Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:11:00 -
[1]
Just wondering if CCP has looked into mitigating the use of capital ships sometime in the future.
I remember reading CCP's own comments when capital ships were released, and back then they were talking about how capital ships would be the centerpiece of a powerful fleet... yet now we see fleets of nothing but capital ships on a weekly basis.
Fleets of capital ships? Really? Is there a plan to slow the power creep down a little bit so that other ships in the game can matter again outside of doing missions?
Don't even get me started on Titans. Crack must have been free in Iceland the week they decided that a ship that can wipe out entire fleets with a single button was balanced.
Titans should be near mythical entities in the game world, yet some alliances have so many of them that losing three a month isn't really that big of a deal. I've seen so many of them now that it doesn't even faze me anymore... meh, another Titan, big deal.
So what's the plan, or is there even a plan? Is EVE really destined to become Capital Ships Online, and if so, when do the devs plan on renaming the game CSO? ---------------------------------
|
Swiftgaze
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:13:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/11/2009 12:13:29 IBTL
|
|
CCP Navigator
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:15:00 -
[3]
Moved from General Discussion
Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
Suas
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:33:00 -
[4]
It's fine and Titans are getting nerfed. _________________________
HELLO! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. PREPARE TO DIE! |
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/11/2009 12:13:29 IBTL
This is a perfectly legitimate concern, I don't know why it would get locked unless they simply don't believe the power creep is a problem and figure me for a common troll. ---------------------------------
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:38:00 -
[6]
Power creep is a bit inevitable in any persistent universe game. Older players amass more wealth and buy fancier toys, only way to keep them elite is to make them cost more and more. However, if you do that then you end up with a situation where only those who already have them can afford more. Someone coming into the game 2-3 years after the start could never even hope to catch up because after a year of playing and nearing the required resources and skills to fly one, suddenly another year is added to the price tag and skills.
There are basically two options that are fair to new and old alike:, nuke the server every 2 years or add higher level ships. Nuking the server of course resets the process and you end up with a race to capitals. Most will not reach it unless they dedicate their characters to it and skip as much stuff in the middle as they can. Alternatively you can add more ships and though carriers/dreads will continue to rise in numbers, they will mean less as there are more titans/moms and at some point a new ship above that. So far CCP has gone with the second option. -----------------------------------------------------
|
Gsptlsnz
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 13:10:00 -
[7]
Power-creep isn't inevitable, but game designers can't resist it all the same - they can't shake the "Man vs System" RFG design model. Nor can players, who seem to think long playing time has to lead to bigger ships. The idea that having higher skills means you have a right to more powerful stuff is crazy enough in a level-based game. In EvE it goes counter to the claimed core design of the game. Being rich shoud make you willing to lose more expensive ships than poorer players (T2 vs equivalent T1 for example), rather than making spending huge amounts of time and money for one huge ship which the owner is afraid to use in case it's destroyed.
EvE is as much of a gear-freak game as WoW because of this. Too many fancy, expensive, high-meta modules, too many crazy oversized units that have to be owned by one person.
The natural design would be to have all the really expensive stuff shared only (Corp, Alliances, etc), and implement Corps and Alliances so this makes sense (rather than just encouranging back-stabbing).
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 13:28:00 -
[8]
Dreads are getting nerfed as they aren't needed for taking sov (pos) anymore.
Titans are getting nerfed so they only are scary to other capitals.
Motherships are getting redone so they are just tougher carriers that kill caps, rather than being a 25 fighter assigner which sits at a POS.
Carriers? If they don't fix the docking games with RR, I expect this game to become "carrier RR on stations online" as each system has its own dockable base.
|
Concubinia Scarlett
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 13:41:00 -
[9]
Any Intentions To Mitigate The Use Of Capital Letters?
|
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 14:27:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Concubinia Scarlett Any Intentions To Mitigate The Use Of Capital Letters?
Any intentions to go to grade school and learn how a title is correctly written, or didja lern all yer anglish and grammer rulez from twitter?
Now that the troll has been burned,
The point that I'm getting at here is that Capital ships were intended to be centerpieces for fleets, not fleets in and of themselves. I think there should be a game mechanic that attempts to enforce this in some manner.
For instance, an aircraft carrier doesn't undock and just go zooming around the ocean by itself. It is always part of a carrier group. A fleet of ships that are there to support and defend each other in case of an attack.
Perhaps a game mechanic that allows only one capital ship per fleet, with a further rule that there must be at least ten other ships (Cruiser hull or larger) in said fleet. If these rules aren't met, then the capital ship cannot activate any high slot modules, or in the case of carriers, cannot launch fighters either.
This would allow capital ships to still perform their role as logistics ships to jump goods from one place to another, while disallowing them to be solo weapons platforms. Their use would have to be planned for ahead of time.
This is only one suggestion, and perhaps there are better suggestions, but it's my opinion that something needs to be done before the sole object of the game is to get into a capital ship as fast as you can to be effective in the game. ---------------------------------
|
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gsptlsnz
The natural design would be to have all the really expensive stuff shared only (Corp, Alliances, etc), and implement Corps and Alliances so this makes sense (rather than just encouranging back-stabbing).
Man, you were making a point up till here, then you the butt hurt came leaping out.
Where did the bad man touch you?
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:50:00 -
[12]
I don't suppose eight to fifteen titans on each side of a major cap fight would answer your question on what ccp meant to happen by giving titans CAPITAL SHIP killing weapons.
Kthxbye |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:12:00 -
[13]
The current changes to the Naglfar certainly indicate that they wish to curb the use of that ship.
|
Trisa Li
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:33:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne Perhaps a game mechanic that allows only one capital ship per fleet, with a further rule that there must be at least ten other ships (Cruiser hull or larger) in said fleet. If these rules aren't met, then the capital ship cannot activate any high slot modules, or in the case of carriers, cannot launch fighters either.
This has got to be the BEST idea I've ever heard.
Hrm, maybe in order to make frigates more viable for PvP, let's make a hard limit of only one HAC per gang!
That way the frigates won't get insta-popped and they can contribute to the fleet in a meaningful manner.
Or, hey, here's another GREAT IDEA.
In order to make defender missiles practical, let's limit all missile ships to a maximum of two launchers while flying in a fleet!
Or, to keep blasters in use, a maximum of one ship with a tracking disruptor bonus is allowed per fleet!
ooooooh I know! Active tanks suck due to neuts, let's make it so you can have a maximum of one neut on a ship that is in fleet, and a maximum of one BS in fleet. Then active tanks will really shine!
Please, I want more limitations and rules on what I'm allowed to bring into battle in my sandbox.
And just for those who can't figure it out, </sarcasm>
|
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:34:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jovialmadness I don't suppose eight to fifteen titans on each side of a major cap fight would answer your question on what ccp meant to happen by giving titans CAPITAL SHIP killing weapons.
Kthxbye
You really really think that 8-15 titans on each side of a battle is what CCP had in mind when they introduced them to the game? I'm pretty sure it's not. In fact just reading the description of them proves as much.
In another 12 months it will go from being 8-15, to being more like 25 per side.
This, in my opinion is beyond ridiculous and needs to be nipped now before all sub capital ships become useless for anything bar running missions. ---------------------------------
|
Concubinia Scarlett
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne
For instance, an aircraft carrier doesn't undock and just go zooming around the ocean by itself. It is always part of a carrier group. A fleet of ships that are there to support and defend each other in case of an attack.
I wish more people WOULD undock and go zooming around lowsec in unsupported carriers. They look good on killboards.
If indeed there is an issue with the accession of capital class vessels in recent times, I would think the logical resolution of such an issue would be to give 'buff' advantages to capital vessels operating within a mixed fleet as opposed to constraining capitals in their operational capacity.
As to what form these advantages would take, I have no idea. Perhaps it could be based on the number and type of sub-capital ships 'on-grid' and in fleet with a capital ship, perhaps something along the lines of a small per-ship increase in capacitor & tanking ability for titans, capacitor & weapon cycle time for dreadnaughts, and capacitor & remote repair ability for carriers?
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:25:00 -
[17]
One other nerf that is forthcoming is the splitting of the drone bay and figher bay in carriers, now those carriers can't deploy wave after wave of Warrior II's to defend itself from that swarm of frigates.
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:30:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Jovialmadness on 20/11/2009 17:31:35
Quote: You really really think that 8-15 titans on each side of a battle is what CCP had in mind when they introduced them to the game? I'm pretty sure it's not. In fact just reading the description of them proves as much.
In another 12 months it will go from being 8-15, to being more like 25 per side.
This, in my opinion is beyond ridiculous and needs to be nipped now before all sub capital ships become useless for anything bar running missions.
1. No CCP never intended caps to be used like they are. 2. This change has everything to do with getting them back to a controlled useage. 3. You state 25 per side which is the EXACT reason they have made the DD a direct fire instead of area of affect weapon. 4. That many titans will, along with typical large fleets, initially cause massive capital losses initially with carriers/moms/dreads then eventually the big alliances with large number of titans actually shooting each others titans. This could go in reverse i dont know but i can promise one thing...historically players in eve in 0.0 believe in blobbing. Add a massive direct fire weapon with the ability to blob and lots of big ships are going down. what will this do to change their use? your guess is as good as mine. enter more sub capital fighting down the road i suspect.
edit: or better yet, and i never rule anything out in this game, but maybe just maybe after the smoke clears perhaps in game agreements on super capital useage. now that would be comedy. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |