Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
192
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 17:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
One of the problems with cap warfare is that it turns into a numbers game. Whoever has the most caps wins. They do some of the highest dps, and have the highest rep power, and thus become nearly impossible to break in a gang of more than 3 or so without stupid high numbers. (small gang)
The main problem is that remote rep is overpowered in capital sizes. With 2-3 carriers repping each other you can outlast just about anything on the field (within reason) with good triage support and using the broken fitting service to exchange modules with each other.
Yet they also have amazing DPS projection. Imagine how broken a Ishkur with Guardian bonuses would be in groups of 3-4.
Now give them amazing tanks as well, and the ability to jump to systems...and you get somewhat of an idea how broken it is.
There shouldn't be a one class fits all, does all, ship. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 18:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
I never thought I would say this about someone from Nior but after reading your post have have to believe you don't really understand triage carriers. They are not easy to use well on the battlefield and certainly are not invinicible. If you haven't watched R&K's triage videos maybe give them a look. It seems like a bad mistake to me to remove any of this from the game - it would make cap fleet fights sort of boring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20F3n6wHsbA&feature=related [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
192
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 18:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm talking less about small gang, and more about the giant blobs of super carriers dropped by the major sov players. |
ugh zug
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 19:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:One of the problems with cap warfare is that it turns into a numbers game. Whoever has the most caps wins. They do some of the highest dps, and have the highest rep power, and thus become nearly impossible to break in a gang of more than 3 or so without stupid high numbers. (small gang)
The main problem is that remote rep is overpowered in capital sizes. With 2-3 carriers repping each other you can outlast just about anything on the field (within reason) with good triage support and using the broken fitting service to exchange modules with each other.
Yet they also have amazing DPS projection. Imagine how broken a Ishkur with Guardian bonuses would be in groups of 3-4.
Now give them amazing tanks as well, and the ability to jump to systems...and you get somewhat of an idea how broken it is.
There shouldn't be a one class fits all, does all, ship.
The recent support carrier idea I approve of, as it provides the repping power, but doesn't also get super high DPS potential, or tanking ability.
if you agree with the support carrier idea why make another post about it?
how is nerfing carriers going to change the numbers game exactly? if anything you will be back here crying foul over the next flavor of the month setup from big alliances, they out number you the end. the problem lies within the numbers not the carrier. if you had an equal sized fleet, it come down to skills, fits, and FCing in a capital battle. carrier dps compared to other capitals is miniscule.
why do you think most small alliances just use WH space instead of trying to take sov in 0.0? because they'd be instantly crushed by a 2000 man capital fleet. in truth mechanics that support the small alliance would be like the carriers current roles. you'd be able to stay on the field a lot longer with them then without them, at least until the titans are dropped.
what needs to be addressed is mamoth sized alliances, massive territory control, and picking on small alliances who are not interested in being exploited as renters. Want me to shut up?-á Send me ISK and i'll stop giving suggestions to CCP that make sense. Remove content from my post, 15 bil Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
192
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 19:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
ugh zug wrote:
if you agree with the support carrier idea why make another post about it?
how is nerfing carriers going to change the numbers game exactly? if anything you will be back here crying foul over the next flavor of the month setup from big alliances, they out number you the end. the problem lies within the numbers not the carrier. if you had an equal sized fleet, it come down to skills, fits, and FCing in a capital battle. carrier dps compared to other capitals is miniscule.
why do you think most small alliances just use WH space instead of trying to take sov in 0.0? because they'd be instantly crushed by a 2000 man capital fleet. in truth mechanics that support the small alliance would be like the carriers current roles. you'd be able to stay on the field a lot longer with them then without them, at least until the titans are dropped.
what needs to be addressed is mamoth sized alliances, massive territory control, and picking on small alliances who are not interested in being exploited as renters.
Because nerfing capital RR abilities wasn't the same as the support carrier idea, and while I was originally going to post this, in that thread, I didn't want to clutter that thread with what might be a different issue, and this isn't really about suppoer carriers.
