EVE Search - Sticky:[Citadels] Capital Q&A

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Citadels] Capital Q&A

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 331	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:46:31 - [1] - Quote Links Devblog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins! Devblog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins! - Feedback Thread Questions & Answers *** EWAR Immunity *** Q) What exactly does the EWAR debuff mean? #1 #2 #3 A) We are removing the binary nature of EWar Immunity. Instead, we're replacing it with EWar Resistance. For Example, Your Super-Carrier has 50% EWar Resistance. Your base lock range is 100km. A 50% sensor dampner would normaly take that down to 50km. However, with 50% EWar immunity, it will only take it down to 75km. Q) WIll a large subcap EWAR fleet be able to reduce the effectiveness of a group of capitals to zero? #1 A) To the same degree that its possible to reduce the effectiveness of a group of sub-capitals to zero, yes. Although it will be harder. Q) Will immunity be one statline or vary according to the ewar being used? #1 A) Current plans are - Stasis Web Resistance Energy Warfare Resistance EWar Resistance (ECM/Damp/Tracking Disrupting). Q) Will the EWAR resistance include Energy Warfare resistance? #1 A) There will be a separate value for Energy Warfare Resistance. Q) With the removal of ewar immunity, will remote assistance be possible? #1 A) I assume you mean for Triage and Siege? No. *** New Capital Modules *** Q) When you introduce capital sized modules, what happens to the modules we have fitted to our capitals that will no longer be allowed? #1 #2 #3 A) There is no plan to disallow existing modules from Capitals. For example, if you are running a 'Large Capacitor Booster II' on your Dread, and we introduce a 'Capital Capacitor Booster I', you can still continue to run your large if you chose too. In regards to Capital Neutralizers, these will have different functionality to existing Neutralizers. There will be gameplay for both, and you may want to fit Heavy Neuts instead of Capital Neuts dependent on the situation. Q) What will be the volume of these modules? Will this mean that you can only carry a small amount in your Capital? #1 A) We havn't decided. We are aware of issues regarding moving Long Range and Short Range guns when moving a Dreadnought, + all the capital modules we're adding. Q) What kinds of speeds are to be expected from the capital prop mods? #1 A) Somewhere around 500m/s. Q) 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? #1 A) We will look at base agility. However, a Plate fit Carrier or Titan will have a slower align time. Q) Can we expect changes to be made to the fitting and effects of Officer points and scrams due to them becoming capital focused modules? #1 A) We will be looking at their fitting. The effects are unlikely to change. Q) Are we releasing Capital Target Spectrum Breakers? #1 #2 A) Not at this stage. *** Siege/Dreadnoughts *** Q) 1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low/Why would you use subcap siege dread over battleships? Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 331	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:46:38 - [2] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 331	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:46:48 - [3] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Servanda Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 20	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:51:25 - [4] - Quote Some people keep telling me the FAX class will be a supercap going with all the building restrictions. I couldn't findany clarification about this. Seems to be a common point that is unclear. So would be nice if you could confirm which kind of ca++ital they will be as this is rather important for planing.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 316	Posted - 2015.11.13 11:35:49 - [5] - Quote Servanda wrote: Some people keep telling me the FAX class will be a supercap going with all the building and docking restrictions. I couldn't findany clarification about this. Seems to be a common point that is unclear. So would be nice if you could confirm which kind of ca++ital they will be as this is rather important for planing. I specifically asked this at Vegas because the CFC leadership was spreading this rumor on Slack prior to vegas FAX machine are Capitals and can be built anywhere When asking about the glaring hole in the slide where a SC FAX machine would go, I got a snicker and a no comment
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 316	Posted - 2015.11.13 11:37:56 - [6] - Quote Also, to continue on with a previous question... Will a Capital MWD inherit some base WCS from the ship, so it will take more than one Rifter and a scram to turn off a Capital MWD, when it will take a small fleet of them to keep it from warping...
erg cz Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords 361	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:00:10 - [7] - Quote I miss target painter resistance on Supers. Would be very crucial for Avatar... Now seriosly. Do we really need to make things that complicated? I mean - you do not want supers to be 100 % immune to ewar. Pefect. Do we really need complicated approach with all resistances? Thats the question. 20 Kereses o one titan still can limit its targeting range so, that its doom day device will be unusable. Resistance thing will just change number of kereses involved, IMHO. But I can be totaly wrong here... Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra 2 weeks of Eve for free!
Sulzer Wartzilla Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:18:24 - [8] - Quote We're getting all T2 modules.. what about T2 fighters?
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1928	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:20:07 - [9] - Quote erg cz wrote: I miss target painter resistance on Supers. Would be very crucial for Avatar... Now seriosly. Do we really need to make things that complicated? I mean - you do not want supers to be 100 % immune to ewar. Pefect. Do we really need complicated approach with all resistances? Thats the question. 20 Kereses o one titan still can limit its targeting range so, that its doom day device will be unusable. Resistance thing will just change number of kereses involved, IMHO. But I can be totaly wrong here... Sensor dampening effects are stacking penalized. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1929	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:33:19 - [10] - Quote Quote: Q) [i]Is the Force Auxiliary a Capital or Super-capital? What building restrictions will it have? A) Its a Capital, and can be built anywhere you can build Carriers or Dreadnoughts. Q) Will they be in the price range of carriers or dreads or will they be more expensive? #1 A) In the price range of Carriers & Dreads. This is excellent news. Quite frankly, it is what I was expecting, despite the doom and gloom from some folks. Quote: Q) What range of local tank are you looking at for a FA A) Similar to current Triage Carriers, but this is subject to change. Q) Focusing the logi into a small number of ships while removing EWAR immunity seems bad #1 A) We're not removing EWar Immunity. We're changing it. Its possible Triage Force Auxiliaries will have 100% EWar Resistance. This is something we're very interested in hearing your feedback on though. Q) Are we considering changing Triage Duration? #1 A) Not at this stage no If you do not make Triage Duration shorter, I recommend increasing the local active tank bonus for a FA in Triage. I also recommend 100% EWar resistance when in Triage mode. Quote: Q) Will we allow pilots to exchange their Carrier for Force Auxs? #1 A) Yes, but we havn't determined the mechanic for this yet. 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. I think this is an excellent idea. I have been looking at my fleet of Triage Carriers and wondering what I should do with them. I've also noticed many of my corp mates selling the Triage Carriers back to the corporation. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Servanda Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 20	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:33:44 - [11] - Quote erg cz wrote: I miss target painter resistance on Supers. Would be very crucial for Avatar... Now seriosly. Do we really need to make things that complicated? I mean - you do not want supers to be 100 % immune to ewar. Pefect. Do we really need complicated approach with all resistances? Thats the question. 20 Kereses o one titan still can limit its targeting range so, that its doom day device will be unusable. Resistance thing will just change number of kereses involved, IMHO. But I can be totaly wrong here... Well damps have a stacking penalty combined with resistance and maybe one or two sebos should be enough to counter that
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1929	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:37:43 - [12] - Quote Quote: *** Siege/Dreadnoughts *** Q) 1-2k dps from a seiged dread dps is too low/Why would you use subcap siege dread over battleships? #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 A) Sieged dreads have several advantages. Superior range (50km from High Angle guns) Resistance to EWar Higher base HP Provides refitting services to fleet Dependant on your battleship fit, potentially cheaper to replace after loss when including insurance. A jumpdrive We want players to have interesting choices. Dreads shouldn't always be the best choice. Q) Are we considering changing Siege Duration? #1 A) Not at this stage. Q) 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. #1 A) Dreads would want support from subcapitals to kill fighter squadrons. High Angle guns are not suited to killing fighters (or frigates). 50km range is frankly not that much for a ship that is immobile and cannot receive remote repairs. My Marauders can all do better than that. I would recommend at least double that range, but leave the DPS numbers alone. So, it sounds like from this, that High Angle guns might be able to hit Cruisers? I am assuming this means with Stasis Webifier and Target Painter support? Or without? CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 572	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:44:55 - [13] - Quote erg cz wrote: I miss target painter resistance on Supers. Would be very crucial for Avatar... Now seriosly. Do we really need to make things that complicated? I mean - you do not want supers to be 100 % immune to ewar. Pefect. Do we really need complicated approach with all resistances? Thats the question. 20 Kereses o one titan still can limit its targeting range so, that its doom day device will be unusable. Resistance thing will just change number of kereses involved, IMHO. But I can be totaly wrong here... New doomsdays dont target, use those instead. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Metal Hunter The Explorers Club 138	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:56:22 - [14] - Quote Interestingly, and why didn't guess to enter Capital Ancillary Shield Booster and similar on armor...? 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?
Borat Guereen Chao3 Chao3 Alliance 35	Posted - 2015.11.13 12:59:23 - [15] - Quote Currently, using a capital requires to have access to multiple cyno alts, or heavy infrastructures like cyno beacons, both inaccessible to regular solo players without adding a bunch of accounts and specialized cyno toons. Are there any thoughts to allow capitals to use suns as cyno beacons for systems in range and not under cyno-jamming? If not, what are the reasons to remove one of the main advantage of using Capitals for players that are playing solo? Large groups with multiple cyno alts would still get a large benefit from their infrastructures allowing to pinpoint their jump to a "safe" location, while jumping to a sun would require at most a cloaky explorer (i.e more useful than a cyno alt, without needing to fly rookie ships cynos and be sitting ducks for one hour) and allow solo players to use capitals in null sec, at greater risks than when in a bigger group. Candidate for CSM XI Speaker of Chao3
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1929	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:04:57 - [16] - Quote Borat Guereen wrote: Large groups with multiple cyno alts would still get a large benefit from their infrastructures allowing to pinpoint their jump to a "safe" location, while jumping to a sun would require at most a cloaky explorer (i.e more useful than a cyno alt, without needing to fly rookie ships cynos and be sitting ducks for one hour) and allow solo players to use capitals in null sec, at greater risks than when in a bigger group. If this is how you want to move your Capital ship, you can just take gates. You know that right? Sitting ducks for one hour? A cyno lasts a maximum of ten minutes... And, that "cloaky explorer" alt - she can fit a cyno after a negligible training investment. It strikes me that if you do not know basic capital ship mechanics, maybe you should learn them before you suggest changes to the game. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Doomchinchilla Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion 121	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:12:38 - [17] - Quote Crtl + F: "Rorqual": 0 results found. RIP Rorqual
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2264	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:21:22 - [18] - Quote Doomchinchilla wrote: Crtl + F: "Rorqual": 0 results found. RIP Rorqual I'd say it's pretty obvious at this point that the Rorqual changes are gated behind the overarching overhaul of fleet bonuses and Leadership. This thread addresses nothing in this space. I am hopeful that the new Command Destroyers will be packaged in part with this overhaul, but I have no evidence to support this. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 150	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:26:10 - [19] - Quote why not give the supercarriers/titans warp core strenght of something like 20 - 30.
Metal Hunter The Explorers Club 138	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:27:45 - [20] - Quote From your Dev Blod evidently, that citadels, will not shoot probably. It means that they will not hang aggression on neytrala or enemy. Znachit, any persons interested can log off on certain distance from a citadel. When all will take off from a citadel an enemy can call at a game and inflate HD hunting bubble. It will be special dangerously in WH, where it is not local chat and those who in the system not represented. All who will return on a citadel will wait an unpleasant surprise and death from a hostile fleet. A citadel can and will not effectively be on the defensive. But if it will be aggression on all who access is forbidden. It will not allow to do a trap near a citadel. Business not in efficiency of weapon of citadel and not in that it is possible to deceive a citadel. Is it possible it will be to give citadels to let automatically to shoot on an opponent? Or to hang on him time of aggression 15 minutes not settling thus log off alongside.

Tosawa Komarui No Vacancies 4	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:32:29 - [21] - Quote i see your thought process for low dps high angle guns continues the long tradition of ignoring wormhole issues. at least its consistent.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 318	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:39:43 - [22] - Quote Amak Boma wrote: why not give the supercarriers/titans warp core strenght of something like 20 - 30. That is essentially what they are doing
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1930	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:44:55 - [23] - Quote Tosawa Komarui wrote: i see your thought process for low dps high angle guns continues the long tradition of ignoring wormhole issues. at least its consistent. CCP does not completely gut T3 Cruisers, letting them run amok all over New Eden because gutting them would negatively affect WH space in more ways than one. CCP completely redoes the entire plan for Citadels in WH space - specifically to cater to WH residents' requests. CCP comes up with a focus group for capitals that is 50% WH representatives. WH space residents: "Wah! You ignore our concerns." CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 334	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:51:01 - [24] - Quote Moar Q&A, including a Miscellaneous section! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Dr Carbonatite Corporation for Public Broadcasting 1	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:52:11 - [25] - Quote While I think EWAR resistance in general is another cheap gimmick, supers being affected by webs will be a massive stealth buff to supercap mobility. There's going to have to be something tacked on there to compensate.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 334	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:57:10 - [26] - Quote Dr Carbonatite wrote: While I think EWAR resistance in general is another cheap gimmick, supers being affected by webs will be a massive stealth buff to supercap mobility. There's going to have to be something tacked on there to compensate. Supers can already warp in a single MWD cycle with existing 500mn MWDs. Additionally, there will be a 'Web Resistance' attribute on supers/titans. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Shilalasar Dead Sky Inc. 178	Posted - 2015.11.13 13:59:19 - [27] - Quote Third paragraph isn-¦t about dread/siege but triage und carriers/FAx. Misslabeled
Current Habit Rusty Pricks 55	Posted - 2015.11.13 14:00:33 - [28] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) When you introduce capital sized modules, what happens to the modules we have fitted to our capitals that will no longer be allowed?#1 #2 #3 A) There is no plan to disallow existing modules from Capitals. For example, if you are running a 'Large Capacitor Booster II' on your Dread, and we introduce a 'Capital Capacitor Booster I', you can still continue to run your large if you chose too. In regards to Capital Neutralizers, these will have different functionality to existing Neutralizers. There will be gameplay for both, and you may want to fit Heavy Neuts instead of Capital Neuts dependent on the situation. Good job missing the point of the question. CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) 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? #1 #2 A) The current design has them completely removed. The specifics havn't been determined. So what actually happens to Remote Cap Reps/energy transfers already fitted to a (super)carrier?
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1578	Posted - 2015.11.13 14:01:38 - [29] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Servanda wrote: Some people keep telling me the FAX class will be a supercap going with all the building and docking restrictions. I couldn't findany clarification about this. Seems to be a common point that is unclear. So would be nice if you could confirm which kind of ca++ital they will be as this is rather important for planing. I specifically asked this at Vegas because the CFC leadership was spreading this rumor on Slack prior to vegas FAX machine are Capitals and can be built anywhere When asking about the glaring hole in the slide where a SC FAX machine would go, I got a snicker and a no comment .. how did you know about this before Vegas? Yaay!!!!
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1557	Posted - 2015.11.13 14:05:16 - [30] - Quote Price range of carriers to dreadnaughts is pretty significant, more than 100% in some cases. If FA are intended to die as a balance factor then I would like to see them at the cheaper end of the scale. I personally feel that completely removing the ability to use capital remote assistance modules is overkill. Yes, slowcat RR doctrine is horribly, horribly broken, but I feel a better option would be a massive stacking penalty - 100%, 50%, 5% kinda deal on the receiving ship similar to the new damage mitigation on the structures - this would allow a small force to support one carrier with another carrier while not being completely OTT. So far as how to change the ships over, I will re-state a method that I have mentioned in the past that I feel would be ideal for this sort of deployment - Create a new character in CCP Alliance called "CCP Ship Exchange" or something along the lines, and script it similar to the moveme bot where any valid item exchanges assigned to it are immediately accepted and a new contract is created to the original person including the relevant racial RFA, anything that was originally fitted.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.