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)
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.24 17:57:00 - [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 A thousand times this!
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 00:38:00 - [2] Originally by: Aamrr Edited by: Aamrr on 25/09/2010 00:30:31 Edited by: Aamrr on 25/09/2010 00:30:03 Originally by: Irae Ragwan 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 A thousand times this! Third order pyramid quote for emphasis. Supercaps need a nerf, and it's high time that people start recognizing it. I furthermore suggest removing the ability to field fighter bombers and remote ECM bursts in lowsec. This is a wonderful pyramid.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 02:09:00 - [3] Originally by: Grimpak 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. They never had a defined use.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 05:07:00 - [4] Originally by: SickSeven While I want to believe a bandaid fix like that would have some effect, I just can't put it together in a realistic setting. It seems such a change would merely encourage a few disposable carrier/dread ships to bring in the fleet, essentially ignoring the issue at hand which is: how do you create a role for something that was never meant to exist inside the balanced fleet structure to begin with? Sub-cap fleets are generally unable to break the logistical support of a fleet with a few carriers. Having a carrier of their own and some dreads offers a reasonable shot at either forcing the carrier fleet to leave, or get dreads of their own. In this case, each one-up has a counter-part. Caps cancel out caps and if the battle is evenly matched the worst case is a lot of carriers just repping until everyone gets bored. Supercaps on the other hand combine the dread's ability to take down a cap with the logistical support of the carrier (and this is completely ignoring the fact figher bombers can easily take out battleships aswell). Therefor, the only counter-part to the SC is... another SC. Rather than the old trade-off of offense(dread) v. defense(carrier) you now have a platform capable of both things AND the ability to apply damage at an alarming rate to any sub-cap larger than a hac. That alone presents a huge problem: you set the fleet standard of any group unwilling or unable to present an overwhelming force of SCs as unable to fly in anything but ships almost completely incapable of being dangerous to targets of strateigic value. Ofcourse at some point even a critical number of rookie ships could destroy an ihub, but realistically the node will crash long before this happens. So, if the premise is to eliminate this all-in-one package SCs represent, where then do you go? Do SC's becomes offensive and unable to remote rep? That might work, but you'd still be left with the issue of carriers and dreads being pounded into dust whenever SCs show up. If you wish to leave the carrier and dread relavent, then you might suggest the Supercarrier become an improved carrier. Loose offense and gain defensive power. Back to the scenario with the carrier fleet vs. the bs fleet. Too much defense on the field = terribly lame stalemates due to overpowered cap logistics. Does that make the titan the only answer? How would the titan be re-designed to meet a role as the t2 dread (or vice versa)? I think the only simplistic solution outside of removing them is to simply make them (as close to their "intended" role as possible) astronomically expensive to upkeep. I don't know how you'd go about implimenting it, but if their numbers were kulled significantly enough and their price of operation went sky high, they may become rare enough that cap fleets flourish since the wild-card of SCs would only be delt in the most dire circumstance and at HUGE risk to the owner(s).
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 05:35:00 - [5] Originally by: Seriously Bored Anyone remember when the new SCs were being tested, and everything seemed awesome, and then CCP nerfed them on SiSi and then we said "Bah WTF?" and then they were like, "Well, we still think they're too strong but now we'll let them dock," and then we were like, "WTF!? Bring back CCP Abathur! Good ideas are not a crime!" and then we got SCs as they were originally envisioned again? Good times. The largest SC thread in the Assembly hall is about making their models larger. Good times indeed.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 16:01:00 - [6] Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 25/09/2010 16:05:51 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Irae Ragwan How would the titan be re-designed to meet a role as the t2 dread (or vice versa)? Sov changes: - Lower HP of anchorables (first step) - Iterate on sov (second step) Capital changes: - Triage/Siege no longer give ewar immunity, and no longer have targeting penalties - Dreads can be remote repped in Siege - Carriers no longer lose control of fighters/drones in Triage - Triage/Siege lasts 5 minutes Supercapital changes: - Fighter Bombers, Doomsdays, Ewar Immunity, and Jump Portals limited to 0.0 - Dramatically increase Doomsday fuel consumption to ~1B ISK to fire - Dramatically increase jump fuel costs to ~500M for a mid range jump. - Increase fuel bay sizes to account for the above - Supercarriers trade 3 FB/lvl for 80% FB damage/lvl [Lag reduction] - 10x increase in mineral cost of fighter bombers Implications: - Carriers get a slight boost to triage - Dreads get a large boost to siege - Capital vs Supercapital combat capabilities are largely unchanged - Supercapitals become virtually financially unmaintainable by a single grinding individual - Supercapitals even appearing on the field would signal a major financial cost -Liang 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. Originally by: idiots still parroting the idea subcaps could be specialized to kill SCs stuff Subcaps will never challenge SCs and no change you make is going to fix that. Anything that countered SCs would anhillate regular caps, and then you're back at square one. Was your intent to obsolete both caps and SCs? Not that I think that is a terrible thing, but if the premise here is getting carriers and dreads back on the field and make SCs a rarity then this is a bad idea.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 17:02:00 - [7] Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 25/09/2010 17:03:30 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 Fair enough. On a related note, i've been informed the CSM is too busy fighting against PLEX for Remaps to discuss the SC issue. Not that the CSM is or was ever worth a ****, but I find it humorous they've turned their attention to such a tangent while gameplay circles the drain.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.25 18:17:00 - [8] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Just some random thoughts. You wouldn't "mix fleets," if a subcap was capable of killing SCs a billion times more expensive than themselves. You'd get a bunch of them and kamakazi the SCs, then leave. This makes SCs essentially useless and brings you to essentially the same point I made: might as well scrap them.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.26 01:53:00 - [9] Hows that make SCs viable on one target again? The scenario that comes to my mind is a pair of SCs mopping the floor with a much larger fleet simply because they don't have the dps to break tanks with the couple ships allowed to shoot. Maybe I missed something?