I feel that skill should win the fights, not numbers.
Nerfing capital RR makes it easier for subcaps to break carrier spider tanks, and makes it so that you can't make unbreakable squads of super caps that are immune to everything but 20+ sieged dreads and DDs.
I'd like to see more of 3-5 carriers keeping up an amazing fleet winning against 10-15 carriers, vs how it is now where 10-15 carriers absolutely dominate anything with substantially less differences, regardless of skill.
There comes a point where no matter how good you are, or what your skill levels, you just can't break capital reps. |
Lord Zim
1153
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 23:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Subcaps don't have much problems breaking carrier spider tanks as it is. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
164
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 23:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
if your problem is about supercap blobs then the solution is simple, remove their ewar immunity, nothing should be totally invulnerable to ewar... it can be highly resistant, just not totally invulnerable. |
Cismani
Kangaroo Ate my baby Li3 Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
i have a question for the OP,
why only remove the remote Capital reppers... a T2 Logistics ship rep almost the same as a single Cap remote repper,
they are cheaper, and have saved more people then capital reppers... are they not even MORE annoying then the cap ones... cause they can go through gates, are a ton cheaper, alot more people fly them, and well
i for one would HATE to have to rep an outpost, or a Ihub, or even a titan with anything but atleast a carrier, and if you triage a carrier.... they can't receive remote rep, cap, or any assistance. typically a triaged carrer = a dead carrier (i said typically) unless it has support.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
I saw the words "2-3 carriers repping each other" and I'm now convinced you really don't know what you're talking about.
You can't really spider tank unless you forgo triage, in which case capital repping power is severely diminished, along with the survivability of the carriers. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1657
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 05:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:One of the problems with cap warfare is that it turns into a numbers game. Whoever has the most caps wins. They do some of the highest dps, and have the highest rep power, and thus become nearly impossible to break in a gang of more than 3 or so without stupid high numbers. (small gang)
The main problem is that remote rep is overpowered in capital sizes. With 2-3 carriers repping each other you can outlast just about anything on the field (within reason) with good triage support and using the broken fitting service to exchange modules with each other.
Yet they also have amazing DPS projection. Imagine how broken a Ishkur with Guardian bonuses would be in groups of 3-4.
Now give them amazing tanks as well, and the ability to jump to systems...and you get somewhat of an idea how broken it is.
There shouldn't be a one class fits all, does all, ship.
The recent support carrier idea I approve of, as it provides the repping power, but doesn't also get super high DPS potential, or tanking ability.
Get off it.
Eve is a numbers game, with or without caps.
Whoever brings the most broskies to the game and knows how best to apply them wins.
By your logic, we should remove all spaceships and fix the blob once and for all.
Seriously tho....
Your OP reeks of ignorance so badly it's registering as an insult on an emotional level. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
165
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 06:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
There are plenty of counters to the carrier blob, you can:
Jam them Cap them out Dampen them (its not like they can reposition) DD them
Unless youre talking about supercarriers in which case it does kinda limit your options, but the nice thing is that they cant field regular drones, and can only field one full flight of fighters/f-bombers meaning theyre only dangerous to caps or subcaps not both at the same time. |
Lord Zim
1153
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 07:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
Don't forget you can alpha them. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
165
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 07:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
I suppose that is true with > 130 maelstroms |
Lord Zim
1153
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 08:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
Or a few dreads. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 08:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
no, capital reps are fine. you shouldnt be able to take on multiple RRing carrier gang with small gang. thats all fine |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:PinkKnife wrote:One of the problems with cap warfare is that it turns into a numbers game. Whoever has the most caps wins. They do some of the highest dps, and have the highest rep power, and thus become nearly impossible to break in a gang of more than 3 or so without stupid high numbers. (small gang)
The main problem is that remote rep is overpowered in capital sizes. With 2-3 carriers repping each other you can outlast just about anything on the field (within reason) with good triage support and using the broken fitting service to exchange modules with each other.
