Originally by: CCP Capslock

---

OH GOD THE TESTING

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: Dr Fighter

---

perhaps only a cooldown for deactivating it, takes say a few minutes to stop.

We wouldnt want 20 supers being replaced by 50 dreads and doing the exact same thing now would we :p

---

Originally by: SickSeven

---

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?

---

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

---

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!

---

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.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

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

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Portia Uticensis

---

Just as I suspected all along, right about the time I got into my SC, someone who didn't have the persistency and diligence to go out and get one (Persistency and Diligence were the names of the 2 Paladins I used simultaneously during the long grind to get the pile of ISK) would campaign zealously to nerf the everloving hell out of them.

---

Quote:

---

Leave SCs alone! Enough with this first shall be last and the last shall be first nonsense! Those who have the shiny toys have them for a reason! They are bitter, twisted souls who control space and are willing to grind for weeks to get them. And if you don't like it, you can go to Russia (which controls the Drone Regions and is a great place to grind ISK for a super cap).

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Portia Uticensis

---

Just as I suspected all along, right about the time I got into my SC, someone who didn't have the persistency and diligence to go out and get one (Persistency and Diligence were the names of the 2 Paladins I used simultaneously during the long grind to get the pile of ISK) would campaign zealously to nerf the everloving hell out of them.

---

Cool story bro. The fact that you were able to grind up the ISK for an ALLIANCE SOV ASSET speaks volumes about how easy they are to obtain.

Quote:

---

Leave SCs alone! Enough with this first shall be last and the last shall be first nonsense! Those who have the shiny toys have them for a reason! They are bitter, twisted souls who control space and are willing to grind for weeks to get them. And if you don't like it, you can go to Russia (which controls the Drone Regions and is a great place to grind ISK for a super cap).

---

I find it amusing that you think that people who own supercaps 'control space' when in fact you just admitted that you were able to grind up a supercap in a matter of a few weeks. By yourself.

Supercaps are a plague, and there are many ways to make them useful alliance assets without making them utterly and completely render all other combat vessels meaningless.

-Liang

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

They never had a defined use.

"stuff"...

---

Originally by: SickSeven

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Seriously Bored

---

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 25/09/2010 05:37:06
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.

ED: Personal note for future balance threads...whenever everyone but CCP is happy about the strength of something, we have a massive problem.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

How would the titan be re-designed to meet a role as the t2 dread (or vice versa)?

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

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.

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Relena mearfire

---

The problem here is actually far more to do with the way fleets work and the effectivness of range with primary target calling.
It is a problem that stems from core mechanics and is a problem that effects EVERY teir of combat.
Eve hasa range system that preludes to fleets that have become A-typicaly ranged. In other word the current game mechanics faivour every 1 in a fleet having a setup that can do ruffly the same dammage at the same range and same speed. You then combine this wil the fleet system that does nothing but encourage Primary targeting and you have a situtation where this problem and many other core problems with EVE arises. Baiscaly the 100v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 effect This is where 100 of fleet a target and shoot 1 of fleet B then move on.

It has long been this way. You can infact look back at several changes that have been made to counter what at the time was overpowered that if had actually had a change applied to this mechanic would have probably been required to a far lesser degree.
This is just another case of this need for a drastic re-think of the fleet and targeting system. Brake the blob up. Give us wings with set objectives in battles limit the number of ships that can target 1 ship.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

Edited by: Grimpak on 25/09/2010 11:47:36

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?
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".

---

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

---

Originally by: idiots still parroting the idea subcaps could be specialized to kill SCs

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Kayrne

---

One thing that strikes me as odd though was the loss of most of the functions of the super caps, specifically EWAR immunity. While I don't like making absolute statements I'm fairly certain this would absolutely remove all Super cap use in low sec, basically making low sec pirate corps untouchable. Also, I'm not sure how most of the FW players would feel about not being able to use their ships anymore. (inb4 lolfw)

---

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

ideas

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

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.

---

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

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

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.

---

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: some idiot

---

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.

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Just some random thoughts.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

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

---

Originally by: Siiee

---

Isn't that largely repeating the balancing mistakes made in the past tho? Much of what offset a supers power was that fact that it was "soo expensive", and it was, at the time.

---

Originally by: Dr Fighter

---

make supers use their own special super cyno that takes 30 seconds or somthing before it opens the beacon.

Or have supers unable to drop onto target cynos, instead appear at random SS and have to warp the rest.

---

Originally by: Siiee

---

That's still relying on "too expensive" remaining "too expensive", though I can see that being more effective being a recurring cost.

But it doesn't really make it any more of an alliance asset, you're only adding one person to the mix, to right click "buy this type" and type in some big numbers from the alliance wallet. I don't think that needing a bunch of lackeys to grind isk for you is really the making of interesting gameplay, even if it would help curb super cap use. Making them literally impossible for a single person to operate effectively is what's really needed to balance the power, purchase and maintainence costs just makes failure meaningful.

---

Originally by: RagnarRox

---

...
Was that so hard? It still massively helps blobs turn into talent and prep rather than More MORE MOAR

---

Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane

---

hrm.

How about every ship class has both a "targeting size" (e.g., how much of our resource "targeting ability" can be used against it) and a resource "targeting ability" (bad name, sorry) where you have smaller ships using less of the "targeting ability" and therefore more of them can shoot something with a given "targeting size". This way you don't nerf small frigate gangs vs BC/BS targets (where 8 frigates might not be able to drop an enemy), but you prevent 50 BS locking on a single BS.

I'm sure there's potential for abuse there, e.g. locking friendly targets to use up their "targeting size" maximum and prevent enemies from locking - that would have to be ironed out.

There's no easy fix to the blob.

Also, sorry for straying off supercaps

---

Originally by: Vegine

---

HP boost for sub-super capitals? Never. What would that make of the BS's???

Limit the amount of super-caps that could be fielded? Definetly.

Possible Solutions:
Solution1
2x SuperCap limit per corporation, 20>member =1, 20+ member =2.
10x SuperCap limit per Alliance. (Maybe a bit more) You cannot build, trade, or absorb Corp with SuperCap beyong the limit.
Solution2
Limit the amount of supercap in your corp/alliance that could be in a system at a time. Above number also applicable. Beyong the limit you cannot jump/board more supercaps into/in the system.

---

Originally by: Lillian Nodel

---

CCP should make super caps multi-player ships: pilot, engineering, defense, offense etc with each role requiring active participation to kill any chance of automation.

Beyond that, they really should be force multipliers for fleets offering enhanced damage or tank, for instance a SC would enhance the defenses of up to 40 ships in fleet with it while a titan would enhance the damage of 50 ships in fleet with it.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

word vomit

---

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.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

Edited by: Irae Ragwan on 26/09/2010 21:37:35

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. Speaking of which, from the mouths of the 0.0 pilots who do know what i'm talking about:

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Xiaodown

---

Originally by: Vile rat

---

They should still strongly consider removing supercaps from the game completely. Concentrate on making good ships that people want to fly instead of making the end game ships horribly overpowered so everybody feels obligated to fly one just so they can experience 0.0 fighting.

CCP has done a horrible job of balancing these from the get go and they've shown no inclination to start critically examining the impact of these hulls on gameplay.

Their only goal in "rebalancing" SC's was to make them more powerful and enjoyable for those who have them instead of considering the other 99% of the eve populace.

Death to ALL supercaps. I don't even mean that in an Against ALL Authorities fashion because (heh) but I mean it, every single supercap should be refunded and the hulls deleted from the database.

---

I used to think people who said that had a political or personal agenda, but the more time passes and the more I see no action to reasonably balance them, the more I agree with you.

We live in Supercaps-Online, now. If you don't have a mom or titan, you're not very useful in the grand scheme.

Death to supercaps.

---

QFT. I've tried to avoid this conclusion for a long time, but it's hard to dispute now that Supercaps should either be removed or at the very least radically repurposed away from combat.

---

---

Originally by: Miya StarDrifter

---

Edited by: Miya StarDrifter on 27/09/2010 02:00:39
Irae is a moron, at least for the last few weeks he is.

All he does is *****, and say "let the grown ups talk" and try to get intigo`s approval and intigo correctly calls him an idiot and tells him to sluff off.

He argued forever how the Dram was fine with no OP what soever and now wants to gimp SC`s because they are OP, and not just Gimp a little but Nerf Bat them to hell, What a Cave Troll Moron.

He wont ever have an SC and longs for the days when he never had to see them because they sucked ass, he probably just got his Thanny and wants to Rat but is scared because the big bad PL can eat him.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

words

---

Quote:

---

So the Diminishing Targeting Idea would help this alot, it would encourage only bringing a few moms at a Time or risking the others for no reason.

---

Originally by: MukkBarovian

---

I have felt for a while that having to enter seige mode in a dread is pretty obsolecent. The only thing dreads effect are structures and other caps. I can't remember the last time I was aware of a dreadnought threatening a battleship or smaller.

How would it effect the game to let dreads do full damage without sieging? Too many hit&run ops? I mean you can do that with SC anyway...

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 27/09/2010 03:00:49

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

words

---

Seems to me that Irae has MUCH more clue about how supercaps work and how to counter them/not to counter them than you.

1. even at 5 dreads per SC what will you do when enemy deploys 100 supercaps? Cry around in hopes you can bring 500 dreads to combat? And yes recent 0.0 combat shows that 100 supercaps is quite possible (as it already happened). Last NC use vs SOLAR saw around 50 supercaps on field (+100-150 normal caps, maybe more, didnt count them). Using your calculation you would need around 350-400 dreads to counter that. Find me an alliance which can do this. Or even two. Three maybe? Damn - i guess still not enough.

2. id advise you to check how CH "murdered" caps. By ganking them. Using more/heavier (supers vs normal caps) ships. Granted they had few fairly equal fights but that was pre-supercap boost era.

3. an ALT! thats really HARD thing to get. Im quite sure that most/all supercap users have more than 1 char. Quite possibly more than 2. And if you get 20bil for SC its not a problem to get 300mil per month for another acc. All you need is to run sanctums 3 hours per month...

4.

Quote:

---

So the Diminishing Targeting Idea would help this alot, it would encourage only bringing a few moms at a Time or risking the others for no reason.

---

Umm why? If say you can target enemy SC with 10 of yours why would you bring 10 to combat not 50 or 100? You would just need to divide your gang into few groups and call more than 1 target. Still blobs would be the proper way to go.


EDIT:
and yeah its what Vile rat said: Abathur (Seleene) boosted caps and suddenly vanished from dev team and went back to playing EVE. With supercaps. Pathetic...

---

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

---

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 27/09/2010 03:00:49

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

words

---

Seems to me that Irae has MUCH more clue about how supercaps work and how to counter them/not to counter them than you.

1. even at 5 dreads per SC what will you do when enemy deploys 100 supercaps? Cry around in hopes you can bring 500 dreads to combat? And yes recent 0.0 combat shows that 100 supercaps is quite possible (as it already happened). Last NC use vs SOLAR saw around 50 supercaps on field (+100-150 normal caps, maybe more, didnt count them). Using your calculation you would need around 350-400 dreads to counter that. Find me an alliance which can do this. Or even two. Three maybe? Damn - i guess still not enough.

2. id advise you to check how CH "murdered" caps. By ganking them. Using more/heavier (supers vs normal caps) ships. Granted they had few fairly equal fights but that was pre-supercap boost era.

3. an ALT! thats really HARD thing to get. Im quite sure that most/all supercap users have more than 1 char. Quite possibly more than 2. And if you get 20bil for SC its not a problem to get 300mil per month for another acc. All you need is to run sanctums 3 hours per month...

4.

Quote:

---

So the Diminishing Targeting Idea would help this alot, it would encourage only bringing a few moms at a Time or risking the others for no reason.

---

Umm why? If say you can target enemy SC with 10 of yours why would you bring 10 to combat not 50 or 100? You would just need to divide your gang into few groups and call more than 1 target. Still blobs would be the proper way to go.


EDIT:
and yeah its what Vile rat said: Abathur (Seleene) boosted caps and suddenly vanished from dev team and went back to playing EVE. With supercaps. Pathetic...

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

So the awnser is what getting rid of SC`s, you are crazy.

5 Dreads per SC is better than 12 per, right?

---

Quote:

---

Also it is not normal for 100 Supercaps to be deployed no, not even close to normal.
And if it wasnt Mom`s it would be titans, the NC has ISK printing facilities in there Hi ends and now sanctums, so you think taking out Moms will stop this?

---

Quote:

---

Ch did gank Carriers with SC`s this is what they should be used for, small gangs of SC`s hurrying locking or baiting a target and killing it, its called PVP.

---

Quote:

---

While Blobs will always be used to be reinforcements Stacking nerfed Target numbers would make combat smaller period, why would anyone risk more ships than they had to? You would bring in 20 ships to kill 1 even though only 10 would be effective? Wow then you would get hot dropped and possibly lose alot more for no reason.

---

Quote:

---

Dreads need boost as I said, but you people wnt SC`s gone thats rediculous, Big Blobs will just go Titans instead, Great that will make fights super fun we DD eachother till one side dies, the SC is the only ship capable of taking a DD and fighting back the only problem is it doesnt have cooldown like Titan does.

---

Quote:

---

Also in last fight with Uber Cap amount NC VS SOlar there was about 70% Dreads 15% Titans 15% Moms on the Erebus Solar Loss mail`s.

---

Originally by: Bunny4you

---

CH Doom and Evoke showed time and again that even though outmanned 100 to 1 Organization was what made Mum`s so wicked. You dont realize hw tricky baiting a Carrier or trapping it can be, and in reality most Caps CH killed would have been killed easily by a BS gang but its way faster going in MUMS/Archons. CH had almost a Cap kill a Day for a very long time and it was because skill and exp not the ships.

---

Quote:

---

Please show me an instance that you know of not from hearsay where SC`s really changed the entire fight, it`s usually rare, Fights are usually won or lost before it actually happens.

---

Quote:

---

Also show me a time you can subsitute SC`s for Titans and not succeed in a CapGank, hell the Titan only needs to jump in and land 1 Hit on most.

---

Quote:

---

We would hear a D00M FC call for help and bam not 5 mins later our 8 Man SC Gank Squad with 10 Carriers would jump into fights where we were outnumbered and wipe the floor with the enemy. If SC`s get taken away NC and other Big Alli`s will just use Titans, infact at the begining of the last expansion they had more Titans than Mums.

---

Quote:

---

DD wars are not fun. As Smaller Alli`s get used to tactics and get good at baiting and Trapping enemy Caps they will love the Super Cap, it takes way more skill than any of the "Anti SC" posters have admitted to, and not to be mean but probably because most havent owned or used one, its highly dangerous using a solo SC as its a huge kill and allis will sacrifice 5 Cpas Ez to kill it, so you have to do a lot of logistical work and huge amounts of planning to be a CH/PL and most peeps think they are just win buttons

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

...

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Originally by: Grimpak

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

Quote:

---

No. Its just half-assed way of patching it. Works when enemy has 10 SC (you need 50 dreads) but when enemy has 50 SC suddenly it stops working. If any changes were to be introduced they should FINALLY overwhelm numbers-creep issue. And the issue itself was ALREADY acknowledged by some (well at least me and few other dudes) players during developement. But it got ignored by short-sighted dev.

---

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.

---

Originally by: fkingfurious

---

Originally by: Relena mearfire

---

The problem here is actually far more to do with the way fleets work and the effectivness of range with primary target calling.
It is a problem that stems from core mechanics and is a problem that effects EVERY teir of combat.
Eve hasa range system that preludes to fleets that have become A-typicaly ranged. In other word the current game mechanics faivour every 1 in a fleet having a setup that can do ruffly the same dammage at the same range and same speed. You then combine this wil the fleet system that does nothing but encourage Primary targeting and you have a situtation where this problem and many other core problems with EVE arises. Baiscaly the 100v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 effect This is where 100 of fleet a target and shoot 1 of fleet B then move on.

It has long been this way. You can infact look back at several changes that have been made to counter what at the time was overpowered that if had actually had a change applied to this mechanic would have probably been required to a far lesser degree.
This is just another case of this need for a drastic re-think of the fleet and targeting system. Brake the blob up. Give us wings with set objectives in battles limit the number of ships that can target 1 ship.

---

WTF has that got to do with Dreads being crap?

---

Originally by: Relena mearfire

---

Add a stacking penalty so that the number of people from diffrent wings/ squads targeting 1 guy increases the amount of signature you take.

MORE IMPORTANT. the targeting mechanic is the cause of so much more imbalance than just this dread/sc issue.
It has been a problem for to long and should be fixed.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Seriously Bored

---

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 27/09/2010 17:04:23

Originally by: Relena mearfire

---

Add a stacking penalty so that the number of people from diffrent wings/ squads targeting 1 guy increases the amount of signature you take.

MORE IMPORTANT. the targeting mechanic is the cause of so much more imbalance than just this dread/sc issue.
It has been a problem for to long and should be fixed.

---

I don't think you're considering the possible abuses of a system like this.

How would you counter-act a friendly alt fleet from locking your caps so that they can't be shot at by an opposing party?

And if the answer is that a certain amount of locks are allowed for each corp/fleet/gang, what's to keep you from splintering your groups so you can just mob them the same way you currently can?

Your idea sounds more unbalancing than what it aims to fix.

ED: Let's not forget that limiting the number of ships that can target a single ship helps SCs, not hinders them. If it takes a very large gang of Dreads to take out a small fleet of SCs now, imagine if only a few of those Dreads could lock a single SC. The Supercarriers would be having a field day since they could focus much, much more DPS on a single target than the dreads could.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

This IMO would save Solo/Small gang warfare and make smaller numbers have more of a chance, if we had these rules in our 30 Man Hac gangs in CH nothing could have stopped us, because it also gives you time to fight a much larger group then disengage unless they are good at tackling.

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: Corp Mate

---

Basically you need to have four groups of people relative to each target:

1. Friendlies, whose locks interfere with everyone who is flagged as friendly or neutral active towards the target

2. Hostiles, whose locks interfere with everyone who is flagged as hostile or neutral active towards the target

3. Neutrals, whose locks don't interfere with anyone else's and whose locks aren't interfered with by everyone else's.

3. Neutral Actives, whose locks don't interfere with anyone else's but whose locks are interfered with by everyone else's.

Then you just work by this flowchart.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Sense.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Supercaps have a lot more staying power and a little more GTFO ability than standard caps.

P.S. I fly a Nyx.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Supercaps have a lot more staying power and a little more GTFO ability than standard caps.

P.S. I fly a Nyx.

---

I underlined the part that's just outright wrong. It isn't a little.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Bubbles still hold super caps and they're good for 2 minutes a piece. A couple of well flown suicide dictors can hold down a supercapital fine. Even HICs either bubbles or infinipoints can hold down supercapitals fairly well if well coordinated. The problem isn't tackling a supercapital. It is tackling a supercapital until it dies which is problimatic. This would become less of an issue if supercaps had less HP.

---

Originally by: FT Diomedes

---

Even though I now have a SC pilot (Aeon under construction atm, taking delivery soon), the E-War immunity is pretty gay. It's the equivalent of nano***ging on the capital ship level.

Combat in Eve is about taking some ****ing risks.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/09/2010 23:00:14


Two things:
- Ewar immunity
- Not having to siege

A third thing for thought:
- Almost none of your counters work in low sec, and are rarely encountered there.

Ewar immunity must go.

-Liang

Ed: Think of it kinda like this: Guys, guys, I need all 15 of you guys to fly hawks for our roaming gang tonight just in case.....

---

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

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

Irae say something constructive or **** off

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

Seriously whats your solution

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Let's do a comparison, shall we. You are suggesting that all 15 members of your fleet should be entirely effective while flying BS. ... If you can't be assed to bring 3 HICs with your gang of 15 then you shouldn't be able to tackle a supercapital.

---

Quote:

---

Apart from the fact that including supercap tacklers in your fleet when you expect to face supercaps is a good idea, there's also the fact that EWar immunity in lowsec was brought up a long time ago. CCP introduced the HIC specifically to counter EWar immune supercaps in lowsec, so you have no argument on that point.

---

Quote:

---

As for not having to siege, that is an advantage over dreads, but one that is not game breaking.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Someone earlier said something about repurposing super caps away from combat. After some thinking about it, here are some things that would make me fork out for a Hel:
- Being able to dock (Required)
- Very Large ship maintenance/Corporate Hangar bays (Required)
- Build in triage bonus, without gimped capacitor (BIG bonus)
- Able to still field fighters (but not necessarily fighter/bombers)
- ECM/Damp/Web immunity (Medium bonus)

Basically: I want a super carrier, to fulfill the role of a carrier - only better.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Think of the Aeon. 2 cap energy transfers, 4 capital armour RR which can be perma run because of bouncing cap. That's effective 16 capital armour reps per supercarrier with 8 lows + carrier bonus for resists and 80m EHP which can field 20 Fighters(or around 2000 DPS)each. Oh and they can't be jammed so there's no way to break the spider tank. Did I mention they could do this on a station undock?

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat

---

One way of doing it that seemed water tight to me was suggested to me by a corp mate a while back:

Originally by: Corp Mate

---

Basically you need to have four groups of people relative to each target:

1. Friendlies, whose locks interfere with everyone who is flagged as friendly or neutral active towards the target

2. Hostiles, whose locks interfere with everyone who is flagged as hostile or neutral active towards the target

3. Neutrals, whose locks don't interfere with anyone else's other than Neutral Actives and whose locks aren't interfered with by everyone else's.

3. Neutral Actives, whose locks don't interfere with anyone else's other than more Neutral Actives but whose locks are interfered with by everyone else's.

Then you just work by this flowchart.

---

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Wow, you're really really biased, you know that? I suggested that we should be entirely effective while flying nothing but battleships. What Is aid was that we needed to bring ships which have no other purpose than to tackle super capitals.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Are there more or less counters in 0.0 than in low sec? If there are less, does that mean that a super carrier's power (compared to all the other 'fish in the pond') is more or less than when in 0.0? Basically: you're ****ing out of your mind if you think that disabling most of the counters for super carriers in low sec is "ok".

I would further point out that HICs cannot be RR'ed while their point is active and have not been rebalanced since the super capital changes.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/09/2010 00:39:16

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Think of the Aeon. 2 cap energy transfers, 4 capital armour RR which can be perma run because of bouncing cap. That's effective 16 capital armour reps per supercarrier with 8 lows + carrier bonus for resists and 80m EHP which can field 20 Fighters(or around 2000 DPS)each. Oh and they can't be jammed so there's no way to break the spider tank. Did I mention they could do this on a station undock?

---

Who said anything about 20 fighters or millions upon millions of EHP? I was outlining the differences from the Nidhoggur - not the Hel as you know it.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Hiroshima Jita

---

I really hate the stacking nerf damage idea and its varients. They're all awful and open to metagaming. For example lets say that every person shooting at a single target gets stacking nerfed.

Team A (100) VS Team B (100)

Assume that primarys are still called and team A splits into fire teams of some optimal number to avoid the worst of the stacking penalty.

Team B (1) has a spy OR (2) is not ******ed and can understand remote rep request broadcasts. As team B ships come under fire, their pilots are instructed to lock their friendlies taking fire and start shooting them with a light drone OR a small blaster. Suddenly team A's real damage is heavily stacking nerfed because of gay metagaming.

Even if the first people to fire are not stacking nerfed, a spy would still let this thing be in effect.

What needs to happen to make blobbing less than ideal under some circumstances is some added realism. The followings sugestions are technically unfeasable, but would best solve the problem.

You cannot hit targets that you cant draw a line of sight to. Instead you hit whatever is first in the way.

Collisions result in damage depending on relative mass and speed.

Suddenly having a random noob in the fleet because he might do some damage to the primary and will lag up the system isn't a good idea. He is just as likely to shoot you or worse, ram you.

Unfortunately the LOS change would have a complexity of (N*(N-2))^N using the most straightforward algorythm and the collision detection would have a complexity of N!. I haven't thought very hard about reducing the complexity of the algorythms but at that level the lag those changes would induce would be awful.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

You implied in your statement that all 15 members of your gang would need to be in HICs to tackle. That is most certainly not the case. On top of that, having a HIC with a 26km infini point and a sensor booster offers much quicker and reliable tackle than say a battleship or battlecruiser. Not to mention that tackling a supercap implies you have the method to kill it. Currently you would need around 15 dreads to kill it before it disappeared from logging. I would assume that anyone who has 15 dreads on standby to kill a supercarrier would also be able to field a few HICs for tackle.

...
I added a key piece of info for you. .. I'm not saying that it is not harder(double negative intended); I'm simply pointing out that tackling supercaps in lowsec is not infeasable.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Unless you would independently assign each racial supercarrier a niche the changes would have to be across the board. My assumption that this is what you meant may have been incorrect, at which point I still find the idea OP, but not as insane as I first imagined.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/09/2010 01:43:51


And ultimately, your "key piece of info" exactly illustrates my point. You claim that SCs have "a little" more GTFO than dreads/carriers, yet a 5 man roaming gang can trivially tackle a dread/carrier long enough to rally reinforcements. A 5 man roaming gang would need to be composed of (by your own estimation) 3 HICs and 2 Logistics to do the same to a roaming Supercarrier.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

So, you think that your 5 man gang should be able to tackle and hold down a 16b is investment while you're backup, which consists of a a bunch of unorganised loose knit aquaintances tries to wrangle up enough ships to actually kill it. How does that not sound absurd to you.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: I also have this amazing thing called a capital alt that happens to fly my Nyx. If you've flown against one of our fleets recently you've likely seen me flying a guardian.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

So, you think that your 5 man gang should be able to tackle and hold down a 16b is investment while you're backup, which consists of a a bunch of unorganised loose knit aquaintances tries to wrangle up enough ships to actually kill it. How does that not sound absurd to you.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/09/2010 02:03:01


Then why don't you understand the basics of what's important in your specialized tackle? Maybe its because you spend too much time obsessing over your measly 16 billion ISK pwnmobile.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

See, now you just sound petty and jealous.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

...furthermore ISK isn't a license to have a virtually unkillable pwnmobile.

---

Originally by: Kail Storm

---

As said by others I didnt come up with stacking Idea but there would be differant catagories so meta gaming in the situation you described wouldnt work and infact only free up other Gang as you are now doing **** DPS to them, also for every problem there is a work around but I truly believe that our system is broken and worked with 10k members on eve But not 50k at a Time or 150k actives in 3 timeznes.

---

Originally by: Anti Kondor

---

For that isk you can have my cat

---

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Actually, I'm pointing out how absurd it is for you to tell me about your "16 billion ISK investment". 16 billion isn't that much (< 100 hours of grinding, completely disregarding potential market tomfoolery) and furthermore ISK isn't a license to have a virtually unkillable pwnmobile.

AND you didn't answer the question. Why are you so out of touch with sub capital combat as to think its more important to have a HIC than an Arazu? Why should low sec gangs always fly around with at least 3 HICs and 2 Logistics? Why should SC pilots get a free pass in low sec?

-Liang

---

Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane

---

I can't believe my semi-troll targeting limit post is still being argued about

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

So, you think that your 5 man gang should be able to tackle and hold down a 16b is investment while you're backup, which consists of a a bunch of unorganised loose knit aquaintances tries to wrangle up enough ships to actually kill it. How does that not sound absurd to you.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

Nobody says you have to engage a 'roaming' supercarrier as you put it. They are slow as balls and you can burn out of point range relatively easy.

---

Quote:

---

Expecting your 5 man gang to effectively counter any possible scenario is ludicris.

---

Quote:

---

Like it or not EvE is a MMO and you need people to fill rolls. I said that if you wanted to go supercap hunting in lowsec the tools are in place for those with the resources and orginization.

---

Quote:

---

Ofc, from how you describe the lowsec community it sounds like you reside there because you can't cut it in an actual cooperative environment.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Siiee

---

What's absurd is that you think it should be safe. It's the same reason that frigates can scramble battleships. That 7mil worth of meta-fit rifters can tackle a 140 mil isk raven long enough for someone to go grab some dps and slowboat some 30km thru deadspace to get into blaster range.

If a rag tag group of loosely affiliated pirates can hold your unsupported supercap down long enough to drum up the dps to kill you, that's just eves pecking order in practice. And if you were supported, and they managed to trash your support before pinning you down and waiting for every rifter pilot within 20 jumps to come ***** on your mail then they outsmarted you and your super-cap kill is their prize.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Here, let me repeat this for you:
Why are you so out of touch with sub capital combat as to think its more important to have a HIC than an Arazu? Why should low sec gangs always fly around with at least 3 HICs and 2 Logistics? Why should SC pilots get a free pass in low sec?

Just because its a 16 billion ISK pwnmobile doesn't mean that you should get a free pass.

-Liang

---

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

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

HICs are superior when engageing under sentry fire. An arazu points an amarr BS under sentries, the arazu will die insanely fast. The HIC can stick around and keep point.

---

Originally by: Sarah Norbulk

---

HICs are superior when engageing under sentry fire. An arazu points an amarr BS under sentries, the arazu will die insanely fast. The HIC can stick around and keep point.

---

Originally by: Sig Sour

---

I have a guardian that says otherwise.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Why should SC pilots get a free pass in low sec?

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

Originally by: Sig Sour

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Why should SC pilots get a free pass in low sec?

---

I dare someone to answer that.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Irae Ragwan

---

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.

---

Originally by: Relena mearfire

---

Actually i think and so do many others that this is correct. Fixing the SC Vs dread issue is like a band aid to a gunshot. The imbalance is stematic. It manifests in this issue and ones like it. If you fix blobs and the core targeting issue you fix the main issue and allow for a balance to be applied that will not need adjusting later.

---

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

---