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.26 03:58:00 - [10] Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 26/09/2010 03:59:04 Originally by: RagnarRox ... Was that so hard? It still massively helps blobs turn into talent and prep rather than More MORE MOAR Might want to edit that stuff into your first post because without it sounds rediculous.

Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.26 20:22:00 - [11] Targeting based on sig? I can't see that working at all. What about smartbombs? What about ships with a rediculously tiny sig for their effective damage (zealot)? What about shield tanked ships in general? Sig-based anything really flys in the face of the already obvious tradoffs between armor tanking and shield tanking (which is clearly in favor of armor tanks for the kind of fleets we're discussing). You might consider those things first, eh? The easy options (large nerf to SCs and/or expensive upkeep) have a lot more merit imo.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.26 21:27:00 - [12] Originally by: Kail Storm word vomit You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd spent any time in nullsec you'd realize the dread and carrier are both obsolete and your idiot suggestions don't change that one iota. Dreads don't work vs. SCs because SCs evaporate dreads in minutes. Given enough of them (and hey look, the NC managed to squeeze almost 200 of them on grid the other night) you haven't even got a chance. What's your suggestion there? Bring 10 dreads for every SC and hope the node holds up long enough for you to target one of the SCs? Screw up game mechanics even more just so the overpowered ships don't have to be touched with the nerf bat? Please gtfo and let the adults have a relavent discussion.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.27 02:45:00 - [13] OH GOD HALP, MY E-HONO(U)R IZ AT STEAK!
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.27 07:29:00 - [14] 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?
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.27 18:48:00 - [15] Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 27/09/2010 18:50:11 Holy hell... you're still posting that nonsense 12 hours later? lol Seriously Bored as spot on, put it a bit more eloquently than I did, but that's nothing new.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:44:00 - [16] Originally by: Kail Storm Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Seriously Bored Balance changes in a game this complex need to be simple and elegant, or else they introduce monstrous new realms of problems and imbalance that can't be predicted during testing. And changing the way everyone in the game locks and fights one another would scream "New Game Enhancements" to me. Gonna be pretty awesome when I get a couple neutral archons to target my Vindicator and apply 1 neut and 1 cap energy transfer each. Then I've got a 2000 DPS unlockable pwnmobile. -Liang Obviously you didnt get the part saying there is are both limits to friendly and enemy "points" of targeting, so all your alli`s would do was be limited to how many RR`s you can recieve nothing else. Never. Stop. Posting.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Kail Storm Irae say something constructive or **** off SO, what if we made a new system where every ship had a given number of "Kali" assigned to it, and every ship's signature radius and targeting ability were modified by the number of total "Kali" present on the grid divided by the square root of the number of alliance in the region. That way, if the "Kali" score of the fleet was too high, the fleet would not recieve a lower "Kali score," and thus be at a disadvantage in their ability to post constructive things. Of course, this sounds very complex, but if you stop and re-read it a dozen or so times then you should understand that it will work flawlessly and there is absolutely no way it would have any negative impact or unintended side-effects. [/sarcasm]
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 00:18:00 - [18] Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 28/09/2010 00:22:40 Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Originally by: Irae Ragwan Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 27/09/2010 23:50:24 Devil's Advocate: That doesn't scale up very well when you're talking about a large number of SCs. Which brings me back to the whole "not designed for anything but being OP," theme. I think there is an issue of scale (namely: examples of 100+ SCs being brough to battle are happening already) that is going to upset arguments like that. It scales a lot better when you add in the fact that the only time supercaps have been fielded in that number has been over 0.0 Sov where bubbles are in effect and a single dictor(cost ~35m isk) can tackle 5-10 supers at a time. Fair enough, but that number of SCs is not strictly limited to 0.0. As an aside, I would dearly love to fly that suicide dictor. Originally by: Kail Storm Seriously whats your solution The solution is to effectively change a statistic of the SC. Be that EHP as Sarah suggests, Ewar immunity ala Liang, or some other variable yet to be discussed. You seem to be under the impression your idea of creating entirely new problems to solve existing issues has some, possibly equal, merit. That's a little sad.