Yet they also have amazing DPS projection. Imagine how broken a Ishkur with Guardian bonuses would be in groups of 3-4.
Now give them amazing tanks as well, and the ability to jump to systems...and you get somewhat of an idea how broken it is.
There shouldn't be a one class fits all, does all, ship.
The recent support carrier idea I approve of, as it provides the repping power, but doesn't also get super high DPS potential, or tanking ability. Get off it. Eve is a numbers game, with or without caps. Whoever brings the most broskies to the game and knows how best to apply them wins. By your logic, we should remove all spaceships and fix the blob once and for all. Seriously tho.... Your OP reeks of ignorance so badly it's registering as an insult on an emotional level.
I have no issues with blobs and counter blobs. My issue is with counter proof- blob warfare. I.e. Super caps. How many times do I have to say this?
Drake blob vs tengue blob ...I really don't care.
Is reading that hard? |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:no, capital reps are fine. you shouldnt be able to take on multiple RRing carrier gang with small gang. thats all fine
Define small gang in this context. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
166
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
ur issue is that supercaps only danger in space is bubbles/ DPS / Neuts.
when you're in a big blob of supercaps, neuts and dps isnt much of an issue... running hardeners use litterally **** all cap in comparason to the cap power supercaps have and with the hp buffer, RR does mittigate all that DPS typically. so your only issue is bubbles. and the dps projection, smartbombs and a free mid for an officer web to help damage to be applied solves that.
i can see why through all of that the only one to really go for is RR, but jeez... its ridiculous that supercaps have TOTAL and UNEQUIVOCAL immunity to the very tools that are normally used to break this kind of rr blobbing in subcaps.
if its a case of opening up supers to ewar would mean that supers would be permajammed, damped to 0m lock range and 1000 days lock time on titans, with a sig radius the size of a small planet then just ffs introduce capital ewar/ecm mods and have them be the only things that can ewar/ecm supercaps.
suddenly carriers become a hell of a lot more useful in big fights, rather than just being the cap punchbag in subcap fights.. or meatshields in supercap fights. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:ur issue is that supercaps only danger in space is bubbles/ DPS / Neuts.
when you're in a big blob of supercaps, neuts and dps isnt much of an issue... running hardeners use litterally **** all cap in comparason to the cap power supercaps have and with the hp buffer, RR does mittigate all that DPS typically. so your only issue is bubbles. and the dps projection, smartbombs and a free mid for an officer web to help damage to be applied solves that.
i can see why through all of that the only one to really go for is RR, but jeez... its ridiculous that supercaps have TOTAL and UNEQUIVOCAL immunity to the very tools that are normally used to break this kind of rr blobbing in subcaps.
if its a case of opening up supers to ewar would mean that supers would be permajammed, damped to 0m lock range and 1000 days lock time on titans, with a sig radius the size of a small planet then just ffs introduce capital ewar/ecm mods and have them be the only things that can ewar/ecm supercaps.
This.
I kind of like the idea of capital size ewar. |
Lord Zim
1161
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Remove supercaps. Voila, problem with caps solved. |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
323
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I kind of like the idea of capital size ewar.
This would promote the capital proliferation that you criticised in your very first sentence! If supercaps are to be vulnerable to ewar, then it should be subcapital ewar. If this means that they're always permajammed/damped/TDed, then some sort of % ewar resistance might be appropriate, but getting their support fleet to shoot the ewar boats would be a more natural solution. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 18:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:PinkKnife wrote:I kind of like the idea of capital size ewar. This would promote the capital proliferation that you criticised in your very first sentence! If supercaps are to be vulnerable to ewar, then it should be subcapital ewar. If this means that they're always permajammed/damped/TDed, then some sort of % ewar resistance might be appropriate, but getting their support fleet to shoot the ewar boats would be a more natural solution.
Well the general being susceptible to ewar appeals to me, how it is implemented is up for debate. An ewar buffer tank..so to speak, might be interesting. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |