs dreads unless siege changes and EC drones on the FAX.
Personally the thing I'm most interested to see is the Phoenix, because it'll be the hardest to balance. On that basis, I expect it will still be utterly useless because of the nature of missiles treading too fine a line. |
Dadrom
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 10:47:01 -
[522] - Quote
re there any plans for carriers to use sentry like sqadrons? or is it just going to be fighter boats?. in that case how owuld that be in comparision to drone boats like potato battleship or ishtar?. or would regural drone usage change also?
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3003
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 10:53:46 -
[523] - Quote
I'd also like to know, are there any plans to allow the test server's (singularity) copyships command to work with supers moving forward, now that supers will be able to dock with XL Citadels?
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1860
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 11:55:49 -
[524] - Quote
The ewar immunity should remain when in siege/triage/bastion mode. Why? Because it is not overpowered in these modes. The ships are self-tackled. Ewar immunity on Supercarriers was bad because it meant they did not have to commit. Triage Carriers (FAX's) and Dreadnoughts do have to commit. I am all about hurting slowcats and Supercarriers, but I believe this change goes a bit too far.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Harry Forever
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 13:33:22 -
[525] - 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. 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! Please remember: These are not finished designs and may change!
so will we be able to fly capitals in highsec with this new update? it was mentioned in one of the blogs (not this one an older one)
Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
201
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 14:24:25 -
[526] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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! No, you tell us - what is wrong with the current tackle mechanics? It works, it's fine, no one is complaining. Yet you take it and you break it.
Nerf slowcats? Good one. Make flying Titans more entertaining? Go for it. Split the swiss army knife in two parts? Sounds fair.
But why are you destroying the link between subcaps and capships? What would be the role of support fleet if I can tackle and energy-neutralize with capships?
Tackling mechanics must remain as it is. Capital neuts only create problems. Cap-boosters are a pure cancer. Capacitor management is a great gameplay... that will only available in PVE. 5GN MWD? Dafaq are you smoking? You dont see enough of kiting in subcap fights? |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 17:29:05 -
[527] - Quote
The idea of capital tackle mods having similar strengths to current officer ones sounds acceptable to me if Supers are going to have 20+. I was worried about it being a lot higher. That said I'm still undecided on this and hope the conversation continues around that.
FT Diomedes wrote:The ewar immunity should remain when in siege/triage/bastion mode. Why? Because it is not overpowered in these modes. The ships are self-tackled. Ewar immunity on Supercarriers was bad because it meant they did not have to commit. Triage Carriers (FAX's) and Dreadnoughts do have to commit. I am all about hurting slowcats and Supercarriers, but I believe this change goes a bit too far. I'd agree with this. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
712
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 17:51:30 -
[528] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:5GN MWD? Dafaq are you smoking? You dont see enough of kiting in subcap fights?
Totally looking forward to oversize BS MWDs. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
300
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 18:00:51 -
[529] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill"
CCP Larrikin and Team Five-O,
I quote Tiberizzle, because I identify with his point, and I'd like to expand slightly to provide 'perspective' to the goals you outlined.
I've had the pleasure, and at times agony, of playing EVE since 2006. Since January 2015 I have been a dedicated CapSwarm Carrier pilot. As such I've been to war in Fountain and Delve, and have worked hard to learn how to pilot a Carrier effectively. My character itself has the ability to fly even larger capitals, however, I have remained in a standard Carrier, endeavoring to master its nuanced game play and constantly evolving knowledge requirements, which has been both enjoyable gameplay, but has also made it both intriguing and challenging to play. Simply trying to manage all that information and potential fast enough to be both combat effective and capable of withstanding being primaried is no easy task.
So I'm disappointed that such a massive eviscerating nerf to the Carrier is now the development goal, rather than 'contain' this 'swiss army knife' effect by capping the number of remote shield repairs that are actually effective (similar to capping drone assist), to accomplish the same result. But it seems instead there is a lack of nuance and practical understanding of how this ship fits into Capital ship combat, with you're choosing to turn the post-Battleship/post-subcapital ship (first) Apex endgame content ship into a unimaginative giant fat XL Dominx, minus the drones.
Put simply, managing this Swiss Army Knife is not easy, and the stereotype of it being so is highly exaggerated - both time and information overload are against you, all while being shot at. But it's one of the things I have come to love about being a Carrier pilot. Flying such a demanding ship, and survive fight after fight, requires discipline and dedication. It is wrong to conclude that because Carriers can invalidate a Sub-capital fleet, that this means that Carriers require a massive nerf and fundamental redesign.
Admittedly the announced 'goals' aren't bad at all in general, in fact here is much to be lauded with many new Capital features, but I am very disappointed about one in particular - the consequences to Carrier ownership and game play itself. (Fighter changes really look promising - I simply mean the ship itself).
But rather than try to analyze and generate points to argue against specifics, I'll instead share with Team Five-O how I plan on adapting to these changes myself, as a EVE veteran player.
By gutting traditional Carrier gameplay and 'sub-capitalizing' it into XL Domi's and XL Basilisks, while enhancing every other capital ship, I have absolutely no reason to stay in a Carrier any longer, and will be moving to a Super Carrier. Now that so much of what makes Carriers what they are, is being removed, can it still be the same 'apex' ship that stands distinctly among its Capital Ship peers? My answer thus far is no.
A Super Carrier that, as has been outlined, is better than a standard Carrier in every single way, with almost none of the drawback of the 'to-be-gutted' standard Carrier; as far as is apparent.
This perception will inevitably be shared by others in large Alliances (and Coalitions), and accelerate an even more contentious Arms Race so that the new Carrier meta will instead actually be Super Carriers.
So the question I hope your team can begin to wrestle with, is how deeply do you gut/nerf standard Carriers in order to meet your goals, without triggering a mass exodus from the ships themselves to the clearly superior Super Carrier.
Because without maintaining even a modicum of Remote Rep, Standard Drones, and Swiss Army knife ability that makes the Carrier special and dynamic, veteran pilots like myself from large organizations, will simply migrate to the superior ship: The Super Carrier; leaving the unskilled/under-skilled or under-resourced enemy (or allied even) pilots to languish in Carriers. And then still dominate the grid with our vastly superior damage output and ewar specialty Super Carriers.
It's something I hope you will all discuss in-depth, because as it stands now, barring some radical walk back to Carrier goals, you'll be seeing me in a Super Carrier very soon.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel IT'S ONLY PIXELS
68
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 19:08:55 -
[530] - Quote
Really interesting changes, quite concerning however that EHP is being reduced and that RR is getting a nerf - not so much because it won't be as it is currently but more because there is no alternative to stop cap's being blapped down in extremely short order.
I've never been one in favour of a more passive mechanic in order to keep people alive which is why I am happy the RR slowcat situation is being rectified but as I stated, the lack of alternative or ability to help people stay up is now somewhat concerning.
Simply put, carriers/supcarriers seem to now effectively be taking the role of fleet support, capable of bringing pain but also for various other roles as mentioned such as webbing and scramming from a distance (a huge distance!) but even with drones having other abilities now it does not rectify the above and with FAX ships not being able to receive assistance in triage (or dreads) then something really needs to be done.
My suggestion jumps off the back of the removal of EWar immunity & the Remote ECM burst.
Introduce additional modules (High slot) on top of the ECM burst that are capable of affecting:- Cap Regen Shield Resistances Armor Resistances Tracking ECM Sensor Strength/Range
There should be modules on each side of this that increase/decrease the above. These modules should effectively deploy an AoE type bubble (warp disrupt bubble eg) of quite a large range (to counter fast ships also) with a cooldown that ensures active gameplay but also the ability to react to situations - 60 seconds would be a good place to start.
Introduce an "ECM Nuke" type module for Titans also that can effectively hard-reset a grid and remove all effects whether positive or negative.
What this effectively allows is carriers to counter what may be a difficult situation with survival. They can turtle within their own cap regen/shield/armor res bubbles while throwing out tracking disruptors/ecm/sensor damp fields against enemy caps or typical ships. The reason for the low CD is to allow them to chain between a group in order to keep up on enemy nano-ships.
Titans become a force-breaker within this which allows them to effectively nullify a situation which presents an alternative to countering an enemies force with the opposite type of bubbles. It also brings titans into fights more.
A more active type of gameplay from the large immobile beasts that are cap-ships would be a huge leap forward in cap-warfare and I firmly believe the above would be a great step in the right direction. |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 20:19:12 -
[531] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:*snip* big post of interesting perspective *snip*
Nice post. I hadn't even looked at things from that perspective. Based on what we've see there appears to be little reason to fly a Carrier when you can fly a Super Carrier bar cost. Which we know isn't an issue for some and shouldn't be used as a balancing argument (although it can be to some degree...)
If you compare other classes of ships that have bigger/smaller brothers there are pros and cons. Take Cruisers vs Battleships. Battleships hit harder and tank better, but Cruisers have the agility and can potentially apply the damage better.
When you compare the Carrier to the SuperCarrier, it seems the SC will do everything it's little brother will do, plus have the projected E-War. Yes the Carrier is likely more mobile - but not to a point where it makes a blind bit of difference. Once Citadels appear, being trapped in a Super won't be a issue, you'll just be able to leave it in station - taking away the one downside that has always been apparent with supers.
CCP - What are you plans for making Carriers appealing vs Supercarriers? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 21:12:01 -
[532] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:.................... plans for making Carriers appealing vs Supercarriers?
At the very least; unless nerfed even more, the Carrier will still make a very useful 'suitcase' for pilots that can still dock at mere 'Large's'.
Meanwhile the pilot can train for a Super, whilst saving up for one, and still be relatively useful!
That's not to say I don't agree, but a 2b carrier is much cheaper than a 30b Super.
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 21:16:01 -
[533] - Quote
peaSTAR wrote:coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE
Actually that is another issue with combat refitting I didn't even think of - but true: CCP tries to solve way too many problems with timers lately. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
759
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 23:05:46 -
[534] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: It's something I hope you will all discuss in-depth, because as it stands now, barring some radical walk back to Carrier goals, you'll be seeing me in a Super Carrier very soon.
Having to agree with a member of one of the most risk averse groups in Eve is painful. Unfortunately he is right. Once you gut carriers and introduce defenseless Force Auxiliaries as logistics (stupid name for something that is ultimately the most vulnerable ship on the field, "Primary Everytime" is more accurate) you turn capital warfare into something for the largest, elitist, richest groups only. The only way FAX become a valid class of ship is if they cost the same as a Guardian and one of them can rep like 20 Archons
The only thing I disagree with is his liking the new fighter changes - I don't see how having to control up to 5X as many, disposable fighters, is at all appealing. Multiple flights of up to 12 disposable fighters spread around a battlefield - Welcome back TIDI every time capitals land on grid.
And of course of the largest risk averse group in the game getting more supers is really going to create more content.
This is Eve - It is about getting dank risk it all fights - Not the risk averse biggest fleet wins, multiple option, intense micro management shite your planning.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 00:25:43 -
[535] - Quote
I would like to point out that I said that the Fighter changes look promising, as opposed to that I like them.
Semantics to be sure, but truth be told, many a feature CCP has proposed that didn't work out the way it was supposed to and needed to be heavily adjusted (despite the community having told them so in advance) - Jump Fatigue and Troll-ceptors come to mind.
One other point, because sub-capitals do not possess a player equivalent to Titans (Drifter Battleships being the closest thing), making it awkward if not outright 'apples and oranges' to draw equivalencies between the two styles of game play. No one is going to be DD'ing your Vindicator, in attempt to control the Grid in a Sovereignty contest, to be sure.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is so much to say on this topic, so much to potentially rant about; but to stay focused:
- How can Carriers be distinct and unique to Super Carriers, instead of simply being the T1 version of them?
- Will Carrier Capacitor and Powergrid be rebalanced to support a Dual rep/booster fit more easily?
- Will Carriers still be able to provide Remote Capital Capacitor effects post Citadel?
- How can Capital rebalance be done in a way that still supports and preserves the long standing universal player practice of Alliances providing SRP (Ship Replacement Program) for Capitals - especially the soon-to-be more vulnerable Carriers and "Primary-my-fat-XL-Basilisk-arse-first" F.A.C. (Force Auxiliary Capitals)?
- How will Insurance on Capital ships change, if at all, as these ships will be dying more? And will the current unspoken promise from since Capitals were introduced, that standard Capitals continue into Citadel expansion as is now: that if you worked towards a Carrier or a Dreadnaught, after purchase, that Insurance would always cover the hull costs 100%?
- Will "Brain in a Box" be ready in time for the Citadel Expansion, so as to prevent forces from using the new Fighter mechanic to load grid first and then TiDi the enemy into simply "shooting fish in a barrel"? (As has been used many times through out EVE's history)
- Will 'High Angle' Dreadnaught fits have any damage projection role at the 50km to 250km combat ranges? Or will a Sniper Rokh fleet be able to maintain a "Range Tank" barring Carrier/Super Carrier damage projection support?
- Will there be a "High Velocity" Citadel Cruise/Torp missile so Phoenix Dreadnaught has Anti-Battleship/Sub-Cap capabilities on par with her Gun Based Dreadnaught siblings?
- Will 'High Angle' Guns fit on gun based Titans? And any "High Velocity" Missile version fit on Leviathans?
- Will the "Hand of God" DD [Which is ridiculous as a mechanic, because it = involuntary Player Jail, which is forever a bad game design element never used by anyone] capture Bombs, Missiles, Fighters and other non-ship objects during teleportation? (if so you need to strongly rethink Fighters not warping - at least an emergency 'return' warp)
- When will the Capital Round Table Focus Group be assembled and given a crack at this, to help shape Citadel's Capital changes? (is this a real focus group? or a PR ploy :tinfoil:)
I would have more questions related to Super Carriers, but there is not enough information at this time to formulate any beneficial questions.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 08:27:31 -
[536] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
So let me share my feelings, that this question is based on a fools argument CCP Masterplan; until Jump Fatigue, Capital fleets were ever watchful so as to not get dropped by Pandemic Legion (or others) either directly while operating Capitals, or as a Third Party. Why? because they could easily be wiped out by the proper counter Capital forces.
It was a deterrent that ensured either you had planned appropriately to use the largest ships in EVE, or you thought twice and undocked a sub-capital fleet instead.
When Capitals were originally created, there was a completely different meta and mindset as to why the ships were designed the way they were, how they fit within the ecosystem of EVE. However, some 'innovators' (he who shall not be named) that came after the "Old Devs', and who are no longer with CCP today, reportedly took a strong dislike towards Capitals which has thus lead us down this path to where we are being taken to today. Where we have limited jump ranges to 'contain' us, and Space Aids (Jump Fatigue) to punish us into an idle status if we are too active. But these things removed the Counter
We adapted, yet still the fear and most importantly respect of our enemy tempers acting imprudently, pressuring the need to take care in deploying Capitals for fear of a trap, counter drop that a fleet can't deal with, or becoming the victim of a Capital Hunter, etc. -- even today no one feels they are immune from being destroyed in a Capital.
The last thing that myself or any other pilot thinks is that when they deploy in a Carrier that they are 'guaranteed' not to loose anything. To state as much shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Capital pilots of this game actually play; as well as a lack of respect for the ingeniousness of the opposing forces. As a matter of fact, most fleets the question is asked "Do we need insurance for this fleet?", because everyone goes out expecting the always real potential of a counter drop.
Now, is there a hierarchy by which targets are called? Yes - are Boots/Slowcats hard to break, damn right they are - but that was designed that way! We didn't hack the game to make it that way.
What this is about is bringing low the mightiest ships in EVE, so that sub-capitals have an even playing field - Well I'm a Capital-ist, I don't believe in this Developer assisted Socialism where players receive a 'guarantee' that you'll be able to kill a Carrier if you bring enough sub-capitals isn't EVE; this isn't Freighter ganking. If you can't muster the proper counters you're not ready to be fighting forces that can field Capitals. They are EVE's nuclear deterrent... and there's no legitimate reason they not remain so.
But you want to change the Meta, and do something 'different' with Capitals? Okay, but why does different have to mean starting from scratch? And completely re-writing the rules so as to enact the 'sub-capitalization' of Capitals??
CCP's seeming 'frustration' with the current Capital meta steams more from the organized players having gone outside the game mechanics to gather better operational intelligence, to plan Strategic and Tactical Capital Operations so as to limit the potential for surprises from our adversaries, while bringing to bare massive and devastating force upon our enemies - it has absolutely nothing to do with the ships themselves. But because we figured out how to play EVE better than you can develop it, or certain enemies can play it and are unable to bring proper counters that exist in the game, we see in response from CCP a desire to break all our hard earned toys that CCP gave us, because nerfing things into oblivion seems preferential to developing even better counters as well as creating 'containment' mechanics for features that are having either unhealthy or undesirable results.
- Void Bombs - almost never used; have the potential to be something feared by Capital Groups. - Diminishing Return: Remote Capital Repairs - capping the repair effects similar to Drone Assist limitations so that sub-caps have their 'Socialist' chance at killing a Carrier (omg yay!) - Timers: Do damage, or Refit, but you can't do both at the same time is totally appropriate - but making the timer so long that you essentially are disabling the ability to allow a pilot to fit a tank against a Doomsday strike (or multiple) undermines the very reason that feature exists. - Time to Target: Bombs are the counter to clouds of Sentries, and work just fine as we speak. Simply add a recall delay so that Bombs have a chance to deal the damage intended, instead of the ability to insta-recall Sentries (as an example) - Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS is something that needs to be enshrined in CCP's development language. And appropriate counters simply need to be improved upon.
During B-R plenty of very expensive capitals were lost, because the players themselves knew how to overcome an opposition force. They did it with other Capital ships, because sub-capitals are not the counter to Capital ship
No one want's 'immunity'. But it seems CCP does not give enough credit to its players inventiveness on how to solve these problems - and instead we are told that 'slash and burn' approaches are the only way to address the 'problem'.
Stop punishing the content creators
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 09:05:31 -
[537] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:I would like to point out that I said that the Fighter changes look promising, as opposed to that I like them.
Semantics to be sure, but truth be told, many a feature CCP has proposed that didn't work out the way it was supposed to and needed to be heavily adjusted (despite the community having told them so in advance) - Jump Fatigue and Troll-ceptors come to mind.
One other point, because sub-capitals do not possess a player equivalent to Titans (Drifter Battleships being the closest thing), making it awkward if not outright 'apples and oranges' to draw equivalencies between the two styles of game play. No one is going to be DD'ing your Vindicator, in attempt to control the Grid in a Sovereignty contest, to be sure.
There is so much to say on this topic, so much to potentially rant about; but to stay focused:
None the less, these are questions that are on my mind, and more than likely on the mind of more than a few players. It would be nice if they were at least addressed in another Dev blog, if not answered directly here. Where did you get the idea I was talking about sub capitals? I never mentioned them and never referred to them.
My response was in regard to capital warfare but I do have to disagree with you (again). When in a fight vs dreads and carriers their vindicators are always primary and if CCP get their way, they will be DD'd off the field by titans.
Capital warfare right now in Eve is based on who has the biggest group on batfaone. It has the potential to be so much more but CCP don't want to upset PL and Goons + half of nulsec (their risk averse friends).
PL and Goons+ is possibly the worst aspect of Eveonline as they don't go out looking for fights, they go out looking for easy victories. Risk free content is not PVP. Ask the guy who lost his Titan in Querious the other night who had PL called on him. Ask Faulty how he felt chasing an 8 man gang with a 43 man fleet while guarding 4 dreadnoughts for Darwinism last night.
You mention CCP failures to get it right. You forgot to mention the debacle lovingly called Fozziesov, which ended up only further entrenching the largest blob in Eve. Fatigue is not much of an issue alone, the issue is, you can't get to a bloody fight to start with and the large group who spend the time staging supers and capitals become unassailable because they hold superior numbers (they won't stage anywhere they might encounter opposition).
You want CCP to invite PL and Goons to test upcoming changes to capitals - Show them you want to be involved, use your power against each other, show CCP their efforts will amount to something. While ever the 2 largest groups avoid conflict with each other, CCP has no right including you in the changes - In fact, you should be Excluded from the testing, all balance changes should be made to enable the smaller groups (PL and Goon's prey) to counter your fleets. Nice pipe dream (blob warfare reduced) - CCP is so afraid of the mega groups they would never do anything to hurt them.
On your points that should be concentrated on; > They are the T1 version and should be > Of course not - that is what the Fax is for > No, why would they need to - Or, Yes but unbonused > Screw the mega rich alliances that hand out caps like candy. Capital SRP should never exist, let the risk averse SRP whores pay for their own and see just how many you get in fleet. > Insurance doesn't cover 100% of any ship - Now you want !00% insurance AND SRP (and we wonder why so many eve players don't undock) PS, Goons should be providing their own insurance for its pilots not asking for hand outs from CCP ( I suppose you do really, 200% SRP is better than any insurance - sad that members have to be bribed to login and fight) > Seriously? Freighters and Jump Freighters already took a huge hit in EHP and as most are easily killed by gankers in highsec why should they be debuffed again because other capitals are losing effectiveness. (you sound like the Atypical Goon troll, I thought better of you) > Of course not, don't you listen to what Devs say - Brain in a Box is still a long way from usable (early testing). CCP make balance changes to reduce the amount of drones on field, then want to give carriers 5 times as many in system at once - Pure logic there, TIDI here we come. But then; CCP is well known for releasing unfinished, poorly tested additions to the game. > The damage projection cited for carriers and supers is absurd - Disposable flights of Fighters is absurd, unless Carriers and Supers have unlimited capacity drone bays, in which case, again, only the largest, richest groups will ever be able to successfully field them. > Probably but it won't be effective > "High Angle" what a stupid name - but more than likely. Who is going to fit their titan so it can only hit subcaps? In fact, who in his or her right mind wants to fit any capital so it is only effective vs subcaps - Stupid ideas reign here. > Agreed "Hand of God" DD, another really stupid name and an even sillier concept. (why would you need fast return warp for fighters? CCP has already said they are disposable - You just leave them there and wait a couple of mins to launch some more) > Capital Round Table? Yeah sure invite a bunch of players from the elitist dominating groups in to discuss the best way to use their new found abilities against any smaller group who tries to play the game. > Probably not and if they do it will have been in one of the elitist groups so not all that valid when it comes to overall balance. > Same metric as always - The one that shows their changes are good. Just look at the jump range fatigue metrics, they show success because more capitals are getting killed - They fail to mention most aren't getting killed in fights but ganked on move ops. > As short a time as possible, they will still be writing the code the night before release. > For Bobs sake, I hope not.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 09:59:44 -
[538] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:peaSTAR wrote:coming soon: TIMERS ONLINE Actually that is another issue with combat refitting I didn't even think of - but true: CCP tries to solve way too many problems with timers lately. But if you dont make a timer - players will find some weird workaround. They should've set a timer for dropping ore out of cargohold. Would've put an end to that sick jetcan mining that broke the game. :sarcasm: |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2336
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 10:08:07 -
[539] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. |
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
264
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 11:26:10 -
[540] - 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 -
[541] - 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. |
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
713
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 11:42:34 -
[542] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant.
This. Capitals as an apex force were a shadow hanging over EVE for many years, and were a huge factor in the formation of large coalitions. As Fozzie said on the o7 show last night, having a whole class of ship that can't be interacted with by many players is a bad idea.
Subcaps, capitals and supercaps all need to be a threat to each other in some way, or the best way to victory becomes "bring the most of X". |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
713
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 11:49:33 -
[543] - Quote
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? |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
430
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 12:28:50 -
[544] - Quote
It is very hard to say whether these changes are good or bad till we start to see some numbers. Overall most of these changes hinge on the new fighters actually being good. If they suck, like fighters do right now, then it will all be really really bad.
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
264
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 12:30:32 -
[545] - 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. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2337
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 12:45:51 -
[546] - Quote
Larrikin, are siege changes on the table? Limitations & duration specifically.
Also, is the warp core strength thing limited to supers only? I think it would make caps using gates much more interesting and viable (as well as a cheeky BS buff if it dropped to them) |
Kendarr
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:05:58 -
[547] - Quote
You have put some interesting changes forward and for the most part I like them all. It is going to be good seeing everyone adapt to the changes.
I presume that we will see all the existing ship and role bonuses alerted on capitals/supercapitals? any idea on when we can see the stats etc of these?
Zebra-Corp
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
714
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:20:05 -
[548] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say two things:
- Capital ancillary armor repairer
- Capital ancillary shield booster
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:23:39 -
[549] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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. I'd like to take this opportunity to say two things:
- Capital ancillary armor repairer
- Capital ancillary shield booster
I anxiously await the upcoming dominance of the Mjolnir Rage Citadel Torpedo, CASB Phoenix. The Leviathan can come too, I guess.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:28:31 -
[550] - Quote
Also, a rename for capital-sized missiles might be in order. "Citadel" meaning both these and the structure seems inappropriate in TYOOL 2016.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
268
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:35:12 -
[551] - 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... |
|
DGDragon
Cancer Therapy Ginnungagap
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:57:43 -
[552] - Quote
How about bill of materials for capital manufacturing? Same or change? |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:18:34 -
[553] - Quote
xttz wrote:afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. This. Capitals as an apex force were a shadow hanging over EVE for many years, and were a huge factor in the formation of large coalitions. As Fozzie said on the o7 show last night, having a whole class of ship that can't be interacted with by many players is a bad idea. Subcaps, capitals and supercaps all need to be a threat to each other in some way, or the best way to victory becomes "bring the most of X". Thing is, bringing the most of X will not change under any rebalancing CCP do (current proposed changes encourage "bringing more of X"). That is up to players and as most groups are risk averse little kiddies who won't undock unless they know they will win, either by their own dominating numbers or the size of their batfone network -
The answer to CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
is; Not at all but there are groups who do play solely this way, "healthy for the game", is not their concern. For them it is not about good fights and they would never consider "what is good for Eve",, it is all about winning with as little risk as possible. No it isn't but that is exactly what you will be handing the rich dominating groups. We win because we can simply field more than you can - Is the worst type of ship balancing.
Even going so far as to limit RR capabilities only reinforces the need for ever larger forces on the field, so again panders to the blob mentality.
There is so many ways to make capitals viable for any group who chooses to use them (and take the risk of doing so) but CCP seem to want to turn the whole thing into something so over complicated, it will take a masters degree and a bottomless wallet just to fly a carrier .
-- - -- - -- - -- Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Munseventy
Kikutech Kleinrock Group
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:27:19 -
[554] - Quote
sorry don't know if this was ask but how is the cap change going to work in Tie-Dye. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:27:42 -
[555] - Quote
Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:35:36 -
[556] - Quote
Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.
It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:58:04 -
[557] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant.
That is your opinion, which I disagree with.
And despite inaccurate claims of 'whining', as opposed to providing counter balance feedback, if CCP wants to turn Capital ships into giant Sub-capitals and blow PR smoke about it being a Buff; then I think I've paid my dues to call a 'spade a spade'.
'Escalation' in Null Sec PVP exist for a reason, it has always existed. A 100 man Battleship gang should never EVER be able to take down a 100 man Carrier group. Allowing otherwise, makes the entire existence of Capital ships worthless and redundant. Nothing more than a giant **** waving exercise.
Iterating a 'light touch' toward Capitals that allows a 250 - 500 man Battleship Gang to give a 100 man Carrier group serious pause is absolutely appropriate.
There are ships, and fleet compositions that are simply not counters to an opposing force.
Simply stating the current state of affairs, that Sub-Capital is not a Counter to Capitals, and personally holding that belief as correct does not make it "...just flat out fundamentally wrong:". That with Fleet v. Fleet fighting there is a historic segregation that exists between Sub-Capital and Capitals, and the 'Counter' to Capitals on grid is an escalation of Capitals.
Sorry but your 250 man TryHard Alliance of 3 Carriers and 2 Dreads and 245 Sub-Capitals should not be able to control the Grid vs. a 250 man Capital Group.
Just as we have a hierarchy of Skill point capabilities, we have a hierarchy ... a 'pecking order' of things a up and coming group needs to have in order to play in the deep end of the pool.
If you remove this segregation, as seems to be being attempted, then you remove the motivation and incentive to ever develop a organized Capital Group in an Alliance.
I think if we could have simply frigate spammed our adversaries into submission, we wouldn't have the (assumed) largest Capital force in EVE.
But hey, is Developer Socialism is your thing, then by all means - I just happen to fundamentally disagree.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:20:04 -
[558] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. I think if you stay out of Placid and Aridia, you do alright.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
551
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:22:05 -
[559] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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.
Are high angle guns really enough to change things though? To me, HA guns seem fairly weak from the stats alone. You quote HA guns as being 1-2k DPS on a dread. On a titan I'll be generous and call that 1-1.75k (moros does 35% more damage than a erebus, naglfar 14% than rag, etc). Again, it's about the value that the slots hold. I just can't imagine that basically doing the damage of two battleships or T3s will be more valuable than the utility that 10+ slots give you. Even with 5 titans on the field (more than most if not all alliances will ever field at the same time except under exceptional circumstances), you're looking at a paltry 5-8k DPS with the tracking of battleship guns. In circumstances where an alliance decides to drop their 120 billion isk citadel warmers they are going to have a sizable subcap fleet, and 5-8k DPS is not going to be a significant addition to the DPS of the main body of the fleet.
I want to point something else about the viability of guns on titans too. You straight up lose two thirds of the EHP on an erebus by fitting damage mods in the lowslots instead of armor hardeners, for example. That was a big loss but not the end of the world when combat refitting was a thing because you could refit hardeners and overload if someone dropped a titan blob and tried to go for the one-shot kill. It currently takes ~25-29 other titans to kill an erebus with their doomsdays if the erebus overheats his hardeners. With damage mods fit that number drops to only 7-9, which is still a lot but suddenly attainable for many groups. Frankly, you'd be crazy to risk some very marginal supcap damage over tanking 3x as much with your 115 billion isk ship. HA guns without damage mods are going to be even more underwhelming on titans. The damage gap between a dread and a titan grows to 110-140%. Again going off the 2k damage ceiling from the dev blog, that's in the 750-900 DPS range which is just plainly terrible.
I think that the argument that titans dont have to siege to use guns is fairly weak as well. Doomsdays render you unable to move for 60s and unable to jump for a full 10 minutes. I would say that penalty is at least equal to not being to move for 5 minutes. As for being able to receive reps, I'd venture that if the situation is escalated to the point where dreads are dying through their EHP and local tank in under 5 minutes, the DPS of HA guns will not make a meaningful difference in winning the fight. |
Circumstantial Evidence
234
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:26:37 -
[560] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. ..... I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Love my batphone. Hate the other side's batphone. Don't really know how to "fix" that, it's human nature + metagame.
Would bringing the "damage mitigation" concept down to the level of individual capitals, help? Note: I think it could seriously prolong fights where the new primary targets = meatshield = FAX ships are in play, addressing one concern about Dreds fit for max Alpha swatting them aside... the amount of damage mitigation (scaling) could be adjusted per ship, however. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:34:38 -
[561] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. That is your opinion, which I disagree with. And despite inaccurate claims of 'whining', as opposed to providing counter balance feedback, if CCP wants to turn Capital ships into giant Sub-capitals and blow PR smoke about it being a Buff; then I think I've paid my dues to call a 'spade a spade'. 'Escalation' in Null Sec PVP exist for a reason, it has always existed. A 100 man Battleship gang should never EVER be able to take down a 100 man Carrier group. Allowing otherwise, makes the entire existence of Capital ships worthless and redundant. Nothing more than a giant **** waving exercise. Iterating a 'light touch' toward Capitals that allows a 250 - 500 man Battleship Gang to give a 100 man Carrier group serious pause is absolutely appropriate. There are ships, and fleet compositions that are simply not counters to an opposing force. Simply stating the current state of affairs, that Sub-Capital is not a Counter to Capitals, and personally holding that belief as correct does not make it "...just flat out fundamentally wrong:". That with Fleet v. Fleet fighting there is a historic segregation that exists between Sub-Capital and Capitals, and the 'Counter' to Capitals on grid is an escalation of Capitals. Sorry but your stereo typical 250 man TryHard Alliance of 3 Carriers and 2 Dreads and 245 Sub-Capitals should not be able to control the Grid vs. a 250 man Capital Group. Just as we have a hierarchy of Skill point capabilities, we have a hierarchy ... a 'pecking order' of things a up and coming group needs to have in order to play in the deep end of the pool. If you remove this segregation, as seems to be being attempted, then you remove the motivation and incentive to ever develop a organized Capital Group in an Alliance. I think if we could have simply frigate spammed our adversaries into submission, we wouldn't have the (assumed) largest Capital force in EVE. But hey, if Developer Socialism is your thing, then by all means - I just happen to fundamentally disagree.
That's not what you said, your original statement implied, or at least I read to be that capitals should have no subcap counter.
If I drop a couple of hundred bhaals on two dozen archons, you better believe they should murder them.
If you disagree, then you can stop here and we can agree to disagree and move on. Equally if I've misread your originally quoted post then that's my mistake.
If not, then I don't think the changes are bad, I think the direction is good. Delineation of capitals roles is good. Whilst on one hand they said they are reducing EHP, they are also talking making capitals able to be much more effective at murdering subcaps. Whilst I've concerns about the precise numbers I've raised, I believe that overall direction is good. Just as your thanatos can no longer ignore 20 thoraxes, nor can the thoraxes ignore the thanatos (ship numbers and names merely for an example, don't get caught up in the details).
The direction is to move the meta into choices - sacrifices - more refined/rewarded player skill. I don't think they are in a bad direction. I also think that yourselves and PL stand to make the most effective use of these changes to boot.
The changes seem designed to bring make sure more things blow up, both subcap and cap. I'm particularly looking forward to revitalised "proper" combat carriers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:37:54 -
[562] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. ..... I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Love my batphone. Hate the other side's batphone. Don't really know how to "fix" that, it's human nature + metagame.
Well, they are definitely making things more susceptible to blowing up - depending on how that works out, that may raise the bar required for a batphone to work.
Today, if you bridge enough in, losses are almost non-existent. Tomorrow it seems a lot like the aim is no matter what you bridge in, if the other guy has numbers stuff of yours WILL blow up no matter how much (to a point) you bring with you.
Whether that is enough to give people pause about picking up that phone or not really remains to be seen. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:39:13 -
[563] - Quote
Quote:CCP Larrikin 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? What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity. Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind.
You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play.
-- - -- - -- - -- Yes reducing the effectiveness of slowcats would be a good thing but removing them is not the right direction.
Want to fix the slowcat problem, remove sentry drones from carriers, use part of your proposal and introduce fighter classes. Not 30 or 40 fighters at a time, stick to 1 flight of 12 if you like (10 would be better - 5 base +1 per level ship skill) but make that flight viable. Drone control units can be done away with.
type 1/ high dps, high EHP, good application against structures and capitals (these could be killed by type 2 fighters and subcaps) type 2/ would be effective vs subcaps but with the drawback of lower EHP (that of a Gecko??) and vulnerable to ewar effects type 3/ logistics fighters, they can repair all types of damage but only 1 type at a time, selected prior to launch. Enough capability to keep your buddy in his bhaalgorn repped up but not enough to rep another capital. 12 of these would be the same as what a couple of Guardians can rep. Same EHP as the high DPS fighters but with a mwd battleship sig radius.
-- - -- - -- - -- Remote repping capabilities of slowcats - create a new "bastion module" for carriers. 120 second cycle time, remote reps can only be activated while in Bastion. 60 second delay between reactivation. You can still have active fighters but your ship gets no additional bonuses whilst in Bastion. So no added local rep capability, no remote reps whilst in Bastion, means going into this mode to rep your buddy leaves you vulnerable. Bastion mode could have a very clear effect added to the ship ( a bright blue glow) so everyone knows, your vulnerable.
Nearly forgot - Refitting Fatigue / Timer. I'm no fan of fatigue on pilots but if it helps with slowcats, then; put a 5 min timer on refitting. You can refit anything during a fight but only once every 5 mins, with a visible and clear timer.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
552
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:52:27 -
[564] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Quote:CCP Larrikin 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? What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity. Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind. You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play.
How is giving carriers fighter squadrons in any way removing the identity of the class? Having unique ways to control drone groups is basically the definition of adding identity to the class. The class is in a 100% drone DPS role now. It would be a massive shame if the epitome of drone technology and gameplay in Eve was to sit there in an immobile ship and hit f9 to engage your fighters or sentry drones.
Dont doubt CCP Larrikin's experience in caps either. He's flown in more capital fleets that 99% of the posters in this thread before he came to CCP, and between him and the rest of the design team I do have faith in their experience. He's not wrong either, carrier gameplay is far from engaging right now, especially if you take away their RR abilities. Fighter gameplay is limited to hitting a hotkey and maybe occasionally pulling back a drone if it starts taking fire.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:57:32 -
[565] - Quote
Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it.
Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism?
Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8 There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:01:37 -
[566] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it. Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism? Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8 There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers. I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?
Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:17:53 -
[567] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Quote:CCP Larrikin 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? What your doing is not making it "engaging" your adding mostly unwanted, unnecessary complexity. Your (further) removing the identity and usefulness of carriers. You removed the suitcase aspect of carriers (hurts smaller groups to no end), now you want to add so much complexity to just launching fighters it boggles the mind. You've obviously never flown a carrier into combat, if you had you would never say it is not engaging game play. How is giving carriers fighter squadrons in any way removing the identity of the class? Having unique ways to control drone groups is basically the definition of adding identity to the class. The class is in a 100% drone DPS role now. It would be a massive shame if the epitome of drone technology and gameplay in Eve was to sit there in an immobile ship and hit f9 to engage your fighters or sentry drones. Dont doubt CCP Larrikin's experience in caps either. He's flown in more capital fleets that 99% of the posters in this thread before he came to CCP, and between him and the rest of the design team I do have faith in their experience. He's not wrong either, carrier gameplay is far from engaging right now, especially if you take away their RR abilities. Fighter gameplay is limited to hitting a hotkey and maybe occasionally pulling back a drone if it starts taking fire. So controlling 4 or 5 flights of (disposable) drones at a time is appealing to you? Where your blob exists hitting F1 might suffice, for the rest of us there is a lot more to fielding carriers. And if Larrikins capital experience is akin your in PL, he has no idea what the average carrier pilot is faced with on the field. Thanks for clarifying that.
See, this is why PL and Goons should not have anything to say about capital balancing. Not everyone has the luxury of just hitting F1, that is something only the elitist blobs can relate to.
Try reading the whole post, it explains why my stance is where it is and a decent fix for slowcats without creating unnecessary complication. Although that would be asking too much I'd imagine, reading more than the 1st 2 lines would be too taxing - It isn't an F1 answer.
Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:20:47 -
[568] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved. Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.
Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.
And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:21:53 -
[569] - Quote
afkalt wrote: The changes seem designed to bring make sure more things blow up, both subcap and cap. I'm particularly looking forward to revitalised "proper" combat carriers.
I think we do have a minor miscommunication.
We agree that significant and overwhelming Sub-Capital forces 'must' have the ability to threaten Capital groups at an appropriate ratio that is not 1:1 or even 2:1 - though I am still of the position of maintaining Capital escalation.
I think the direction is not bad, that everything proposed other than the gutting of the Carrier with the Capital Ship family, is promising and I am anticipating numbers from CCP that ultimately validate my positive view towards the goals and general proposals being proffered.
CCP's inability to adequately inform the community of 'what the problem is', and 'why it needs to be addressed/fixed' is at the heart of any misunderstanding that may have arisen. Further, not imparting to the players this will affect why one particular Capital, the Carrier, is being completely eviscerated of what makes it special and unique amongst the other Capitals leaves too much room for interpretation.
*(Sarcasm) Or should we allow Carriers to have remote ewar for target painting and ECM, and split the other remote Ewar off to Super Carriers?
Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race. And what then? Another rebalance, another evisceration to punish unintended emergent game play, and force the Players to conform with an development ideal, instead of developing around the genius of EVE players that spawned from the tools that CCP provided, and address issues by 'containment' mechanics and the introduction of adequate counters?
In my opinion, the Old Devs had it right in their approach to development, and while granted there has been some very alluring and positive proposals for features and content in this game, I dislike the New Devs style of heavy handed intervention in our emergent game play to create some 'Socialist' utopia of game design, and unnecessarily blur the line between sub-capital and Capital.
I would venture to say, that there is more than likely a school of thought among some developers at CCP who ardently believe that Capitals, especially Supers and Titans, should have never been brought into EVE Online. But if CCP is to both act, and be considered a "Care Taker" of EVE Online, then such musings have no business being given voice; let alone actually being developed upon.
I am one who believes that this game has grown so storied, that our player driven emergent game play content should not be subjected to revisionism, nor whimsical marketing proposals that are supposed to attract more players - the game sells itself, it always has, precisely because it isn't a theme park maintained by our benevolent socialist overseers who 'giveth' and 'taketh away' as they 'deem' necessary.
So yes, there are some things we will probably fundamentally disagree with, but I respect yours and everyone's opposing view points. And my positions, and opposition are intended to support the community at large by offering an counter to the prevailing 'sounds great, let's do it; and damn the consequences' voices.
Ultimately I hope these first 30 pages will push CCP to provide even greater clarity as to their perspective of why this 'level' of change is needed, why Carriers in particular are getting the shaft in this proposal, as opposed to the "Hey won't this be great?!", EVE Vegas PR reveal.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:28:39 -
[570] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race.
To put it bluntly, where the hell have you been? Eve has been an arms race to acquire as many supercapital ships as possible as long as supercapitals have been in the game.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:31:34 -
[571] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it. Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism? Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8 There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers. I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals? Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account. Ask Faulty, I can assure you it was nowhere near Dek. Shame your not involved with your alliance enough to know who they are helping. But then keeping tabs on the biggest blob on TQ would be a challenge, even for an active player.
Oh as for the Supers, yeah we've had PL on our doorstep for months - They are quite proficient at killing a lone procurer with 3 supers and a titan (just a tiny bit of overkill from the bored blob elitists). Seeing gate camping supers and titans was common place for a few months there. Knowing you can't be contested leads to some doing the absurd.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:32:51 -
[572] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nearly forgot - Refitting Fatigue / Timer. I'm no fan of fatigue on pilots but if it helps with slowcats, then; put a 5 min timer on refitting. You can refit anything during a fight but only once every 5 mins, with a visible and clear timer.
This is something I could personally support with almost no change - I don't know if 300 seconds is the right number, but this idea only applies a time penalty after taking the action, as opposed to a weapons timer that penalizes you from the outset.
As they say: "The punishment should fit the crime."
A weapons timer, as currently proposed, makes it a crime to even be in a Carrier. Whereas the idea by Sgt Ocker is only punitive if you refit while in your Carrier.
As I type I am really taking a liking to this idea - well done sir!
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:40:31 -
[573] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?
Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account. Ask Faulty, I can assure you it was nowhere near Dek. Shame your not involved with your alliance enough to know who they are helping. But then keeping tabs on the biggest blob on TQ would be a challenge, even for an active player. Oh as for the Supers, yeah we've had PL on our doorstep for months - They are quite proficient at killing a lone procurer with 3 supers and a titan (just a tiny bit of overkill from the bored blob elitists). Seeing gate camping supers and titans was common place for a few months there. Knowing you can't be contested leads to some doing the absurd. That's not a location.
I am part of a very large alliance, which is part of a very large coalition. I don't keep tabs on the activities of every pilot. That would be a fool's game. Portions of the alliance also operate under OPSEC, so I may not even have access to know what they're doing. Not to mention that I have no idea who "Faulty" is.
Delegation is a hell of a drug.
Regarding supercapitals, their main weakness, as a player without the means to counter them, is that the hulls can't easily be passed from player to player. Put known supercapital pilots and cynoing hotdroppers on your watchlist and track them using locators.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:43:33 -
[574] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race.
To put it bluntly, where the hell have you been? Eve has been an arms race to acquire as many supercapital ships as possible as long as supercapitals have been in the game.
With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate. And pilots that are completely happy and content in Carriers will abandon them for Super Carriers.
That is the case for me personally, and it's relevant to remind others of this eventuality.
Which of course bodes the question, in order to keep this on topic, as to whether CCP has taken this possibility of an accelerated arms race into account? Or take a position akin to Troll-ceptors*, and deny it will be a problem until their metrics tell them otherwise?
*(Told you so, btw)
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:58:44 -
[575] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:06:21 -
[576] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum?
Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier.
And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse.
I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining.
Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:13:18 -
[577] - Quote
As Carriers will not probably need: DCUs; RRs; or perhaps even Cap Tfrs...
As they won't need to target things, however, cloaks are very viable.
Why not let them have an otherwise possibly underused local defence weapon against the 'smaller' things - like giving them Turrets and Launcher slots that can fit HAWs?
Or perhaps Capital Smarties? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:15:12 -
[578] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum? Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier. And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse. I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining. Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent. You can only "encourage" folks so much, frankly. We do what we can. The fact remains that supercarriers should be purchased as early, as quickly, and as often as possible.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:17:01 -
[579] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:As Carriers will not probably need: DCUs; RRs; or perhaps even Cap Tfrs...
As they won't need to target things, however, cloaks are very viable.
Why not let them have an otherwise possibly underused local defence weapon against the 'smaller' things - like giving them Turrets and Launcher slots that can fit HAWs?
Or perhaps Capital Smarties? There will be fighter squadrons that will be better at shooting subcapital ships.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:19:57 -
[580] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum? Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier. And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse. I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining. Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent. You can only "encourage" folks so much, frankly. We do what we can. The fact remains that supercarriers should be purchased as early, as quickly, and as often as possible.
As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.
On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier.
And people tend to move in groups - so when a moderate sized group migrates to the Super Carrier solely because the Carrier has been gutted, others won't want to be left behind and will follow that trend.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:21:59 -
[581] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.
On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier. What's the problem with this?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:55:17 -
[582] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.
On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier. What's the problem with this?
For me personally, none whatsoever. I personally enjoy joining with others to show how futile CCP's efforts are in attempting to attack or disrupt our player generated emergent game play - I have no qualms about stating that openly.
But for sincere 'feedback', I'm not going to purposely obscure a legitimate perspective with my personal Bittervet - CCP has never wanted, nor implicitly encouraged any form of 'Arms Race' - they've caused them indirectly, to be certain, but never intentionally as a development plan. And players that blindly think that if CCP told them so, then it must be good! 'Yay may I have another ice cream CCP Chair?" Because the content such players are involved with is far removed from any real understanding of the issues and consequences of changes to Capital ships.
In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Developing features that cater to others outside our game, like World of Warship players as an example, are undesirable; as the uniqueness of the game is its best selling point. Though I can't deny that in this one instance, the new fighter proposal is 'promising'.
[Sarcasm] I wonder if Capitals will get a 'Point Defense', a sort of AA, like World of Warships? to go along with the new 'unique' Fighter changes.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1864
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:00:36 -
[583] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum?
Well, take someone like me as an example. I currently have two Titan pilots, one Supercarrier pilot, and three Carrier/Dreadnought pilots. At the moment, I own one Titan, twelve Carriers, and seven Dreadnoughts. In the world of jump fatigue, this makes sense to me, because I can stage jump clones and capital ships where they are most useful.
The only thing stopping me from having enough ISK for multiple Supercapital ships is lack of desire to grind it out. My alliance's space is good enough that I can easily pull in a Titan every couple of months without too much effort. You just have to be willing to keep logging in and shooting red shapes. The only thing stopping me from having two Titans and three Supercarriers (or five of each) is that they are currently character coffins. Once I can start docking the Supercapital ships, why would I continue to use regular Carriers vice Supercarriers?
One possible answer is that Carriers are way more disposable than Titans and Supercarriers. This means a small gang player can actually use them. Outside of moving ops and bridging fleets around, I can count on one hand the number of times I have used my Titan since I got it three years ago. Opportunities for a small gang player to throw around a Titan just are not that common. Once you start, you immediately get added to every watchlist imaginable, and then get bushwhacked. In that same time frame, I have used my three Capital pilots innumerable times (and not always in blob situations). Dropping three Revelations on a Triage Carrier is just as fun and effective as dropping an Avatar on a Triage Carrier.
So, yes, for the large fleet fights, where you are only planning to fight alongside two hundred other Capswarm pilots, it makes perfect sense to upgrade to a Supercarrier. You are never going to use it in a situation you can lose it. For everyone else, Carriers still have a very valid use.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:00:54 -
[584] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:15:01 -
[585] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?
I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.
But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.
There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.
Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).
This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.
If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:18:24 -
[586] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet. But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals. There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed. Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better). This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative. If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:31:12 -
[587] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet. But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals. There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed. Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better). This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative. If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation.
I can say that because there have been times that the use of such ships was appealing specifically because the goal was ISK efficiency in a tactical engagement.
At the Capital level ISK efficiency might be less a consideration vs. Force projection, Area Denial through hard-tanking enemy subcap fleets, and Damage output abilities.
If you're gonna swing the hammer, then swing it son
Tends to be how Capitals are used, so long as there is a counter-counter drop available. But again, how is asking me this 'feedback' to Capital changes?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:54:06 -
[588] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together? Alright, I'll expand upon this a bit. I think putting everything into an 'ewar' category doesn't allow for sufficient granularity in balancing and over-simplifies the situation if you consider how different types of ewar affect different ships
- ECM for example needs something more complicated than a flat reduction in jam probability, or dishonor drones & non-bonused jammers used en-masse in utility mids have the potential to be a balancing headahce. What I suggest in this case would be a two-component resistance calculation. Step one would be to flat-out ignore all ECM below a certain strength. An EC-900 has a jam strength of 2, a well-skilled blackbird before links of 9, an un-bonused jammer with full skills of 4.5. If the calculation were (Jam Strength - Jam Resist) + (Regular ECM chance formula) + (Hull ewar resist), where Jam Resist was 5 for example, ewar drones and unbonused jams would have zero chance of affecting the target, but ships with a hull bonus still could, albeit with a lower probability of success as dictated by your formula for ewar resistance. Since hulls with a bonus to ewar strength have already been balanced with carrying jams in mind, it mitigates the chance for balance headaches caused by ships not normally carrying ECM starting to do so in quantity.
- The case of damps also needs a look since putting scan-resolution damps on capitals given their already low values for this statistic could be overly powerful. Again, a flat % difference in effectiveness might not be optimal here. I'd suggest a diminishing returns curve towards a lower bound so that scan resolution either can't fall below a particular value or can't fall below a certain % of the ship's un-damped resolution. The ability of damps to chop off a couple hundred kilometers of targeting range is already somewhat silly, let's not add multi-minute lock times versus battleships into the mix. The ~70% reduction you get from a highly skilled Keres is already scary. Perhaps 'minimum' lock ranges above what diminishing returns would already imply.
- Tracking disruptors are probably the one ewar type which a flat % reduction in effectiveness versus capitals would be alright now that we have missile tracking enhancers & computers, though I'd still like to see consideration of a non-linear diminishing curve where the first tracking disruptor doesn't do much, but multiple bonused ones will. Given a bit of time, an appropriate equation could be found I think.
I hope that clarifies things a bit as to what I meant. I know it makes things more complicated for players than a flat % reduction to ewar effectiveness, but allows for far greater nuance in balancing by giving the devs more knobs to tweak, and we are talking about capitals which lets CCP get away with a higher game knowledge level requirement.
CCP Larrikin wrote:Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging that's 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? When you put it like that it does sound like an odd objection to make, but valid nonetheless. Some possibilities to alleviate this might include:
- Re-introducing fighter assignment / assist options. (Probably not the best answer)
- Allowing FCs to put up rally points in 3D space, so players can send their fighters to a location by clicking on a glowy beacon thingy instead of putting in coordinates by hand. This still requires player participation, but lessen the workload slightly. Actually, putting up glowy marker points in 3D space with the new coordinate interface would generally be rather awesome for a lot of other purposes too.
- Add behaviour options like Homeworld had to guard / patrol / etc. around a particular area / ship. For example, ordering your light fighters to engage tackle near a particular friendly target, setup a pre-defined bombing run formation relative to a beacon / target (like you can position probes relative to a scan area) or fly anti-bomber defense patterns on that wing of battleships. Looking at Supreme Commander's unit control system might also be worthwhile, or how RPGs like Dragon Age let you set a bunch of pre-defined tactics.
The goal here is to require player agency and punish stupid decisions, but make the player's will easy to carry out and require as little micro as is feasible.
|
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:55:15 -
[589] - Quote
Part 2/2
CCP Larrikin wrote: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. I can appreciate that rationale from the development side of things. Giving dreads a large enough fleet hangar to carry both sets of guns would be very beneficial since they can refit off each other now (without a weapons timer at least) and make the inability to hit subcaps with standard guns sting less. The concern I have here is that you're removing the ability to drop a small number of expensive, difficult to use ships and radically add to your group's DPS. You didn't really dispute the assertion that the current level of dps deployed by blap dreads was a problem, but the high angle guns cannot and should not match that dps level if they get sufficient tracking as to apply dps unaided. What I'd like to see would be the other dreads getting to where the phoenix is now in terms of balance; good, definitely usable, but not broken and requiring extensive specialized support to reach it's potential. It seems as though Citadel missiles already got their 'good vs. capitals, not broken vs. subcaps' balance pass, so good place to start. Perhaps a damage reduction factor based on a comparison of your tracking speed versus target signature radius?
Alternatively, perhaps a script on high-angle guns to reduce tracking to current XL levels with a corresponding damage increase so you can maintain the distinctness of the weapon systems. This might be the most elegant solution if you can manage both a script and ammo in the same gun, or introduce new ammo types otherwise. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1864
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:02:49 -
[590] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Could you clarify? You think ECM/TDs/Damps should be looked at separately rather than lumped together? Alright, I'll expand upon this a bit. I think putting everything into an 'ewar' category doesn't allow for sufficient granularity in balancing and over-simplifies the situation if you consider how different types of ewar affect different ships
- ECM for example needs something more complicated than a flat reduction in jam probability, or dishonor drones & non-bonused jammers used en-masse in utility mids have the potential to be a balancing headahce. What I suggest in this case would be a two-component resistance calculation. Step one would be to flat-out ignore all ECM below a certain strength. An EC-900 has a jam strength of 2, a well-skilled blackbird before links of 9, an un-bonused jammer with full skills of 4.5. If the calculation were (Jam Strength - Jam Resist) + (Regular ECM chance formula) + (Hull ewar resist), where Jam Resist was 5 for example, ewar drones and unbonused jams would have zero chance of affecting the target, but ships with a hull bonus still could, albeit with a lower probability of success as dictated by your formula for ewar resistance. Since hulls with a bonus to ewar strength have already been balanced with carrying jams in mind, it mitigates the chance for balance headaches caused by ships not normally carrying ECM starting to do so in quantity.
- The case of damps also needs a look since putting scan-resolution damps on capitals given their already low values for this statistic could be overly powerful. Again, a flat % difference in effectiveness might not be optimal here. I'd suggest a diminishing returns curve towards a lower bound so that scan resolution either can't fall below a particular value or can't fall below a certain % of the ship's un-damped resolution. The ability of damps to chop off a couple hundred kilometers of targeting range is already somewhat silly, let's not add multi-minute lock times versus battleships into the mix. The ~70% reduction you get from a highly skilled Keres is already scary. Perhaps 'minimum' lock ranges above what diminishing returns would already imply.
- Tracking disruptors are probably the one ewar type which a flat % reduction in effectiveness versus capitals would be alright now that we have missile tracking enhancers & computers, though I'd still like to see consideration of a non-linear diminishing curve where the first tracking disruptor doesn't do much, but multiple bonused ones will. Given a bit of time, an appropriate equation could be found I think.
I hope that clarifies things a bit as to what I meant. I know it makes things more complicated for players than a flat % reduction to ewar effectiveness, but allows for far greater nuance in balancing by giving the devs more knobs to tweak, and we are talking about capitals which lets CCP get away with a higher game knowledge level requirement. CCP Larrikin wrote:Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging that's 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? When you put it like that it does sound like an odd objection to make, but valid nonetheless. Some possibilities to alleviate this might include:
- Re-introducing fighter assignment / assist options. (Probably not the best answer)
- Allowing FCs to put up rally points in 3D space, so players can send their fighters to a location by clicking on a glowy beacon thingy instead of putting in coordinates by hand. This still requires player participation, but lessen the workload slightly. Actually, putting up glowy marker points in 3D space with the new coordinate interface would generally be rather awesome for a lot of other purposes too.
- Add behaviour options like Homeworld had to guard / patrol / etc. around a particular area / ship. For example, ordering your light fighters to engage tackle near a particular friendly target, setup a pre-defined bombing run formation relative to a beacon / target (like you can position probes relative to a scan area) or fly anti-bomber defense patterns on that wing of battleships. Looking at Supreme Commander's unit control system might also be worthwhile, or how RPGs like Dragon Age let you set a bunch of pre-defined tactics.
The goal here is to require player agency and punish stupid decisions, but make the player's will easy to carry out and require as little micro as is feasible.
It is so much simpler just to not have ewar affect ships in triage, siege, or bastion. Changing that is a bad idea.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:02:57 -
[591] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: I can say that because there have been times that the use of such ships was appealing specifically because the goal was ISK efficiency in a tactical engagement.
At the Capital level ISK efficiency might be less a consideration vs. Force projection, Area Denial through hard-tanking enemy subcap fleets, and Damage output abilities.
If you're gonna swing the hammer, then swing it son
Tends to be how Capitals are used, so long as there is a counter-counter drop available. But again, how is asking me this 'feedback' to Capital changes?
So the only difference is the amount of ISK at stake?
Again, fail to see how that is relevant.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
36
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:10:45 -
[592] - Quote
While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2227
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:16:30 -
[593] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle. That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:19:40 -
[594] - Quote
Querns wrote:159Pinky wrote:While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle. That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.
And it's not like jump fatigue means they'll be moving on anytime soon. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:34:10 -
[595] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved. Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently. Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines. And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem? Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing? Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way. Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week. Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs.
Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle.
No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL..
When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes.
and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will)
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:46:22 -
[596] - Quote
xttz wrote:Querns wrote:159Pinky wrote:While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle. That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields. And it's not like jump fatigue means they'll be moving on anytime soon. I think you missed the point - Lighting additional cynos to get more ships to the one place (something only the blobs need to consider) would not be affected by limiting how many can use any one cyno.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 23:31:06 -
[597] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle.
I proposed this very thing during Jump Fatigue 'feedback', as an alternative to its institution.
Now that Jump Fatigue is in place, a Cynosural Field mass cap is irrelevant, as a mass cap only addresses force projection not the ships themselves; which this Capital rework will be addressing.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2229
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 23:31:51 -
[598] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote: Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.
Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.
And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?
Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing? Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way. Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week. Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs. Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle. No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL.. When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes. and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will) Your problem is that you move. Don't do that. Or, do it much less often. Adding fatigue to carriers makes it more punishing to live as a vulture bent only on destruction. This is something which the game cannot support, in the long term. Sure, we in Goonswarm Federation and our allies are known for our capacity for destruction, but we balance this with a healthy ecosystem at home that exports as much as it imports.
You are aware that Force Auxiliaries can still be used to do triage and general-purpose remote repair, yes? If your argument is that you can't bring a single carrier as a jack-of-all-trades force multiplier, then I have little sympathy. Just like choking back the ability to refit during combat, forcing proper strategic decisions by asking one to choose between different levels of capital-based damage and capital-based remote repair is good for Eve.
It's not 2012 any more. We've moved on. So should you.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
479
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 00:43:13 -
[599] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved. Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently. Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines. And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem? Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing? Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way. Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week. Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs. Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle. No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL.. When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes. and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will) Oh Cry some more tears on not able to move everything from one side of new eden to the other. Twice every weekend.
Jump drives were so OP from day one it was stupid. So freeking stupid that you can put that suitcase carrier where the sun don't shine.
He is a true Aussie. But you are some kind of sheep loving crazy guy that wonders why others have rams.
Seriously HTFU. And stop giving down under a bad name.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2803
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 03:07:14 -
[600] - Quote
So, how effective will HAWB be at reprocessing packs of cruisers? |
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 03:35:03 -
[601] - Quote
Rowells wrote:So, how effective will HAWB be at reprocessing packs of cruisers?
If I'm translating this right: HAWB = High Angle Weapons Battery, then iirc it will only be effective against Battleships, and 'maybe' highly target painted Cruisers... maybe (?)
Have to hear from CCP about that though.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 04:23:02 -
[602] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? For the average player there is a huge difference between a 20 mil isk cruiser and a 1.5 billion isk carrier being disposable.
The Fax is designed to be disposable (its main role is to die) so how much are they likely to be?
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 04:35:34 -
[603] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet. But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals. There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed. Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better). This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative. If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation. Ok.. NP, give super carriers the same role as carriers, no extras no special effects, just multiple flights of disposable fighters - Then your comparison becomes valid - How much outcry would there be if a Super carrier became nothing more than a glorified drone boat, a T2 carrier.
The current proposal turns what is now a valid (affordable) ship with multiple roles in a fleet, into a drone boat with less ehp and far less chance of survival (disposable) in a fight. While at the same time turning Supers into more of a Super than they are now. There is no comparison.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 04:41:06 -
[604] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? For the average player there is a huge difference between a 20 mil isk cruiser and a 1.5 billion isk carrier being disposable. The Fax is designed to be disposable (its main role is to die) so how much are they likely to be?
Have you seen the image CCP Larrikin showed of the Force Aux.?
The thing is ENORMOUS...
It's not going to be 'disposable' nor 'cheap' - it will be a full carrier, if not even a bit more in build costs.
Image: https://eve.gameheadlines.com/images/d97da336-9bb0-30fc-bcc2-703c90915c20
In the foreground, is a Dominix, for scale. These things will be massive.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 04:43:30 -
[605] - Quote
Will the new Force Auxiliary have a visibly cool fancy 'transformation' like T3 Destroyers for when it goes in and out of Triage, etc.?
I can't believe I had forgotten to ask about this.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1842
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 09:46:50 -
[606] - Quote
I disagree with this "magic" transition of those carriers to the new ones...
CCP Phantom wrote:
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.
Does this that the N+1 from the sub capital point of view is relevant for you ? Shouldn't the N+1 be treated as a whole and not only related to sub capitals ?
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 09:50:17 -
[607] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.
But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.
There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.
Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).
This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.
If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation. Ok.. NP, give super carriers the same role as carriers, no extras no special effects, just multiple flights of disposable fighters - Then your comparison becomes valid - How much outcry would there be if a Super carrier became nothing more than a glorified drone boat, a T2 carrier. The current proposal turns what is now a valid (affordable) ship with multiple roles in a fleet, into a drone boat with less ehp and far less chance of survival (disposable) in a fight. While at the same time turning Supers into more of a Super than they are now. There is no comparison. I guess you missed the part where supercarriers were losing their RR ability too.
In the scythe vs. scimitar comparison, the scimitar gains its remote tracking link ability in the jump to T2. This doesn't make the scythe useless; it provides slightly less functionality for a lower cost and lower training time. So, too, with carriers vs. supercarriers.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 10:29:29 -
[608] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? For the average player there is a huge difference between a 20 mil isk cruiser and a 1.5 billion isk carrier being disposable. The Fax is designed to be disposable (its main role is to die) so how much are they likely to be? Have you seen the image CCP Larrikin showed of the Force Aux.? The thing is ENORMOUS... It's not going to be 'disposable' nor 'cheap' - it will be a full carrier, if not even a bit more in build costs. Image: https://eve.gameheadlines.com/images/d97da336-9bb0-30fc-bcc2-703c90915c20In the foreground, is a Dominix, for scale. These things will be massive. Ahh so size makes it less disposable? Without the ability to receive remote reps, not being able to quit the field due to only being able to operate in siege, it is going to survive an onslaught from a blob of Dreads or over sized Domis, Titans and or Supers?
I'm losing faith in your not just being a Goon troll Kas.
The bigger the ship the bigger the sig radius the more damage it takes per volley - As per the blog, Fax will be able to be killed and once it is dead you can kill the rest of the fleet. If you can keep it tackled (don't forget the smart ass smile at the end of the sentence).
They will be the primary target in EVERY battle - They need to die before anything else on field can - That makes them disposable. And yes your probably right, they will cost more than the soon to be disposable 1.5 bil isk ships we use now - So, CCP making change to suit only the richest and biggest groups in the game.
CCP creating new content for the Blobs at the expense of everyone else.
Kas, do yourself a favour - Go read the blog and take in what it says, not what you want it to say.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 11:52:43 -
[609] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? For the average player there is a huge difference between a 20 mil isk cruiser and a 1.5 billion isk carrier being disposable. The Fax is designed to be disposable (its main role is to die) so how much are they likely to be? Have you seen the image CCP Larrikin showed of the Force Aux.? The thing is ENORMOUS... It's not going to be 'disposable' nor 'cheap' - it will be a full carrier, if not even a bit more in build costs. Image: https://eve.gameheadlines.com/images/d97da336-9bb0-30fc-bcc2-703c90915c20In the foreground, is a Dominix, for scale. These things will be massive. Ahh so size makes it less disposable? Without the ability to receive remote reps, not being able to quit the field due to only being able to operate in siege, it is going to survive an onslaught from a blob of Dreads or over sized Domis, Titans and or Supers? I'm losing faith in your not just being a Goon troll Kas. The bigger the ship the bigger the sig radius the more damage it takes per volley - As per the blog, Fax will be able to be killed and once it is dead you can kill the rest of the fleet. If you can keep it tackled (don't forget the smart ass smile at the end of the sentence). They will be the primary target in EVERY battle - They need to die before anything else on field can - That makes them disposable. And yes your probably right, they will cost more than the soon to be disposable 1.5 bil isk ships we use now - So, CCP making change to suit only the richest and biggest groups in the game. CCP creating new content for the Blobs at the expense of everyone else. Kas, do yourself a favour - Go read the blog and take in what it says, not what you want it to say.
Or they make them cheap because due to the mechanics, n+1 is never an issue with them. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 13:05:23 -
[610] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP creating new content for the Blobs at the expense of everyone else.
What's stopping you from using the new capital ships? It's not money; money has been trivial to earn in this game for years. The "Blobs" aren't particularly richer than the average player.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 13:06:41 -
[611] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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.
What FAX support? Those heaping piles of junk are going to be torn to shreds before the real fighting starts. Unless the FAX has the tank of a super and can self rep at least 4x the amount that triage carriers do now. Which I don't see happening at all. You are basing your answers on something that will die in next to no time, leaving all the combat ships completely vulnerable.
So your answer that Titans won't have an upper limit to their tank is faulty in 2 major ways. The first being that all FAX will likely be off field before they see incoming fire. The second being that the ship has a max EHP and no amount of reps will save it from a fixed number of DDs. B-R had more reps available, on both sides of the fight, to counter all the DDs fired at any of the Titans that died, but being that most of those deaths happened with properly timed shots, none of those reps mattered.
I am so tired of hearing this same piece of tripe. Every ship, no matter how many reps you bring can die. It is just a matter of proper numbers, good FCing and pilots reacting to the calls. So unless you give ships the ability to absorb incoming reps and build an extra buffer, then nothing in this game has an unlimited tank.
It is down right shameful for Devs to recite this false statement time and again. Either you don't know your own game or you are pandering falsehoods, in hopes the masses are too stupid to know the truth. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1871
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 13:43:54 -
[612] - Quote
People currently bring Triage Carriers to support small to midsize gangs. This seems to work for them. In the future, they will bring the new Fleet Auxiliaries. What is the difference? As far as I can tell, there is no difference at all.
My Triage Archons and Nidhoggurs are essentially completely different ships from my Boot Archons. Due to the vastly different rigs, it's not like I can swap the two fits out. The Triage Archon is not nearly as strong as the Boot Archon, in terms of buffer tank and resistances, but it repairs an incredible amount. I expect it to die, unless my small gang beats the other small gang first. But it provides enough remote repair ability that it can make all the difference in a small scale fight. How will the Fleet Auxiliaries be any different?
Unless you were using a subpar fit before, you could not really swap back and forth between Triage and Boot fits. You already had essentially two separate ships. Now it is just official.
Embrace the new possibilities from splitting up the Swiss Army knife. Maybe Carriers can get new, unique bonuses, such that bringing a combat fit Nidhoggur is not a sick joke? Carriers can focus on being the next logical progression for Drone skilled pilots. Maybe they gain some unique abilities? If the Thanatos got Fighters with a bonus to warp disruption range? Or the Nidhoggur got a bonus to Fighters' web range? The Archon's Fighters could bonus neutralizer range? The Chimera's Fighters could have a secondary role of ECM. That would be pretty cool.
I will not weep for the demise of the blob of Boot Carriers. Nor should anyone else. The only thing good about them is that no one wanted to fight them, so you almost always won your strategic objectives if you brought them. Well that's terrible game play! Good riddance to them... Oh, and it was very easy to multibox them... Again, not a very big loss (even if I have three characters with years of skill training invested in being able to do exactly that).
Fighter strikes will have a place in the new meta. Dedicated Capital remote repair ships will too. CCP is finally giving us better tools for Aegis Sov's distributed fights.
Stop whining. Start thinking. Figure out how you can have fun with the new toys.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:17:51 -
[613] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I love how you keep trying to play the "Big Elite Groups Won't Fight Each Other" card. Did you not get the memo about B-R? The two powerhouses you keep complaining about not fighting each other went head to head. Both sides went all in. The only reason this won't happen again (at least with the game as it is currently) is do to jump fatigue.
If you want to complain about the lack of real fights, either accept the truth that jump fatigue is a game killing disease, or accept that this is what happens when you protect the little guys from being randomly attacked by third parties. There is absolutely no reason to take the multiple days worth of travel, so caps can then get into a fight, and then take even more days of travel, with no purpose.
There is absolutely zero reason to travel across the galaxy for fights. There is no reward in it, unreasonable time reqs to get there and no real reason for the enemy to come out and play even if you ignore the rest of why it sucks.
So explain to me why I would get my guys together for a week long move, for maybe a days worth of fighting, that isn't even likely?
None of the changes being proposed change any of this, so while the changes have some merits, the real issues are still there.
So instead of fixing the real issues, CCP is going to make it to where sub-caps can travel to your space, kill your caps with relative ease and then go back home the same day. Which is rather crappy, if I may say so. I fly caps to kill caps, but instead I only get to go after sub-caps cause no one is willing to risk moving for days to engage an enemy in there home with no way to reinforce if needed.
This has nothing to do with willingness to fight, but rather how many hoops are fleets willing to go through, to get them.
If I wanted to be a capital roaming nomad, I would have gone to PL or BL, but even BL broke apart from the jump changes. It wasn't viable, so they tried to stake a claim and that wasn't for them. |
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:23:55 -
[614] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to.
Dude, do you even have a capital. With the fatigue as it is, you are often lucky you can call on your neighbor, when even your core alliance guys are too fatigued cause they just had something they jumped to 45 min ago. Batphones only work in places like Provi, where the groups only work together when needed, and stick to their little corners when not. When you have pilots living in an entire region, you can barely handle moving around just that. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
241
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:25:31 -
[615] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:Lair Osen wrote:What does EWAR debuff mean? For stasis debuff, do the ships get slowed, get their webs nerfed/buffed, get webs that are affecting them nerfed/buffed? Please elaborate.
I think it means that any ship that has the debuff applied to them has the Ewar it can project diminished, like you said there webs or nutes get less effective Lair Osen wrote:
1-2k seiged dread dps is just sad. A pirate BS can do better while still able to get reps.
Remember that is for hitting subcaps, for the Normal guns not much is changing iirc
The Point Defense Guns are meant to effect the enemy Capital by draining its shields and armor at a sustained rate of fire thus putting more stress on the repair systems of the Capital. |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc. RUST415
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:27:20 -
[616] - Quote
CCP, do you plan to introduce warp scramble resistance instead on just integers? Because this is the only attribute that have to be countered with large blob, but not specialized modules or ships. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:51:35 -
[617] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. That is your opinion, which I disagree with. And despite inaccurate claims of 'whining', as opposed to providing counter balance feedback, if CCP wants to turn Capital ships into giant Sub-capitals and blow PR smoke about it being a Buff; then I think I've paid my dues to call a 'spade a spade'. 'Escalation' in Null Sec PVP exist for a reason, it has always existed. A 100 man Battleship gang should never EVER be able to take down a 100 man Carrier group. Allowing otherwise, makes the entire existence of Capital ships worthless and redundant. Nothing more than a giant **** waving exercise. Iterating a 'light touch' toward Capitals that allows a 250 - 500 man Battleship Gang to give a 100 man Carrier group serious pause is absolutely appropriate. There are ships, and fleet compositions that are simply not counters to an opposing force. Simply stating the current state of affairs, that Sub-Capital is not a Counter to Capitals, and personally holding that belief as correct does not make it "...just flat out fundamentally wrong:". That with Fleet v. Fleet fighting there is a historic segregation that exists between Sub-Capital and Capitals, and the 'Counter' to Capitals on grid is an escalation of Capitals. Sorry but your stereo typical 250 man TryHard Alliance of 3 Carriers and 2 Dreads and 245 Sub-Capitals should not be able to control the Grid vs. a 250 man Capital Group. Just as we have a hierarchy of Skill point capabilities, we have a hierarchy ... a 'pecking order' of things a up and coming group needs to have in order to play in the deep end of the pool. If you remove this segregation, as seems to be being attempted, then you remove the motivation and incentive to ever develop a organized Capital Group in an Alliance. I think if we could have simply frigate spammed our adversaries into submission, we wouldn't have the (assumed) largest Capital force in EVE. But hey, if Developer Socialism is your thing, then by all means - I just happen to fundamentally disagree.
I have to agree here. Explain to me why my 5k man, well organized, long standing, well funded alliance, which has earned each and every system, ship and ISK, should be penalized for working for a common goal of mutual success. Explain to me why the 250 man alliance has an intrinsic right to the space I live in and the deaths of my ships? If they can't build, ally and recruit enough pilots to take my space, do you think they really deserve it?
I am not saying we shouldn't have to defend our home, but each time CCP places more limits on capitals, ship fits and Sov, they make it to where we can do it better and easier. CCP wants 250 pilots to be able to kill 100 caps, cool, we can fly 20 max sub-cap fleets and shred 2000 caps at a time. CCP wants make, moving around harder, we just tighten our borders and make the space that much harder to take. Each time CCP moves to help the little guy, they only improve our options.
So please keep it up, the ISK will still flow and the fights will keep decreasing. As long as artificial limitations are placed on the game, you only serve to reduce its luster and empower the blobs. No matter what happens, just remember, we can pull 30 guys on a bad day, to go on a crap fleet. On a good day we have to turn pilots away cause we just don't have a reason to justify 5 fleets going to "save" a timer that our "elite enemies" have made but won't show up for.
I really do hope that citadels bring in some fights, but honestly, I only see the small groups, which can barely afford them, loosing them. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:57:06 -
[618] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:CCP, do you plan to introduce warp scramble resistance instead on just integers? Because this is the only attribute that have to be countered with large blob, but not specialized modules or ships. Interdictors of both flavors will still be able to tackle things with warp scramble resistance, all on their lonesome.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:00:54 -
[619] - Quote
Sepheria O'Mally wrote: If you want to complain about the lack of real fights, either accept the truth that jump fatigue is a game killing disease, or accept that this is what happens when you protect the little guys from being randomly attacked by third parties. There is absolutely no reason to take the multiple days worth of travel, so caps can then get into a fight, and then take even more days of travel, with no purpose.
Jump Fatigue is only a disease if you insist on cargo culting most alliances circa 2012. If you actually try to build something and own a region of space, it's pretty cool. Eve can easily suffer the loss of those who cling to such an outmoded play style.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:23:57 -
[620] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sepheria O'Mally wrote: If you want to complain about the lack of real fights, either accept the truth that jump fatigue is a game killing disease, or accept that this is what happens when you protect the little guys from being randomly attacked by third parties. There is absolutely no reason to take the multiple days worth of travel, so caps can then get into a fight, and then take even more days of travel, with no purpose.
Jump Fatigue is only a disease if you insist on cargo culting most alliances circa 2012. If you actually try to build something and own a region of space, it's pretty cool. Eve can easily suffer the loss of those who cling to such an outmoded play style. I'd have said it's a disease but not a game killing one.
It's saved us a lot of fuel, too...
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:37:46 -
[621] - Quote
Sepheria O'Mally wrote:afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Dude, do you even have a capital. With the fatigue as it is, you are often lucky you can call on your neighbor, when even your core alliance guys are too fatigued cause they just had something they jumped to 45 min ago. Batphones only work in places like Provi, where the groups only work together when needed, and stick to their little corners when not. When you have pilots living in an entire region, you can barely handle moving around just that.
The tears about fatigue are getting old.
Not all of us have neighbours who are dropping titans on mining barges. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1871
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:45:25 -
[622] - Quote
Rowells wrote:So, how effective will HAWB be at reprocessing packs of cruisers?
This is one of the best questions in this thread. If Dreadnoughts follow the current "prey on ships one size down, prey for ships one size up, less effective against two sizes down, and etc." then it stands to reason that unsupported Dreadnoughts should have a tough time with Cruisers, but should be somewhat capable with full web, target painter support.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Luanda Hunter
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 18:09:36 -
[623] - Quote
congratulation for making carriers completely obsolete, good job.
-carrier is called "carrier" because it was able to carry ships and fighters and had only support roles next to their rubbish damage output -dreads were oversized battleships with huge damage output
now you take the support abilities, they are already obsolete as ship transports (cheap industrial capitals are far better), make the fighters rubbish UI only game, removing the other drones and create a capital logi WITH CARRIER abilities. WTF?
yes, I WANT MY CARRIER SHILLPOINTS BACK FOR FREE!!!!!!! not with real cash cost items, you ruined the carriers completely so give back the skillpoints ive spent on them |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1875
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 18:49:50 -
[624] - Quote
Sepheria O'Mally wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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. What FAX support? Those heaping piles of junk are going to be torn to shreds before the real fighting starts. Unless the FAX has the tank of a super and can self rep at least 4x the amount that triage carriers do now. Which I don't see happening at all. You are basing your answers on something that will die in next to no time, leaving all the combat ships completely vulnerable. So your answer that Titans won't have an upper limit to their tank is faulty in 2 major ways. The first being that all FAX will likely be off field before they see incoming fire. The second being that the ship has a max EHP and no amount of reps will save it from a fixed number of DDs. B-R had more reps available, on both sides of the fight, to counter all the DDs fired at any of the Titans that died, but being that most of those deaths happened with properly timed shots, none of those reps mattered. I am so tired of hearing this same piece of tripe. Every ship, no matter how many reps you bring can die. It is just a matter of proper numbers, good FCing and pilots reacting to the calls. So unless you give ships the ability to absorb incoming reps and build an extra buffer, then nothing in this game has an unlimited tank. It is down right shameful for Devs to recite this false statement time and again. Either you don't know your own game or you are pandering falsehoods, in hopes the masses are too stupid to know the truth.
As I said above, "how is a Fleet Auxiliary ship any different from a Triage Carrier?"
Also, Eve ships are made to die. So, it is okay if they do that from time to time. If you do not want them to die, feel free to avoid undocking.
If you cannot think of ways to keep your Fleet Auxiliary ships alive (maybe by having a proper support fleet and using electronic warfare to mitigate incoming damage and/or shooting enemy ships faster than they shoot you), then maybe you should stick to smaller ships? Or maybe Eve is not the game for you?
Maybe it is just horrible to you that you can no longer be one of two hundred identical Archons with sentries deployed, but I do not miss that at all.
PS - if the enemy brings out a Titan to kill your Fleet Auxiliary ship, feel free to tackle it and kill it. That will be much easier in the new meta.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 22:55:05 -
[625] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sepheria O'Mally wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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. What FAX support? Those heaping piles of junk are going to be torn to shreds before the real fighting starts. Unless the FAX has the tank of a super and can self rep at least 4x the amount that triage carriers do now. Which I don't see happening at all. You are basing your answers on something that will die in next to no time, leaving all the combat ships completely vulnerable. So your answer that Titans won't have an upper limit to their tank is faulty in 2 major ways. The first being that all FAX will likely be off field before they see incoming fire. The second being that the ship has a max EHP and no amount of reps will save it from a fixed number of DDs. B-R had more reps available, on both sides of the fight, to counter all the DDs fired at any of the Titans that died, but being that most of those deaths happened with properly timed shots, none of those reps mattered. I am so tired of hearing this same piece of tripe. Every ship, no matter how many reps you bring can die. It is just a matter of proper numbers, good FCing and pilots reacting to the calls. So unless you give ships the ability to absorb incoming reps and build an extra buffer, then nothing in this game has an unlimited tank. It is down right shameful for Devs to recite this false statement time and again. Either you don't know your own game or you are pandering falsehoods, in hopes the masses are too stupid to know the truth. As I said above, "how is a Fleet Auxiliary ship any different from a Triage Carrier?" Also, Eve ships are made to die. So, it is okay if they do that from time to time. If you do not want them to die, feel free to avoid undocking. If you cannot think of ways to keep your Fleet Auxiliary ships alive (maybe by having a proper support fleet and using electronic warfare to mitigate incoming damage and/or shooting enemy ships faster than they shoot you), then maybe you should stick to smaller ships? Or maybe Eve is not the game for you? Maybe it is just horrible to you that you can no longer be one of two hundred identical Archons with sentries deployed, but I do not miss that at all. PS - if the enemy brings out a Titan to kill your Fleet Auxiliary ship, feel free to tackle it and kill it. That will be much easier in the new meta. Blob F1 moron mentality - Duh just bring more than them. If "A Titan" can kill a Fax, they really have no place in the game.
Sadly though, you are right in part. CCP has once again designed a meta to suit X+X blob fleets - The more of X you bring the faster you win. Fuk the smaller groups - Who the hell are they to think they deserve a place in capital warfare - Everyone should be in a mega group. Particularly - Everyone should be in the biggest one on TQ, problem solved. They've stated over and over in this thread how good this new meta will be for them - Why not just join them and be done with it.
The biggest group dominates every time they decide to deploy, has worked so well for Eve up till now, why change it.
-- - -- - -- - -- One thing has me thinking though - A carrier and dread can dock in any citadel but supers and titans can't - The new FAX is as big as a titan, so presumably will only be able to dock in the same place as a titan - Would this in any way restrict who could own a FAX considering the cost of the Xlarge Citadel will restrict its use to only the largest richest groups.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - CCP Larrikin - Curious too, earlier in this thread I asked a question which you didn't so much answer as sidestep. Think you might have an answer or is it too early in development to know.
How many ships will ONE Fax be able to rep - Or to make it easier for you. Will the meta now be, titans, supers, dreads (maybe) and Fax. If one Fax is unable to protect X amount of ships on its own - All your doing is removing carriers and replacing them with a less desirable option. If titan X is called primary by opposing titans (using DD's)Quote:CCP Larrakin said - Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support - How many Fax will be needed to keep it alive, is it one, ten, 50, (or my guess - we don't know, yet)
Have Devs considered, this will only benefit the larger rich groups while at the same time hurt smaller groups?
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2231
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 23:22:50 -
[626] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Blob F1 moron mentality - Duh just bring more than them. If "A Titan" can kill a Fax, they really have no place in the game. Sadly though, you are right in part. CCP has once again designed a meta to suit X+X blob fleets - The more of X you bring the faster you win. Fuk the smaller groups - Who the hell are they to think they deserve a place in capital warfare - Everyone should be in a mega group. Particularly - Everyone should be in the biggest one on TQ, problem solved. They've stated over and over in this thread how good this new meta will be for them - Why not just join them and be done with it. The biggest group dominates every time they decide to deploy, has worked so well for Eve up till now, why change it. -- - -- - -- - -- One thing has me thinking though - A carrier and dread can dock in any citadel but supers and titans can't - The new FAX is as big as a titan, so presumably will only be able to dock in the same place as a titan - Would this in any way restrict who could own a FAX considering the cost of the Xlarge Citadel will restrict its use to only the largest richest groups. - -- - -- - -- - -- - CCP Larrikin - Curious too, earlier in this thread I asked a question which you didn't so much answer as sidestep. Think you might have an answer or is it too early in development to know. How many ships will ONE Fax be able to rep - Or to make it easier for you. Will the meta now be, titans, supers, dreads (maybe) and Fax. If one Fax is unable to protect X amount of ships on its own - All your doing is removing carriers and replacing them with a less desirable option. If titan X is called primary by opposing titans (using DD's) Quote:CCP Larrakin said - Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support - How many Fax will be needed to keep it alive, is it one, ten, 50, (or my guess - we don't know, yet) Have Devs considered, this will only benefit the larger rich groups while at the same time hurt smaller groups? Your reality sounds terrifying. I can't imagine what it'd be like to live in constant fear of F1 BLOBER bogeymen, despite jump fatigue and aegis sov making it largely impossible for the bogeymen to actually hurt you in a meaningful way.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 00:33:02 -
[627] - Quote
In regards to the new FAX Capital: "Easily Destroyable" does not equal 'Disposable'.
The FAX will more than likely cost the same as a current carrier as regard build costs, if not more. Putting the price anywhere as low as 750M ISK to as potentially high as 1.8B ISK.
Anything over 1B ISK and the word 'disposable' exits my vocabulary.
The real question is will insurance on standard Capitals still pay out 100% for Platinum insurance? And will FAX be included in that as well?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2803
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 00:36:27 -
[628] - Quote
Can we get the ship hangars sooner? Pretty please? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1877
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 01:32:30 -
[629] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Blob F1 moron mentality - Duh just bring more than them. If "A Titan" can kill a Fax, they really have no place in the game. Sadly though, you are right in part. CCP has once again designed a meta to suit X+X blob fleets - The more of X you bring the faster you win. Fuk the smaller groups - Who the hell are they to think they deserve a place in capital warfare - Everyone should be in a mega group. Particularly - Everyone should be in the biggest one on TQ, problem solved. They've stated over and over in this thread how good this new meta will be for them - Why not just join them and be done with it. The biggest group dominates every time they decide to deploy, has worked so well for Eve up till now, why change it. -- - -- - -- - -- One thing has me thinking though - A carrier and dread can dock in any citadel but supers and titans can't - The new FAX is as big as a titan, so presumably will only be able to dock in the same place as a titan - Would this in any way restrict who could own a FAX considering the cost of the Xlarge Citadel will restrict its use to only the largest richest groups. - -- - -- - -- - -- - CCP Larrikin - Curious too, earlier in this thread I asked a question which you didn't so much answer as sidestep. Think you might have an answer or is it too early in development to know. How many ships will ONE Fax be able to rep - Or to make it easier for you. Will the meta now be, titans, supers, dreads (maybe) and Fax. If one Fax is unable to protect X amount of ships on its own - All your doing is removing carriers and replacing them with a less desirable option. If titan X is called primary by opposing titans (using DD's) Quote:CCP Larrakin said - Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support - How many Fax will be needed to keep it alive, is it one, ten, 50, (or my guess - we don't know, yet) Have Devs considered, this will only benefit the larger rich groups while at the same time hurt smaller groups?
How is a Fleet Auxiliary any different than a Triage Carrier? Unless you can answer that question, you seriously have no business getting worked up about these changes.
Where has anyone said that a Fleet Auxiliary will only be able to dock in an XL Citadel? You are literally just making stuff up now.
Thank you for the complement, by the way. I forgot that Blob F1 mentality was to bring a balanced fleet composition, rather than 250 identical Boot Archons and delegate control to one dude while we look at pr0n links in fleet.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Garett Rootarian
30plus Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 04:27:05 -
[630] - Quote
Too bad Titan and Mother Ships could tether outside the Large Citadels for a set time of no more than 6-12 hours in null/wormhole and low sec. Just a thought.
We've had cloning in the South for years. It's called cousins.
Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring
|
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 04:45:12 -
[631] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Heh :) So your argument is that if we make carrier gameplay too engaging that's 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? When you put it like that it does sound like an odd objection to make, but valid nonetheless. Some possibilities to alleviate this might include:
- Re-introducing fighter assignment / assist options. (Probably not the best answer)
- Allowing FCs to put up rally points in 3D space, so players can send their fighters to a location by clicking on a glowy beacon thingy instead of putting in coordinates by hand. This still requires player participation, but lessen the workload slightly. Actually, putting up glowy marker points in 3D space with the new coordinate interface would generally be rather awesome for a lot of other purposes too.
- Add behaviour options like Homeworld had to guard / patrol / etc. around a particular area / ship. For example, ordering your light fighters to engage tackle near a particular friendly target, setup a pre-defined bombing run formation relative to a beacon / target (like you can position probes relative to a scan area) or fly anti-bomber defense patterns on that wing of battleships. Looking at Supreme Commander's unit control system might also be worthwhile, or how RPGs like Dragon Age let you set a bunch of pre-defined tactics.
The goal here is to require player agency and punish stupid decisions, but make the player's will easy to carry out and require as little micro as is feasible.
The idea of being able to assign squadrons with some pre-defined roles is a good idea. I think that the system will be engaging, but possibly a bit too much. Making it so that we can pre-set a bit of commands, means that we have to make choices, do something ourselves and still be able to switch focus on other things, as needed. Currently it seems carrier/super pilots are going to be massively pressured to keep track of 5 squadrons, each of which possibly doing a unique job and at the same time trying to adjust for positioning (of allies and hostiles), keep track of misc effects like bubbles and sub-cap tackle, and waiting for that key moment of impending doom when you get primaried.
That is a lot of crap to keep up with, and while some of that seems easy currently, we are talking about new cap mods, with a lot more interplay and speed. Cariers will possibly moving up to 500 x's the speeds we are use to, and doing things like tackle and local cap boosting, or even using more local reps. This is a ton of changes, with a large amount of variables, having the fighters be able to do a small amount of autonomous effects, relieves a portion of the strain, but still needing to activate the special abilities of the squads, means that the uniqueness of each squad is still up to the pilot to control. |
Garett Rootarian
30plus Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 04:59:26 -
[632] - Quote
Commander Liger wrote: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.
They need to give the Rorqual the ability to moon mine, or double the current boost max if done outside a POS shield since the POS are going away. Double the reward for the risk.
We've had cloning in the South for years. It's called cousins.
Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
760
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 06:42:23 -
[633] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Blob F1 moron mentality - Duh just bring more than them. If "A Titan" can kill a Fax, they really have no place in the game. Sadly though, you are right in part. CCP has once again designed a meta to suit X+X blob fleets - The more of X you bring the faster you win. Fuk the smaller groups - Who the hell are they to think they deserve a place in capital warfare - Everyone should be in a mega group. Particularly - Everyone should be in the biggest one on TQ, problem solved. They've stated over and over in this thread how good this new meta will be for them - Why not just join them and be done with it. The biggest group dominates every time they decide to deploy, has worked so well for Eve up till now, why change it. -- - -- - -- - -- One thing has me thinking though - A carrier and dread can dock in any citadel but supers and titans can't - The new FAX is as big as a titan, so presumably will only be able to dock in the same place as a titan - Would this in any way restrict who could own a FAX considering the cost of the Xlarge Citadel will restrict its use to only the largest richest groups. - -- - -- - -- - -- - CCP Larrikin - Curious too, earlier in this thread I asked a question which you didn't so much answer as sidestep. Think you might have an answer or is it too early in development to know. How many ships will ONE Fax be able to rep - Or to make it easier for you. Will the meta now be, titans, supers, dreads (maybe) and Fax. If one Fax is unable to protect X amount of ships on its own - All your doing is removing carriers and replacing them with a less desirable option. If titan X is called primary by opposing titans (using DD's) Quote:CCP Larrakin said - Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support - How many Fax will be needed to keep it alive, is it one, ten, 50, (or my guess - we don't know, yet) Have Devs considered, this will only benefit the larger rich groups while at the same time hurt smaller groups? How is a Fleet Auxiliary any different than a Triage Carrier? Unless you can answer that question, you seriously have no business getting worked up about these changes. Where has anyone said that a Fleet Auxiliary will only be able to dock in an XL Citadel? You are literally just making stuff up now. Thank you for the complement, by the way. I forgot that Blob F1 mentality was to bring a balanced fleet composition, rather than 250 identical Boot Archons and delegate control to one dude while we look at pr0n links in fleet. Compliment LOL - You really have no idea.. Your trying to say your coalition has never had 250 Archons or any other type of ship in fleet? Blob mentality = won't undock without far superior numbers = CFC + Pets.
Well lets see. Slowcats do NOT use triage yet are the favoured meta, because they work. They are not wholly mobile but are not stuck in one place for 5 mins at a time. We are not comparing Triage to Fax - We are comparing Fax to the current meta which has little to nothing to do with triage.
Differences, just for argument sake - When a triage carrier exits triage, it can receive remote reps. When a Fax exits triage, it is likely, dead. If you don't know the difference between the fits used on carriers and a triage carrier - You have absolutely no right to be posting on the subject.
It was a question about docking Fax - can't tell the difference between a statement and a question ? Do you know the answer, you did make a point of showing how big they are, am I to presume you know something the rest of us haven't been told, or like everyone else are you guessing and trying to find out..
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 09:43:42 -
[634] - Quote
Why are you hell bent on comparing things to the meta which CCP are firmly on record as wanting to nuke from orbit? That's like holding a candle for AoE doomsdays. |
ilammy
The Gorgon Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 10:35:56 -
[635] - Quote
<stupidity got removed, I learned to RTFM> |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2864
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 10:44:03 -
[636] - Quote
Would you all stop crying about the Nidhoggur, the king of capitals. Everyone wants a Niddy in fleet, because they can rest assured they won't be primed.
Also, a properly pimped Triage Nid is a pretty amazeballs bait tank, as long as you don't have to rep anything and blow your capacitor.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
761
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 11:37:48 -
[637] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote: Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.
Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.
And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?
Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing? Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way. Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week. Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs. Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle. No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL.. When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes. and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will) Your problem is that you move. Don't do that. Or, do it much less often. Adding fatigue to carriers makes it more punishing to live as a vulture bent only on destruction. This is something which the game cannot support, in the long term. Sure, we in Goonswarm Federation and our allies are known for our capacity for destruction, but we balance this with a healthy ecosystem at home that exports as much as it imports. You are aware that Force Auxiliaries can still be used to do triage and general-purpose remote repair, yes? If your argument is that you can't bring a single carrier as a jack-of-all-trades force multiplier, then I have little sympathy. Just like choking back the ability to refit during combat, forcing proper strategic decisions by asking one to choose between different levels of capital-based damage and capital-based remote repair is good for Eve. It's not 2012 any more. We've moved on. So should you. No, some of us have moved on.. The biggest hold outs are still not even trying. You as a member of this group should be aware of the implications your group poses to the health of the game but insist on ignoring them. The over sized coalition meta did die out a few years ago. Time to get up to date.
Your capacity for destruction is only available because you still live in 2012 - Biggest blob wins. If Goons were ever to man up and let their pets fend for themselves Eve would be a very different / Better game. You won't, simply because you would actually have to play the game then and god forbid, Goons ever risk anything.
Your economy is based solely on market denial - You put nothing into the game you can't profit from - What are the stockpiles of ice, ore, goo, etc worth today? I can tell you what they were worth in 2012 if you like, I'd imagine it is quite a bit more now.
And yes, I am unable to move to a new alliance or play the way I choose because a few mega groups abuse game mechanics to suit themselves. So CCP changes things - That end up affecting smaller groups more than the ones who created the problems to start with.
So what your saying is - Goons and pets can do whatever wherever they like but the rest of us just have to stay put. Roger got it.
PS; Goons don't have allies - They have pets and without the Goon network and isk to prop them up most would lose their space in a matter of weeks, if not months. (well maybe not now we have sov lasers, they just suck)
On topic - CCP is making changes that specifically suit the large dominating groups, again to the detriment of smaller groups.
NB; Don't bother trying to talk Goons + pets up, I spent my time in that shitfight and left, having learned the worst aspects of online gaming can all be in one place.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation The Bastards.
3003
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 11:48:17 -
[638] - Quote
Can we start contemplating expanding the existing capital hull ranges as well while we are rethinking existing capital roles?
Here's an example of what I'd like to see (Adapted from the first my capital diagram provided in the Dev blog):
http://imgur.com/kjX68uM
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
761
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 11:48:56 -
[639] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Why are you hell bent on comparing things to the meta which CCP are firmly on record as wanting to nuke from orbit? That's like holding a candle for AoE doomsdays. These changes will do nothing but strengthen the position of those who created this situation.
BTW, AoE doomsdays (in slightly different form) are coming back.
I agree the current meta is bad but it is not the ships fault it is the large dominating groups who use them to extreme. These changes only give them more choices on how they drop their unassailable force, on the same groups who can't defend against them now.
I'm not against change, I'm against change that further increases the divide between the blobs and everyone else. There are options that could make capital warfare a thing for the average sized group - None of this fits that requirement.
Look at the goals of the sov changes - Smaller groups would be able to take and hold sov.. Sure they can - As long as they have blues out the wazoo. Capital balancing is another, here we go again, what part of the game am I removed from this time, because I don't want to join one of the few large blobs.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2233
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:06:23 -
[640] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:No, some of us have moved on.. The biggest hold outs are still not even trying. You as a member of this group should be aware of the implications your group poses to the health of the game but insist on ignoring them. The over sized coalition meta did die out a few years ago. Time to get up to date.
Your capacity for destruction is only available because you still live in 2012 - Biggest blob wins. If Goons were ever to man up and let their pets fend for themselves Eve would be a very different / Better game. You won't, simply because you would actually have to play the game then and god forbid, Goons ever risk anything.
Your economy is based solely on market denial - You put nothing into the game you can't profit from - What are the stockpiles of ice, ore, goo, etc worth today? I can tell you what they were worth in 2012 if you like, I'd imagine it is quite a bit more now.
And yes, I am unable to move to a new alliance or play the way I choose because a few mega groups abuse game mechanics to suit themselves. So CCP changes things - That end up affecting smaller groups more than the ones who created the problems to start with.
So what your saying is - Goons and pets can do whatever wherever they like but the rest of us just have to stay put. Roger got it.
PS; Goons don't have allies - They have pets and without the Goon network and isk to prop them up most would lose their space in a matter of weeks, if not months. (well maybe not now we have sov lasers, they just suck)
On topic - CCP is making changes that specifically suit the large dominating groups, again to the detriment of smaller groups.
NB; Don't bother trying to talk Goons + pets up, I spent my time in that shitfight and left, having learned the worst aspects of online gaming can all be in one place. How is "my group" bad for the health of the game? Also, how is banding groups of people together for mutual defense and prosperity bad?
Last time I checked, the double whammy of Phoebe and Aegis forced us to cede five regions and consolidate our holdings. This is definitive proof that CCP has taken measures to "beat back the blob," as it were. Hell, half of Delve is sitting ownerless; why not take a chunk and try to build something?
I also don't get the whole "goons should reset their allies" meme. How does that help the game?
No one has been able to give me a sane answer for any of this. Goodness knows I've been asking. My current theory is that folks who play Eve can't get off unless they own sov in Pure Blind or something.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2235
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:07:40 -
[641] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are you hell bent on comparing things to the meta which CCP are firmly on record as wanting to nuke from orbit? That's like holding a candle for AoE doomsdays. These changes will do nothing but strengthen the position of those who created this situation. BTW, AoE doomsdays (in slightly different form) are coming back. I agree the current meta is bad but it is not the ships fault it is the large dominating groups who use them to extreme. These changes only give them more choices on how they drop their unassailable force, on the same groups who can't defend against them now. I'm not against change, I'm against change that further increases the divide between the blobs and everyone else. There are options that could make capital warfare a thing for the average sized group - None of this fits that requirement. Look at the goals of the sov changes - Smaller groups would be able to take and hold sov.. Sure they can - As long as they have blues out the wazoo. Capital balancing is another, here we go again, what part of the game am I removed from this time, because I don't want to join one of the few large blobs. It's adorable that you keep trying to salvage the jack-of-all-trades contemporary carrier mechanics, when they're the single best tool that the "blob" has.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ralitge boyter
European Crew. Phoebe Freeport Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:47:14 -
[642] - Quote
First of all, why now that I finally have trained all missile and gunnery skills to 5 do you plan on introducing new gunnery and missile skills after all these years Nah I'll survive its just more stuff to rain on this character
I am not so sure giving capitals more content is the solution to the broken game that is 0.0 warfare. The big problem is the huge armies of capitals that the power blocks can bring to bear on any would be opponent. The N+1 tactic will not be removed, the only thing is that it will give the mathematicians of EVE a week or two of entertainment as they workout which components make up the most powerful blob now that we have a few more variables.
Capital warfare is broken, 0.0 is broken and neither will be fixed by the currently proposed changes.
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
At the moment all I see here is the power blocks demanding CCP puts in more content for their members, not looking at game play not looking at the possible results in the game just looking at making the handful of uber powerful players and their armies happy and allowing them to consolidate their current positions even further. These capital changes are pointless as the power blocks have the resources to adopt everyone else is left in the dust again...
Why not create stacking penalties for number of damage sources? Say if a certain number of guns shoot at a small ship the incoming projectiles have a chance of taking each other out before they hit. This makes bigger ships weaker against smaller once and reduces the constant N+1 game play requiring ever larger ships. It makes fighting much more affordable and fun as well as keeping the big blocks happy because their numbers still make a difference, just not in such a big way. Capitals where a bad idea from the start, they have failed since their introduction and for a large part have led to the current stale boring 0.0 game play we see all over new eden.
I strongly oppose the current proposed changes but know that they are going to make it in anyway, I hope that CCP will finally accept that their game is broken and that as long as they keep on doing what those that are the cause of the break demand from them there is no fixing it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2235
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:57:58 -
[643] - Quote
Ralitge boyter wrote:First of all, why now that I finally have trained all missile and gunnery skills to 5 do you plan on introducing new gunnery and missile skills after all these years Nah I'll survive its just more stuff to rain on this character I am not so sure giving capitals more content is the solution to the broken game that is 0.0 warfare. The big problem is the huge armies of capitals that the power blocks can bring to bear on any would be opponent. The N+1 tactic will not be removed, the only thing is that it will give the mathematicians of EVE a week or two of entertainment as they workout which components make up the most powerful blob now that we have a few more variables. Capital warfare is broken, 0.0 is broken and neither will be fixed by the currently proposed changes. The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before... At the moment all I see here is the power blocks demanding CCP puts in more content for their members, not looking at game play not looking at the possible results in the game just looking at making the handful of uber powerful players and their armies happy and allowing them to consolidate their current positions even further. These capital changes are pointless as the power blocks have the resources to adopt everyone else is left in the dust again... Why not create stacking penalties for number of damage sources? Say if a certain number of guns shoot at a small ship the incoming projectiles have a chance of taking each other out before they hit. This makes bigger ships weaker against smaller once and reduces the constant N+1 game play requiring ever larger ships. It makes fighting much more affordable and fun as well as keeping the big blocks happy because their numbers still make a difference, just not in such a big way. Capitals where a bad idea from the start, they have failed since their introduction and for a large part have led to the current stale boring 0.0 game play we see all over new eden. I strongly oppose the current proposed changes but know that they are going to make it in anyway, I hope that CCP will finally accept that their game is broken and that as long as they keep on doing what those that are the cause of the break demand from them there is no fixing it. How do the big blocs ruin the game for the "rest of us"? Last time I checked, we don't bother you folks down in the South much at all. Is it, like, a morale issue or something? I'm honestly straining to understand here.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1878
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 13:07:22 -
[644] - Quote
Querns wrote: It's adorable that you keep trying to salvage the jack-of-all-trades contemporary carrier mechanics, when they're the single best tool that the "blob" has.
I'll confess that this is the single most baffling thing I have ever seen. The best weapon the no-skill F1 Blob ever had was the Boot Archon (aka slowcat). So, why are those advocating "skilled" PVP in favor of it? Using the Boot Archon fleet is really quite simple:
1. Get 250 identical ships with large buffer tanks and high resistances. 2. Set up capacitor transfer chain. 3. Drop sentries, delegate them. 4. Let one skilled person make all the targeting decisions. 5. If someone actually shows up to shoot at you, broadcast for reps. No one dies (except maybe a Nidhoggur that forgot to broadcast). 6. Win the strategic objective. 7. Count killmails. 8. Profit.
I've received some really adorable hate mail from people who do not understand the new Fleet Auxiliary ships. I quote:
Quote:"And if you read the blog - Fielding 100 "triage" (Fax) is exactly what the new meta will be. For those who can afford to at least, the rest of us will stop unsing our hard earned caps. (not everyone gets to rat in safety)"
Perhaps some of the fitting masters from the large capital alliances can weigh in? Is this the new meta? Instead of 250 Boot Archons (aka slowcats), that can all do damage, and can all repair each other, we are going to have fleets of 100 Fleet Auxiliary ships (formerly known as Triage Carriers), which have minimal drones for self-defense, and cannot repair each other effectively (and not at all if they go into Triage mode). Or is the idea that these 100 Fleet Auxiliary ships will be supporting a fleet of 150 Supercarriers and Titans?
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
1878
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 13:11:23 -
[645] - Quote
Ralitge boyter wrote:
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
See, this part I actually agree with.
I just don't see how the capital changes, particularly making Triage Carriers a separate ship class, feed into maintaining the current stagnant political system.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kathao Crendraven
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 13:32:29 -
[646] - Quote
I understood that the politics were stagnant pre-phoebe and pre-fozzie sov. Two blocs controlling the entire map is what one could call relatively boring and stagnant.
What I don't see is why people are still stuck on this mentality that nullsec is stagnant, nothing is happening and of course that the people owning Deklein are the ones to blame. We aren't involved in the catastrophic (but active, I guess) political states in the south, we are not even involved in anything southern of Cloud Ring anymore. Phoebe made it impossible for any bloc to move vast numbers of capitals anywhere else than where they're living. Still, it's the big blocs that ruin the game, but now they do so by staying at home. Some sort of doublethink here.
When you look on the maps, stuff does happen a lot. Yeah I know, Fozzie Sov is fun and everyone of us who ever was working with that stuff knows how encouraging it is to hack things and take their space, just to have more things to hack. Still, in comparison to what we had before, stuff is nothing but stagnant anymore and these capital changes will neither turn us back into the direction of going to a cold-war state of two blocs not fighting each other nor will it make hacking nodes to gain space you don't want any less (or more) motivating and fun.
The only thing stagnant here is the thinking of people who keep on pressing replay in their minds to continously repeat what people say and blame since 2005. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force IT'S ONLY PIXELS
227
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 14:31:51 -
[647] - Quote
Something I've been thinking about in regards to this picture. Capitals/Supers will be broken down in to three categories with two hull sizes:
Guns > Fighters > Logistics
The two groups are Capitals and Supers. Thing is, there is a significant disconnect in both terms of model size and, more importantly, power projection and price between the two groups. Dreads (Guns) and Carriers (Fighters) will be fairly close to each other in terms of firepower, according to the blog but there is still a significant imbalance between Titans (Gins) and Supercarriers (Fighters). There's also a significant price difference and in HP values. After the proposed changes, one on one, a Carrier will be able to stand toe to toe with a Dread but from what I can see, a Supercarrier will still be hugely outclassed by a Titan.
To my mind this contradicts the notion of two balanced groups, the Guns and Fighters, at least from a Supers perspective. How do you plan on reducing the performance gap between these two?
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:00:31 -
[648] - Quote
can i has 5000MN MWD Battleships??? (You read correctly, that's oversized prop mod on a battleship) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1881
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 18:31:49 -
[649] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:can i has 5000MN MWD Battleships??? (You read correctly, that's oversized prop mod on a battleship)
One thing I do not want to look at in game, is to see how much the deadspace 500mn Microwarpdrives plummeted in price.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
308
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 19:55:00 -
[650] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Querns wrote: It's adorable that you keep trying to salvage the jack-of-all-trades contemporary carrier mechanics, when they're the single best tool that the "blob" has.
I'll confess that this is the single most baffling thing I have ever seen. The best weapon the no-skill F1 Blob ever had was the Boot Archon (aka slowcat). So, why are those advocating "skilled" PVP in favor of it? Using the Boot Archon fleet is really quite simple: 1. Get 250 identical ships with large buffer tanks and high resistances. 2. Set up capacitor transfer chain. 3. Drop sentries, delegate them. 4. Let one skilled person make all the targeting decisions. 5. If someone actually shows up to shoot at you, broadcast for reps. No one dies (except maybe a Nidhoggur that forgot to broadcast). 6. Win the strategic objective. 7. Count killmails. 8. Profit. I've received some really adorable hate mail from people who do not understand the new Fleet Auxiliary ships. I quote: Quote:"And if you read the blog - Fielding 100 "triage" (Fax) is exactly what the new meta will be. For those who can afford to at least, the rest of us will stop unsing our hard earned caps. (not everyone gets to rat in safety)" Perhaps some of the fitting masters from the large capital alliances can weigh in? Is this the new meta? Instead of 250 Boot Archons (aka slowcats), that can all do damage, and can all repair each other, we are going to have fleets of 100 Fleet Auxiliary ships (formerly known as Triage Carriers), which have minimal drones for self-defense, and cannot repair each other effectively (and not at all if they go into Triage mode). Or is the idea that these 100 Fleet Auxiliary ships will be supporting a fleet of 150 Supercarriers and Titans?
While not a Capital Group 'fitting master', I think experience as a dedicated Capital pilot can allow me a shot at answering this:
There is no denying that this is the correct overview of Boot/Slowcat Archon fleets. However, it should be noted that because these fleets routinely do not encounter other Capital fleets, if and when sub-capitals decide to attempt to out DPS the repair broadcasts, yes ultimately Killmails are counted (partly because we support our Carriers with Sub-capitals that can chase them when they realize it's time to run!) - And because of course as I have pointed out "subcapitals are not a counter to Capitals", holds true currently. If proper counters were employed, then the 1-8 order you've put together might work out a bit differently.
But instead the ships are blamed, instead of the combatant that decided not to commit the proper counter to these larger ships. We saw this with NCdock multiple times, where they refused to commit their Capital forces do to concerns of loosing their fleet vs. whether or not it would be effective against other capitals.
The new meta will not be 100 Fleet Auxiliary ships instead, because they will not be able to provide damage projection from appropriate operational ranges using their 'self defense' oriented abilities. Instead we will more than likely see a 'cruiser + logi' style Capital fleet where strategists will have planned out the most efficient ratio of Combat Carriers to Logistics Carriers (Force Auxiliaries). Another reason you will not see exclusively Force Auxiliary fleets, is because the majority of Carrier pilots consider themselves "Combat" pilots, and loath using a Triage style Carrier. Force Aux. are even worse than current Triage due to the lack of damage projection abilities.
In the end, other people can blame us for 'ruining the game', in reality they fail to grasp that this is still a sandbox, and we're just better at it than you are - that does not mean we are the reason your game play is less than you wish it to be. Survival of the fittest is simply what you are experiencing ingame.
CCP may attempt to curb N+1, but in reality we will simply find a way to turn it into N+10 if necessary... We play to win. So folks the genie has already been let out of the bottle; Pandora long ago opened her box; and 12 years on BoB is not coming back to save you, so you'll just have to accept that there is nothing CCP is going to do that will make us go away...
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1881
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 20:24:32 -
[651] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Force Aux. are even worse than current Triage due to the lack of damage projection abilities.
Triage Carriers do not project any damage in Triage mode. Most Triage Carriers carry only a small token number of drones for last-ditch self defense during travel. So, I really see no difference between a Triage Carrier and a Fleet Auxiliary ship - except that presumably the Fleet Auxiliary will be better at being a Triage ship (because that is all it is designed to do, it can have better focused bonuses).
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
308
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 21:14:03 -
[652] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Force Aux. are even worse than current Triage due to the lack of damage projection abilities.
Triage Carriers do not project any damage in Triage mode. Most Triage Carriers carry only a small token number of drones for last-ditch self defense during travel. So, I really see no difference between a Triage Carrier and a Fleet Auxiliary ship - except that presumably the Fleet Auxiliary will be better at being a Triage ship (because that is all it is designed to do, it can have better focused bonuses).
Outside of Triage, current Triage Carriers can still repair, they can use fighters and sentries - and can reconnect to them after coming out of defensive triage, and still apply standard unbonused repairs effectively.
Force Auxiliaries will have zero damage projection as they will always need to be in Triage to have effective repairs. Nullifying any ability to use drones offensively.
That's the distinction I was trying to highlight.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
28
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 21:30:45 -
[653] - Quote
Oh, quick question (I should really start another thread for this in the suggestions category, but...)
...with this new gameplay mechanic for Carriers and Supercarriers, what are the odds of us getting a new class of ship in the Battleship size group that is a dedicated carrier type of ship?
In Naval history, this sort of thing would probably be called "Escort Carriers" and basically be capable of fielding a small contingent of fighters or support craft.
It'd be nice to let people get a taste of that gameplay without having to go into a full Carrier. Might convince more players to try going for a Carrier or Supercarrier if they've already had their appetite whetted by that sort of gameplay. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
762
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 22:26:24 -
[654] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:Oh, quick question (I should really start another thread for this in the suggestions category, but...)
...with this new gameplay mechanic for Carriers and Supercarriers, what are the odds of us getting a new class of ship in the Battleship size group that is a dedicated carrier type of ship?
In Naval history, this sort of thing would probably be called "Escort Carriers" and basically be capable of fielding a small contingent of fighters or support craft.
It'd be nice to let people get a taste of that gameplay without having to go into a full Carrier. Might convince more players to try going for a Carrier or Supercarrier if they've already had their appetite whetted by that sort of gameplay. It is called a Nestor.
Only real issue with them is, they cost as much as a carrier and aren't all that effective unless you have 2 or more.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
762
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 23:13:13 -
[655] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ralitge boyter wrote:
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
See, this part I actually agree with. I just don't see how the capital changes, particularly making Triage Carriers a separate ship class, feed into maintaining the current stagnant political system. Of course it does - Those few dominating groups will always be able to field more of X than anyone else
So nothing changes.
-- - -- - -- - -- If the large dominating groups find they need to field 100 FAX in place of 200 slowcats and Super reps - That is exactly what they will do. For the average group to field 100 Fax it would mean 100 less pvp capable ships on the field - For the likes of Goons, it means handing out 100 Fax to guys who don't own Supers. When you have a capital group of over 3,000, fielding 100 of 1 type of ship is no problem - When you have a capital group of 200 or 300, your losing a lot of your potential damage dealers to field enough triage to keep your Dps alive.
As yet CCP is unable or not prepared to tell us just how capable (if at all) this new ship will be, so much of this is speculation. Honestly though, I don't think the Fax will be effective for smaller groups. Make them so smaller groups can effectively use them - Gives the blobs a big bonus because they can always field more.
The problem with capital warfare is not the ships, it is the large groups who use them to the extreme - No amount of new ship types and skills is going to fix that. These large groups don't like to risk loss, so will always pick the target they can be assured of beating.
Repping Pos's is soon to be a thing of the past - Triage really has no role, without the Fax. If it is not balanced right, capital warfare capability is removed from all but the largest groups. Lets everyone get enough blues to ensure we can all field capitals - But now we don't fight - Because everyone has the same capability. Again, Nothing changes except who is blue to who.
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- It is a shame western culture is so selfish - Fights like they have on the other server will never happen on TQ - Individual groups are way to selfish to join up to fight a common foe. According to some in the CFC, this is exactly what they want - They are waiting for that day when TQ join forces to fight them. Sadly, it is unlikely to ever happen.
"Tranquility" was probably not the best naming option for a PVP universe
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 23:29:19 -
[656] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:It is a shame western culture is so selfish - Fights like they have on the other server will never happen on TQ - Individual groups are way to selfish to join up to fight a common foe. According to some in the CFC, this is exactly what they want - They are waiting for that day when TQ join forces to fight them. Sadly, it is unlikely to ever happen. We used up our one coupon for big fights I guess.
Unless you get another sov bill mistake then perhaps
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1883
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 01:45:51 -
[657] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: - Individual groups are way to selfish to join up to fight a common foe.
I don't know about that... I have watched plenty of groups join up to fight a common foe over the years. I remember flying from Etherium Reach to Delve the night BOB's sovereignty fell. It was nothing personal, according to the older players I knew, BOB was the "evil cheater alliance," and it was my chance to participate in an "I was there" moment. So, I flew about 40 jumps, lost an assault frigate on the undock in NOL-, then flew my pod back to Etherium Reach. That's the kind of conflict a little story called "T20" will drive.
So, what's my point? Perhaps Eve just needs a better story to drive people? If not everyone in the universe hates the Imperium enough to fly 40 jumps just to count coup on them, perhaps they are not so bad? Maybe we should all write Mittens a letter?
Dear Goons, please start being complete evil shitlords so that EVERYONE in the game hates you. Then please drop all your sovereignty (again), so that Eve can be fresh and young again. Thank you.
PS - please contract your vast stockpiles of Technetium, Oxygen Isotopes, Exotic Dancers, and Fedo's to FT Diomedes.
Back on topic, I've used (and killed) plenty of Triage Carriers in small gang fights. So, the Fleet Auxiliary ships will definitely have a place in the new meta. Remember that victory is not gained by clumping 1000 pilots on one timer. Distributed operations are supposed to be the norm now.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:19:34 -
[658] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:People currently bring Triage Carriers to support small to midsize gangs. This seems to work for them. In the future, they will bring the new Fleet Auxiliaries. What is the difference? As far as I can tell, there is no difference at all.
My Triage Archons and Nidhoggurs are essentially completely different ships from my Boot Archons. Due to the vastly different rigs, it's not like I can swap the two fits out. The Triage Archon is not nearly as strong as the Boot Archon, in terms of buffer tank and resistances, but it repairs an incredible amount. I expect it to die, unless my small gang beats the other small gang first. But it provides enough remote repair ability that it can make all the difference in a small scale fight. How will the Fleet Auxiliaries be any different?
Unless you were using a subpar fit before, you could not really swap back and forth between Triage and Boot fits. You already had essentially two separate ships. Now it is just official.
Embrace the new possibilities from splitting up the Swiss Army knife. Maybe Carriers can get new, unique bonuses, such that bringing a combat fit Nidhoggur is not a sick joke? Carriers can focus on being the next logical progression for Drone skilled pilots. Maybe they gain some unique abilities? If the Thanatos got Fighters with a bonus to warp disruption range? Or the Nidhoggur got a bonus to Fighters' web range? The Archon's Fighters could bonus neutralizer range? The Chimera's Fighters could have a secondary role of ECM. That would be pretty cool.
I will not weep for the demise of the blob of Boot Carriers. Nor should anyone else. The only thing good about them is that no one wanted to fight them, so you almost always won your strategic objectives if you brought them. Well that's terrible game play! Good riddance to them... Oh, and it was very easy to multibox them... Again, not a very big loss (even if I have three characters with years of skill training invested in being able to do exactly that).
Fighter strikes will have a place in the new meta. Dedicated Capital remote repair ships will too. CCP is finally giving us better tools for Aegis Sov's distributed fights.
Stop whining. Start thinking. Figure out how you can have fun with the new toys.
I agree with reducing the power of the slowcats, as I think most cap pilots also think is good. The only real concerns I have, and what seems to be the predominate issue, is that Triage and the FAX is going to be such a major nerf to capital logi capabilities. Currently Triage is a death sentence unless you have skill and 1-2 other Triage pilots who are skilled.
This is because, you need to be able to refit, bait tank and some other fairly decent skilled tactics to be able to survive. The refitting nerf, functional reps only in Triage, and such all combine into some very serious limitations that will make the FAX nearly unusable as it is being proposed. Now don't get me wrong, a single FAX with a small gang will still massively increase the small gang, up until it is dropped. This is the way it goes now and that is cool, but loosing its function in med to large fleet warfair is not cool.
This is going to make large fleet warfair a matter of Dreads/Titans with some minor Super support. With FAX being presumably laughable in large fleets, carriers will suffer as inferior to supers and inability to self tank those numbers. This effectively takes both out of large fights. This really sucks because there is a lot of potential for large dynamic fights if all the caps are viable for combat, but this won't happen unless FAX can receive remote assistance or have the current proportional level of non triage RR power.
If FAX become combat viable, the carriers will be effective on grid and we will see fights that are dynamic and amazing to be in. This is what I want to see, as do many others, viability for all caps to be on grid with a solid role and balance features not based on crappy penalties, but rather proper balance and function. |
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:38:44 -
[659] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sepheria O'Mally wrote:afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Dude, do you even have a capital. With the fatigue as it is, you are often lucky you can call on your neighbor, when even your core alliance guys are too fatigued cause they just had something they jumped to 45 min ago. Batphones only work in places like Provi, where the groups only work together when needed, and stick to their little corners when not. When you have pilots living in an entire region, you can barely handle moving around just that. The tears about fatigue are getting old. Not all of us have neighbors (fixed your typo) who are dropping titans on mining barges.
I think the point here in not fatigue itself but rather its effects on capital warfare. You cannot have a discussion about capitals and choose to ignore a major limiting aspect. That would be like us discussing new industrial mechanics and ignoring CCP changing some core mining aspects. If you don't look at all the issues as a whole, you end up with the traditional broken mechanics Eve is so rife with.
CCP needs to stop looking at everything in the small gang, 1v1 and micro scale. They need to look at issues on the scale that this game is played and not on the scale they hope it will be played at. While 1v1 and small gang is important to the game, focusing every idea solely in this manner leads to blobs being consistently more appealing to many players and balance being skewed. |
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:55:26 -
[660] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sepheria O'Mally wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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. What FAX support? Those heaping piles of junk are going to be torn to shreds before the real fighting starts. Unless the FAX has the tank of a super and can self rep at least 4x the amount that triage carriers do now. Which I don't see happening at all. You are basing your answers on something that will die in next to no time, leaving all the combat ships completely vulnerable. So your answer that Titans won't have an upper limit to their tank is faulty in 2 major ways. The first being that all FAX will likely be off field before they see incoming fire. The second being that the ship has a max EHP and no amount of reps will save it from a fixed number of DDs. B-R had more reps available, on both sides of the fight, to counter all the DDs fired at any of the Titans that died, but being that most of those deaths happened with properly timed shots, none of those reps mattered. I am so tired of hearing this same piece of tripe. Every ship, no matter how many reps you bring can die. It is just a matter of proper numbers, good FCing and pilots reacting to the calls. So unless you give ships the ability to absorb incoming reps and build an extra buffer, then nothing in this game has an unlimited tank. It is down right shameful for Devs to recite this false statement time and again. Either you don't know your own game or you are pandering falsehoods, in hopes the masses are too stupid to know the truth. As I said above, "how is a Fleet Auxiliary ship any different from a Triage Carrier?" Also, Eve ships are made to die. So, it is okay if they do that from time to time. If you do not want them to die, feel free to avoid undocking. If you cannot think of ways to keep your Fleet Auxiliary ships alive (maybe by having a proper support fleet and using electronic warfare to mitigate incoming damage and/or shooting enemy ships faster than they shoot you), then maybe you should stick to smaller ships? Or maybe Eve is not the game for you? Maybe it is just horrible to you that you can no longer be one of two hundred identical Archons with sentries deployed, but I do not miss that at all. PS - if the enemy brings out a Titan to kill your Fleet Auxiliary ship, feel free to tackle it and kill it. That will be much easier in the new meta.
I think you are missing the point. It has nothing to do with loosing a ship. If you can't afford to loose it, don't own it. My issue, which seems to be a common one here, is that a capital ship should not be a one time use item. If that is what I felt like flying for the day I will take out my Sabre. Capital ships should be something that when used properly have a chance to survive. This does not seem to be the case here. These FAX are basically being designed on the idea that they should die in every engagement, regardless of skill. That is a bad concept. On the other hand, if I fly a FAX and it is a functional capital, then when I die, so be it, good fight.
Designing a rather costly ship, that is only partially functional, is just bad design. Designing a fully function ship, that is equally susceptible to death as all other capitals, that is good design.
Fleet make-up and effectiveness are what makes the choice between killing the Dominix or the Guardian an important call for an FC. This should also apply on the capital level, where the choice for target calling, should be something that is not just a matter of kill A first, then B, C, D... That is how it works right now and it is boring and broken. Making it a matter of effectiveness and fleet comp verse the FC making good calls, is what makes for engaging and skilled fights, where lesser forces with great leadership can defeat larger forces with only avg leadership. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 03:07:03 -
[661] - Quote
The trick to triage (and siege) is to make smart strategic decisions and use them either when the risk of dying is low or easily mitigated, or when the cost of dying is overshadowed by the gain.
It's okay for a ship to be situationally useful.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sepheria O'Mally
Infinite Aggression Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 04:24:15 -
[662] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: If the large dominating groups find they need to field 100 FAX in place of 200 slowcats and Super reps - That is exactly what they will do. For the average group to field 100 Fax it would mean 100 less pvp capable ships on the field - For the likes of Goons, it means handing out 100 Fax to guys who don't own Supers. When you have a capital group of over 3,000, fielding 100 of 1 type of ship is no problem - When you have a capital group of 200 or 300, your losing a lot of your potential damage dealers to field enough triage to keep your Dps alive.
Um, wow, please tell me where to get my free capital ship. I guess I missed the memo and I screwed up buying the 3 I currently have and the other 3 I have sold. The only thing I have ever been given by my glorious evil masters, is a T2 Triage and that still cost me the T1.
Honestly though, can we please actually focus on the changes being proposed and not on nonsensical rhetoric, that is mainly falsehoods and speculation.
Cause lets face it, finger pointing and name calling, only makes each of us look like we are trying to tilt the game in line with our goals, when many of us actually would like to see functional ships. So if you actually want to be heard, try stating constructive ideas and point out flaws for the ships in question rather than look like fools crying to mommy.
Example:
The FAX in theory is a good idea to break up the over powered slowcat into 2 ships that have value. The biggest issue is making the FAX either too weak to use, being effectively on its own in a fleet fight, or making it into a platform that is more in line with other logistic class ships, with an option for Triage to make it even better at the cost of massive vulnerability, as with the current shape of dedicated Triage carriers currently. If FAX are more like current carriers of today, without the combat option, then we can maintain the effectiveness of capital logistics.
In regards to the argument that FAX would just make Titans and Supers immune to most incoming fire because of N+1 RR is a untrue argument. No matter the number of possible FAX you can bring, a Titan and Super can only ever tank up to and no more than their max EHP. While these can be rather large numbers, they are by no means unreachable. Furthermore, if you are unable to reach those numbers, you can kill off the FAXs, which will undoubtedly have much smaller total EHP and thus be much easier to kill.
Trying to reduce capital fights to a point that, for example, 10 Dreads can alpha a FAX, just means that you tell each squad commander to choose a target for his squad and fire. Thus a 250 Dread group can kill 25 FAX per volley and then focus on the combat ships. Durring which the other fleet only has Dreads to kill, which also take about 10 dreads to alpha, but that force being made up of 100 Fax and 150 Dreads, can only kill 15 enemy Dreads per volley. Before long you see that the all dread force, even using the stupid tactic of killing the FAX before dreads, maintains the highest number of damage dealers and wins the fight. Though in all honesty, what would happen is both sides alpha each others Dreads and the FAX either try to run for dear life or just wait till the end to die in a fire.
Now if the FAX can RR with current % of power out of Triage, and with the current style bonuses in Triage, that fight would go a lot different as the use of carriers is viable, being as they can get decent reps as needed, and can offer multiple options in the battle. So now the 2 fleets will have to test each other, look for either weakness in the combat ships or in the FAXs. This moves the fights into both about tactics and numbers. It means having good sub-cap support is needed and being properly diverse ensures more success rather than just a bunch of guaranteed losses.
Guaranteed losses does nothing to help the game, as it makes both sides decide to avoid conflict rather than chance a fight do to an FC who thinks he can defeat the other with better tactics and fleet comp. Currently, this is the issue more than any other in the game, no matter the class of ships. We all know the this comp beats that one, and another beats that. Its more a game of rock/paper/scissors and the group that can reship first is the winner.
So rather than making fights about force losses and forced mechanics, why not make ships more about balance within their classes. So yes cruisers will make life hell for a Destroyer, and Destroyers eat Frigates, but Battleships can't effectively harm Frigates. This is all good, in the sub-cap realms. In the capital realms, these are all basically the same, with Titans/Supers being king, but at the same time are so costly, the cost modifiers are as much a balancing as anything else.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
694
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 05:00:16 -
[663] - Quote
Quote: Capital ships are the premier weapon for killing structures.
Capital ships should be effective in most combat situations without completely dominating the battlefield and without invalidating other ship types.
I kind of disagree. Sure capitals are the best at destroying structures. but considering the amount of time it takes to fly a capital well, and the amount of isk you will drop both on the training, the ship and, the fits I have to think there should be much more to them than "structure destruction". Then too, there should be more of an incentive to take down a capital than just, "wow look at that expensive paperweight... let's kill it because even though its not a real threat it will really **** them off."
If losing a capital is going to be more of a forgone conclusion due to your "re-work" why engage with them at all until the battle is won then bring in the capitals to take out the structures later...? I'm sorry but to me that sounds like a lame change. I hate being a nay-sayer before the changes have even been applied to singularity but I remember the days I used to drool over the prospect of someday being able to fly one of those large awe inspiring monsters, So now the new players are looking at the cost, time to train, and also the fact that they are really only good for fighting against structures and ...no drool. lol I don't like it. I know why you think you need to do this but I don't like it. Of course, I didn't like the titan changes either....
Awesome ships need to stay awesome.
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
|
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc. RUST415
13
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:39:50 -
[664] - Quote
Btw, CCP, Hand of God is a very creative and even weird idea, I really like it! This weapon works like push force, but do you plan to introduce pull force weapon? Something, that creates gravitational anomaly and attracts ships towards its center. This will be very handy for compacting enemy ships to shoot them down with another capital, bombing run or even pipebombing BSs. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2339
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:45:38 -
[665] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote: Capital ships are the premier weapon for killing structures.
Capital ships should be effective in most combat situations without completely dominating the battlefield and without invalidating other ship types.
I kind of disagree. Sure capitals are the best at destroying structures. but considering the amount of time it takes to fly a capital well, and the amount of isk you will drop both on the training, the ship and, the fits I have to think there should be much more to them than "structure destruction". .
On this basis, I demand an immediate and MASSIVE buff to my marauder as a well fit marauder will run you a bill to rival a cap.
And my 4b blops (I know, space poor). That needs more pzzzzzzzzz as well, since you know....it was expensive.
Except, of course, that's really not how eve works, is it? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:50:31 -
[666] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:Btw, CCP, Hand of God is a very creative and even weird idea, I really like it! This weapon works like push force, but do you plan to introduce pull force weapon? Something, that creates gravitational anomaly and attracts ships towards its center. This will be very handy for compacting enemy ships to shoot them down with another capital, bombing run or even pipebombing BSs.
They're planning a 'ship tractor beam' weapon just like this for the new structures. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2339
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:52:41 -
[667] - Quote
Hit the quote limit.
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote: I think the point here in not fatigue itself but rather its effects on capital warfare. You cannot have a discussion about capitals and choose to ignore a major limiting aspect. That would be like us discussing new industrial mechanics and ignoring CCP changing some core mining aspects. If you don't look at all the issues as a whole, you end up with the traditional broken mechanics Eve is so rife with.
If caps were legitimately needing to be flung around to the point fatigue causes real problems, there would be a massive war on. There is not.
And to be frank, so long as people are still able to do junk like drop titans on barges/cruisers, blops onto ventures and so forth, the whole "fatigue is killing me" garners no sympathy, none. Zero. |
Mecatama Mk2
AMC. Memento Moriendo
46
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 10:16:15 -
[668] - Quote
i think carrier have 'other' siege mode. that is mean incrase control range, increase max drone(or fighters), and Electowarfare range. why focus logistic? it have drone role, focus that.
and, how does revenant? Is that have AB bonus? (SUPA SPEED?) Navy faction capital? is coming? how does marauder? marauder not capital. but have siege mode. capital role change, where BSs going?
Rule #34 to EVEOnline.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296094
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=367650
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 11:14:15 -
[669] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ralitge boyter wrote:
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
See, this part I actually agree with. I just don't see how the capital changes, particularly making Triage Carriers a separate ship class, feed into maintaining the current stagnant political system.
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 11:38:59 -
[670] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 11:45:23 -
[671] - Quote
Reading on through the Thread seems a lot of Players have concerns regarding the changes to Capital ship roles and the introduction of yet another Capital type, again with a complete library of additional roles.....A lot of sterling ideas put forwards in the thread so far to adapt changes brought about to a class of ships already rendered utterly useless by CCP themselves. Just seems to a lot of us that poorly thought through changes will not disguise earlier poorly thought through iterations and rule changes.
All of this is worthwhile reading however it does pose a thought between those of us looking at the long term future of a game we have supported for years, What of the players simple request that CCP actually fix the multitude of broken and incomplete items currently embedded in the game, and why having found that changes they themselves have brought into the game environment spun off as features that have had such a detrimental effect on player game satisfaction do CCP still persist along this course of myopic game changes rather than understand what really brings new players into the game and holds there interest over many years.
I know self denial seems to be the in thing among management teams these days but it must be obvious to even the most hardened Silo dweller by now that recent iterations and rule changes have not been in the best interests of many players who have bypassed the Jaw box that is supposed to represent them and simply voted with the most effective tool they have at there disposal, there feet, in large numbers.
Changes to these focused areas of game play are not going to reverse that aspect in any way even though the noisy few that engage with them seem to find these changes so interesting it will not solve the overall problem currently facing the game no matter how much you tinker with it in this manner. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 12:00:51 -
[672] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Reading on through the Thread seems a lot of Players have concerns regarding the changes to Capital ship roles and the introduction of yet another Capital type, again with a complete library of additional roles.....A lot of sterling ideas put forwards in the thread so far to adapt changes brought about to a class of ships already rendered utterly useless by CCP themselves. Just seems to a lot of us that poorly thought through changes will not disguise earlier poorly thought through iterations and rule changes.
All of this is worthwhile reading however it does pose a thought between those of us looking at the long term future of a game we have supported for years, What of the players simple request that CCP actually fix the multitude of broken and incomplete items currently embedded in the game, and why having found that changes they themselves have brought into the game environment spun off as features that have had such a detrimental effect on player game satisfaction do CCP still persist along this course of myopic game changes rather than understand what really brings new players into the game and holds there interest over many years.
I know self denial seems to be the in thing among management teams these days but it must be obvious to even the most hardened Silo dweller by now that recent iterations and rule changes have not been in the best interests of many players who have bypassed the Jaw box that is supposed to represent them and simply voted with the most effective tool they have at there disposal, there feet, in large numbers.
Changes to these focused areas of game play are not going to reverse that aspect in any way even though the noisy few that engage with them seem to find these changes so interesting it will not solve the overall problem currently facing the game no matter how much you tinker with it in this manner. Your argument may gain some more traction if you actually describe what vaunted game features merit more importance than this. Talking in vague terms then trusting your audience to understand your particular vignette implicitly doesn't work.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 12:10:49 -
[673] - Quote
Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality.
Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
765
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 12:13:15 -
[674] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Ralitge boyter wrote:
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
See, this part I actually agree with. I just don't see how the capital changes, particularly making Triage Carriers a separate ship class, feed into maintaining the current stagnant political system. This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on. First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall. Then they let attrition do its thing. So your thinking is, when large blob group drop 5 Fax, 20 supers and a few titans, a small group is going to be able to kill them? Small group of what, 100, 200 or 1,000 if as they usually do the large group have backup on call. The large groups don't risk their capitals, if they aren't sure they can have complete dominance, they won't drop them. Smart game play but not very interesting for their victims.
A super or A titan, a small force can kill now - Most of them don't belong to the blobs though, they come from NPC corps or smaller groups and are caught trying to move around with limited jump ranges and fatigue establishing choke points. These changes actually make Supers and Titans harder to kill for smaller groups, unless you manage to catch one alone, then chances are it won't be a member of the dominating groups that gets caught.
Removing moon mining would be the only answer to stopping the large groups feeding off it - that hurts every group equally. The only possible way to balance Goo would be to make moons a depleting resource. So every few months you need to go look for new moons and take them as your existing ones run out of product. (Give Rorquals a use - Specialized moon mining ships, tethered to a moon for X amount of time until it depletes then move on)
As for attrition - When you have players who can rat in relative safety and make enough for a super in a couple of weeks (if they aren't trying to hard), attrition will not be an issue for the large groups.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 13:44:02 -
[675] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it.
We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 13:46:43 -
[676] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Ralitge boyter wrote:
The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before...
See, this part I actually agree with. I just don't see how the capital changes, particularly making Triage Carriers a separate ship class, feed into maintaining the current stagnant political system. This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on. First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall. Then they let attrition do its thing. So your thinking is, when large blob group drop 5 Fax, 20 supers and a few titans, a small group is going to be able to kill them? Small group of what, 100, 200 or 1,000 if as they usually do the large group have backup on call. The large groups don't risk their capitals, if they aren't sure they can have complete dominance, they won't drop them. Smart game play but not very interesting for their victims. A super or A titan, a small force can kill now - Most of them don't belong to the blobs though, they come from NPC corps or smaller groups and are caught trying to move around with limited jump ranges and fatigue establishing choke points. These changes actually make Supers and Titans harder to kill for smaller groups, unless you manage to catch one alone, then chances are it won't be a member of the dominating groups that gets caught. Removing moon mining would be the only answer to stopping the large groups feeding off it - that hurts every group equally. The only possible way to balance Goo would be to make moons a depleting resource. So every few months you need to go look for new moons and take them as your existing ones run out of product. (Give Rorquals a use - Specialized moon mining ships, tethered to a moon for X amount of time until it depletes then move on) As for attrition - When you have players who can rat in relative safety and make enough for a super in a couple of weeks (if they aren't trying to hard), attrition will not be an issue for the large groups.
I dont get why many of you are acting as if this FAX change was to favor bigger groups. But the current remote repair system is this all or nothing situation where you either break the rep of all the logi ships combined our you don't. Or you have enough alpha to kill a target before reps can land. Which is kind of hard with capitals.
And that favors the larger group as their potential combined repair is better. CCP explained that very logically.
Current situation : 5 carrier, 20 supers and a titans have such strong rep that you cant break any of them. Unless you bring a even bigger force. So you ether die without killing anything, or you just dont take the fight and leave the grid to the supers. Effordless victory just by overwellming rep potential. No attrition.
New situation : The 20 supers cant rep anymore. FAX can only rep when in triage. The 20 Supers can be spammed with ewar. You are probably still not able to break a super or the titan but you can break a FAX as they can only selfrep. And that is no matter if there are 5 or 500 FAX.
The smaller force will probably still lose. But at least you were able to inflict SOME damage. Isnt that better than NONE ? At least for me it sound like a step in the right direction.
The bigger force my escaltate and bring in more members. But that still means they have to be there, and cant be somewhere else at the same time. Huge empire is huge.
So a bigger force will still win the individual fights, but suffer attrition.
Unless every lost capital can be replaced without any problem, making them spammable. And as long as the major blocks can park their asses on those money fountains, this problem is not going away. Beeing it moon goo or something else. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2345
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 14:58:20 -
[677] - Quote
Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it. We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now.
I think the better question would be - would it make you move/redraw borders/coalition members?
I suspect the answer, certainly in the short term, would likely be "no".
Which leads to two questions (neither of which I expect you to answer - with the greatest of respect, you'd be mad to answer even if you could)
1) In the longer term, would T2 item cost pressure/the possibility of a market being cornered by nomads provoke such a move (I suspect unlikely, you likely have enough market clout to weather that)
Which leads to
2) What would it take to move/redefine coalition members?
If anyone can answer #2 with a viable suggestion then they win the game (and probably get offered a job).
Thing is, though, I don't believe there is an answer to #2 because of the logistical challenges presented. The upheaval required in the meta to make you guys (for example, not specifically you, it applies everywhere) up sticks and move from Dek would have to be...basically biblical.
Thus more likely, is the possibility of resetting standings - but again there is no good reason for that. You're tightly coupled, it would be like ripping out stitches - you'd need a real powerful reason to do so. Could such a reason be created? Absolutely. Could such a reason be created, without murdering the game....? Well that is the trillion isk question, is it not?
Edit: I feel I should add that I hold no ill will to large groups. They make perfect sense, I'm neither bitter nor resentful, I have respect for what has been achieved by all of them - over all of the years. The post is mainly a "what if/what would it take" to change the meta, rather than any criticism. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:48:06 -
[678] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it. We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now. I think the better question would be - would it make you move/redraw borders/coalition members? I suspect the answer, certainly in the short term, would likely be "no". Which leads to two questions (neither of which I expect you to answer - with the greatest of respect, you'd be mad to answer even if you could) 1) In the longer term, would T2 item cost pressure/the possibility of a market being cornered by nomads provoke such a move (I suspect unlikely, you likely have enough market clout to weather that) Which leads to 2) What would it take to move/redefine coalition members? If anyone can answer #2 with a viable suggestion then they win the game (and probably get offered a job). Thing is, though, I don't believe there is an answer to #2 because of the logistical challenges presented. The upheaval required in the meta to make you guys (for example, not specifically you, it applies everywhere) up sticks and move from Dek would have to be...basically biblical. Thus more likely, is the possibility of resetting standings - but again there is no good reason for that. You're tightly coupled, it would be like ripping out stitches - you'd need a real powerful reason to do so. Could such a reason be created? Absolutely. Could such a reason be created, without murdering the game....? Well that is the trillion isk question, is it not? Edit: I feel I should add that I hold no ill will to large groups. They make perfect sense, I'm neither bitter nor resentful, I have respect for what has been achieved by all of them - over all of the years. The post is mainly a "what if/what would it take" to change the meta, rather than any criticism. As for #1, the cost of T2 goods is fairly immaterial. Most of our doctrines are T1 ships. Since Technetium was nerfed, the ability to cartel moongoo like the olden days is fairly impossible. Even we, with our vast range of available moongoos, have to import the R32s and R8s that we can't mine in our space. I am probably misunderstanding the question, but T2 prices just aren't that big of a deal. T2 prices being high does affect our bottom line, but we've been forecasting a moongoo nerf for years now. Hell, we led the last major nerf to Technetium! Suffice it to say that our finance team is ready, willing, prepared to have moongoo nerfed. I should know, I'm on that team.
As for #2, we redefine coalition members fairly often -- it usually happens at the end of a war or other defensive campaign. We use paps and other metrics to redefine spoils, and in some cases, accept or expel member alliances. The standards are pretty lax, however -- you have to be a monumental screwup to actually get expelled from the Imperium. (Insert list of expelled alliances here for amusement.) Sometimes folks leave of their own volition and with our blessing; see [J4LP].
If by "redefine," you mean "expel member alliances simply for the sake of reducing our own power," then that's trickier. Even when we do end up losing member alliances (such as Fatal Ascension,) a large number of the constituents of the alliance bowing out end up being absorbed by the rest of the Imperium's remaining alliances.
Ironically, a part of why reductions in size don't work in practice is the availability of virtually risk-free, unlimited PVE in the form of L4s (both highsec and nullsec,) highsec incursions, and capital escalations in wormholes. There's definitely an upper bound to the amount of PVE and Industry available in any given area of space, and thanks to Phoebe and Aegis, there's definitely an upper bound to the amount of space that any one entity can hold without driving their logisticians and leadership to suicide. However, thanks to external, anonymous forms of PVE, a "blow-off valve" definitely exists to allow an organization to scale to any size. Frankly, Goonswarm Federation and the rest of the Imperium member alliances are fairly novel in that they actually bother to do PVE in their space in the first place.
I don't understand what "move" means -- are you suggesting that it matters which particular spit of sand we call home?
As for "redrawing borders," this already happens. Remember how we used to control Cloud Ring, Fountain, Delve, Querious, and Period Basis?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 16:13:28 -
[679] - Quote
Querns wrote:However, thanks to external, anonymous forms of PVE, a "blow-off valve" definitely exists to allow an organization to scale to any size. Frankly, Goonswarm Federation and the rest of the Imperium member alliances are fairly novel in that they actually bother to do PVE in their space in the first place. Remember when people though pvesov would kill us? Ahhh good times.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2347
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 16:15:33 -
[680] - Quote
Thanks for the responses, approximately as I would have imagined :)
Well, borders are redrawn as a result of mechanical changes (mostly), I would doubt that many of those areas would have been ceded without phoebe/aegis. I was more musing that if, by means of game mechanics changes that border redrawing became a necessary part of life. Again though, I don't think it's realistic proposition. /shrug. Perhaps.
Yes, "move" meaning up sticks and relocate - I can't imagine a reason to ever do that. I asked because I think (and this is conjecture/reading between lines/extrapolation) that some would prefer if the game splintered into smaller, nomadic groups - but of course such a concept would never work because NOT working together is...well...it's dumb. Plus moving is a monumental pain in the ass at the best of times.
As interesting as it is to mull, however, overall it seems to me like a lot of people want empires to topple but won't put in the effort to create their own - it's as if they think the current powerhouses sprung into being overnight.
But I/we digress, thanks for the reply |
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
311
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 17:26:09 -
[681] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Querns wrote:However, thanks to external, anonymous forms of PVE, a "blow-off valve" definitely exists to allow an organization to scale to any size. Frankly, Goonswarm Federation and the rest of the Imperium member alliances are fairly novel in that they actually bother to do PVE in their space in the first place. Remember when people though pvesov would kill us? Ahhh good times.
It is cute how the rest of New Eden pins their hopes on CCP introducing something that will suddenly make us disappear.
...
On a separate note, I think it's worth reiterating a previous comment about the amount of time and skill points invested in Capital ships for veteran players. These changes are not just a nerf to the ships themselves, but an uncompensated affront to those of us that invested months and years to have a highly skilled competency in Capital ships.
So if these changes are going to get rammed through with virtual blinders on, as they are sure to be (I've yet to see CCP Larrikin or a member of Team Five-O actually address any of their serious critics and vocal detractors of this change - typical), if they do not make the offensive abilities of these ships stay commensurate with all that time investment then they have betrayed the thousands of customers they aim to serve.
Sadly, we are seeing an entire development approach that's perspective is askew of their customers, save the easily confused and uniformed. Many of us say, iterate in a moderate manner; progressively and taking nuanced steps, possibly using 'containment' mechanics and enhancing counters, "a light touch" as Care Takers of EVE. Instead we get this development style where newcomer Developers are shoving their EVE 2.0 paradigm down our throats.
It leaves me really disgusted with some of the people I would rather respect and support in their efforts to address unhealthy and unreasonable game mechanics...
Remember "Ludicrous Speed"? No one complained when that was toned down from something 'unhealthy' to something reasonable. Where developers properly addressed a 'real' issue.
The way to address Slowcat/Boot Carrier fleets is:
- Diminishing Returns on Remote repair that caps the number of effective repair inputs to mitigate the dreaded N+1 (similar to Drone Assist limits that were imposed)
- Progressive Timer activation upon refitting modules from fleet or cargo while undocked, similar to Jump Fatigue, to only deter constantly 'risk-free' refitting Carrier fleets.
- Delay drone recall based on a weapons timer (or similar) to allow Bombs to reach their targets and remove Sentries from the field.
- Buff Void bombs, by creating a new Anti-Capital Void Bomb that can disrupt Carrier Cap Transfer webs. And if necessary, up the ante by creating a new Interdiction sphere launcher probe that also has 'Damage over Time' (DoT) style Neutralizing effects.
- If absolutely necessary, increase targeting lock times, to encourage attempts by Subcapitals to beat Carrier Broadcasts if they have brought a proper ratio of damage dealing ships vs. the Carrier fleet they are facing.
Ultimately there are so many things that could be done in preference to this radical redesign that only brings low EVE's mightiest ships because of some petty ideological dislike for these ships by some community members and developers.
The way to make Capital mechanics interesting and engaging, is to maintain each ships unique individual character among its Capital peers, instead of instituting a wearisome 'tech tree' version of these ships reminiscent of World of Warships.
- Fighter mechanic changes look promising, and like Ludicrous Speed, is a innovative solution towards long standing issues with fighter/drones and Carriers - issues that brought about the appropriate first stage measure of Drone Assist limitations.
- Role clarifications and Offensive Multi-Type Doomsday Buffs to Titans is welcome and long over due.
- Dreadnaughts, retain their role intact, as well as receiving a needed Subcapital offensive capability - though I disagree with both forcing them into Siege to use High Angle weapons AND reducing their effective hitpoints.
- I dislike everything about the hull changes for Carrier hulls currently proposed, and will refer to my previous post for any detailed explanations.
- There is not enough information about Super Carriers to state any opinions at this time.
While we wait for numbers and specifics, my personal belief is that if CCP ignorantly proposes a massive ehp nerf, as I believe they will do and why they refused to divulge any numbers at EVE Vegas, in order to institute the 'sub-capitalization' of Capitals as XL Dominix's, XL Basilisks, XL Marauders for Carriers and Dreadnaughts then it will go badly for them and they will ultimately have to walk back certain numbers to something more appropriate. If on the other hand they simply adjust numbers, coupled with appropriate suggestions like those offered above and by others in this thread, to a moderate amount that will allow say a 5:1 ratio of Battleships to Carriers (as an example) to be able to contest a Carrier fleet; then this is completely reasonable and appropriate. And doing so may also re-invigorate Battleship usage as the appropriate counter to moderate sized Carrier Fleets on a 5:1 or similar ratio (ie 125 Battleships vs. 25 Carriers). Whereas, larger more organized Capital Fleets need to be countered by appropriately sized and composed opposing Capital Fleets with Subcapital support; getting capitals shooting at each other again, in addition to shooting structures (sorry FozzieSov we know you meant well, but Capitals are for killing things not SovLazors)
Only time will tell - but I won't hold my breath...
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2869
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 01:45:41 -
[682] - Quote
You obviously missed the bit where there's now anti-capital Void Bombs. And, you know, actual normal Void Bombs.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
311
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 02:31:15 -
[683] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:You obviously missed the bit where there's now anti-capital Void Bombs. And, you know, actual normal Void Bombs.
If your referring to the Focused Void Bomb, it has a 5000m effect radius/range, but does nothing to interrupt the Capacitor Chain that keeps everyone else's Capacitor topped off. Which in turn allows them to Remote Repair a ship being Yellow Boxed by an opposing force.
Further one bomb only can neutralize 15,000 GJ of Capacitor - a Standard Chimera fit for tank will be close to 80,000 GJ of Capacitor being recharged at a rate of 2000 GJ ever 10 seconds at up to 52.5km (not including calculations for it's own Capacitor local regeneration). A single broadcast and 20 Carriers will replenish 40,000 GJ in 10 seconds (for those caught outside the very small blast radius.
Even if a Bomber wing were to wipe out a Carrier's cap and momentarily shut down its hardeners, because its repairs are provided remotely, Broadcasts will over come the momentary advantage for a Sub-Capital fleet, because there is no "Diminishing Return" mechanic for stacking Capital Remote Repair modules.
Even if everything is done with synchronized precision, after the first Carrier loss, the rest of the fleet would be ordered to mostly likely starburst so as to reduce the effectiveness of any future Focused Void Bombs.
However, because other Capitals are the natural counter to Capitals, if Focused Void Bombs are used by a Capital Fleets subcap. support Bombers, then the consequences are much different and far more effective.
In summary the current Focused Void Bomb is not Anti-Capital "Fleet" in my estimation, as they are currently constituted, however I should have been more specific that I was referring to disruption of the Capital Fleets: Capital Remote Capacitor Emissions module chaining, as opposed to an individual Carriers Capacitor.
I think a version that can neutralize even larger GJ amounts of Capacitor, over a larger area of up to even 20km, and is based on Signature radius, as well as shutting of or causing a cool down timer on Capital Remote Capacitor Emission modules, would be an appropriate counter - as I had said: A buff to Void Bombs.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2870
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 04:34:01 -
[684] - Quote
So the time that BRAVE knackered BL's legion and Archon fleet in Fountain with non-focused Void Bombs was just some magic hocus-pocus? The various times Hard knocks / Lazerhawks et al. have broken carriers in and out of wormholes using Void Bombs en masse didn't happen, clearly.
I mean, yeah, if your whole strategy for dunking a cap fleet is "Jose, you are our lone bomber pilot with a Focus Void Bomb. Go forth little man and wreak havoc" then, yeah, sucks to be you. But last time I checked slows tend to cyno in at zero on a cyno and don't spread out very much from there. I also seem to recall that bombers work in teams, Void bombs have a 15km radius, and affect everything in that radius. ipso facto, 10 void bombs is 60k cap neuting in the AOE, so if you bomb 10 slows you neut 600K cap. So maybe do the maths on that in under 10 paragraphs and figure out if your bomber wing can reload before the slows cap themselves up.
You also, earlier on page 33 of this threadnaught, made some hilarious statements, viz.;
Quote:But instead the ships are blamed, instead of the combatant that decided not to commit the proper counter to these larger ships. We saw this with NCdock multiple times, where they refused to commit their Capital forces do to concerns of loosing their fleet vs. whether or not it would be effective against other capitals.
Right. So your logic is because you have slows, and a supercap wing capable of waltzing onto field and DD'ing their way through the NC. capital fleet, NC. are cowards for not fruitlessly throwing away cap fleets against an organisation that just happens to overpower them (and is also buddy-buddy with PL, their only real supercap threat)? So when NC. fields subs and can't break your slows, they are stupid for not fielding caps they'd just lose.
End of the day, you're right: you guys have the superior numbers, and likely the superior organisational and financial capabilities, so that makes everyone else's problems not your problem. You dominate (viz., fielding massed slows to force cap ships onto the field that can then be hotdropped by supers), therefore you deserve to dominate, and anything that breaks your dominance (eg; breaking slows) you'll be better at than anyone else because...you have more guys.
That's a stupid way to balance the game. It is even more dumb when you are basically arguing that the problem with slows is merely the lack of appropriate AOE neut weapons.
maybe....just maybe...if FAX become a thing, the current focused void bombs (and you know, more than one bomber), will be sufficient. Likewise, carriers with capital sized neuts will also be a thing. Even the introduction of capital sized EWAR / capacitor warfare, will break the dominance of slows.
Mega RRdomi (aka slows) will fall apart regardless of splitting carriers into carriers / FAX the moment decent capital neuts turn up. CCP Larrikin could toss the new capital modules out inside of a few weeks into the current meta and see how it all goes.
In fact, i'm in favour of this iterative approach vs anything else.
Like, capital neuts that have a 20s cycle time, 55km range, and knock out 30k capacitor per cycle. That will break a slowcat cap chain inside a minute. Capital cap boosters, cap batteries.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
311
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 15:01:37 -
[685] - Quote
If others have had success in using Void Bombs, then that's wonderful, and if nothing else a buff even a insignificant one that gets Void Bombs listed on the patch notes can draw attention to them. And hopefully more groups will start to use this excellent counter.
My personal feelings that Void Bombs are under powered, based on my experience, isn't a claim that others haven't found competent ways to use them. And I congratulate anyone that has, as it proves my point, that there are existing counters to Slowcat/Boot Archon fleets... they're just under utilized.
If you add a Diminishing Returns to Capital Remote Repair, then this counter is even effective while using subcapitals in the correct ratio without any further radical changes. Add the other suggestions and you have a really good fix to the Carrier meta.
...
I do think that the ships are blamed. And to clarify: What I mean to say about NCdock is they had a counter available to them, they chose not to employ it (which was smart for them, even if we would have liked to have that Capital fight with them after they invaded us - guess that space wasn't so important to them after all... next time right?)
At the end of the day, you can only balance ingame mechanics, modules and ships, not people nor the organizations they are part. If you start tweaking the mechanics of the game in order to control or subdue a particular group of people in a sand box game, then you've just flushed the entire game down the drain.
We will always have superiority against our enemies, because we don't care about your "Gud Fights" and "L33T PVP". We will adapt to CCPs 'fixes' and continue to soldier on. So expect N+10 come Spring 2016.
We will play to win, while you're all busy playing to fight.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
190
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 03:33:19 -
[686] - Quote
Sorry, not feeling it.
The "rework" is more nerf than anything else. The only real good news (especially for super-cap pilots) is that caps will be useful for something again (shooting structures). The new "angle guns" won't be relevant unless the current meta changes and BS become more relevant again, the way that you are proposing that they work. Splitting carrier roles just means it'll be even more of a PITA to move around than it is now.
Do what you're proposing, and then decrease the build cost of supers DRAMATICALLY. Something on the order of 8 billion for a super-carrier, and 20 billion for a Titan. Refund the difference in materials. Then you're balanced. The capabilities of the ships will be in line with their costs. They'll be in no way cost justified the way you have it proposed, and they'll just sit, the way moms did between the introduction of hics, and dominion.
Thanks for giving us more skills to train. Better make it worth it if you want to get those subscription dollars you're hoping for out of this.
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2874
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 09:48:38 -
[687] - Quote
Thinking more about this FAX crud...
This is a bad idea. Slows are basically domiballs. Domiballs don't rely on Execqurors or Oneiros which cannot receive inbound reps in order to work. If logi cruisers worked like FAX work, it would be amazing (read: riitarded). So many people would lose their whole fleets time and time again due to the "logi" being alphad off the field due to being clobbered by DPS.
Logi's work, and are (over)powered in the numbers cowardsauce risk-averse people deploy them, because they have high EHP, low sig, and scale up and aren't limited in any way. You crack logi chains with ECM and neuts and swapping DPS. In small gang combat, a small number of logis can swing a fight against a superior gang that lacks them.
You can take a large domiball on with a bunch of DPS cruisers, a couple of neuts, and a couple of logis. usually the magic formula in my experience is 1 logi per 1-1.25 domis and 1 MWD dump to scatter one domi away from its friends.
If CCP wants to see an alternative vision of Carrier / FAX combat:
Remove all range buffs for RR from carriers, and slide that over to the FAX. Keep the rep amount, and add in (as foreshadowed) the falloff in rep efficiency
Carrier - Drone DPS (gal / Cal) - Drone hitpoint (Cal/Amarr) - Drone tracking (Min / Gal) - Drone mobility (Min / Cal) - Local rep (Min/Gal) - Resists (Cal/Amarr)
EHP - 500K range, 600K for Amarr Caldari (a significant nerf) Rep amount: targeting 2-3K Amarr, and up to 4-5K Gal/Min
FAX - Rep range bonuses - Capacitor use bonus on RR's (Cal/Amarr) - RR amount bonus (Gal/Min) - Local rep bonus (Min/Gal) - Resist bonus (Cal/Amarr) - Triage option for rep amount bonus and local rep bonus and a CLEAR coloured halo so you can tell when they are Triaged
Self rep in the 5-8K for Cal/Amarr and 10-15K for minnie/gal, so that triage reps are worth a bunch of Dreads. EHP in the 300-400K to 400-500K range. You know, enough to prevent being alpha'ed by 6 dreads.
This would mean you could run less efficient spider-tanking FAX as gigantic Guard/Basis or Scythe/Oneiros with strong local tanks and strong RR.
This would form a kind of split beween the FAX ships on a racial basis mirroring the current logistics setups; small gang and solo logi FAX would be more inclined to be Triage, and the dual-spidering FAX would be less inclined to Triage, but could still be set up to do that.
Given that Capitals are now supposed to be at least mildly mobile, this would mean that a set of FAX could move with the fleet. Carriers could still spider tank, but given the lack of RR bonus and lack of any range at all (try energy chaining with a Nidhoggur....) they will be punching bags. just like domi balls are.
The important distinction is that Carriers would carry the DPS, and be supported by logi boats which have virtually no DPS. I mean...ok, I have taken out Spider Scythe roams and it's hella good fun, but it's a niche fleet and not widely applicable.
This means that if you try to recreate Slowcats, you need to devote more and more pilots to FAX in order to scale up and have unbreakable stronk spider RR. lets not fool ourselves, people will do this, just like NDORD fields 14 out of 36 ships as guardians, you can bet some cowards will field 14 of 36 ships as FAX.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
768
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 10:48:23 -
[688] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Thinking more about this FAX crud...
This is a bad idea. Slows are basically domiballs. Domiballs don't rely on Execqurors or Oneiros which cannot receive inbound reps in order to work. If logi cruisers worked like FAX work, it would be amazing (read: riitarded). So many people would lose their whole fleets time and time again due to the "logi" being alphad off the field due to being clobbered by DPS.
Logi's work, and are (over)powered in the numbers cowardsauce risk-averse people deploy them, because they have high EHP, low sig, and scale up and aren't limited in any way. You crack logi chains with ECM and neuts and swapping DPS. In small gang combat, a small number of logis can swing a fight against a superior gang that lacks them.
You can take a large domiball on with a bunch of DPS cruisers, a couple of neuts, and a couple of logis. usually the magic formula in my experience is 1 logi per 1-1.25 domis and 1 MWD dump to scatter one domi away from its friends.
If CCP wants to see an alternative vision of Carrier / FAX combat:
Remove all range buffs for RR from carriers, and slide that over to the FAX. Keep the rep amount, and add in (as foreshadowed) the falloff in rep efficiency
Carrier - Drone DPS (gal / Cal) - Drone hitpoint (Cal/Amarr) - Drone tracking (Min / Gal) - Drone mobility (Min / Cal) - Local rep (Min/Gal) - Resists (Cal/Amarr)
EHP - 500K range, 600K for Amarr Caldari (a significant nerf) Rep amount: targeting 2-3K Amarr, and up to 4-5K Gal/Min
FAX - Rep range bonuses - Capacitor use bonus on RR's (Cal/Amarr) - RR amount bonus (Gal/Min) - Local rep bonus (Min/Gal) - Resist bonus (Cal/Amarr) - Triage option for rep amount bonus and local rep bonus and a CLEAR coloured halo so you can tell when they are Triaged
Self rep in the 5-8K for Cal/Amarr and 10-15K for minnie/gal, so that triage reps are worth a bunch of Dreads. EHP in the 300-400K to 400-500K range. You know, enough to prevent being alpha'ed by 6 dreads.
This would mean you could run less efficient spider-tanking FAX as gigantic Guard/Basis or Scythe/Oneiros with strong local tanks and strong RR.
This would form a kind of split beween the FAX ships on a racial basis mirroring the current logistics setups; small gang and solo logi FAX would be more inclined to be Triage, and the dual-spidering FAX would be less inclined to Triage, but could still be set up to do that.
Given that Capitals are now supposed to be at least mildly mobile, this would mean that a set of FAX could move with the fleet. Carriers could still spider tank, but given the lack of RR bonus and lack of any range at all (try energy chaining with a Nidhoggur....) they will be punching bags. just like domi balls are.
The important distinction is that Carriers would carry the DPS, and be supported by logi boats which have virtually no DPS. I mean...ok, I have taken out Spider Scythe roams and it's hella good fun, but it's a niche fleet and not widely applicable.
This means that if you try to recreate Slowcats, you need to devote more and more pilots to FAX in order to scale up and have unbreakable stronk spider RR. lets not fool ourselves, people will do this, just like NDORD fields 14 out of 36 ships as guardians, you can bet some cowards will field 14 of 36 ships as FAX. This sounds quite reasonable, until you bring Titans and Supers into the equation. A carrier with 500k EHP, even with Fax support is going to die pretty quick. And with no real counter to Titans and supers other than having more than your enemy - Not having EHP hands the win to the current groups who are already so risk averse they won't drop if there is the slightest risk of real opposition.
Eve warfare is not something that can be balanced or changed by adding a new ship and WoW effects to Titans and Supers or multiple flights of disposable fighters to Carriers and the availability of Battleship sized guns for a dread is simply a waste, because the dominating groups will still dominate. This means there will always be limited capital content which means CCP is wasting their time and money on changes that can not bring about change.
To make capital ships viable, large capital groups need to rethink how they play the game (they won't) - As long as the dominating groups are friends (read, too afraid to fight each other), no capital balancing is going to make a difference - CCP is designing complete classes of ship for a few elite groups who don't really "play Eve".
Eve is supposed to be about "Risk vs Reward" remove the risk - There is no valid reward, just childish egos.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
CaesarGREG
EVIL ONES Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 18:48:28 -
[689] - Quote
My opinion
1. Carriers now will be kind drone boat , so let them use normal drones. 2. New Fighters , let me repair them in space!! 3. Refiting out of Wepon Timer its GOOD change and is enough , to disable them refit 100times.
thx all |
DragonZer0
APEX ARDENT COALITION Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 19:58:41 -
[690] - Quote
Been reading through the forums and the capital rework.
Question on the Force Auxiliary Capitals and please come up with a better name. While in triage will it be able to use it drones as logi tend to miss out on the fight as they usually have nothing to get on km with? With a reduction in EHP of all capitals will this one have the most potential ehp as this ship will hold the fleet together?
Electronic warfare immunity Like the idea but at the same time what is the percentage that your looking at for capitals? Also take note ECM as shouldn't be use on any capitals and dread especially as they currently are used as there scan res is terrible if they get jammed and then re-lock afterwords means a dread could go through a whole siege cycle w/o firing it weapons. Rest of it I'm alright with as there counters for them.
High Angle Weapon Batteries Will there be something for the phoenix also Rapid cruise missile or the like?
Fighters Over all idea but under tidi how will they respond to commands as currently drones are very delayed if they ever respond to the command. Also if not being command will they work as current drones as they will agrees what is aggression on the carrier?
The new doomday weapons only one I think that doesn't work well is Doomsday Codename: Sickle again under tidi how responsive is the game going to be to this type of command. I would suggest a DD based on the targets you have acquired as it bounces from one to the next in a chain splitting the max amount of damage between all the ships that is targeted. the other 3 are good in there own right. as they are based in the pilot choosing the target in the group to primary rather then an angle which to fire on. |
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
886
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 01:00:02 -
[691] - Quote
I realize that I am not your target audience and my opinion is probably less valid than other players who are.
But for what it's worth with every expansion that you guys put out this game feels a little more like WoW to me. I left WoW for a reason and this game seems to be slipping down that same path.
But again I understand that I am not your target audience and it would probably not be a good idea for you guys to design a game around my playstyle. |
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons Silver Dragonz
102
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 04:50:27 -
[692] - Quote
The hell is
?
In the grand scheme of things... You're all pubbies. So HTFU. "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." - Elwood Blues
|
Hethen Launderviche
Sireenius Industries Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 04:50:46 -
[693] - Quote
First time on the forum (yay!) and I do not know if someone else has made this suggestion; I am very excited about these changes and though I am not a cap pilot as of yet, I really would love to fly one of those behemoths into a thick battle and watch the fireworks.
The idea is a T2 Dreadnought or maybe a separate class all together which allows for extremely long range capital fights. The ship will be like the Dreadnought but it will have similar specs to the Attack Battle cruisers nicknamed the T3 BC for you oldies. It will have the same setup in the sense that the guns that it uses will have annoyingly long range; personally I would like them not to be visible on the local battlefield but that may have issues. All I imagine is warp missiles and fixed laser beams that come from an unknown source (it will be rendered within the proximity of the 2 points as to avoid lag.)
Here are some goals that I would like to have in place to make them more friendly and not tear up the battlefield: - Very long range and power but severely limited tracking speed to give the effect of heavy artillery - a long fire time and/or a pre-fire delay similar to the titans proposed doomsday attack - a spotter ship to pick targets within the local battlefield that can be relayed to the artillery to allow lock on over AU instead of km ranges - lock on time to take a bit of time for cap and incredibly long for sub-caps so that if the enemy is vigilant enough they can realize there is artillery and track them down. - the guns have a de-buff against sub-caps.
It isn't a fully fleshed out concept; I admit to only having it a few hours ago but I wanted to propose it early in time so that the idea can be seen and hopefully improved to add a new dimension to cap fleet battles. I really want to hear what others think since I am not a cap pilot, nor have I been in any major cap fleet battles, I do not really have any grounds to say this will be beneficial or not.
An after-note; It could be a module you add to dreads that make normal dreads these super dreads like the siege module or even the siege module turns the special guns, if there are any, into inter-system anti-cap weapons.
Thanks for reading. :) |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 10:12:57 -
[694] - Quote
My concern with FAX is that fights might get to static if the only real remote rep they can provide is when in triage.
CCP should remove the "no movement" component of triage while keeping the "no warp" and "no jump" restrictions in place.
That way a FAX still commits to the field but fights dont turn into a 100% static engagement and we see at least some (slow) movement. |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 20:29:19 -
[695] - Quote
Regarding that n+1 topic again...
The problem is, if you top out your defensive capabilites by forcing your logistics into triage you are still playing the n+1 game damage wise. Basically you need enough damage dealer to break the dps tank of the logistics (lets say 10 dreads, just to have something tangible to work with) so when a large group brings 20 dreads and logistics and a small group brings 11 dreads and logisitics the large group will do 20-10=10 dreads of effective dps damage every second and the small group does 11-10=1 effective dread dps damage every second. So the small group which has more than half the amount of damage dealers does only one tenth of the damage the larger group does. This problem increases with the capabilites of the logistics.
But if you make the logistics weaker you render them useless, just assume the extreme: a fax would only rep as much as a dread - then why bring a fax? if you bring 10 dreads and one fax, you get killed as fast as 11 dreads would, but do less damage.
So lets sum it up: A smaller group will hurt the enemy less than it gets hurt itself, this problem increases with logi. So the smaller group will lose more capitals and like ccp Larrikin said, those capitals losses will hurt them even more than it would hurt the big group
CCP Larrikin wrote:Arg, this is such a question of scale. For the super large groups out there, losing 20 supers sucks but is pretty easy to replace (20 titans maybe not so much). For the small lowsec pirate group, losing a single super could bankrupt them. Making them cheaper for the small guy only means the big guys are going to use them alllllll the time because they don't care about losing them. Its something we're looking at, and we have a couple of interesting choices (for example, insurance in XL Citidels). But we're keen on player input here.
Now I can prove the same for ewar and other things - all the force multipliers are more effective if used by bigger groups. But it is a fallacy to remove all those things. Why? Well if you do, and all the fights are just dps races, it is pure math. You can predict the outcome 100% exact. And now lets do a headcount: how many people will just whelp their ship regularly just that fights happen if they have no chance of winning?
I predict the number is zero.
The only chance to beat this is to make the result less predictable - things that can archieve this are: complexity - different roles mixed fleet compositions player skill involved in the fight itself (not outside because you have all the time there to run the math) and combat refitting is something that involves player skill, as in fast reaction times, staying cool and more. And while it may numerically increase the n+1 problem it also increases complexity which is something that reduces the strenght of numbers to some degree. Because it intelligence and skill doesn't scale with numbers. Another problem with fixed fitting is, that this does scale - you need only one intelligent and skilled player to create a doctrine fit that everyone uses, so this scales with numbers again.
This was to explain further why I don't like the removal of combat refitting. And I never heard a good reason why combat fitting should be bad. And no: "combat refitting needs to die" is not a reason. |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 21:35:02 -
[696] - Quote
The mass limitation of wormholes made me think - you can only bring a limited amount of capitals at a time, if you want more you have to seed them in a big effort. This counters n+1 very well. So I tried to think of other examples in the game that do things like that, and realized something. You can counter larger numbers with two things: area of effect weapons (yay RnK pipebombs) seperation and Seperation is what I want to talk right now - we all know those pvp viedos where a single player kills ships right under the nose of their fleets, done by seperating the target from their fleet, using fast, long range ships to stay out of the reach of most ships - make them come closer and kill them one by one.
But this obviously doesn't work with capitals as they don't move much.
In other scenarios than eve funnelling the enemy through a chokepoint can also archive such things. But space has no terrain, so you can't really do such things - or can you? As I said, wormholes got me thinking.
So here is my idea: What if you can only jump a limited number of capitals into a system within a certain amount of time?
Lets talk pseudo science: The jump drives of capitals create space warps - you bent space to create a connection from one point to the other, but bending it, stretches it to its breaking point. If you create too many of those tunnels, they get unstable, in other words: not safe to travel anymore.
Lets say you can only jump 10 capitals every 10 minutes into the system - now you got a chokepoint. You could even seperate them more by limiting the amount of capital jump ins/outs in a certain area of the solar system, if the area of the system is already too stretched you can jump in, in a different area of that system - like at a different planet, safespot, ... This gives the possibility to seperate capitals and creates bigger logistical headaches for bigger groups. Enabling capable small groups to seperate larger groups.
Lets work through an example: You manage to bait an entity with capitals - they jump 10 caps in - spread across the system, the maximum "space bending" is reached - no reinforcements will arrive for some time. You can now try to nail down 9 of those caps, stop them from warping while you take on the last one with your fleet, then the next one, then the next one - if you are fast enough, you can kill them within the ten minutes before reinforcements arrive. Maybe you can delay the other capitals by bending the space with your own capitals on purpose?
It doesn't stop large fights from happening - you just need more time to deploy all of your chessman, and you will have to gather everytime you jump into a system as you will be spread out (if you don't want that you would have to wait even longer - wait for the area in the system you want to jump to to regenerate). Your subcaptials can try to nail the enemy down at their entry points and stop them from joining the fight.
It enables smaller fights - as batphones won't result in you getting blobbed right away. Reinforcements will arrive in waves - so you might have time to extract. While the jump fatigue still doesn't protect you from getting stomped - they just can't do it as often.
So it would be a better limitation to force projection while it wouldn't punish activity. Because it is tied to the system rather to your ship or your character. And it wears of rather fast. It also punishes the logistic guys less - as it doesn't really affect the lone jump freighter.
So that is the basic concept - maybe some variations/details: you should probably count jump tunnels or ship mass when calculating the impact on the system, that you don't make bomber operations or bridging in general useless maybe make gates chokepoints aswell? like make them have a capacitor? that would mean that it can only jump x amount of people through - after that it needs to regain cap. Maybe link you to the gate, like you can link to a citadel while waiting for the jump, making you invulnerable so that people don't use that for *different* purposes ;-) maybe let people still jump when the space is already bent a lot - just with the risk of exploding? Thoughts? I just had this idea so it will be far from perfect ;-) |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
27
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 22:25:06 -
[697] - Quote
I don't think the problem with capitals is going to be fixed by adding more of them
but knock yourselves out I guess |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
768
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 23:20:17 -
[698] - Quote
I don't expect an answer here but did think this needed addressing; Particularly the last sentence and what it implies.
CCP Larrikin wrote:Arg, this is such a question of scale. For the super large groups out there, losing 20 supers sucks but is pretty easy to replace (20 titans maybe not so much). For the small lowsec pirate group, losing a single super could bankrupt them. Making them cheaper for the small guy only means the big guys are going to use them alllllll the time because they don't care about losing them. Its something we're looking at, and we have a couple of interesting choices (for example, insurance in XL Citidels). But we're keen on player input here. You make a very good point - Losing 1 super capital could bankrupt a small group, assessing correctly small groups don't have the resources to replace supers as easily as large groups do. But then you remove the idea you have any insight into the problem by suggesting one of the options to help with this could be - for example, insurance in Xlarge Citadels.
You do ask for player feedback on this so; I have a couple of questions for you.. How many of these small pirate groups (or any other small group) would you imagine will have access to Xlarge Citadels to insure their supers? For the small group. Is fielding an insured Super, knowing it is going to be killed, really going to encourage fights or is it just handing the dominant groups kill mails at the expense of smaller groups ( for an insurance payout equal to 50%? of the supers replacement value)
Should small groups form coalitions so they are able to afford and defend an Xlarge Citadel - Remembering, if they do, there is likely to be no-one left for them to fight. -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Until the only real conflict driver in Eve (moon mining) is addressed and completely overhauled, nothing can really change as far as "biggest blob wins". Large groups have no reason to fight for sov, they have the best sov and have no need for more Smaller groups can't contest the large groups for the best sov - So live in (often) less desirable places and remain "content" for the large groups as it suits them.
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- The only time the large groups will make an effort to form up is to protect a moon and then they form up in such large numbers (4/11 Ohkunen 217 vs 456) as to ensure their victory. Interesting ( although it was primarily a subcap fight), the smaller group of 217 fielded 2 carriers and 44 T2 subcap logi. Where the larger group of 456 fielded 12 T2 and 4 T1 logi but did bring 11 dreads, ensuring the opposing carriers were removed from the fight as early as possible.
Funnily enough, both the groups on the field that night are capable of fielding similar sized Capital / Super fleets, So why didn't they bring them? The answer is quite obvious if not a little simplistic - Neither side could guarantee a win with Supers. Both fleets are pretty evenly matched in Capital / Super warfare, so are reluctant to field them on opposing sides - Then, what is possibly the decider, any super engagement is going to attract 3rd parties from every group within jump range (super on grid? Screw fatigue, I'll worry about it later), further adding to the uncertainty of victory for either side - Who can muster the larger 3rd party group to ensure victory? -- - -- - -- - -- - --
I know none of this has anything to do with capital rebalancing, or does it? Without balancing the reasons and way capital ships are used, rebalancing them is somewhat a waste of time and money - The blob will always win, is not good game balance.
Shooting Citadels is not reason enough - The biggest blob will always win. Really, the biggest groups have already won, they can afford it. So why change something that is broken but works to something that is just as broken and will still work the same way?
For game play to be interesting for everyone, it needs to be designed so everyone has the same opportunity (joining goons so I can always win, is not game balance). Sort out the underlying issues with balance - You create a whole new game. Goons and pets can stay the biggest most risk averse blob in the game but their domination of the game is taken away with the right balance in mechanics.
Goons (and other large groups) are the biggest complainers when it comes to lack of conflict - They want fights. So give them a reason to fight - Sov is not worth fighting over - Moons are the conflict driver, they are the backbone of every group in the game. Fix moon mining = Content for all.
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- Sorry, this turned into a rant - It wasn't meant to but simply changing capital ships and adding Citadels isn't going to change the risk averse nature of PVP on TQ.
I would like the opportunity to talk to devs about my ideas - As would thousands of others. So I can only hope someone at CCP will see the light and begin to balance Eve for the future, not just short term gain with no real change.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Alexander Kreoss
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 02:28:45 -
[699] - Quote
i couldnt agree with Kassasis Dakkstromri more. and i really feel that capitals in general are very ****** compared to many other games versions of capitals. its one thing to balance a game but at no point should capitals have such limited defense for dealing with with sub caps. in all honesty, the time invested in capitals should literally mean you are better than another subcapital ship with a pilot of the same skill and caliber. like in other games. i feel capitals should have a rack or so of medium to large guns or something similar in module form. no bonus really but a dread should have more than 3 main anti capital guns. they should have tons of fire power. and be required to fight intelligently not just get a scram on it and orbit till back up arrives. i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes.
id honestly like to see them with balanced EHP but more like a single module that acts like 6-8 small guns or medium or large. you could take a 4 high dread and keep a siege and maybe 2 XL guns with 1(special) 6-8 small medium or large rack. this would i feel give them some versatility in being useful for more than just capital drops. you could take a dread or carrier out and solo pvp with them. say a carrier(of current role) could fit 2 sets of 6-8 medium guns to act as anti frig or cruiser batteries. and the modules would have limited capabilities. but you could have projectile, blaster, rails... and such. this could allow them to fight inside a 20-40km range without being jsut crapped on by 3 cruisers. i mean you shouldnt be 3 cruisers fighting a XL rep. cause honestly thats all capitals have to use if they want to live....
ive owned capitals but i just feel they are so worthless outside of group dropping or just transporting stuff. i mean they get used more for station games then anything else. and thats just embarrassing. im all for balance but i hate how ccp has basically created a huge joke out of what should be monsters. and this force auxiliary ship is neat in thought but just another joke. anyone ever seen why your supports hate you. its a **** job with little glory and now you wanna force players and fleets to have to use these ships and support the damage. thats cool in theory for but you'd be better off just implementing that idea as a battleship with capital reps rather then investing in a billion isk ship that just helps other plays enjoy there game more. and i thank anyone who reads this that actually enjoys being the CLERIC. you are special people that deserve better then what you get.
all in all im glad CCP is doing something that seems in the right direction however you need to make actual capital ships instead of giant specific isk machines that are worthless without each other. a capital in itself should be a terror...... and not something a frigate is all like i got this...., thats just total crap. thanks CCP. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
30
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 02:35:43 -
[700] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:The mass limitation of wormholes made me think - you can only bring a limited amount of capitals at a time, if you want more you have to seed them in a big effort. This counters n+1 very well. So I tried to think of other examples in the game that do things like that, and realized something. You can counter larger numbers with two things:
area of effect weapons (yay RnK pipebombs) seperation and Seperation is what I want to talk right now - we all know those pvp viedos where a single player kills ships right under the nose of their fleets, done by seperating the target from their fleet, using fast, long range ships to stay out of the reach of most ships - make them come closer and kill them one by one.
But this obviously doesn't work with capitals as they don't move much.
In other scenarios than eve funnelling the enemy through a chokepoint can also archive such things. But space has no terrain, so you can't really do such things - or can you? As I said, wormholes got me thinking.
So here is my idea: What if you can only jump a limited number of capitals into a system within a certain amount of time?
Lets talk pseudo science: The jump drives of capitals create space warps - you bent space to create a connection from one point to the other, but bending it, stretches it to its breaking point. If you create too many of those tunnels, they get unstable, in other words: not safe to travel anymore.
Lets say you can only jump 10 capitals every 10 minutes into the system - now you got a chokepoint. You could even seperate them more by limiting the amount of capital jump ins/outs in a certain area of the solar system, if the area of the system is already too stretched you can jump in, in a different area of that system - like at a different planet, safespot, ... This gives the possibility to seperate capitals and creates bigger logistical headaches for bigger groups. Enabling capable small groups to seperate larger groups.
Lets work through an example: You manage to bait an entity with capitals - they jump 10 caps in - spread across the system, the maximum "space bending" is reached - no reinforcements will arrive for some time. You can now try to nail down 9 of those caps, stop them from warping while you take on the last one with your fleet, then the next one, then the next one - if you are fast enough, you can kill them within the ten minutes before reinforcements arrive. Maybe you can delay the other capitals by bending the space with your own capitals on purpose?
It doesn't stop large fights from happening - you just need more time to deploy all of your chessman, and you will have to gather everytime you jump into a system as you will be spread out (if you don't want that you would have to wait even longer - wait for the area in the system you want to jump to to regenerate). Your subcaptials can try to nail the enemy down at their entry points and stop them from joining the fight.
It enables smaller fights - as batphones won't result in you getting blobbed right away. Reinforcements will arrive in waves - so you might have time to extract. While the jump fatigue still doesn't protect you from getting stomped - they just can't do it as often.
So it would be a better limitation to force projection while it wouldn't punish activity. Because it is tied to the system rather to your ship or your character. And it wears of rather fast. It also punishes the logistic guys less - as it doesn't really affect the lone jump freighter.
So that is the basic concept - maybe some variations/details: you should probably count jump tunnels or ship mass when calculating the impact on the system, that you don't make bomber operations or bridging in general useless maybe make gates chokepoints aswell? like make them have a capacitor? that would mean that it can only jump x amount of people through - after that it needs to regain cap. Maybe link you to the gate, like you can link to a citadel while waiting for the jump, making you invulnerable so that people don't use that for *different* purposes ;-) maybe let people still jump when the space is already bent a lot - just with the risk of exploding?
Great proposal, at least this would also make sense physics-wise... it's not just a nerf to caps because somebody doesn't understand how to couter them.
There are some interesting ideas in CCP's proposed changes to cap warfare but some are frankly terrible gamewise, plus they are showing how little some devs care about the YEARS of training cap pilots have been investing... incremental changes are much more likely to avoid breaking the game, and as others pointed already, losing players. Creating a while new cline of caps ships to serve NO new role whatsoever? So we need to train, buy, fit and deploy a series of new capships to do what we previously did already? That's a huge nonsense! The new logi caps will be doing just one thing, and not better than what is done now, so they'll be just boring, while carriers will do half their previous role, so they'll prolly be unused because dreads do more DPS and subcaps are more tactical (and cheap).
So many of us have been training level Vs in racial dreadnoughts or carriers because those ships had a very useful role, now by simply turning the tables under them, I think many of us will be severely pissed off. Judging by the current players' numbers CCP has pissed of a lot of people already, in part by introducing highly controversial new game mechanics which often meant sending down the drain huge players' investments in skilltime, assets and organization, partly by being inconsistent with new promising game contents... Please learn from mistakes, start listening to players' feedback, and stop thinking that a bold swerve of your nerfbat will fix complex problems, as time and again we have all seen, that isn't the case.
|
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 02:52:33 -
[701] - Quote
Still waiting for replies from CCP to any critic thus far...
In the mean time:
- Should we expect the new Chimera hull design early or released with Citadel Expansion
Man I really want that new hull.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Alexander Kreoss
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 03:24:52 -
[702] - Quote
yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking |
DragonZer0
APEX ARDENT COALITION Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 03:42:13 -
[703] - Quote
Alexander Kreoss wrote:yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking
Really the gallente carrier is the ugliest one of the capitals currently.
On a site note it would be interesting to see capitals being able to fit some smaller turrets for the AA support as it is called. Not enough to chase off something like Battleship that has you tackled but something to make frigates and maybe a cruiser warp off? |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
890
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 09:03:02 -
[704] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:Regarding that n+1 topic again...
I agree with a lot of the basic points that Sayod brings up here.
I mean the guys that can bring the bigger fleet will always have the advantage. That's Eve and I don't see how it could even be a goal to make that not the case. I mean this is not some balanced PvP game where you have 10 v 10 Battlegrounds or anything like that.
What I basically interpret this dev blog to say is that people are complaining that things like logistics and Ewar are making Eve combat too complicated so you are dumbing them down. Everything that you describe here can be done by both sides so there is no "unfair" aspect too it. You are just streamlining the combat in the game and dumbing it down that is all that I see these changes accomplishing.
As far as your argument that it is hard to balance things when people can refit in combat while that may be true to a point changing that first off does not guarantee and kind of balance and secondly it almost seems silly to chase after some hyper balanced gameplay in a game like Eve that is so focused on unbalance. I mean anyone can fly any ship and use any module so game mechanic wise there can never be any situation that is unbalanced.
There can only be a situation where you brought the wrong ships or not enough ships and since Eve is a game about match-ups and counters that's just part of the game. If you don't like being countered by your enemy then get better spys to give you more accurate intel. Or conversely you could just loose and admit that your opponent out gunned you or out smarted you etc...
I played WoW while I watched them go down the path of "balancing" the game and it ruined the game. The simple fact is that when people loose they don't ever want to think that them sucking or their opponents being better than them has anything to do with it so they will always blame game mechanics in one way or another. So even if you could somehow actually "balance" the game people would still **** and moan about unfair or unbalanced mechanics.
Further now your are simplifying game mechanics or homogenizing game mechanics (both of which I read as dumbing down the game) to make balancing easier and all of this in a game that could not possibly be unbalanced and who's game structure has nothing to do with balance.
I think that you guys need to take a step back and think about what balance really means and where it will wind up if you insist on taking this game down that path and what it has done to other games and what it is doing to this game and then explain to me how it is even something that should be a goal.
Before you guys "rebalanced" all the ship line ups the Minmatar ships were the solo, meaning 1 v 1, PvP kings of the game. So if you wanted to do solo PvP then Minmatar were the ships to have. Now since everyone could fly the rifter there was no unbalance in the game. Further the Minmatar ship fell behind every other ship in the game in almost every category except speed. They had the weakest sensor strength, the lowest paper dps, the crappiest tank stats etc... So outside that one very narrow situation every other ship in game was better pretty much.
Back then the Amarr had really great tanks and best in game dps but their dps was locked in damage types and could be stopped with cap warfare. So each race had it's ups and downs and strengths and weaknesses so on the whole there was balance just in specific situations one race or one ship might have an advantage over the other but in Eve everything is situational so that is as it should be.
So anyway then you guys went and "balanced" all the ships and now things are more homogenized meaning there is less difference between the races' ship line ups which in a sense makes things more unbalanced because now little differences send things way out of balance because things are so homogenized.
When Blizzard went down this path with WoW where it wound up is them making all the classes almost identical and removing almost all differences between the classes or races etc... and you wound up with 2 basic roles in PvP in that game which were heals and dps. Within those 2 basic roles everyone had basically the same "moves" with different names and different graphical effects to them but the mechanics were nearly identical. So with "balance" came a lack of options. Not to mention the fact that people still whine about lack of balance and that game still has it's FotM class, spec, etc...
All of that is not to mention the fact that WoW, when I left it, was so hyper balanced that a very small difference was very noticeable and even upper single digit percent differences were game breaking. You guys will NEVER achieve balance in this game and even if you could your players would not see it that way. Further your efforts to balance the game will only server to make it more unbalanced. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1910
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 12:52:35 -
[705] - Quote
Alexander Kreoss wrote:yeah chimera. i like the new design. but i like the old one too. its that gallente carrier that needs a redesign. is so bad looking
De gustibus non est disputandem!
Do not argue in matters of taste!
I love the Thanatos and think it looks great. Especially with the Quafe skin.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2383
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 14:05:24 -
[706] - Quote
How can people not get this?
The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.
N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss. |
Severice
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 16:15:27 -
[707] - Quote
What i want to know as a pilot who would be "Picking their first capital" (ignoring all the ones i'm stuck with)
Will all capitals have the same jump range, hangers, hanger bays, ect? Will all capitals have the same price? Will all capital have the same DPS vs capitals? Will all capital have the same DPS vs sub caps? Will carriers with their fighters be better vs sub caps, but worse vs caps? Will the projected dps of carriers make them glass cannons or significantly weaker than dreads? Will capitals be repairable in siege modes?
What reasons will we have to use capitals? |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
42
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 18:14:26 -
[708] - Quote
Alexander Kreoss wrote:i couldnt agree with Kassasis Dakkstromri more. and i really feel that capitals in general are very ****** compared to many other games versions of capitals. its one thing to balance a game but at no point should capitals have such limited defense for dealing with with sub caps. in all honesty, the time invested in capitals should literally mean you are better than another subcapital ship with a pilot of the same skill and caliber. like in other games. No, not like in other games - that is what makes eve unique. You don't have this stupid level system where ships get better and better with every "level". Every ship has a purpose and some things are better acomplished by small ships. That is how it is meant to be and should be. It creates variety in fleets, and you don't feel obsolete as a new player because you are not. Even if you can only fly frigates you are still important. This doesn't mean that capitals are not powerful they just need support to be effective. If you don't like that then this is the wrong game for you.
Alexander Kreoss wrote: i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes. you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone.
Alexander Kreoss wrote:this force auxiliary ship is neat in thought but just another joke. anyone ever seen why your supports hate you. its a **** job with little glory and now you wanna force players and fleets to have to use these ships and support the damage. thats cool in theory for but you'd be better off just implementing that idea as a battleship with capital reps rather then investing in a billion isk ship that just helps other plays enjoy there game more. and i thank anyone who reads this that actually enjoys being the CLERIC. you are special people that deserve better then what you get. I love to fly logistics, and looked forward to fly a carrier at some point, if they really remove combat refitting that would certainly be a bummer but I would probably still give it a shot, depending how it develops, won't be closer than a year ahead anyway. And I think it is good to split carriers up into dedicated logistics and drone boats, I never liked drones anyway, I always forget those stupid isk sinks . And drone assist never works - never got on a killmail with a logi because of assisting drones, they just sit idle around if you don't target yourself and press F. Anywaay ... back on topic. Logistics are in a good state in my opinion - introducing falloff seems fair though, and if you don't like it I don't want to force you to fly it. Can't have a fleet just made up from logistics anyway so it is good that not everyone wants to do it
But I also don't like the idea just beeing a meat shield without beeing able to influence the outcome. And I can do that with subcap logi (pull range overheat prop mod/hardeners, get transversal up) and I would like to be able to do that with a cap with combat refitting eventually.
Ah and I don't really like the name to be honest but I wouldn't mind that so much as the removal of combat refitting. And if you like to press F1 blapping things, just get a dread and some friends with serpentis and minmatar ships ;-) some fresh paint and slow movement can change your life y'know. It is the right thing, that you can't apply that yourself - caps need support and that is how it should be (and that is why I don't really like the concept of the HAW...) |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 18:51:32 -
[709] - Quote
afkalt wrote:How can people not get this?
The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.
N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss.
This is why you cap Capital Remote Repair, along with a few other common sense changes. Then no need for a useless new Capital ship to act as a fat XL Basilisk.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
769
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 22:18:50 -
[710] - Quote
afkalt wrote:How can people not get this?
The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.
N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss. Seriously backwards there.
The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?
Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk.
CCP don't really pay attention and consider smaller groups (or just don't care about the smaller groups) when looking at changes to the game - and balancing the game for the blobs has just worked so well up till now - Why change the way they do things.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 23:45:41 -
[711] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP don't really pay attention ...
CSM please fix this.
I mean has anyone in Team Five-0 actually played Capital Ships, besides ejecting from a Polaris and boarding one for ship spinning?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 16:33:22 -
[712] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?
Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk. Mega groups huh? So evil, retaining all the players
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 16:43:52 -
[713] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:Alexander Kreoss wrote: i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes. you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone. What ship is this that you're buying for 2.5bil which is that capable now?
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Umar Umarhabib
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:21:08 -
[714] - Quote
Will the High Angle Weapon Batteries have a missile variant for Caldari capital ships? |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
769
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 21:55:32 -
[715] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:The blobs will have less to fear than they do now. You really think the 200 man blob losing 1 or 2 dreads while in the process of ganking the 40 man fleet they dropped on are at a disadvantage?
Answer is simple really - In CCP's new (wowafied) Eve, with Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) and capital ship micro management increased to eliminate multi boxing (for all but the most OCD), everyone should just join a mega group to ensure they face less risk. Mega groups huh? So evil, retaining all the players Sgt Ocker wrote:Xlarge Citadels (only the largest groups will be able to afford) Hmm, Titans, so rare even largest alliances have two or three... LOL, retaining all the players - so many of whom only log in when a guaranteed winning fight is pinged. Come my pets, Mittens needs you to protect his chicken ass because his little empire relies on all of you being too scared to risk anything. 20 guys just formed up in Pure blind - and the ping goes out to the 40+K mainly afk membership of the CFC - we need another 150 in fleet "NOW" (and get them because ganking a 20 man gang with 200 is so much fun for all) Retaining all the player groups too afraid to get out from under their masters skirts and play the game, sure being risk averse is the only way to play an online game. There is probably 2 or 3 alliances within the CFC worthy of holding Sov by being able to hold their own in a fight and I'm not sure Goons are one of them. Sure Goons are good at sending out 200 man sigs (of mixed alliances) to harass the smaller groups, they are good at highsec ganking and most importantly, they are very good at keeping TQ in an all but stagnant state. But being the most risk averse group on TQ is nothing to be proud of.
As for titans - Rare? Largest alliances only have 2 or 3? Are you really that bad or do you think everyone else is? (I count 7 on one pos kill during the last fleet you joined alone and anyone with half a brain knows there are many more where they came from) By your response - You believe Devs have it right and only the largest groups should have access to the largest toys? How balanced is that - I was right - Everyone needs to join Goons - Especially if you have a Super or a Titan. Join Goons - Unless you actually want to play an online game, in which case, you better start looking elsewhere because Eve is heading down the "Mega blobbers or out" road.
you are just the worst troll to wear the Goon tag. Shame really, the odd post from you actually makes sense - Then you blow your credibility by defending the largest most risk averse group on TQ.
Goons + Pets = Bad for Eve
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
769
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 22:34:34 -
[716] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sayod Physulem wrote:Alexander Kreoss wrote: i mean how worthless can 2.5bil isk be to be taken so easily by a interceptor. so im looking forward to these changes. you can't because you can't be pointed by an interceptor - you need a HIC, or more people if they change that - but one interceptor is not enough to tackle you and far from killing you. And caps are never meant to move around alone. What ship is this that you're buying for 2.5bil which is that capable now? I think Alexander Kreoss is talking about a bling carrier - 2.5 bil? Which according to the blog at least;
Quote:No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity
Yes, titans can be tackled by enough Rifters, or jammed by enough Falcons. We've got some interesting mechanics for this and I'll go through them one by one -
Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Heavy Interdictors with a focus point will work as they do now, as will bubbles. Will still be able to be tackled by a lone ceptor (or rifter or whatever) and once tackled will die (as is the way, call in as many friends as you can) due to having no real counter to small ships.
Sayod Physulem said - And caps are never meant to move around alone - Your right and how boring is a game where you "have" to be in a large group just to play.
Alavaria Fera, - There isn't one A lone carrier can't defend itself (can be tackled by) against a solo frigate - Is exactly as it is now.
Is making supers and titans (the most risk averse classes of ships in Eve) vulnerable to ewar really going to change anything? All it does is give the large groups more opportunity to blob the small groups and the poor sap moving his most expensive asset is more easily caught and killed by a group of subcaps (with no special requirements other than a lot of tackle). If 10 captors with long points can catch a Super, that is what super hunters will use - Who needs to be slowed down (risk losing an easy kill) by having a Hic in fleet when speedy ceptors can do the same job?
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.08 16:19:27 -
[717] - Quote
Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.
The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2822
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 03:19:30 -
[718] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.
The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs? That's a pretty hefty cost. You might want to get a second opinion.
In fact, I KNOW you can get better prices than that from builders in your own alliance. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2683
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 05:57:30 -
[719] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.
The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs? Also given Battleships run to a cool billion for a Marauder hull....... I think Cap prices are fine. Carriers were way way too cheap for their abilities before. |
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
134
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 06:03:35 -
[720] - Quote
I can't tell that I like that that suggest to change. Data on changes yet not final, but it is clear on what updating is directed. At those who lives in WH there will be problems. They will be connected with changes of dreds and cariers. On new cariers anybody will have no studied skills. Skill will be studied with x10 multiplier (most likely). For T2 of guns on Dreds too it will be necessary to study skill. Also they will get thus worse on the smaller ships. It will make more difficult accommodation at WH. It isn't excluded that part of WH will become empty. If you want to subject to bigger danger of cariers and super cariers create for them special anomalies on which these ships will jump. Let anomalies shine as beacon/cino and will be visible to all. The changes entered with fighter are bad that now fighter can't be repaired. Carriers and Super-Carriers can consider analog of modern aircraft carriers. However, automatic repair of fighter at return to the ship still isn't provided. It is impossible to adjust fighter - at what level of damages it comes back to the ship. You add new modules for Carriers and Super-Carriers but you change Hit Points. You skry all take away Hit Points quantity. But new modules which you give will need to be installed somewhere. And occasional seats for installation of new modules aren't present. Therefore as if I wasn't glad to new modules, it will make Carriers and Super-Carriers worse. For what it is necessary this nerf? |
|
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
137
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 10:32:34 -
[721] - Quote
Perhaps this question was already asked, excuse if I repeat. Whether the new capitals will repair each other at the activated Triage module? Whether the new capital will operate drones at the activated Triage module? Whether the volume of capacitor of the new capital and consumption will be reconsidered by capacitor modules? Whether basic capacitor of the new capital will be increased? |
BambarbiyaKirgudu
RD work W-Space Citizen
17
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 14:32:33 -
[722] - Quote
Hello dear developers! I want to express opinion of the majority of Russian-speaking players! Reworking Capital Ships will lead 1) to a drop online, as many players learn the skills on them, which are studied over the years! You created a situation of uncertainty, play in further in EVE or not! 2) capital ships will not to be in demand, on them will not fly 3) -ü5, -ü6 will become extinct 4) we think that you go not the right way and that you must not redo the old, that you must add only new! |
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
12
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 12:47:07 -
[723] - Quote
I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.
Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.
You could potentially be making the game very boring. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1925
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 15:08:34 -
[724] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.
Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.
You could potentially be making the game very boring.
They are also adding capital neutralizers.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
772
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 15:15:42 -
[725] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:I am a little unhappy to hear that the capacitor warfare with capitals is due to become more difficult with the addition of capital cap boosters and capacitor batteries.
Please consider the implications when scaling capital capacitor modules against sub-capital energy neutralizers. You have several anti-capital sub-caps like Armageddons, Bhaalgorns and Legions. This combat dynamic will be lost considering the scaling of capacitor size and the fact all current cap boosters regardless of size have a 12 second activation time.
You could potentially be making the game very boring. Your Fax will save you from being capped out - At least for as long as it takes the blob your fighting to neut it out - because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).
Best bet - Join a capital mega group (they don't deploy unless it is a sure thing) OR sell your capitals and be done with them.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
138
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 06:07:13 -
[726] - Quote
Why so to worry? New modules for the capitals will be installed in empty seats. Also will put them instead of something that put earlier. Empty seats that weren't added. And EHP will cut. Cap boosters won't rescue the capitals. The capitals won't become better, thicker. Both killed them, and will kill further. That personally afflicts me. The capital and super capital ships turn into unnecessary garbage. Only because they will be easier to be caught and killed. Who will begin to fly, risk on them - understanding that risk and spent for these ships ISK aren't justified? |
Metal Hunter
The Explorers Club
138
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 07:30:11 -
[727] - Quote
Interestingly, and why didn't guess to enter Capital Ancillary Shield Booster and similar on armor... |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
483
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 14:53:55 -
[728] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: ..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).
How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning?
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two
52
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 16:33:20 -
[729] - Quote
Just a thought: * Dreadnaughts will be the only capital able to fit a Siege-module, which buffs DPS etc, while rendering remote assistance impossible for the duration of the Siege-cycle.
* Force Auxilliary Capitals wll be the only capital able to fit the Triage module, which gives bonus to reps, remote reps etc, while redering remote assistance to the triaged FAC impossible for the duration of the triage cycle.
* Carriers will be the only ship able to fit ??? which buffs ???, while rendering ??? impossible for the duration of ???
For consistency, and for players that do not want to invest in a third cap-ship; why not enable carriers to fit either a siege module (buffing damage and local reps) or a triage module (buffing remote reps/local reps), but make it not-as-good-as-the-other-capitals. This would give more flexibility to the poorer players that can not afford 3 capitals, aswell as bring a deeper dimension to cap warfare. Or you just merge the Triage and Siege modules into one unified module for all three capitals - The Triege Module or perhaps the Siage Module...you get my point....
CEO Svea Rike
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
773
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 20:17:06 -
[730] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: ..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).
How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning? Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
483
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 22:08:14 -
[731] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: ..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).
How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning? Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says. So your saying you have no ******* idea what your talking about? Because you really don't.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2714
|
Posted - 2015.11.13 23:59:28 -
[732] - Quote
Here's my idea for how trading carriers with force auxiliaries should work:
When rolling out the change, begin allowing players to freely exchange docked carriers for force auxiliary, they simply click a button and a countdown begins. One hour later the carrier is now a force auxiliary of the same race. They can halt the process and undock it as a carrier if they need it all of a sudden.
Give a three-month grace period for free changes. Within this period, people can swap to a force auxiliary, fly it around and play with it, then swap it back to a carrier, fly it around, and even swap it back to a force auxiliary.
After the grace period ends, you can still swap them as long as you stay docked but once you undock the ship, its type is set for keeps. Also, any carriers or force auxiliaries that went into production after the change rolled out (even during the grace period) are set and unable to change type.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
773
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 01:47:06 -
[733] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: ..... because, no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob wins (won't have to be a capital bob either - sub caps are getting an open ticket to killing capitals).
How the smeg does no refitting timer and remote reps prevent biggest blobs from winning? Go back to school, do some math and learn what + - & = signs mean, PLEASE. Then try reading what the quote says. So your saying you have no ******* idea what your talking about? Because you really don't. How does what I wrote (in plain English) to you, add up to me saying it prevents blobs winning? Like I said, read what I wrote then respond to what is written.. Not what you think it says.
Hint the + & = signs create the outcome (no remote reps + refitting timers = biggest blob WINS) The = sign is the outcome.. BIGGEST BLOB WINS.
How do you get I am saying it prevents the biggest blobs winning? When in fact I said the exact opposite.
Learn to read English and stop being a bad.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2715
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 02:21:43 -
[734] - Quote
The biggest blobs usually win no matter what, but there is a significant variance depending on actual flying skill. Problem is, most of the big blobs are the ones with more skill. You might say TEST is an exception to that, and you'd be quite wrong.
Reducing the skill barrier will give smaller groups a larger chance to compete, while also making it easier for a larger yet less-skilled blob to fend off a small group that is highly skilled. I do feel that skill should be important in EVE but it is going to be important no matter how the game changes and more importantly it comes from experience flying as a lower-skilled pilot. It is for that reason that I support changes that lower the barrier to entry for newer pilots.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
42
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 10:35:16 -
[735] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The biggest blobs usually win no matter what, but there is a significant variance depending on actual flying skill. Problem is, most of the big blobs are the ones with more skill. You might say TEST is an exception to that, and you'd be quite wrong.
Reducing the skill barrier will give smaller groups a larger chance to compete, while also making it easier for a larger yet less-skilled blob to fend off a small group that is highly skilled. I do feel that skill should be important in EVE but it is going to be important no matter how the game changes and more importantly it comes from experience flying as a lower-skilled pilot. It is for that reason that I support changes that lower the barrier to entry for newer pilots.
That doesn't make any sense. While I agree, that larger groups are often more skilled aswell, this still is the wrong conclusion. Lets work through the cases (it is always blob versus small group): (1) Fighting is skill intensive: blob has skill and small group has skill -> blob wins blob has skill and small group has no skill -> blob wins hard blob has no skill and small group has skill > small group wins blob has no skill and small group has no skill -> blob wins (2) Fighting is not skill intensive: since skill doesn't matter we can just assume case 1.4 (both have no skill) -> outcome is always blob wins
Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2717
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 10:44:58 -
[736] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails.
There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
42
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 10:55:16 -
[737] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sayod Physulem wrote:Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails. There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that.
yes and no - in general it works that way - "they will fly slippery ships" you assume an intelligent/skilled small group. "Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 16:36:21 -
[738] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sayod Physulem wrote:Sigh simple truth tables guys... even if the case 1.2 is most likely - case (1) is still better than case (2) at least in my opinion, because then the small group has a chance - even if it may be small You're looking at it in terms of even amounts of engagements between the forces. Small groups with skill will take advantage of their small profile and sneak around to avoid detection. They will fly slippery ships and choose their fights. Big groups get impatient (because they're sluggish) and so the FC may rush into a fight to avoid having everyone go offline with no killmails. There's a lot more to it than that, but you have to be careful when assuming anything is the same on both sides here. It's a lot more complicated than that. yes and no - in general it works that way - "they will fly slippery ships" you assume an intelligent/skilled small group. "Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage. Maybe test has been feeling impatient lately.
I heard they were fighting with a bunch of fellows somewhere
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2717
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 19:06:07 -
[739] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:"Big groups get impatient" you assume that they act stupid/without skill. So you basically created a sub case of 1.3 where the small group has the advantage. That's not what I said at all. I was explaining that a skilled group that is large may often act in ways that a skilled group that is small will not, and there are ways for a small group to take advantage of that, even if taking advantage of it rarely involves going toe-to-toe with the large group. There are many ways this plays out, I simply mentioned one.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
MrQuisno
Steelmaze
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 21:51:08 -
[740] - Quote
Hello,
I would like to join the focus group for capital ships. As over the last few years I been pushing many ideas on the forums for how it would be awesome to change up some of the capitals and fighters. I have push ideas like fittings to fighters or even different type of classes. Glad to see some of the ideas got used. Nerfing the capital ships HP to make them the players pick a path to all dps or tank.
I still think we are still missing a capital ship here. Why can't we get a super class for force Auxiliary with special abilities. You would use these type of ships which give special abilities out side the scope of command ships. Giving you extra fitting slot high med or low maybe even rigs. Instead of stacking penalties of using more then one type of module. In other words say you wanted to fit 4 cargo slots in the low. With this ship you would get same bounes for 4 fitted but would be able to free up one extra slot to fit what ever you liked. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2719
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 21:59:28 -
[741] - Quote
MrQuisno wrote:I still think we are still missing a capital ship here. Why can't we get a super class for force Auxiliary with special abilities. You would use these type of ships which give special abilities out side the scope of command ships. Giving you extra fitting slot high med or low maybe even rigs. Instead of stacking penalties of using more then one type of module. In other words say you wanted to fit 4 cargo slots in the low. With this ship you would get same bounes for 4 fitted but would be able to free up one extra slot to fit what ever you liked.
I'd rather see all capital ships competent to act as a command ship. Currently carriers, supercarriers, titans, Rorquals, and the Orca mini-capital all have command bonuses. I would like to see these added to dreadnoughts, and I hope force auxiliaries also get them.
edit: misread your comment.
Howabout force auxiliaries get high slot modules for electronic logistics, and they simply make a fitting choice whether to fit triage logistics or electronics logistics modules?
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 11:09:22 -
[742] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:MrQuisno wrote:I still think we are still missing a capital ship here. Why can't we get a super class for force Auxiliary with special abilities. You would use these type of ships which give special abilities out side the scope of command ships. Giving you extra fitting slot high med or low maybe even rigs. Instead of stacking penalties of using more then one type of module. In other words say you wanted to fit 4 cargo slots in the low. With this ship you would get same bounes for 4 fitted but would be able to free up one extra slot to fit what ever you liked. I'd rather see all capital ships competent to act as a command ship. Currently carriers, supercarriers, titans, Rorquals, and the Orca mini-capital all have command bonuses. I would like to see these added to dreadnoughts, and I hope force auxiliaries also get them.edit: misread your comment.
Howabout force auxiliaries get high slot modules for electronic logistics, and they simply make a fitting choice whether to fit triage logistics or electronics logistics modules?
Dont we have midslots for that ?
I like to see then having bonuses to their racial ewar counter though. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 18:00:25 -
[743] - Quote
I haven't seen this asked yet...
Will Dreadnaughts receive updated hull designs, from the art department, to show a docking bay (for their new Ship Maintenance Bay)?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Bonzair
The Mirage Estamos Solos Alliance.
32
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 18:09:31 -
[744] - Quote
I have nothing to say. Just killing most important segment of the game. It won't be good as it hasn't been with sov, jumps, unstoppable nerf of ishtars etc. etc. Your statistic lies. I see 25 thousands ppl online instead 40 and even 30. You're going down. My congrats. Your creative team isn't professional it's team of random men from the street. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2731
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 18:17:59 -
[745] - Quote
Bonzair wrote:I see 25 thousands ppl online instead 40 and even 30. You're going down. It's an old game, and it's past its popularity peak. It's going to dwindle from here on out no matter what, but people certainly aren't leaving in droves. The fact of the matter is that most gamers have heard of EVE by now. People are coming in slower than they are leaving. It doesn't mean EVE is dying, in fact given how well it's staying afloat compared to every other game on the market, I think it's fair to say that CCP manages the single most successful MMO in gaming history. They're clearly doing something right.
You are angry that these changes make it more difficult for you to stay on top. You've grown used to game features that you learned to use a long time ago, and that gives you an advantage against newer and less experienced players. But with all these changes, their fresh minds tackle the learning process much more readily, while you find it difficult learning new tricks and abandoning old habits. It is annoying and it results in you seeing much newer and less-experienced pilots sometimes outperforming you. It doesn't mean the changes are bad, it only means they are recent relative to your experience.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
777
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 21:34:16 -
[746] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Bonzair wrote:I see 25 thousands ppl online instead 40 and even 30. You're going down. It's an old game, and it's past its popularity peak. It's going to dwindle from here on out no matter what, but people certainly aren't leaving in droves. The fact of the matter is that most gamers have heard of EVE by now. People are coming in slower than they are leaving. It doesn't mean EVE is dying, in fact given how well it's staying afloat compared to every other game on the market, I think it's fair to say that CCP manages the single most successful MMO in gaming history. They're clearly doing something right. You are angry that these changes make it more difficult for you to stay on top. You've grown used to game features that you learned to use a long time ago, and that gives you an advantage against newer and less experienced players. But with all these changes, their fresh minds tackle the learning process much more readily, while you find it difficult learning new tricks and abandoning old habits. It is annoying and it results in you seeing much newer and less-experienced pilots sometimes outperforming you. It doesn't mean the changes are bad, it only means they are recent relative to your experience. Actually you know - Your so very wrong. I have no idea how you could think newer less experienced players will have an advantage, over a group that can field hundreds of supers and titans (but only against a target they know can't contest them)
These changes favour large groups, which is why they are bad. Basically nothing changes - Devs waste months redesigning capitals, only to find the outcome is not going to create new content. The large groups still won't fight each other (no-one wants to risk a fight they can't guarantee winning) so nothing changes - Except, the investment in skills and isk.
Punitive and limited movement mechanics, Disposable capital ships, combined with large dominating groups = limited content. Doesn't matter how many new effects and affects you add or take away - The meta on TQ is N+1 and until that is changed (by players, CCP can't do it), Eve will continue to be a game of limited content, scope and opportunity.
I find it strange, CCP recruit employees from within the game - Many of the people responsible for design of the game have actually played the game - But clearly have no idea how the game is played
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2731
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 00:11:04 -
[747] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I have no idea how you could think newer less experienced players will have an advantage, over a group that can field hundreds of supers and titans (but only against a target they know can't contest them) I said sometimes. I did say it is the older players who have the advantage. Some of them (particularly those with weaker networks and who are used to relying on their own strength, soloists and such) are put off by the changes because it diminishes their advantage and they feel they deserve to keep that advantage in full strength.
Sgt Ocker wrote:These changes favour large groups, which is why they are bad. Basically nothing changes - Devs waste months redesigning capitals, only to find the outcome is not going to create new content. The large groups still won't fight each other (no-one wants to risk a fight they can't guarantee winning) so nothing changes - Except, the investment in skills and isk. These changes have overwhelmingly favored small groups. Nullsec stagnation was smashed in a brilliant success back in Crucible and Inferno, and the game has drastically improved since. Large groups still have a strong advantage, but the bar for entry--both in size and in experience--has been lowered dramatically. CCP knows what they are doing, and they know they have pretty much run out of people who don't know about EVE yet, so they are marketing it to people who left once before while also preparing the game to maintain good balance for years to come.
There will always be hordes of players who can't see the forest for the trees, and it is imperative that CCP know not to give their input too much credit. Blizzard made that mistake and destroyed the most-played MMO on the market.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
777
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 01:14:25 -
[748] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:I have no idea how you could think newer less experienced players will have an advantage, over a group that can field hundreds of supers and titans (but only against a target they know can't contest them) I said sometimes. I did say it is the older players who have the advantage. Some of them (particularly those with weaker networks and who are used to relying on their own strength, soloists and such) are put off by the changes because it diminishes their advantage and they feel they deserve to keep that advantage in full strength. Sgt Ocker wrote:These changes favour large groups, which is why they are bad. Basically nothing changes - Devs waste months redesigning capitals, only to find the outcome is not going to create new content. The large groups still won't fight each other (no-one wants to risk a fight they can't guarantee winning) so nothing changes - Except, the investment in skills and isk. These changes have overwhelmingly favored small groups. Nullsec stagnation was smashed in a brilliant success back in Crucible and Inferno, and the game has drastically improved since. Large groups still have a strong advantage, but the bar for entry--both in size and in experience--has been lowered dramatically. CCP knows what they are doing, and they know they have pretty much run out of people who don't know about EVE yet, so they are marketing it to people who left once before while also preparing the game to maintain good balance for years to come. There will always be hordes of players who can't see the forest for the trees, and it is imperative that CCP know not to give their input too much credit. Blizzard made that mistake and destroyed the most-played MMO on the market. Ahh ok, so the large dominating groups who just blob with supers etc (knowing the group they are engaging has no chance of countering them) are not a problem - Capital warfare is balanced so every sized group has the same opportunities?
Nulsec stagnation - Nothing has changed - If you don't have an army of blues, you don't hold sov and or are nothing more than victims for the few dominating groups.
Jump range nerfs - Hurt smaller groups far more than large - Fatigue hurts smaller groups far more than large - Proposed capital changes again will hurt smaller groups while enhancing the abilities of the blobs.
Please show me what has really changed and how nulsec stagnation has been broken?A few alliances are no longer around and those who have replaced them, are all blue to each other. So we end up with a whole bunch of new groups holding sov - By being blue to as many around them as possible. Renters, some of whom are actually useful in a fight make up the bulk of changes to the sov map.
Not everyone wants to be part of a blob - If their plan is to get old players to return to the game, do you honestly think designing a meta that caused many of them to leave is gong to achieve that goal? Players quit eve for many reasons - Many quit because logging in for timers and strat ops just got boring - Returning to a blob meta by enabling the largest groups to continue to dominate - Is not going to encourage many to return.
The thing about not seeing the forest for the trees - Those who live and die in blobs, have one point of view, those who don't like blobs have another - So whoever CCP listen to, they are getting biased information - What works for the blobs like Test or Goons or PL, is certainly not good for smaller groups (unless they ally with the likes of Goons, PL or Test).
N+1 is not for the longevity Eve.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2731
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 01:58:37 -
[749] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Nulsec stagnation - Nothing has changed - If you don't have an army of blues, you don't hold sov and or are nothing more than victims for the few dominating groups. that's what renting is all about
Sgt Ocker wrote:Jump range nerfs - Hurt smaller groups far more than large - Fatigue hurts smaller groups far more than large - Proposed capital changes again will hurt smaller groups while enhancing the abilities of the blobs. No. Jump fatigue has led to a huge increase in small gang prevalence due to the greatly diminished threat of hotdrops.
That animation starts at 2014 and captures a time period entire after the breaking of nullsec stagnation.
The problems are not all fixed perfectly, that is an extreme that will never be achieved. The problems are not nearly as bad as they were in the past, that is an extreme we left behind long ago.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
777
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 07:24:22 -
[750] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Nulsec stagnation - Nothing has changed - If you don't have an army of blues, you don't hold sov and or are nothing more than victims for the few dominating groups. that's what renting is all about Sgt Ocker wrote:Jump range nerfs - Hurt smaller groups far more than large - Fatigue hurts smaller groups far more than large - Proposed capital changes again will hurt smaller groups while enhancing the abilities of the blobs. No. Jump fatigue has led to a huge increase in small gang prevalence due to the greatly diminished threat of hotdrops. That animation starts at 2014 and captures a time period entire after the breaking of nullsec stagnation. The problems are not all fixed perfectly, that is an extreme that will never be achieved. The problems are not nearly as bad as they were in the past, that is an extreme we left behind long ago. Maybe where you live it has allowed small gang capital use with reduced fear of hotdrops but that is not the case for much of nul or lowsec (especially for smaller groups).
Jump fatigue and reduced ranges for small groups often add up to having to sell everything you own just to move (or deploy). Large groups are not affected in the same way, usually due to extensive access to logistics.
Yes the animation starts at the decline of renter empires - The time Sov was meant to open up so smaller groups stood a chance of taking and holding sov (according to the goals of the blogs released at the time anyway). And yes, to an extent it does allow smaller groups to hold sov - As long as you have enough blues and access to a batfone network.
The biggest problem with Eve is not development it is the players and that is something CCP can't "fix". But development direction could help reduce the effectiveness and need for the N+1 groups - The reworking capitals proposal, does not do that, in fact it does the exact opposite.
As I said, life for small groups is very different to what the large groups encounter.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6859
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 15:36:40 -
[751] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:You are angry that these changes make it more difficult for you to stay on top. You've grown used to game features that you learned to use a long time ago, and that gives you an advantage against newer and less experienced players. But with all these changes, their fresh minds tackle the learning process much more readily, while you find it difficult learning new tricks and abandoning old habits. It is annoying and it results in you seeing much newer and less-experienced pilots sometimes outperforming you. It doesn't mean the changes are bad, it only means they are recent relative to your experience. OWNED.
That's pretty much something like the old "adapt or ???", but better.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2829
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 00:56:23 -
[752] - Quote
Have we confirmed the HAWB for caldari caps uses missiles still? I don't see why it wouldn't but I want to double check. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 21:16:39 -
[753] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Have we confirmed the HAWB for caldari caps uses missiles still? I don't see why it wouldn't but I want to double check.
I asked this question, and we as of yet have not received a formal response from the Devs.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 21:19:11 -
[754] - Quote
New Shield and Armor Optimal/ Falloff graph being reported:
Capital Remote Shield Repair Optimal and Fall Off Graph (WIP)
Also the new RR Capital Modules are being reported on SiSi currently.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Traxanas Suruklemes
X-M.MagnetS The Otherworld
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 06:42:47 -
[755] - Quote
All these changes are gr8 stuff and i like the idea of t2 mods and only fighters for my thanatos.
but i fear no one rats with sentry's these days besides me and i have to make my point.
carriers are not gonna be allowed to drop nothing else besides fighters. im ok with that. theyre costly but its a carrier. move on. but since i snipe in a ratting anom, will i get the benefits of a sentry drone aplyed on my new fighter squadrons?
the main idea with sentry ratting is that you warp @ 100 drop them and keep your eye on local mainly and not wary allot for the actual combat cause they pick up targets by them self's. if someone comes in the system insta collect drones initiate warp to safe spot or pos or wherever, hit one cycle on a 500 mwd and in 12 sec youre off. its on the fly safe manual :) ... fighters are a different cake. if i say i wanna go fight with fighters on a site i have to go 0 or 30 drop them and actually align to somewhere again and tell each squadron what to do. that's annoying especially if youre trying to add a second account to rat right next to ya. its hectic.
i dont care bought dps cause there are allot of variables that count, like the time fighters take to go from target to target plus the time they travel from carrier when deployed, in relevance to sentry low dps. sentrys do better than fighters in anoms and thats my opinion. everyone else in my corp laugh. i dont care. i still get 30 mil ticks and i feal safer...
AAAAANYWAY
i just need to ask IF THEM NEW FIGHTER VARIATIONS are gonna have the ability to do sentry like fighting from a distance and including the reply of fire when something is attacking either my ship or my new fighter squadrons..
for the ethical part of the situation, ratting is less boring than mining to me cause its something i can scale up like rat with multi accounts and have sort of a challenge there. mining is .. ah whell its mining. the reason im whiny is that sentry's can reply dps more effectively than fighters and do some of the work by them selfs.
please dont point me out of my ratting habbits by forcing me to fight with fighters that are less able to do stuff. you need to allow em to be able to varry in abilitys and be able to addapt. im sitting in a carrier. and as risky as that is it should feal like its better to be in a carrier than a dominix. as far as ratting goes.
i hope i made my point and not a fool of my self and i hope you consider this tiny aspect that im pointing out. for me its a big deal. thank you. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2738
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 07:41:55 -
[756] - Quote
Traxanas Suruklemes wrote:i just need to ask IF THEM NEW FIGHTER VARIATIONS are gonna have the ability to do sentry like fighting from a distance and including the reply of fire when something is attacking either my ship or my new fighter squadrons.. It might be nice to have sentry fighters, but I don't see what the problem is. If you drop fighters at 100km and align to warp, then if a hostile target comes on grid you can warp off and leave your fighters behind. You can recall them from another part of the system and they will warp to you. I doubt the hostiles will manage to tackle very many of them.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
28
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 07:55:52 -
[757] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Nulsec stagnation - Nothing has changed - If you don't have an army of blues, you don't hold sov and or are nothing more than victims for the few dominating groups. that's what renting is all about Sgt Ocker wrote:Jump range nerfs - Hurt smaller groups far more than large - Fatigue hurts smaller groups far more than large - Proposed capital changes again will hurt smaller groups while enhancing the abilities of the blobs. No. Jump fatigue has led to a huge increase in small gang prevalence due to the greatly diminished threat of hotdrops. That animation starts at 2014 and captures a time period entire after the breaking of nullsec stagnation. The problems are not all fixed perfectly, that is an extreme that will never be achieved. The problems are not nearly as bad as they were in the past, that is an extreme we left behind long ago.
This guy is right.
All the people complaining about Jump Fatigue hurting small groups tend to be either members of large groups or people that made money by hauling stuff around in Carriers.
Jump Fatigue has absolutely helped small groups and hurt larger groups (as well as annoying soloers), which is why it gets so much flack. Without the threat of constant hot drops, people are a bit more willing to move around and do things.
...not a LOT, due to the nature of N+1 still being in tact, but somewhat moreso. The Sov map changed a lot, with a lot of entities being broken up. The vast rental empires don't exist in the same form that they used to (the "renters" in many cases became a part of the sov holding and fighting).
The blue doughnut still exists as a thing, an N+1 still exists as a thing, but both were nerfed by Jump Fatigue. While people complain endlessly about it, it was one of the better more recent changes.
Now, some of these other changes do benefit large groups - the poster was right about that. The cap on logistics isn't going to stop N+1 because the bigger blob will still win. There's not really a good way to stop that, however.
.
I also contest the player numbers as a metric of the game's health. Back two years ago or so, there WERE often 35k people on instead of the 20k now. But the thing you have to realize looking at those raw numbers is that's ACCOUNTS logged in, not PLAYERS logged in.
When they hit some of the assist stuff and nerfed multiboxing, that cut into those numbers where you'd often have people with 3-8 (or more) accounts. So OF COURSE the number of logged in ACCOUNTS decreased.
The actual number of PLAYERS lost was probably a significantly smaller percentage. To illustrate how this works, imagine if every player had 8 accounts, and then some change was made to the game so every player cancelled 4 of their accounts. On average, it would look like the online population was cut in half, but in reality, there would still be exactly the same number of players.
So don't use logged in accounts to gauge the health or player base of the game, that's stupid. It's like using the unemployment rate instead of labor force participation to see how many people are unemployed in an economy.
I'm not sure the best way TO measure the active players since Eve's launcher only lists logged in accounts, but it's definitely not simply comparing accounts logged in 2 years ago (before the multiboxing changes) to now.
Indeed, if you compare the numbers about a month after those changes (once they stabilized), that's pretty much what they are now - around 20k. It hasn't changed in a year. So the game isn't losing massive numbers of players, no matter how much bittervets want everyone to believe it is. It's actually remarkably stable, considering how old it is, how high the learning curve is, and how niche the market is. |
TravellerDEP
Department of Defence Blades of Grass
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 22:06:31 -
[758] - Quote
Here's a suggestion. Instead of reinventing the wheel why not visit real life and use the way capitals and subcaps have been used through lets say the last 100 years as a basis for how they work in the game. Especially when you consider that that's what would happen anyways, a logical progression of use with modifications for the technological advances. As a naval military vet some of the things you say that fleets can and can't do I find quite laughable. Instead of trying to fix what you keep changing, why don't you consult some real naval veterans about tactics and use of ships that would be more than willing to stretch their imagination to a futuristic situation. Unfortunately, all I did in the service was fire gun and missile systems and though I never exercised tactical authority I'm sure that retired or even active personnel who have would love to play with the possibilities. You never know, it just might work. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6861
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 22:47:47 -
[759] - Quote
TravellerDEP wrote: Here's a suggestion. Instead of reinventing the wheel why not visit real life and use the way capitals and subcaps have been used through lets say the last 100 years as a basis for how they work in the game. Especially when you consider that that's what would happen anyways, a logical progression of use with modifications for the technological advances. As a naval military vet some of the things you say that fleets can and can't do I find quite laughable. Instead of trying to fix what you keep changing, why don't you consult some real naval veterans about tactics and use of ships that would be more than willing to stretch their imagination to a futuristic situation. Unfortunately, all I did in the service was fire gun and missile systems and though I never exercised tactical authority I'm sure that retired or even active personnel who have would love to play with the possibilities. You never know, it just might work. So will our titans turn into nuclear-armed super...missilebattleships?
An area of effect doomsday weapon, right?
Or perhaps more like a SLBM system which aoe doomsdays across the map (ie: though a cyno)
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
780
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 00:08:11 -
[760] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:TravellerDEP wrote: Here's a suggestion. Instead of reinventing the wheel why not visit real life and use the way capitals and subcaps have been used through lets say the last 100 years as a basis for how they work in the game. Especially when you consider that that's what would happen anyways, a logical progression of use with modifications for the technological advances. As a naval military vet some of the things you say that fleets can and can't do I find quite laughable. Instead of trying to fix what you keep changing, why don't you consult some real naval veterans about tactics and use of ships that would be more than willing to stretch their imagination to a futuristic situation. Unfortunately, all I did in the service was fire gun and missile systems and though I never exercised tactical authority I'm sure that retired or even active personnel who have would love to play with the possibilities. You never know, it just might work. So will our titans turn into nuclear-armed super...missilebattleships? An area of effect doomsday weapon, right? Or perhaps more like a SLBM system which aoe doomsdays across the map (ie: though a cyno)
AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it)
Might want to read the blog.
Just for the sake of it - A company in Tasmania is selling Destroyer class cats to world navies (and security services), that are said to have the same capabilities in battle as a WWII light battleship, can engage an enemy from 'over the horizon' or chase it down with 60+ knot speed capability. Seems Devs have the same idea with Destroyers - Why have multiple classes of ship when one will do it all.
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
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2744
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 02:07:05 -
[761] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it)
Might want to read the blog. No, it isn't coming back. I read the dev blog and it mentions nothing of the sort, in fact there is a description of some of the types of Doomsday effects being added and their hit limitations, as well as a video showing one of them being used. Here is that dev blog.
Please do not deliberately spread misinformation.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
780
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 02:43:02 -
[762] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it)
Might want to read the blog. No, it isn't coming back. I read the dev blog and it mentions nothing of the sort, in fact there is a description of some of the types of Doomsday effects being added and their hit limitations, as well as a video showing one of them being used. Here is that dev blog. Please do not deliberately spread misinformation. Ouch - You might want to read it again, this time don't skip over the relevant parts?
Quote:Doomsday Codename: Sickle Using the new UI, a Titan pilot can select two points in space and a powerful energy beam will slash from the Titan to the first point and then move to the second damaging any ships unlucky enough to intersect with the path of the beam. Pretty sure that is an AOE Doomsday.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1767
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 03:27:31 -
[763] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it)
Might want to read the blog. No, it isn't coming back. I read the dev blog and it mentions nothing of the sort, in fact there is a description of some of the types of Doomsday effects being added and their hit limitations, as well as a video showing one of them being used. Here is that dev blog. Please do not deliberately spread misinformation. Ouch - You might want to read it again, this time don't skip over the relevant parts? Quote:Doomsday Codename: Sickle Using the new UI, a Titan pilot can select two points in space and a powerful energy beam will slash from the Titan to the first point and then move to the second damaging any ships unlucky enough to intersect with the path of the beam. Pretty sure that is an AOE Doomsday. Considering that's not remotely comparable to the AOE DDs of the past it's a great deal less than honest to say "AOE DD is coming back."
Unless of course you consider a linear path to be comparable to a sphere of damage.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
780
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 04:36:24 -
[764] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it)
Might want to read the blog. No, it isn't coming back. I read the dev blog and it mentions nothing of the sort, in fact there is a description of some of the types of Doomsday effects being added and their hit limitations, as well as a video showing one of them being used. Here is that dev blog. Please do not deliberately spread misinformation. Ouch - You might want to read it again, this time don't skip over the relevant parts? Quote:Doomsday Codename: Sickle Using the new UI, a Titan pilot can select two points in space and a powerful energy beam will slash from the Titan to the first point and then move to the second damaging any ships unlucky enough to intersect with the path of the beam. Pretty sure that is an AOE Doomsday. Considering that's not remotely comparable to the AOE DDs of the past it's a great deal less than honest to say "AOE DD is coming back." Unless of course you consider a linear path to be comparable to a sphere of damage. I never said they were like the old AOE, just that they are OAE affects.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2745
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 05:04:52 -
[765] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it) I never said they were like the old AOE, just that they are OAE affects. Please stop.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
617
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 06:54:51 -
[766] - Quote
Hmm... interesting, but I suspect that several of the proposed changes - esp. squadrons, new doomsdays, and projected AoE EW - are going to result in a signicantly higher server load, particularly for large fleet battles, and thus increased TiDi.
Note, too, that increasing the amount of stuff that a pilot needs to interactively micro-manage is a bad thing, when TiDi is high.
So, as cool as some of these proposed features look on paper, I'd actually prefer to see changes which will *reduce* TiDi, in large battles. Grouping of guns apparently helps lower the server load, so more of that sort of functionality might be explored. Also, I'd guess that fleet warping is more efficient than having each player warp their own ship - so, perhaps more "fleet-based" functionality could be developed? Fleet targeting should be obvious, since calling primaries over TeamSpeak has always seemed rather silly (This is the future, right? Linking targeting computers between ships in the same fleet should be no big deal.).
Anyways, TiDi was certainly a clever hack to help deal with lag due to server load, but it still isn't much fun to play when TiDi is running high. Please keep this in mind, when developing and testing these new features. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2745
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 08:30:05 -
[767] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:So, as cool as some of these proposed features look on paper, I'd actually prefer to see changes which will *reduce* TiDi, You might be pleased to have a look at this...
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
618
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 17:40:07 -
[768] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:So, as cool as some of these proposed features look on paper, I'd actually prefer to see changes which will *reduce* TiDi, You might be pleased to have a look at this... Yeah, I already read that devblog.
Unfortunately, though, software bloat tends to quickly overwhelm hardware upgrades. Ex. MS Windows..... |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
781
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 00:46:07 -
[769] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:AOE doomsday is coming back.
Oh and they will work across the map. (or at least a large part of it) I never said they were like the old AOE, just that they are OAE affects. Please stop. I guess that's your way of admitting - you were wrong - fair enough
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2745
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 05:56:40 -
[770] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Unfortunately, though, software bloat tends to quickly overwhelm hardware upgrades. Ex. MS Windows..... It could happen but I think MS Windows is an outlier. CCP runs in the opposite direction, trying to stave off feature bloat and release content in a very slow and controlled fashion.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
|
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
45
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 11:57:29 -
[771] - Quote
I've removed a couple of posts that were leading the conversation away from the main point of this thread.
ISD Fractal
Ensign
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
314
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 01:18:40 -
[772] - Quote
Now that the new grids are implemented, it stands to reason that someone ask about the new fighter mechanic; specifically whether or not there will be any changes to the speed stats of fighters (and fighter bombers), or if we should expect them to remain the same?
Will they be scaled for use on these newer larger grids??
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1336
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 19:30:28 -
[773] - Quote
How are the carrier skills changing will I still need fighters V to get bombers will a new skill be added for support fighters and what about the nearly 3 months I spent training advanced done interfacing?
Also is the martial cost of fighters dropping since each fighter is now only a part of a whole?
If yes what happens to current fighters will they be turned into multiple or do I need to sell these before so I can buy 5 back?
If no does this mean the cost of gelding a carrier just became laughable?
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1336
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 20:25:02 -
[774] - 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 :)
The problem is see is nuets it won't be what one FAX can tank it will be what one capless FAX can tank.but you can't make them immune to nuets or small groups won't be able to counter then. Maybe reduced cap transfer? Use the bbq e war immunity to make it so it can still get outside cap but at a reduced rate? Or will the new capital vamps be strong enough to support local tank under heavy cap pressure if you are siphoning off another cap (friendly or otherwise)
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2773
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 21:16:39 -
[775] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:The problem is see is nuets it won't be what one FAX can tank it will be what one capless FAX can tank.but you can't make them immune to nuets or small groups won't be able to counter then. Maybe reduced cap transfer? Use the bbq e war immunity to make it so it can still get outside cap but at a reduced rate? Or will the new capital vamps be strong enough to support local tank under heavy cap pressure if you are siphoning off another cap (friendly or otherwise) Howabout make it so that all ships in any type of siege mode get stacking penalties on all received negative effects (except damage) based on the number of ships performing the effects, while all ships not in any type of siege mode only receive effect stacking penalties from multiple effects from the same ship.
So, for instance, a FAX in triage mode can be neuted faster by a larger fleet, but its the first few neuters that have the strongest impact. A small group with three Bhaalgorns would neut the FAX faster than a large group of fifty Dragoons.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
167
|
Posted - 2015.12.26 05:01:28 -
[776] - Quote
Am I correct in assuming an unsieged dread with high angle guns will deal a measly 300 DPS ??
Or is the Siege module up for a revision as well, making NOT going into Siege a viable option? -75% scanres doesn't really help when fighting subcaps one would think.
Second question: if EWAR will still partially work, can I assume some remote reps will also partially land? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6895
|
Posted - 2015.12.26 21:03:03 -
[777] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Am I correct in assuming an unsieged dread with high angle guns will deal a measly 300 DPS ??
Or is the Siege module up for a revision as well, making NOT going into Siege a viable option? -75% scanres doesn't really help when fighting subcaps one would think.
Second question: if EWAR will still partially work, can I assume some remote reps will also partially land? Hmm, will remote tracking and sensor links also "partially work"... that might be nice
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6896
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 02:14:30 -
[778] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:The problem is see is nuets it won't be what one FAX can tank it will be what one capless FAX can tank.but you can't make them immune to nuets or small groups won't be able to counter then. Maybe reduced cap transfer? Use the bbq e war immunity to make it so it can still get outside cap but at a reduced rate? Or will the new capital vamps be strong enough to support local tank under heavy cap pressure if you are siphoning off another cap (friendly or otherwise) Howabout make it so that all ships in any type of siege mode get stacking penalties on all received negative effects (except damage) based on the number of ships performing the effects, while all ships not in any type of siege mode only receive effect stacking penalties from multiple effects from the same ship. So, for instance, a FAX in triage mode can be neuted faster by a larger fleet, but its the first few neuters that have the strongest impact. A small group with three Bhaalgorns would neut the FAX faster than a large group of fifty Dragoons. Just do it like citadels there's caps on everything.
So a max dps cap, a max neut amount cap etc etc
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2826
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 02:33:39 -
[779] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Just do it like citadels there's caps on everything.
So a max dps cap, a max neut amount cap etc etc A cap on how fast a cap goes down?
No, please.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Otasja
Sky Fighters
2
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 04:51:47 -
[780] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Just do it like citadels there's caps on everything.
So a max dps cap, a max neut amount cap etc etc A cap on how fast a cap goes down? No, please.
Why not? There's already going to be a magical cap on how quickly you can destroy a citadel, so they may as well stick to their guns and add a magical limit of what negative things can be done in other area's. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2826
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 05:22:42 -
[781] - Quote
Otasja wrote:Why not? There's already going to be a magical cap on how quickly you can destroy a citadel, so they may as well stick to their guns and add a magical limit of what negative things can be done in other area's. That is advocating a slippery slope. The citadel change was put in to patch a major flaw in social interaction in EVE and it was done with a lot of reluctance. Citadels hold supplies and ships owned by many players, capital ships do not. A citadel is a place where lots of players can base their operations, where entire corporations or alliances can stage fleets. Capital ships are just big ships. Their hit points should be what prevents them from dying too quickly.
I'll vote in favor of changes that diminish the effect of multiple players attacking a capital together, but I cannot support anything that nullifies further players.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Thunder1971
Elysian Ascent The-Culture
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 08:32:27 -
[782] - Quote
I think with ability to apply ewar to triage and siege you should also be able to provide repps to counter.
Also have you put in thought on an Escort carrier for subcaps like in the battlecrusier size with the ability to launch 2 squadrons. Would help train future carrier pilots and add new game play. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6904
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 10:05:48 -
[783] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Otasja wrote:Why not? There's already going to be a magical cap on how quickly you can destroy a citadel, so they may as well stick to their guns and add a magical limit of what negative things can be done in other area's. That is advocating a slippery slope. The citadel change was put in to patch a major flaw in social interaction in EVE and it was done with a lot of reluctance. Citadels hold supplies and ships owned by many players, capital ships do not. A citadel is a place where lots of players can base their operations, where entire corporations or alliances can stage fleets. Capital ships are just big ships. Their hit points should be what prevents them from dying too quickly. I'll vote in favor of changes that diminish the effect of multiple players attacking a capital together, but I cannot support anything that nullifies further players. This is the land of slippery slopes. Remember the lasers of sov redemption. They showed us the way forward. 1 person.
Perhaps we need more slippery slopes that reduce a blob to just the effectiveness of it's first 6 people (5 if they have max skills).
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2858
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 04:07:03 -
[784] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:This is the land of slippery slopes. A lot of people say that but I've never seen a slippery slope in EVE, unless you want to suggest that Incarna was a slippery slope that led to ship skins. But if anything, most if not all of these "slippery slopes" are things that were in the works a long time ago, and some percentage of the playerbase was merely unaware of it before.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Jane Hemah
Omicron Zeta Unit The Ditanian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 19:04:19 -
[785] - Quote
will we be able to fit the new XL guns to the carriers and supercarriers? Because, if i understood correctly, the way you want the carriers to handle the squadron mechanic. With the maximum of 5 squadrons of 6 or 8 fighters for carriers and i think 5 squadron of 12 fighters for supercarriers. The drone control units will be useless. And then the high slots will have very few modules that will make sense.
That way i think carriers and supercarriers would have a better chance of survival and it would make them more useful for fleet engagement.
|
RogueHunteer
Bespin Miners Guild Phoenix Company Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 11:37:37 -
[786] - Quote
Happy to see CCP eat up all my ideas from figther blogs and capital reworks. |
Loki Feiht
Feiht Family Clan
207
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 00:44:45 -
[787] - Quote
CCP
Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?
More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2874
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 04:46:17 -
[788] - Quote
Loki Feiht wrote:CCP
Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?
They don't only nerf it, but sometimes it needs to be put in check. A lot of this is unexplored territory as so many other game companies have been extremely averse to allowing emergent gameplay, so nobody knows what the playerbase will come up with. It is not surprising then, that the players sometimes find it all too easy to thwart the original intended rules. CCP wants it to be possible--but not easy.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1857
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 04:51:20 -
[789] - Quote
Derp |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
801
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 20:51:37 -
[790] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Loki Feiht wrote:CCP
Call me stupid but why do you promote emergent gameplay (All of which has been counterable) while consistantly nerfing it?
They don't only nerf it, but sometimes it needs to be put in check. A lot of this is unexplored territory as so many other game companies have been extremely averse to allowing emergent gameplay, so nobody knows what the playerbase will come up with. It is not surprising then, that the players sometimes find it all too easy to thwart the original intended rules. CCP wants it to be possible-- but not easy. Isn't it a shame that all groups suffer the same consequences when only some groups "thwart" intended mechanics.
Emergent game play will never really be possible due to the risk averse nature of a lot of the PVP in Eve.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Ascensions
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 14:33:50 -
[791] - Quote
Any updates regarding the rorqual yet? its been 3 months since it was last commented on by staff |
Jehle
Empyrean Bulwarks Uncommon Denominator
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 03:40:58 -
[792] - Quote
Most the changes look fun and engaging. I also think it's great that we keep moving away from the days when my carrier sat just barely outside of POS shields and assigned my fighters to some one.
I always felt like the trade off of triage and siege modules was a well balanced one. Unable to be EWAR'd but not be able to receive remote reps was a simple mechanic that has evolved into fun gameplay for a triage pilot. So... it seems a little unfair to remove our bonus, yet keep our disadvantage. Also, it seems like we wont be able to check to see if ships are in triage any more - so make sure there is a cool animation like siege mode has! It was mentioned that triage might get a high bonus to the new statistics - if its powerful enough this wont be a problem for me at all.
Removing out of triage reps from capitals: I don't understand this at all. It isn't in line with the other classes of ships and just doesn't make sense. It also absolutely does not solve the N+1 problem. It will just mean capital ships will have no capable logi - so N+1 with dreadnoughts instead. In large enough battles the triage will die. Why create a mechanic that causes capital fleets be unable to tank each other? Will triaged capitals be able to receive reps in this update?
Removing in combat refitting: This is also an awesome feature unique to capital gameplay that I would be sad to lose, because its fun. Why is there this arbitrary rule that a fleet must be unable to adapt on the fly? Not only can a triage carrier not tank an enemy capital fleet on its own - but now it cant even refit for tank to increase its survivability.
If I go out in a 30 man guardian and battleship fleet and meet another 30 man guardian and battleship fleet, I go out with the confidence that my logi will likely have the ability to save me - or we'll be able to decide to disengage without losses.
If I go out in a 30 man capital fleet under these new rules, and meet another 30 man capital fleet the winner will just be the fleet that pops the others faster - starting with the triage. So bring dreadnoughts. |
Custos Stratos
Gotham City.
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 15:18:40 -
[793] - Quote
Any updates on that at all?
Skill requirements for the new modules? What new modules will we actually get now? With stats. New E-War on Carrier/Supercarrier? Details on the new Capital Logistics? Restriction of Capital Remote Repp to the new Capital Logistics? Stats of Capitals after the change? Hitpoints and stuff..... Skill changes to Fighters/Fighter Bomber?
It's 3 months now and there were basically no updates at all except "in Spring". |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 09:31:21 -
[794] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwkjpzMZVw
So this Video shows the 4 new FAX designs on Duality. That is if it is real and no fake, but I gues its not.
My personal opinion : The Galante one looks nice. The caldari one looks a little like a short Wyvren. These two look like they could actually come from designers of their individual race.
But the Amarr one looks horrible. I cant even tell where the "front" of it is. It looks mutch more like a space station than a ship. With the tendency of ships to twist up to 90-¦ when making a turn, I cant immagine to actually move this beast without crushing my forhead into the table every single time.
Also : Please notice that the FAX have massive hangar bays. Since FAX were announced as capitals that focus on healing, what are those massive bays for? Is it possible that we will see logistics fighters for FAX ?
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
184
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 09:58:35 -
[795] - Quote
The Amarrian one ought to look like a 1200m wide Navy Slicer imho; the twin tips could probably be a little rounder (less menacing) but what I just saw looks like a Caldari cubicle with a cheap paint job. Where's the intricate curly golden bits? Where's the trademark roundness?
And CCP MSPaint ... Solar Sails? Loose wires, antennas, broken pipes covering the rear? Rotating passageways and metal scraps sticking out at odd angles? Do those ring a bell?
As for Caldari ... think Horizontal. Caldari engineers have notorious fear of heights - don't put them through this LOL
Jokes aside, glad to see this is happening.
Any word on EWAR capabilities for the regular (not super~) Carriers? |
G Kvan
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 10:08:51 -
[796] - Quote
CCP Do you plane to rewrite fatigue mechanic after capital and super remote rep nerf ? can we hope to restore old jump drive mechanic for massive capital fights? |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Spaceship Bebop
1422
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 13:38:28 -
[797] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Currently, players choosing 'My First Capital' almost always chose a Carrier. They provide more utility than a Dreadnought through the use of fleet hangars, ship hangars, damage, and repair abilities... All capitals will now get Ship Hangers,... When I first read this I was nodding in agreement, but as I thought about it, I became increasingly concerned that you (CCP) haven't fully grasped the significance of the Ship Hanger on the carrier.
The statement "...players choosing 'My First Capital'..." completely misses the point. Players don't sit down and compare a Dreadnought to a Carrier and then choose. The vast majority of players who buy a Carrier do so because they want the ability to move fitted ships through low or null sec. The ship hanger is everything. Being able to repair or carry fighters is the utility that the majority of players never use. I brought my carrier, an Archon, over two years ago. I fitted it for Triage because that was the professional thing to do. I've jumped it dozens of times, but I've never once dropped it into a combat situation. I've never even added Stront to the fuel bay. Yes, one day, I hope I will have the opportunity and the balls to drop it in combat, but that was never why I brought it. There are a dozen people in my small corp that own a Carrier, have owned one for years, but never dropped it in combat. I'd be surprised if more than 1 in 10 carrier owners use them in combat.
Thus as you have misidentified the problem, adding a Ship hanger to a Dreadnought is not the solution. Most people won't buy Dreadnoughts instead of Carriers or Force Auxilaries because of this additional utility. Instead people who want a suitcase capital will choose one based on the price (assuming the Ship hanger size is consistant). If Carriers remain at currently half the price of Dreadnoughts, Carriers will remain the first choice. If anything this 'buff' to Dreadnoughts will only push their price upwards, whereas the price of Carriers once their repair utility is removed, is likely to fall slightly.
On the otherhand, adding a Ship Hanger to a Jump Freighter would be a far bigger QOL improvement. Almost everyone who owns a JF, owns a suitcase Carrier too. It would make logistics so much easy and just makes sense. For those arguing that this would partially circumnavigate Jump Fatigue and bring about a return to the bad old days of force projection. I would point out that the real problem of force projection was that the likes of PL could escalate any fight at will and no smaller entity could afford to engage even a frigate of PLs, certainly not a hauler. However, JFs would not be dropped into a PvP battle. They would have to be loaded up first, jumped to a station or POS, unloaded, cargos redistributed and then deployed to the battle site. An organised redeployment designed to provide content. Not a hot drop on a whim by bored, rich players just for Lols, with no thought about how they are damaging the game.
I'm not against adding ship hangers to Dreadnoughts, but in my experience with CCP, a buff is usually offset by some sort of nerf. So please give something to Dreads that is important to them, before hitting them with the nerf bat.
CTRL-Q are recruiting - Gallente Faction Warfare, Small Gang, Low Sec PvP, New Player friendly
Want to know the truth about low sec?
Diary of a Low Sec Capsuleer
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
184
|
Posted - 2016.02.03 16:29:39 -
[798] - Quote
I can see you've thought this through ... but I don't entirely agree. I am currently training towards my First Capital, and moving ships (aka a Fleet Hangar) is indeed a major concern. I always *wanted* a dread, but unfortunately, I needed a Carrier for its utility as well. Forcing me to train those pesky drone skills I never intend to use.
So glad I'll finally have the choice between putting my remote rep skills to use (FAX) or maybe get a Subcap blappin' Dread (high angle guns) without having to train drones, without grudgingly having to get an additional carrier just because I kinda need a suitcase. Standing on this crossroad, a fleet hangar is definitely something that factors in to the equation. Back when a Carrier was the only cap with a fleet hangar, there wasn't any real choice at all. Now I can train for those things that really interest me.
That said, on to the issues I'm facing with these changes:
I actually did sit down and compare dreads to carriers. And dreadnoughts do sound like my cup of tea, at first glance. Unfortunately, I'm still not getting a real picture on those high angle guns ... they seem quite underwhelming to be honest -- am I missing something? Dropping a dread almost certainly provokes a nasty response, and I have this gut feeling those brand new high angle guns don't compare well to regular battleships. Combined with no range dictation and a severely gimped lockspeed (siege lockspeed bad. triage target locking good. Why??), it seems to me a Carrier would severely outperform an anti-subcap dread.
While I do feel CCP is on to something here, a Dread at double the price of a Carrier still falls short in comparison; a Fax machine won't be able to defend itself; for EWAR I'd have to look at SUPERcaps, so sadly that's a no-go; and I can't figure out why anyone would ever get a Rorq. Soooo ..... after reading pretty much every post concerning caps I'm still none the wiser.
The way I see it - and I could be a million miles off the mark here - a First Capital ought to be a "light general purpose" kind of ship; something not overly specialised in any role bridging the gap between battleships and caps. The capital ship redesigns don't seem to allow for any options or creativity -- eg: can't fit a spidertank rep on a dread, can't fit any kind of damage on a fax? I can understand some ships are bonussed whereas others are not; but is it really necessary to take away the hardpoints and flat-out prevent fitting certain modules? It does not help deciding on My First Capital in the slightest.
Speaking of which ... is it absolutely necessary to enforce training Advanced Spaceship Command, Capital Ships, Jump Drive Operation etc. to stupidly high levels (IV's, mostly V's) before even being allowed to undock one? I would think a progression in the Capital Ships is recommended if you want to get any kind of bonus out of your hull; but shouldn't I have the choice to take some baby-steps with poor Jump Drive Calibration / Fuel Conservation / hull bonusses then same way you don't insist on training Recons or Logistics to V before even sitting in those cruisers? Besides, when all V's is a prerequisite, "+5% per skill level" is absurd. Can't fly it at level IV, so everyone has +25% by definition am I right?
The general intent to create meaningful choices for that First Cap is there... but from where I stand, you're forced into the same skilltree, forced to make a "choice" without even knowing what you're choosing for (how will she fly? which targets could she conceivably engage?), and forced into certain fits with very few variations or personal flavour. Having one role taken from the carrier and placed into a new ship class, removing all drones below fighter from it, and adding fleet hangars all around sure removed the obvious "starter model" ; but to me, all it did is make me even more wary to go for either of them. Since the most obvious tangible benefit was the fleet hangar, I'm considering simply getting a jump freighter at this point!
Carriers lost a lot of utility, Dreads merely gained "high angle guns" (but are those any good? Look like rubbish by my reckoning) and Fax, well, at least I know what they're supposed to do. Would have been interested in the "occasional logi" but I don't want a ship that can't do anything else, can't receive reps (unlike a Guardian) and will undoubtedly be primary. See the problem here? As a capital newbro, the relatively low cost and versatility made the leap worthwhile. As far as I can tell however, a Dread is still the tower bashing machine of old, a Fax is a nerfed triage carrier and these revamped Carriers .... don't even know what to make of those anymore. They sound like cheap stopgap DPS dealers.
These rigid classes and restrictions are not merely a problem for wanna-be cap pilots either: it also ensures that, whenever a capital lands on grid, you can make a very educated guess as to what it'll be able to do. This unlike, say, battleships which might neut, spidertank, wield a variery of turrets/missiles/drones (some below their size, RHML or dual 800mm ACs anyone?) ; allowing for some very nasty surprises.
As for fleet hangars on JF ... Tech II Bowhead, perhaps?
This, a testimony from one who'd like to like these redesigned new ships but alas ... I cannot help but feel both reluctant and intrigued at the same time. We're losing the default starter's kit -- now what? Where does that leave me? |
Jane Hemah
Omicron Zeta Unit The Ditanian Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 06:32:51 -
[799] - Quote
It seems like a few cap pilots have mentioned the gap between battleship and capital ships. I think that letting the carriers use the high angle guns would give the carriers some more PVP option. If the carriers get a bonus to the damage or range for said guns it would give the carriers better survivability and a reason to use them in the big fights CCP is so found of. The bonus would make it worth it to fit them but not to powerful that it would make the high angle guns worthless on the dreads.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
807
|
Posted - 2016.02.04 11:13:52 -
[800] - Quote
Jane Hemah wrote:It seems like a few cap pilots have mentioned the gap between battleship and capital ships. I think that letting the carriers use the high angle guns would give the carriers some more PVP option. If the carriers get a bonus to the damage or range for said guns it would give the carriers better survivability and a reason to use them in the big fights CCP is so found of. The bonus would make it worth it to fit them but not to powerful that it would make the high angle guns worthless on the dreads.
Capital sized Domis??
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Jus'not N'miFace
Sheep Teet Industries
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.06 07:57:24 -
[801] - Quote
i cannot belive you are making us train another capital ship skill for triage carrier.. what a freaking joke!!! on top of that we have to train even more fighter skills.. you guys are so ridiculous and it pisses me off. triage carriers were fine you should just roll force aux skill to triage module and if they don't have it then it's a normal carrier like you want.. and to add even more freaking skills is just disgusting!!! |
Bobinu
THE THIRTEEN SAMURAI The Old Guard.
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 09:41:54 -
[802] - Quote
Whaaat...
New skills for fighters and ships regarding the new carriers.....where can I find this information to prove this? |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
346
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:32:43 -
[803] - Quote
Great many exciting changes coming up, I think CCP is going to have a great expansion and some real success with Citadel.
BUT please please rethink the nerf to combat refitting. CCP may want this but I dont think anyone in the player community is calling for it at all.
It brings depth to gameplay, stop dumbing it down. Also could we get a more realistic rationale for changing it / removing it. The analogy with a card game is ridiculous. Perhaps try some honesty.
If it simply that you want to increase the mortality of caps then say so. |
Kblackjack54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
128
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 06:25:15 -
[804] - Quote
Maraner wrote:Great many exciting changes coming up, I think CCP is going to have a great expansion and some real success with Citadel.
BUT please please rethink the nerf to combat refitting. CCP may want this but I dont think anyone in the player community is calling for it at all.
It brings depth to game play, stop dumbing it down. Also could we get a more realistic rationale for changing it / removing it. The analogy with a card game is ridiculous. Perhaps try some honesty.
If it simply that you want to increase the mortality of caps then say so.
Say what you see, ISK sink, a massive ISK sink, that is what is being created here,, Nerfs on Capitals of all types, creation of new Cap types, reworked fighters, destroyable Citadels, proposed removal of player built stations, you name it there at it, simply to promote conditions for the introduction of more micro transactions, All Hail the Credit Card waving hoards.
This has little or nothing to do with game play in my view and will only promote less combat rather than has been spun off by CCP, more when players fully understand the reality of the mechanics involved.
The game suffered massive player losses after CCP introduced fatigue to Capitals in such a draconian manner, there now proposing to introduce conditions that ensure if you do use them and brave the soul destroying space aids incurred your probably going to loose the Cap ship when you arrive, While 'Some' may feel these changes are good for the game, Pretty sure Cap Pilot account holders are going to take a very different view more akin to that of being yet again kicked well and truly in the nuts by CCP for investing time and ISK in the process of getting one in the first place, Sold all of mine the day CCP brought in fatigue, unsubbed the accounts and held up the proverbial finger in the direction of Iceland, No more money for you lot. |
Arekanderia Hara
Plaus Collective Great Blue Balls of Fire
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 19:27:02 -
[805] - Quote
>No more warping fighters. I missed that the first time through. So, when a carrier gets ganked now and has to emergency warp to a safe, we lose a few hundred million in fighters? Solid plan, can't see this being an issue at all.
An additional note to make, from the looks of the squadron presentation, it seems like we can only watch as our drones die and do nothing to repair or prevent their death. Can you elaborate on how you plan to reduce fighter and fighter bomber prices? I would have understood if it was possible, like it is now, to move one injured fighter back to the hold and release another to fight in its stead while it's shields regenerate, but as it stands you have to pull back the entire squadron in order to prevent the death of a single fighter. The only way I can see this as being positive, is if each 'squadron' can be repaired rather than being forced to purchase new fighters to replenish the squadron.
Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?
You seem determined on forcing carriers into a pvp role only, instead of keeping it as a multi-purpose ship as it is now. It's fine if you want to remove the RR from carriers, that's understandable, but how is their damage going to be applied when in an anomaly vs in fleets?
Additionally, the use of different drones to approach different situations is a key aspect of the carrier, in my eyes, and forcing only 3 drone types seems ineffective, both from a damage standpoint and a reaction standpoint.
The use of long range sentries to poke as the enemy fleet gets closer then bringing them in and launching lights to deal with the faster and smaller ships and heavies to deal with the cruisers then fighters to deal with battleships and higher. The way it's presented here seems like we'll not only be extremely limited in our capacity to react but also in our ability to keep up with drone deployment. It feels like, from what I've read, that you're going to force carriers into a few specific drone specialties and not allow us more than (X) amount of drone waves, whereas before it was dependent on how many fighters you would bring to a fight, if you brought any at all. Bring 10 fighters and several waves of every other drone or 15 fighters and a few waves of other drones or 20 fighters and hope for the best.
As much as I like the ideas presented herein, I do have the above concerns. Although moderately inexperienced as a carrier pilot, I have been having a lot of fun with the carrier thus far and I would hate to see it become ridiculously hard to utilize, or ridiculously easy to utilize. I feel like there should still be a middle ground where you have to learn how best to approach a situation with your own carrier fit and strategy, but the changes seem to present a limited array of possibilities when engaging with a carrier. I hope my thoughts on the matter were clear and I do hope to hear back from you in regards to these potential issues. Thank you for your time and thank you for continuing to create and diversify content for Eve. Apologies if these ideas/issues have already been presented, I didn't read through the comments. |
Ja'ffar
Terra Nanotech Yulai Federation
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:24:17 -
[806] - Quote
I think there are some good, some very good, some problemtic and (maybe) some bad (for some of us) changes. Good work CCP!
Sadly I don't got the time to ready through the whole tread since it is tltr and so maybe someone already reasoned the following this way. I'm not familiar to most of the mechanics because of not flying caps atm, BUT a dread with sub-cap weaponery should do more then 1-2k dps tbh. Because this would mean that a good fitted bs can tank a dread forever... Not even the much greater tank will save the dread in this case ...from point of lore and even from the size-difference and status (cap vs. sub-cap...if a cap is realy intendet to be able to fight sub-caps) this should not be possible! In a direct encounter the dread should always be the king and thus be able to smoke up a bs. If this is happening earlier or later has to be defined.
Some of your changes I still dislike but overall a good package of changes I think, go on like this (and give me some T5 mining barges or mining carriers )
Best rgr |
Cptn Manu
Department of Defence
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 05:38:16 -
[807] - Quote
Arekanderia Hara wrote:>
Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........
This is honestly my biggest question. |
Smokeing Eagle
Confederate States of Eve Kanen Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 01:54:28 -
[808] - Quote
I'm sorry if this has been asked & answered. But will Dreadnought's be receiving more high slots to allow for fitting sub capital weapons along with capital weapons? Or will I only be able to set up for 1 type & hope I don't run into the other. Thank you in advance for any information. |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 11:55:28 -
[809] - Quote
Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.
If I miss it - can anyone point this statement. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
835
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 12:13:50 -
[810] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.
If I miss it - can anyone point this statement. Carriers will only be able to launch the different types of fighters. Light, heavy and sentry drones will no longer be usable on a carrier.
This;
Quote:We are completely re-imagining fighter game-play.
Squadrons
The carriers of the Citadel Expansion will launch squadrons, made of up to 12 fighters of the same type.
These squadrons act as a singular unit. Carrier pilots give orders to an entire squadron. You lock an entire squadron as one unit, except instead of Shields, Armor and Hull, the number of fighters remaining in that squadron are shown. And this;
Quote:Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.
Light FightersOptimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles Support FightersOptimized for Electronic Warfare tasks including (but not limited to) Stasis Webifiers, Warp Disruptors, Neutralizing, Tracking Disrupting, etc. Heavy FightersOptimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures. The number and types of squadrons a carrier or super-carrier can launch will be limited. Both from this blog are probably the closest indication, carriers will no longer use sub capital drones.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 12:57:57 -
[811] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sisi Collins wrote:Can't find proove that carriers loose ability to launch drones. I didn't find it in Dev blog, neither here as CCP post.
If I miss it - can anyone point this statement. Carriers will only be able to launch the different types of fighters. Light, heavy and sentry drones will no longer be usable on a carrier. This; Quote:We are completely re-imagining fighter game-play.
Squadrons
The carriers of the Citadel Expansion will launch squadrons, made of up to 12 fighters of the same type.
These squadrons act as a singular unit. Carrier pilots give orders to an entire squadron. You lock an entire squadron as one unit, except instead of Shields, Armor and Hull, the number of fighters remaining in that squadron are shown. And this; Quote:Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.
Light FightersOptimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles Support FightersOptimized for Electronic Warfare tasks including (but not limited to) Stasis Webifiers, Warp Disruptors, Neutralizing, Tracking Disrupting, etc. Heavy FightersOptimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures. The number and types of squadrons a carrier or super-carrier can launch will be limited. Both from this blog are probably the closest indication, carriers will no longer use sub capital drones.
I have read this. but again - nothing about Carriers will no longer ability to launch drones. Yes. fighters will be re-worked completely, but it's fighters - not drones.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
835
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 13:35:57 -
[812] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:
I have read this. but again - nothing about Carriers will no longer ability to launch drones. Yes. fighters will be re-worked completely, but it's fighters - not drones.
I would imagine the fact they are introducing "Light Fighters" would be a pretty big hint they are removing other drones.
You are right though, CCP are keeping everything very close and not telling players/customers much at all.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6950
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 16:04:11 -
[813] - Quote
Cptn Manu wrote:Arekanderia Hara wrote:>
Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........
This is honestly my biggest question. Maybe they don't...
CCP Grimmi: With all players on a single server and in direct competition with each other even your trade and industry activities are PvP.
|
Arekanderia Hara
Plaus Collective Great Blue Balls of Fire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 05:46:55 -
[814] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Cptn Manu wrote:Arekanderia Hara wrote:>
Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage?.........
This is honestly my biggest question. Maybe they don't...
Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals.
If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital, so that I can adequately support my alliance mates, then it's obvious this game no longer has the players best interest in mind, and it's time to relieve my subscription.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6950
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 05:59:52 -
[815] - Quote
Arekanderia Hara wrote:If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital I'm sure you can use a single battleship to get the isk to pay for a capital, it'll just take a bit longer.
If you must use multiple accounts at once though, make sure you aren't getting some sort of unfair advantage.
Arekanderia Hara wrote:Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals. Yeah I wouldn't want you to keep your capital docked or anything. I did hear that losing them doesn't count if you insured though. Or so say some of the best players in eve (after losing caps)
Arekanderia Hara wrote:it's time to relieve my subscription. Ah, an unsubber. Again.
CCP Grimmi: With all players on a single server and in direct competition with each other even your trade and industry activities are PvP.
|
Arekanderia Hara
Plaus Collective Great Blue Balls of Fire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 06:06:25 -
[816] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Arekanderia Hara wrote:If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital I'm sure you can use a single battleship to get the isk to pay for a capital, it'll just take a bit longer. If you must use multiple accounts at once though, make sure you aren't getting some sort of unfair advantage. Arekanderia Hara wrote:Oh good, so another reason to not bother using my caps ever again. Can't get enough isk to replace it, so might as well not use it. That's a brilliant plan to have us risk our capitals more often; just force only those that aren't in a blob alliance to be unable to buy carriers, thus making it only the blob alliances holding tons of moons able to field capitals. Yeah I wouldn't want you to keep your capital docked or anything. I did hear that losing them doesn't count if you insured though. Or so say some of the best players in eve (after losing caps) Arekanderia Hara wrote:it's time to relieve my subscription. Ah, an unsubber. Again.
Arekanderia Hara wrote:If I have to multibox in battleships in order to get the isk required to pay for a capital, so that I can adequately support my alliance mates, then it's obvious this game no longer has the players best interest in mind, and it's time to relieve my subscription.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6950
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 06:45:11 -
[817] - Quote
Yes, the same response to that as before, as well.
CCP Grimmi: With all players on a single server and in direct competition with each other even your trade and industry activities are PvP.
|
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 14:56:43 -
[818] - Quote
Again question to CCP - will carriers lose ability to launch drones with Citadel expansion or will be introduced only new mechanics for fighters and carriers will still launch drones? |
Vantick Iscod
North Korean Nuclear Research
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 18:35:06 -
[819] - Quote
Yes! Carriers can no longer use drones, that is why there are two new fighter types, they can only use fighter squads. As for refitting changes, they really are needed. Saying that it gives game play is a cop out and you are just scared of change. That being said CCP needs to add in something to fill that gap in terms of game play. They are filling the gap in game play for carriers and even titans to an extent, but dreads have no game play value now. |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 21:55:43 -
[820] - Quote
Vantick Iscod wrote:Yes! Carriers can no longer use drones, that is why there are two new fighter types, they can only use fighter squads. As for refitting changes, they really are needed. Saying that it gives game play is a cop out and you are just scared of change. That being said CCP needs to add in something to fill that gap in terms of game play. They are filling the gap in game play for carriers and even titans to an extent, but dreads have no game play value now.
Again. no official proofs.
|
|
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
22
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 17:12:13 -
[821] - Quote
Let's tell ourselves yourself the truth and ask yourself - these innovations we expect from developers? Why all this fuss with capitals and citadels? Instead, to bring new modules and structure in game, without breaking the old, what well-balanced and trustworthy, and to please the players, what we have instead of carriers - two ships, instead of POS - citadel, which are basically useless and cost a lot of money - i was recently on the test for the citadel - the citadel - this is the same how station, but only beats as POS), and dreads will become as large battleship!) Is this what we expect from developers? I think many will say that no! What do you think - will fall or not online, then!? I must say that unfortunately, there is a redistribution of the old, how a new and nothing more - in addition project discovery, which hardly need - to see the fleas under the microscope!) Skills injectors can be cause big imbalance in the game! All this is, unfortunately, very sad!( Lately, positive I see from new destroyers, Drifter wormhole, new modules and all! |
Bobinu
THE THIRTEEN SAMURAI The Old Guard.
56
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 10:44:00 -
[822] - Quote
BambarbiyaKirgudu wrote:Let's tell ourselves yourself the truth and ask yourself - these innovations we expect from developers? Why all this fuss with capitals and citadels? Instead, to bring new modules and structure in game, without breaking the old, what well-balanced and trustworthy, and to please the players, what we have instead of carriers - two ships - this means you will have to make another character and develop it, instead of POS - citadel, which are basically useless and cost a lot of money - i was recently on the test for the citadel - the citadel - this is the same how station, but only beats as POS), and dreads will become as large battleship!) Is this what we expect from developers? I think many will say that no! What do you think - will fall or not online, then!? I must say that unfortunately, there is a redistribution of the old, how a new and nothing more - in addition project discovery, which hardly need - to see the fleas under the microscope!) Skills injectors can be cause big imbalance in the game! All this is, unfortunately, very sad!( Lately, positive I see from new destroyers, new modules and all! PS Began to appear here such characters, three days from birth all improved skills http://eveboard.com/pilot/IronBank - this can cause an imbalance in the game, what time and again has already been written! Can't you do that the player could pour skill 1-2 million in month? But it's the little things! All the basics of eve will soon be revamped and not for the better!( The developers time to think what to do next - at the end of the year will be a new space game with a huge budget Star Citizen, where excellent graphics, with fully painted cabins, cities, bars, casino, manufacturing, planets, wormhole - all that we expect from developers and what will be in EVE with online after that! There is a time the developers change things for the better? - is, if they will sometimes listen to the players!
Had some issues reading this, kinda took from it that there was some really good points but found it tough to comprehend. |
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
24
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 12:05:24 -
[823] - Quote
Bobinu wrote:BambarbiyaKirgudu wrote:Let's tell ourselves yourself the truth and ask yourself - these innovations we expect from developers? Why all this fuss with capitals and citadels? Instead, to bring new modules and structure in game, without breaking the old, what well-balanced and trustworthy, and to please the players, what we have instead of carriers - two ships - this means you will have to make another character and develop it, instead of POS - citadel, which are basically useless and cost a lot of money - i was recently on the test for the citadel - the citadel - this is the same how station, but only beats as POS), and dreads will become as large battleship!) Is this what we expect from developers? I think many will say that no! What do you think - will fall or not online, then!? I must say that unfortunately, there is a redistribution of the old, how a new and nothing more - in addition project discovery, which hardly need - to see the fleas under the microscope!) Skills injectors can be cause big imbalance in the game! All this is, unfortunately, very sad!( Lately, positive I see from new destroyers, new modules and all! PS Began to appear here such characters, three days from birth all improved skills http://eveboard.com/pilot/IronBank - this can cause an imbalance in the game, what time and again has already been written! Can't you do that the player could pour skill 1-2 million in month? But it's the little things! All the basics of eve will soon be revamped and not for the better!( The developers time to think what to do next - at the end of the year will be a new space game with a huge budget Star Citizen, where excellent graphics, with fully painted cabins, cities, bars, casino, manufacturing, planets, wormhole - all that we expect from developers and what will be in EVE with online after that! There is a time the developers change things for the better? - is, if they will sometimes listen to the players! Had some issues reading this, kinda took from it that there was some really good points but found it tough to comprehend. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=474464&_ga=1.227980574.26928685.1458817447
|
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 19:53:03 -
[824] - Quote
Well unfortunately from what I've seen so far on the test server, the carrier changes have completely ruined carrier ratting. I know a big thing here was supposed to be stopping people from afk ratting (who would risk up to 2 bil like that) but the new fighter restrictions and way fighters attack (individual mods need to be activated, THE COOLDOWN MECHANIC IS A TOTAL JOKE AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED). ASs far as I can tell, carriers will be completely useless now outside of a fleet pvp role. I am obviously disappointed by all of my wasted training and am gonna have to find another source of income. |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.30 20:01:57 -
[825] - Quote
Arekanderia Hara wrote:>No more warping fighters. I missed that the first time through. So, when a carrier gets ganked now and has to emergency warp to a safe, we lose a few hundred million in fighters? Solid plan, can't see this being an issue at all. An additional note to make, from the looks of the squadron presentation, it seems like we can only watch as our drones die and do nothing to repair or prevent their death. Can you elaborate on how you plan to reduce fighter and fighter bomber prices? I would have understood if it was possible, like it is now, to move one injured fighter back to the hold and release another to fight in its stead while it's shields regenerate, but as it stands you have to pull back the entire squadron in order to prevent the death of a single fighter. The only way I can see this as being positive, is if each 'squadron' can be repaired rather than being forced to purchase new fighters to replenish the squadron. Can you expand on how carriers are supposed to rat if the heavy fighters can't hit the rats and the light fighters can't do enough damage? You seem determined on forcing carriers into a pvp role only, instead of keeping it as a multi-purpose ship as it is now. It's fine if you want to remove the RR from carriers, that's understandable, but how is their damage going to be applied when in an anomaly vs in fleets? Additionally, the use of different drones to approach different situations is a key aspect of the carrier, in my eyes, and forcing only 3 drone types seems ineffective, both from a damage standpoint and a reaction standpoint. The use of long range sentries to poke as the enemy fleet gets closer then bringing them in and launching lights to deal with the faster and smaller ships and heavies to deal with the cruisers then fighters to deal with battleships and higher. The way it's presented here seems like we'll not only be extremely limited in our capacity to react but also in our ability to keep up with drone deployment. It feels like, from what I've read, that you're going to force carriers into a few specific drone specialties and not allow us more than (X) amount of drone waves, whereas before it was dependent on how many fighters you would bring to a fight, if you brought any at all. Bring 10 fighters and several waves of every other drone or 15 fighters and a few waves of other drones or 20 fighters and hope for the best. As much as I like the ideas presented herein, I do have the above concerns. Although moderately inexperienced as a carrier pilot, I have been having a lot of fun with the carrier thus far and I would hate to see it become ridiculously hard to utilize, or ridiculously easy to utilize. I feel like there should still be a middle ground where you have to learn how best to approach a situation with your own carrier fit and strategy, but the changes seem to present a limited array of possibilities when engaging with a carrier. I hope my thoughts on the matter were clear and I do hope to hear back from you in regards to these potential issues. Thank you for your time and thank you for continuing to create and diversify content for Eve. Apologies if these ideas/issues have already been presented, I didn't read through the comments.
I didn't see this before. I agree 100%. Carriers are now nothing more than a hole to sink isk into and I can't/won't do it. I love this game CCP and I think I've made a fair invesent In it (years of my life and honestly a couple grand) and would like to see you not so focused on how to make us spend more and earn less. I can only buy so many PLEX before I say enough and just play elite dangerous or star citizen. Neither are eve but neither take from you permanently only to make it harder for you to earn it back. Loss is reality in eve. And every action is supposed to have a counter. This whole no repping fighters, nonsense on top of everything else is just too much. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE rethink how aggressive you're beig with carrier changes. I love the new dread changes, but the carriers I think are going to die a quick death.
|
Lady HotDrop
BERLOGA 3.0
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 23:53:13 -
[826] - Quote
Can someone say what is going to be with Capital Escalation farm with new Dread guns? Will it be changed? |
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
24
|
Posted - 2016.04.06 17:42:56 -
[827] - Quote
Many people have begun to sell the titans, because a great price for the Citadel, not field and its easy to kill. Also soon will be with dreads and carriers! |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
919
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 05:19:12 -
[828] - 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. 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! Please remember: These are not finished designs and may change! Revamped fighter gameplay, that just leaves carriers wanting - So far it is very underwhelming.
A wonderful opportunity for good change, wasted because N+1 in a static blob (around Fax's) will be the only option for fielding capitals.
It is a huge shame these changes didn't have a little thought put into them.
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
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
33
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 05:30:14 -
[829] - Quote
Came a crappy patch, in the history of eve! Guys from Wh going to leave the game, some to move out of WH - where before, few people wanted to live, and now it is easier and more comfortable to farm in 0sec, where you can see local and near everything you can buy! 3 waves for $ 50 million and risk the ships on 15-20 lard - it is funny) + still cut the Higgs yachts and bombers already no bombed and dreads got a jam! And will soon be removed Pos - this start a big outflow of people from the game! |
LVirus
Enterprise Estonia
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 06:21:16 -
[830] - Quote
o/
I didn't find anything at patch notes about carriers signature radius or neither their mass. How come that after the patch their sig radius and mass are 4 times bigger then before. I can understand the needs to reduce shield, armor and etc as new capital modules are available but this change was quite surprise. Basically you have removed most of the carriers defends mode and made them way too easy to probe these ships down , without prenotice there are probes out. every single crap ship can probe you out at far distance.
You should review this.
best regards
/LV |
|
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
50
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 03:52:15 -
[831] - Quote
Hey, great re-work of the capitols that I will never use or even want to get into because you've once again given every advantage to the hunters and the defenders are left wondering why they bother with the investment in the first place. Oh and yes, thanks for screwing over Marauder pilots too. No more combat refitting sounds great on the surface but for those who do not seek to be in a PvP fight to begin with and you are missioning, forget about being able to defend yourself if you get jumped. Worked really hard to train into this specifically to have that kind of flexibility and survivability and now there is no real advantage between a marauder and a T1 battleship. It is a very small wonder so many are leaving this game when you do things that are aimed a specific set of ships and then you go and screw over the entire range of ships without putting any real thought into what that means. Then, when people wake up to it simple say fork it I'm leaving instead of bothering to mention it here because you aren't listening anyway. Decisions been made, EVE working as intended, HTFU, OK... Guess I'll have fun blowing all my sh it up...thanks again CCP, have a nice time with your circle jerk. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |