Syrias Bizniz
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
419
   |
Posted - 2016.03.30 10:13:14 -
[1] - Quote
Hi CCP Larrikin,
just tucking in to give some feedback on the whole thing.
First, things i do like:
It is good that you have created a focus group with people who are expierienced on capitals and discuss the changes with them. This makes it a lot easier to keep up with all the posting going on, and ****- or trollposts are probably gone, so the good idead are probably sticking out a lot better than before.
Now, things i don't like:
Even though the focus group is in place, it feels like it's all happening behind a big curtain and from time to time another piece of the puzzle is presented to the EVE players. Then there's only a reddit-thread about it where only capital focus people can write, and from the 25 people in it, only about 2 or 3 actually do post feedback in the related threads.
Another thing that has come to my attention is some very serious proposed changes that will make some ships great and exclude others right from the beginning from actually being useful, this is especially the case on Carriers and Super Carriers.
As it stands now, the Archon and Chimera are both getting a 4%/level resistance bonus, while the Thanatos and Nidhoggur are both getting a 2.5%/level fighter squadron damage bonus.
Why is that bad? I'll tell you.
The Thanatos or Nidhoggur have to, in order to achieve an Archons resistance level, fit one additional EANM or similar.
This means, one of the lowslots is already gone.
Historically, Archons have had one additional lowslot ofer Thanatos / Nidhoggur however. I know, the actual attribute and slot-layout changes are not on SISI yet respectively not up for discussion yet.
Still, with current design in place, for same tank-levels on armor the Archon would probably have 2 more lowslots over Nid/Than - to either go for even MORE tank or to fit 2 DDAs for example.
In which case the carriers designed as damage-carriers are the ones ending up with lower damage or lower tank.
And now comes design flaw #2 on that matter: For the Archon or Chimera to achieve the same damage levels as the Nidhoggur/Thanatos, they'd have to fit ~"half" a DDA. This means, in case of the Archon which currently has the additional lowslots, it could fit one DDA more than Nid/Than and come out with same tank but better DPS.
And this whole "fear" boils down to the following:
-Revealing details on ONE specific ship-type in the style it is happening right now - piece after piece - is bad for actually discussing those details and finding a context on whether these changes are good or not.
For example, these skillbonuses could be very healthy, IF the Thanatos ends with a lowslot MORE than the Archon - which seems unlikely though.
Same goes for the Nidhoggur, if it has equal midslots with the Chimera, it might become a good ship! Is that likely to see, however? I doubt so.
But, why is this really problematic?
Because you're giving a resistance bonus to Archon / Chim. Not a EHP bonus you could implement right now in the form of bonus to capital armor plates or shield extenders, no, you're giving them resistances, which is an EHP bonus and a bonus for incoming remote repairs and a bonus for local tanking. More so, a bonus that is not stacking penalized.
And we're talking about capitals, where the more EHP you have the better your results will be as you'll be able to hold for longer on grid, which directly translates into damage dealt overall / utility for the fleet.
TL;DR:
Chim/Archon bonus: 1x EANM / Invul ---> 1 Slot makes Nid/Than equal.
Nid/Thanny bonus: ~0.5 DDA ---> 1 slot makes Archon/Chim better.
Take Archon/Chim Resistance Bonus. Same goes btw for Aeon and Wyvern.
Replace with bonuses to capital shield extenders / capital armor plates on Archon / Chim, ... and i don't know what yet for the Aeon / Wyvern, as they obviously are role bonused for it already. And now THAT would be a nice topic for discussion on your focus group, wouldn't it?
Also, things i noticed:
Light Fighters take 1k m-¦ of hangar space. 9 of them form a squad. 9k m-¦ = 1 squad.
Support Fighters take 3k m-¦ of hangar space. 3 of them form a squad. 9k m-¦ = 1 squad.
THIS ONE IS OFF: Interceptor Fighters take 1k m-¦ of hangar space. 12 of them form a squad. 12k m-¦ = 1 squad
proposed change: Support Fighters take 750m-¦, then it's equal again.
Why bother?
Because right now you can fill your launch tubes with Inteceptor Fighters to extend your hangar space by one full squadron of lights / supports as opposed to carrying all your interceptors in hangar and filling launch tubes with fighter/support squadrons.
Additional Feedback:
You introduced capital warp disruptors, which are only good if you have several of them, as you'll either be tackling subcapitals or have to plow through 25-50 warpstrength.
So either a subcapital point would suffice, or you'd need to throw several capitals at one other capital, but could use one Hictor instead and save about a midslot on each of your capitals.
Also, they don't offer better point range or anything. They are harder to fit, they eat about 15 times more cap/s.
So, here's a proposed change:
#1: Make their range extreme. Talking about 100km here for Disruptors.
#2: Make their warpscramble strength extreme: talking about ~15 here for Disruptors.
#3: Give them signature resolution like you plan on capital neut/nos.
#4: If the signature of the target is smaller than the signature resolution, then the warpscramblestrength gets lower. ALL VALUES GET ROUNDED DOWN.
Effects: Capitals can tackle other capitals on long range, and with 2 - 4 points total.
Capitals can tackle MWDing battleships and maybe mwd battlecruisers on long ranges.
Capitals can't tackle anything that's smaller than, say, 1000 meters of signature, because the scramblestrength would be below 1. |