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 02:35:00 - [19] Originally by: MukkBarovian And I personally find it a bit suprising that supercapitols don't have to worry about an underequiped gang holding them long enough for reinforcements while every other kind of ship in the game does. Its not a bad thing. - Its just counterintuitive to what people learn about pvp up until they encounter those ship types. This, in a nutshell. You can invest billions into other ships that represent less than a quarter of the fleet capacity an SC delivers and it can be pointed by any member of the enemy fleet. There shouldn't be a magical number in billions of isk to make something point-immune from anything besides HICs because it simply doesn't hold water on the risk-reward scale. It's a step up in survivability that's far beyond the comparatively small jump in price (considering if you dropped a carrier instead of an sc your chances of loosing it go up 100 fold) and it's simply way out of line. I really dislike the comparison to the dread fleet as though a ton of dreads years ago was somehow an equally scary force as today's SC blobs. Dreads are far, far more vulnerable on the offensive than SCs. There's almost no comparison at all really aside from the fact neither are sub-caps.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 02:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Edit: I drop 16 carriers on your 5 BS, do any of them die. No. I drop 100 BS on your 5 BS do I die. No. In all cicumstances your 5 BS got ganked by a superior force. Making supercaps tacklable isn't gonna change the fact that if you field a superior fleet than you win handedly. I think you're missing the point. 3bil isk marauder 'roams' into a lowsec system. A couple rifters can point it and it will die easily to less than half a dozen cheapie ships. 5bil isk dread/carrier 'roams' into a lowsec system. A couple bc's point it and it will die easily to a few more subcaps. Again, much cheaper ships tacking and killing. 15bil isk SC 'roams' into a lowsec system. Everything must run the hell away unless there are hics and logistics plus a small fleet of caps for the take-down. In the first two examples, because the (idiot) pilot in the expensive ship was alone, he was popped by superior numbers getting the jump on him and even if he killed all but one of his attackers before he died, he still lost far more. In the last example, it took nearly the value of the victim's ship just to bring it down, and without the ideal fleet composition to both keep it pointed it had every chance to get away unscathed.

Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 03:02:00 - [21] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk If you actually read what Liang said she said that she wanted to make supercarriers tacklable in conjunction with reducing HP. One or the other would be fine, but removing EWar immunity wouldn't fix proliforation in 0.0 while lowering HP would. It would also make it viable for smaller lowsec entities to hotdrop supercaps. Edit: Quote fail Small lowsec entities hotdrop supercaps? Also, removing ewar immunity would kill off a -lot- of supercaps that are currently escaping 0.0 skirmishes. Combined with a moderate EHP nerf and they might just be brough in line.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 03:16:00 - [22] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Edit: I said smaller, not small. There's a difference. I haven't been in lowsec in a while, but last time I hung out there there were a few medium sized corps with small cap fleets. You'll have to enlighten me there. I'm quite familiar with most of the lowsec entities in caldari, minmatar, and some of amarr lowsec regions and there are only a very few who have SCs, most of whom are affiliated with sov. aliances. I do know quite a few lowsec alliances with a small cap ship fleet, but most of them are too terrified of Nyx drops (rightly so) to use them.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 03:29:00 - [23] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk Originally by: Sig Sour I have a guardian that says otherwise. Just ask Liang, you shouldn't need a Guardian to roam around lowsec. Avoiding argument, best argument?
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 17:16:00 - [24] Originally by: Phoenix vajaa Edited by: Phoenix vajaa on 28/09/2010 11:10:16 Edited by: Phoenix vajaa on 28/09/2010 11:09:12 I have said it before and its been said before. The problem is not the super caps. ITS THE GOD DAMN BLOB MECHANIC AND TARGET CALLING OF PRIMARYS FOR A ENTIRE BLOB. 15 ON 1 IS NOT FUN GAMEPLAY BE IT IN A SC'S VS DREADS OR BE IT 15 DREADS VS 1 CARRIER. OR 15 CARRIERS VS 1 DREAD. BLOBS PRIMARYING 1 SHIP IS BAD MMMMKAY. The "LOOK AT THE SILLY MONKEY!" defense doesn't really work unless you get in earlier. Fact is, if 15 dreads are on the field, the SC is going to gtfo unless there are hics and logi to keep him there. If 1 SC is out and finds a couple dreads, lol, those dreads are ****ed. Risk v. Reward doesn't seem to apply to SCs like it does every other ship. We've shown the price ratio comparison to effectivly tackle them is far beyond that of the ships below. There shouldn't be a magical isk-line-in-the-sand where everything upward requires comparatively much more (based on hull price of the target) risk in tackle and support to just hold it (to say nothing of killing it). Blobbing is a seperate issue. So if you want to talk about blobs then start your own thread.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 20:13:00 - [25] Originally by: Relena mearfire If you fail to do this. down the road there will be cries of the next abuse of a shiptype. That's a tangent. You can blob any kind of ship. Blobs don't create the issues with SCs. SCs requiring an exorbatent amount of isk value in pure tackle, to say nothing of killing one, is the issue at hand.
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.28 23:27:00 - [26] Originally by: Kail Storm Irae what exact change are you proposing. I like a combination of things posted. At minimum, SCs being point-immune should be disabled in lowsec. More reasonably, they should also either shed ehp. At best, both of the above and give bombers a harder time hitting sub-caps.

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.