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)
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.24 14:13:00 - [1] I think the OP had a really good post. Well thought out and I liked the proposed solution, until I read some of the replies. I now agree that it is not an issue of HP and dps per say. It is actually more of an issue of how easy it is for 10+ SC gangs to move around and gank lesser ships. You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.24 15:36:00 - [2] Originally by: Seriously Bored Here's a rather extreme idea: Would it break the game if Dreads could go in and out of siege at will, instead of riding out a countdown to DOOM? That might open up some more strategic uses for them, but I haven't explored the negatives for it. Well one negative is what will happen when triage is on the field: the dreads will siege until their tank is about to break then they will exit, get repped up, and enter siege again. But is that really game breaking? You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.24 15:39:00 - [3] Originally by: Dr Fighter Originally by: Seriously Bored Here's a rather extreme idea: Would it break the game if Dreads could go in and out of siege at will, instead of riding out a countdown to DOOM? That might open up some more strategic uses for them, but I haven't explored the negatives for it. perhaps only a cooldown for deactivating it, takes say a few minutes to reactivate. We wouldnt want 20 supers being replaced by 50 dreads and doing the exact same thing now would we :p Fixed ;) You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.25 03:58:00 - [4] 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. You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	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. reap what you sow, eh? You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.25 15:52:00 - [6] I think some of you are getting way off track. First, Dreads and Carriers DO have SPECIFIC roles, SIEGE and LOGI respectively. And they do that just fine. The PROBLEM is that SC now do both of those roles, and they excel at DPS to an extent that nothing can stand up to them. Normal capital ships are fine. And to a certain degree I still believe SCs are fine stat's wise. The problem with SCs though is not stats, but ease of movement and ease of possession. SCs were never meant to be purchased by individuals. CCP lowering the price of aquisition was probably one of the biggest mistakes. And I still think the fact that you only have to commit a cheap, cyno ship to bring in 20 SCs is a major problem. SCs should never be first on the field. 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. You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.27 14:03:00 - [7] 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? You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.27 15:31:00 - [8] Originally by: Grimpak 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. 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. You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.28 19:28:00 - [9] Originally by: dreamingtoday To be honest I don't see the problem with the super caps I personally see a problem with the cyno mechanics so you never know if you are going to be hot dropped. So how about creating a cyno ship so not everyman and his 15 alts can use it without some serious training, on the the flip side make it that the cyno uses more fuel depending on what it's jumping in so lets give it a a max fuel bay that only allows 4 supercaps to jump in before it runs out, this is just a random figure I pulled out of thin air. I think this would solve some of the issues as you would know when said cyno ship enters the field you got caps incoming. This would make the use of caps a bit more stratigic and give the defending force a chance of stopping the incoming caps but at this moment in time it's too easy to deploy caps I think this is a very good way to slow the use of SC's for quick ganks, and make it more of a commitment to use them. Not to mention it would give defenders an extra step in preparing defense. I still think it is ludicrous that you only have to commit a T1 frigate to bring in even one Super Capital. And in low sec this is even more laughable as the cost to bring SCs in, is infinitesimal to the cost of even holding one down(with no garuantee of a kill) Example: 1 Probe frig w/ cyno = 2mil(high estimate) to bring in any number of SCs (16-20bil each) versus 1 HIC(130mil for the HULL of a Broadsword[lowest price on eve central]) for a chance at holding A(as in single) SC for more than a few minutes. The fully fitted probe is 1.5% the Cost of just your HIC hull. So you only have to commit 2mil isk, to bring in 20x SC for a quick carrier gank in low-sec. 2mil committed to bring in 320bil of whoopass that is practically unstoppable in low-sec. To tackle those 20 SC, with ships that cannot recieve RR while tackling, you would need at least 20 HICs(2 points each), cycling points which would require some very savvy coordination, plus a handful or more of logistics ships to rep up the HICs as they cycled out of tackle. Now, just counting for the HIC hulls, that is 2.6bil, just in TACKLE hulls! So to be more fair, let us say that a Rapier is used for cyno(more realistic). 102mil on Eve Central. So to bring in 320bil isk of whoopass you committed only 3.9% of the isk it costs just to have a chance at tackling all 20 SCs(2.6bil for HIC cost). Or another way, you only committed 102 million to bring in 3,137 times that in nearly unstoppable wtfpwnmobiles. And this is totally cool? (this wasn't directed at anyone specific, "you" could be anybody) You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue
SickSeven Simplistic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.28 23:56:00 - [10] Originally by: Irae Ragwan 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. I think their restrictions in Low-sec need to be more: 1. No disruption/scram immunity, and NO Fighter Bombers at all in low-sec. 2. I still think they should require a different type of cyno, or something that makes moving them and bringing them to bear on the battlefield a lot more costly.(low sec and 0.0) 3. I think if you do #1 and #2, their EHP is fine. You died at the fittings screen, you just hand't realized it yet - Mr. Cue

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.