EVE Search - HP Boost for Sub-Super Capitals

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

HP Boost for Sub-Super Capitals

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 01:09:00 - [1] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2010 17:53:35 The real answer is to nerf sov HP and supercaps hard. -Liang I would agree, but wouldn't that make supercaps useless? tbh a solution that can deal with the problem at hand by not simply transferring the title of "superfluous ship of useless uses" from one place to another would be better. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 09:13:00 - [2] Originally by: SickSeven Originally by: Irae Ragwan They never had a defined use. "stuff"... You made a lot of good points, the problem is nothing is ever going to just be removed from the game. You know, as a business, CCP is NOT going to remove SCs from the game. So we have to find a role or a balance. I think the best idea so far is that Super Capitals will require a Capital Cynosural field generator. Basically, make so you can't field Super Caps unless you field Caps first. I think that alone would do wonders for the current problems, but that is just a bandaid(a good one though). We still need to find a role for them, besides wtfbbqpwnsaucedmg mobiles. I do agree that the cap cyno solution seems like a good bandaid solution. It is still, however, a bandaid one. however there are at the very least 2 ways on how a solution for current cap warfare can go: solution A) somehow CCP manages to boost capital ships by giving them a role and we see a shift from supercaps to caps, yet any sub-cap battleship still continues to decline in favour of capships (a battleship pilot becomes more valuable if he's in any sort of supercap). solution B) you nerf supercaps and everyone starts using capital ships, because a supercarrier/titan pilot is better off in a dread/carrier, and sub-cap pilots start to change their battleships for a capital ship because sub-caps start to lose their place in the alliance warfare. tbh capital ships were a genie that got out of the lamp and he wont' go inside now. I suspect that people will all go to the capships, whatever is the change, because they can project much more damage than subcaps. sure sub-cap support fleets will still be needed, but they will have a decreasing value on the battlefield. a sov HP fix (by decreasing it) would only extrapolate this issue even further. tbh the only way I can see it changing is probably giving a very specific role to both caps and supercaps in a way that it becomes pretty much mandatory to have a huge support fleet behind them. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 11:03:00 - [3] Edited by: Grimpak on 25/09/2010 11:05:16 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Still wondering: how would dedicated sub-cap anti-capital ship fit in this? Im STILL vouching for ship that can project huge damage (say 5k DPS, or even huge alpha with low dps) but only against capital ships. Forces cap users to actually get some support so downgrade their ships. Unless im mistaken... probably some sort of heavy bomber? or even a dedicated sub-cap anti-cap ship? still, this whole conundrum is something very hard to fix, but it is more lasting than simply bandaiding the issue and stamp it "issue solved". --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 16:37:00 - [4] Originally by: SickSeven Now, it looks like the only answer may be the CHIC, that would bubble and entire grid and force fleets to fight to the death. But I'm sure after the first couple weeks that would somehow spiral out of control and we would all be back here bashing our heads against a wall. that does seem to be a nice idea, but it still sound like just yet another bandaid. indeed CCP released quite the genie of the lamp with this one Originally by: Liang Nuren ideas good ideas, but there's still something missing. probably a refinement/change of said dreadnaugh and carrier roles? Carriers do work well at a logistics level, dreads however at a siege level are quite overshadowed by pretty much any supercap out there. Perhaps introducing a second kind of dread, probably dubbed "juggernaught" that are more geared towards mobility and anti-cap warfare than the dreads, while the dreads themselves would be reworked to become superior siege engines, above supercaps, but even then I'm not seeing this idea becoming everlasting aswell. probably somewhat combining liang's sugestions with the CHIC and the heavy bomber (and probably the juggernaught) ideas we would get something reasonable, but it simply has way too many variables to account with, yet the ideas by themselves don't sound like everlasting. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 16:44:00 - [5] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Irae Ragwan Reasonable, perhaps too reasonable. The only thing I can immidiately disagree with is the manner in which you're taking the primary tax on SCs is movement. Which seems to indicate that massive defense forces of SCs would still be feasible. I think SCs ought to be harder to power than a small region of POS'. If they're going to be big, expensive, ALLIANCE assets, then it should take the might of an alliance just to keep one running. Honestly, I couldn't really think of a better way to tax the usage of a supercap than taxing its movement and special attacks. And ultimately, I'm not sure there's really anything wrong with major alliances being able to field 50 supercaps to any of their systems for defense. It would, afterall, cost them 25-50 billion in fuel to do it. -Liang it would still be a too strong of a defence., but it's still better than nowadays situation. it still has that good ol' bandaid feeling tho (like pretty much every "balancing" and boost done nowadays by CCP) wish they could get their act together and instead start to actually make massive and very deep balancing for once. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.25 17:55:00 - [6] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Grimpak it would still be a too strong of a defence., but it's still better than nowadays situation. it still has that good ol' bandaid feeling tho (like pretty much every "balancing" and boost done nowadays by CCP) wish they could get their act together and instead start to actually make massive and very deep balancing for once. I'm not sure that's really true. It seems like the worst case scenario would be an alliance with hundreds of super caps concentrated in a few hub systems... and I'm just not really sure that should be a situation that can be directly assaulted. Sieges have long been on the books in warfare, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to have one. -Liang not saying that otherwise, just stating that the balance might be too much on the side of the defender --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.27 08:13:00 - [7] Originally by: Irae Ragwan ITT: "SCs don't need to be nerfed, we just need to futher complicate game mechanics." At least it keeps with the "** polished content: get with the new compounded problems...er features," strategy eh? the problem is not that they need to be nerfed. the problem is, if you ask for a nerf from CCP, you get the nerfhammer and they go from diamonds to . now sensible people here want SC's to change in a way that they are still weapons to be recokned with, but at the same time, limit their use greatly. --- Quote:** The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.27 14:14:00 - [8] Edited by: Grimpak on 27/09/2010 14:15:08 Originally by: SickSeven Revamping the targeting mechanism is the best idea yet. This will actually empower wing and squad commanders. Also can we get Carrier and Dread prices swapped? even with the corp/gang mate limitation it seems too exploitable. who stops people of targeting said ships with an out-of-gang, out-of-corp alt? it also seems overly complicated code-wise. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.27 16:59:00 - [9] Originally by: SickSeven I don't quite follow you. Targeting would only be limited to ships outside your corp/alli/gang. So any nuetral/hostile that targets you would use up some targeting points. Now are you worried about people using alts to use up all their targeting points therefore making them invulnerable? Well, that could happen but that sure would be a pain in the ass to keep 8 alts online at all times to keep your shiny locked up. And if you are in low/0.0 just shoot the offending neutrals. a) doesn't need to be your own alts b) you can still RR the offending neutrals. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.

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.