EVE Search - Cost is Not a Factor in Balance

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Cost is Not a Factor in Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.15 07:20:00 - [1] May I ask what the counter to Super Carriers is? Yes I understand that the ship costs a lot and takes a long time to train and is inconvenient to fly but I maintain that this is not a factor in balance IE, if I propose a ship that costs 3 trillion isk, takes 2 years to train for, and once in it, a pilot can never eject and cannot dock, but it destroys all ships on grid and not in fleet it would still be unbalanced. The problem is that a single Nyx can deal 3000 DPS to a group of cruisers battlecruisers and battleships; to put this in perspective, 200 zealots could attack a Nyx and it could kill 25 of them safely before warping out. Additionally the Remote ECM Burst just adds insult to injury. This module allows even a well prepared group of ships with devoters and logistics cant keep this thing tackled; all it needs to do is fire the Remote ECM burst and order its fighters to engage the HIC as it activates its bubble to maintain tackle, destroying it in under a minute as it cannot receive remote assistance. In light of the prior arguments I suggest one of two following changes: 1. Change the Super Carrier's bonus to "Can deploy 3 additional Fighter Bombers per level" removing 15 of the potential fighters fielded by the Super Carrier making it less able to destroy all ships of any size. 2. Change fighters to be in line with a battleship class weapon. This would also remove the Super Carrier's current ability to destroy all ships of any size. but would also nerf normal carriers . . . I'm as of yet undecided as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Lady Spank Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta	Posted - 2010.10.15 08:53:00 - [2] That's nice. ~_~
TheMahdi	Posted - 2010.10.15 09:14:00 - [3] Originally by: Sigras May I ask what the counter to Super Carriers is? Supercarrier.
Mona X Caldari C0VEN	Posted - 2010.10.15 10:28:00 - [4] Originally by: TheMahdi Originally by: Sigras May I ask what the counter to Super Carriers is? Supercarrier. 5 supercarriers. Join Eve-Online, meet interesting people, grief them.
Gunner Cid The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2010.10.15 11:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Mona X Originally by: Sigras Additionally the Remote ECM Burst just adds insult to injury. This module allows even a well prepared group of ships with devoters and logistics cant keep this thing tackled; all it needs to do is fire the Remote ECM burst and order its fighters to engage the HIC as it activates its bubble to maintain tackle, destroying it in under a minute as it cannot receive remote assistance. I think, that logis could retarget him little faster than in 1 minute, but what do I know? I think what he was getting at is IF a Hic has it's bubble up - not the scripted point - that it can't be repped by a logistic. Even though the logistic can target the Hic, a Hic that has either the point or bubble up can't be repped. The duration on the hic bubble is 1 minute, thereby giving the mom a minute to focus and pop the hic. While SCs may be a bit out of whack I personally think that a few minor changes could help resolve the issue; -Allow normal carriers to field fighter bombers (10 at carrier 5) -Increase Dread Damage by 50% or so -Make siege match triage (5 min cycle) and also allow for siege and triage to be cancelled - IE a dread enters siege, it leaves siege after 2 minutes, it can't re-enter siege for another 3 minutes
ThrashPower Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.15 12:30:00 - [6] remove fighter bombers from lowsec or renable doomsday for lowsec, problem solved
Daneel Trevize Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2010.10.15 12:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Gunner Cid I think what he was getting at is IF a Hic has it's bubble up - not the scripted point - that it can't be repped by a logistic. Even though the logistic can target the Hic, a Hic that has either the point or bubble up can't be repped. Really?? It ain't a cap ship in siege/triage... bang goes my plans if true
Cire XIII Caldari Ever Flow Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2010.10.15 13:19:00 - [8] Originally by: Daneel Trevize Originally by: Gunner Cid I think what he was getting at is IF a Hic has it's bubble up - not the scripted point - that it can't be repped by a logistic. Even though the logistic can target the Hic, a Hic that has either the point or bubble up can't be repped. Really?? It ain't a cap ship in siege/triage... bang goes my plans if true Bang went your plans. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. Our problems are server-side.
Gunner Cid The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2010.10.15 13:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Daneel Trevize Really?? It ain't a cap ship in siege/triage... bang goes my plans if true Yea, I just re-read my post and it may have been unclear so I'll try to fully explain When a Hic has the WFG active it cannot benefit from remote effects (remote sensor boosts/reps etc), this normally isn't a problem if a Hic is using the focused point because the cycle time is short - like 6 secs or so, if it is not the scripted point and just the bubble the timeframe that it is active is much longer. So if you can create a situation where the Hic has to use the bubble (jam drones/ecm burst etc) it gives you a short window to pop the Hic.
Kara'ina	Posted - 2010.10.15 14:09:00 - [10] Just some thoughts. How much dps does a supercarrier do when it's drones/fighters/fighterbombers are killed by support ships? I'd also like to point at the cost of those and the "ease" with which you can restock them if you lose your set over and over again. Supercarriers are nice, but not very useful with an empty drone bay. Targeting and killing fighters and fighterbombers might not be that easy and fun in a laggy fleet fight environment but the moment someone decides to bring a supercarrier for dps to a less laggy fight I'm all for hitting the wallet even if I know I won't be able to kill it in 15 minutes. Fending off multiple hic's and dictors with a supercarrier isn't that easy either. Scripted infinite point can point up to 30 km while the ecm burst only has a range of 20. A dictor takes a while to target for the supercarrier and is perfectly able to land bubbles. They also outrace fighters and fighterbombers. You are tackling the issue from the wrong point of view. Consider them big fat targets now you only need to figure out how to kill them. 200 zealots without logistic support or tackle is not the way to go. I was considering ranting about people not daring to take risks and pointing out that a single supercarrier (20 bil. each?) can only viably kill up to 3-4 dreads (1.5-2 bil. each?) in a single siege cycle. Scale that up to multiple supercarriers, dread/carrier blobs and you might get an indication as to what I'm hinting at. But I leave that up to the smart kids to figure it out. Suffice to say I think most large alliances are a bunch of cowards unwilling to take a risk, slaughter more supercaps and actually spend the easy isk they make or made in null sec.
Daneel Trevize Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2010.10.15 14:39:00 - [11] Edited by: Daneel Trevize on 15/10/2010 14:40:11 Cid, you tactic made sense, I just failed to read the WFG description fully. The field generator projects a warp disruption sphere centered upon the ship for its entire duration. The field prevents any warping or jump drive activation within its area of effect. The generator has several effects upon the parent ship whilst active. It increases its signature radius and agility whilst penalizing the velocity bonus of any afterburner or microwarpdrive modules. It also prevents any friendly remote effects from being rendered to the parent ship. This module's effect can be modified with scripts. Note: can only be fitted on the Heavy Interdictors. Stupid EFT showing RR effect working...
Ghandis Vhero	Posted - 2010.10.15 14:50:00 - [12] More supercarriers is the counter to a supercarrier. Your 200 zealot example was a bit silly, whether or not it's true, not going to check, it's a completely unrealistic scenario.
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.15 21:37:00 - [13] Originally by: Ghandis Vhero More supercarriers is the counter to a supercarrier. Your 200 zealot example was a bit silly, whether or not it's true, not going to check, it's a completely unrealistic scenario. Clearly I was not positing that 200 zealots is the counter to supercarriers, I was just demonstrating how powerful the ship is even when faced with overwhelming odds. Additionally the fact that supercaps are the only apparent counter to supercaps is the crux of my problem. This is why speed was nerfed, because the only counter was more speed. You could have a literally homogeneous force of supercarriers who would be basically unstoppable save for a larger force of supercaps ... I just don't think that's right, fleets in Eve should never be able to be homogeneous
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.10.15 22:16:00 - [14] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 15/10/2010 22:18:45 Originally by: Sigras Originally by: Ghandis Vhero More supercarriers is the counter to a supercarrier. Your 200 zealot example was a bit silly, whether or not it's true, not going to check, it's a completely unrealistic scenario. Clearly I was not positing that 200 zealots is the counter to supercarriers, I was just demonstrating how powerful the ship is even when faced with overwhelming odds. Additionally the fact that supercaps are the only apparent counter to supercaps is the crux of my problem. This is why speed was nerfed, because the only counter was more speed. You could have a literally homogeneous force of supercarriers who would be basically unstoppable save for a larger force of supercaps ... I just don't think that's right, fleets in Eve should never be able to be homogeneous Lol. Someone hasn't watched fleet fights for the past 6 years much have they? edit: Why aren't your theoretical zealots shooting the FB and then demolishing the crippled supercaps?
Mona X Caldari C0VEN	Posted - 2010.10.16 00:20:00 - [15] Edited by: Mona X on 16/10/2010 00:22:24 Originally by: Gunner Cid I think what he was getting at is IF a Hic has it's bubble up - not the scripted point - that it can't be repped by a logistic. Even though the logistic can target the Hic, a Hic that has either the point or bubble up can't be repped. The duration on the hic bubble is 1 minute, thereby giving the mom a minute to focus and pop the hic. I know what he meant, but: 1. If you bring only one bubble ship for mommy, you don't deserve that killmail anyway. 2. Duration is 30 seconds, he have to be extremely unlucky, to be attacked at the start of the cycle and HICs are tough nuts so I wouldn't worry much about SC killing them of fast and zipping away. Join Eve-Online, meet interesting people, grief them.
Gunner Cid The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2010.10.16 01:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Mona X I know what he meant, but: 1. If you bring only one bubble ship for mommy, you don't deserve that killmail anyway. 2. Duration is 30 seconds, he have to be extremely unlucky, to be attacked at the start of the cycle and HICs are tough nuts so I wouldn't worry much about SC killing them of fast and zipping away. I totally agree with you.
Moose Burger	Posted - 2010.10.16 02:11:00 - [17] care to tell me why cost shoudnt be taken into account in balance? Are you saying 10 billion ships should all have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And Tengu would also have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And titans would cost billions would have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? Dream on. Cost IS a balancing factor.
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.16 03:38:00 - [18] Originally by: Moose Burger care to tell me why cost shoudnt be taken into account in balance? Are you saying 10 billion ships should all have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And Tengu would also have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And titans would cost billions would have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? Dream on. Cost IS a balancing factor. The point I was making was that price cannot be used to balance out a ship that is completely overpowered. Lets try an illustration again as you obviously didnt read the one in the OP. Say you have a ship that deals 500,000 damage to all ships on grid that are not in fleet, has 100,000,000 EHP and has a 1 second align time. you may say this ship is overpowered, but in order to balance it, it costs 5 trillion isk and once youre in the ship you cannot eject making it ridiculously annoying to own. is the ship balanced? NO the fact that it costs a lot does not balance out the fact that it's totally overpowered, thats what I mean that cost is not a factor in balance. my problem is that a group of 10 supercarriers are un-jamable and can put out limitless light drones to deal with frigates, fighter bombers to deal with capitals/supercaps, and fighters to deal with literally everything else. Supercarriers are the only ships in the game which can deal effective amounts of damage to frigates, cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, capital ships and supercaps.
NoNah	Posted - 2010.10.16 03:43:00 - [19] Your 200 zealots would kill a nyx in roughly 6 minutes. Say 7 as you'd most likely pop whatever pops out of him meanwhile, meaning you'd lose nothing meanwhile. As for the incoming damage on the zealots, his fighters would be dealing roughly 27 dps each on your random zealot. This means with 25 off them at max skills and a rather odd fit, he'd be looking at spending well over half an hour to kill 25 of them, which as per the above statement means he would've died. 5 times. I realise none of the figures you used is even near realistic examples, but figured it was only reasonable to illustrate the difference. Supercarriers already die quite often to fleets completely without supercarriers. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 256798
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.16 04:58:00 - [20] Originally by: NoNah Your 200 zealots would kill a nyx in roughly 6 minutes. Say 7 as you'd most likely pop whatever pops out of him meanwhile, meaning you'd lose nothing meanwhile. Again, I did not say it was a reasonable scenario, I simply wanted to illustrate the damage and survivability of a supercarrier. Originally by: NoNah As for the incoming damage on the zealots, his fighters would be dealing roughly 27 dps each on your random zealot. This means with 25 off them at max skills and a rather odd fit, he'd be looking at spending well over half an hour to kill 25 of them, which as per the above statement means he would've died. 5 times. How on earth do you get 27 DPS?! Using a Firbolg as an example Damage Modifier 3.5 Fighters 5 100% Damage Bonus Gallente Carrier 5 25% Damage Bonus Net Damage Modifier 8.75 * 75 damage / 5.25 ROF = 125 DPS per fighter Originally by: NoNah Supercarriers already die quite often to fleets completely without supercarriers. I am not saying that supercarriers are un-killable because that is obviously untrue, but Im saying that supercarriers have no hard counters. You should not be able to use a homogeneous force and be effective against all manner of fleets and with supercarriers you can do just that.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.16 05:59:00 - [21] Edited by: Lance Fighter on 16/10/2010 06:01:08 According to my fantastic calculations, it will take about the same amount of time for a nyx to kill 25 zealots as 200 zealots to kill a nyx. edit: At one point it was thrown around that carriers/mommies should have a 'drone bay', a 'fighter bay' and for mommies, a 'fighterbomber bay' - thus stops carriers from fielding thousands of non-fighter drones if they please. However, didnt seem to make it in.
Baneken Gallente School of the Unseen	Posted - 2010.10.16 07:02:00 - [22] Doesn't really matter how many drones a carrier/super carrier has in bay when you can field only 5x regular ones. The bonus applies only to fighters/fighter bombers and while 20x fighter bombers do have an impressive 10k dps (and fighters 2500) it's really not that op considering the cost of the fighters and what they can hit. Over all fighters have a dps of a gank fit BS even when you have a horde of 20 on your ass, fighter bombers might be different but then again they won't hit well on anything smaller then another capital. http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
NoNah	Posted - 2010.10.16 07:13:00 - [23] Edited by: NoNah on 16/10/2010 07:14:12 I... managed to read your entire post(and thread in general without noticing the actual topic of fighters being the target of your complaints, not fighter bombers. I guess it just seemed way to farfetched. And no, there's probably no hard counter, but then again, what's the hard counter of random t1 frig, say... a dramiel? Originally by: Baneken Doesn't really matter how many drones a carrier/super carrier has in bay when you can field only 5x regular ones. Say what now? Parrots, commence! Postcount: 482475
Baneken Gallente School of the Unseen	Posted - 2010.10.16 07:25:00 - [24] Edited by: Baneken on 16/10/2010 07:27:20 If you look at the NYXs description it exclusively says extra fighters/fighter bombers per lvl, you can always fit 5x drone control units but last time I checked no sane person fits all 5. So unless you fly a regular carrier (ie. thanny) you can have only 5x regular drones without DCUs. edit. yes, not reading descriptions fully is my bad. http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
IcanhasyouStuff	Posted - 2010.10.16 07:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Baneken Edited by: Baneken on 16/10/2010 07:27:20 If you look at the NYXs description it exclusively says extra fighters/fighter bombers per lvl, you can always fit 5x drone control units but last time I checked no sane person fits all 5. So unless you fly a regular carrier (ie. thanny) you can have only 5x regular drones without DCUs. edit. yes, not reading descriptions fully is my bad. SCs CAN deploy up to 20 of ANY DRONE (not counting DCUs). About the HIC thing: the cycle is 30s making it possible to cycle the bubble on and off to get reps but still keep tackle, not that you should only have 1 hic anyway...
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.10.16 07:36:00 - [26] 7/10 good one. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Enduros Desard's Nation Cha0s Theory	Posted - 2010.10.16 08:37:00 - [27] Originally by: Baneken Doesn't really matter how many drones a carrier/super carrier has in bay when you can field only 5x regular ones. I'm pretty sure this is either inaccurate or broken since my carrier can drop just as many regular drones as it can drop fighters. - This one time, at gate camp, I shot a shuttle...
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.10.16 10:59:00 - [28] 1- change fighter bombers so they do full damage to supercaps and structures, there should be a damage reduction already when they shoot to normal capital this would make their damage very bad on BS and smaller. 2- increase the siege bonuses so a dread can deal more dps and tank more while in siege (will still die to a group of supercarrier but with more damage they would actually have a chance to kill them) a dread should do more damage than a supercarrier imho
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.16 11:56:00 - [29] 1. Quintuple Dread EHP when sieged. 2. Multiply fuel cost for capitals when jumping by ((10xSystem Sec)+1). 3. Double Fighter Bomber signature. Dreads become counters to super-caps with more staying power. Low-sec is freed from a lot of the "boredom drops" perpetrated by juvenile delinquent 0.0 capital commanders. Fighter Bombers become a lot more vulnerable so sub-capital support and bombing-runs. There, fixed your Capitals Online game, no charge.
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.16 19:34:00 - [30] Perhaps I wasn't clear, my problem with the supercarrier is that its effectivea against every ship in the game! It can kill any size of ship without changing fittings, no other ship in the game can do that Originally by: Hirana Yoshida 1. Quintuple Dread EHP when sieged. 2. Multiply fuel cost for capitals when jumping by ((10xSystem Sec)+1). 3. Double Fighter Bomber signature. Dreads become counters to super-caps with more staying power. Low-sec is freed from a lot of the "boredom drops" perpetrated by juvenile delinquent 0.0 capital commanders. Fighter Bombers become a lot more vulnerable so sub-capital support and bombing-runs. There, fixed your Capitals Online game, no charge. So requiring capital ships to counter supercapital ships will reduce the number of capital ships? .... mind explaining this logic to me?
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.10.16 19:59:00 - [31] just make supercaps uneffective to anything thats not a structure or a supercap. increase supercaps and structure signature and change the data of compact torpedoes so they damage reduction is very noticeable to anything smaller than a supercap to the point they not worth using after that a rebalance of supercarriers is needed imho because there is no reason to fly any of them thas not a aeon (or maybe a nyx)
Fafnir Drake Gallente Universal Ventures Inc. Necrophiliacs	Posted - 2010.10.16 20:20:00 - [32] Originally by: Moose Burger care to tell me why cost shoudnt be taken into account in balance? Are you saying 10 billion ships should all have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And Tengu would also have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? And titans would cost billions would have 3000 EHP, move at 6000m/s, and do only 200 dps, all of them have damage type, 3 high slots, 3 mids and 3 lows, with one utility/missile slot, with 3 small rig slots? Dream on. Cost IS a balancing factor. tsk tsk Countering a strawman with another strawman =/= debate. Side note, I partially agree with him if you interpret his point as "cost is not ENOUGH of a balancing factor" with regards to supercaps. ------ "Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.16 20:22:00 - [33] Originally by: Sigras So requiring capital ships to counter supercapital ships will reduce the number of capital ships? .... mind explaining this logic to me? Super-carriers (SC) are broken because the only way to counter them is to use even more SC. They break the rock/paper/scissor system. Dreads, which have no real function any more now that POS are for auxiliary use and damage is better dealt with SC's, are the logical choice but they do not last long enough to make a difference against multiple SC. They would provide a "cheap" and readily available (lot more dreads idling than SCs/Titans) counter to a shipclass that currently has no 'natural' counters. Your question was what counters super-carriers, not how to reduce capital population. If you want to argue based on data/rules of which only you are aware then I suggest you advise people of it before starting what is a very relevant debate so they do not waste their time.
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.16 20:57:00 - [34] Originally by: Fafnir Drake Side note, I partially agree with him if you interpret his point as "cost is not ENOUGH of a balancing factor" with regards to supercaps. Perhaps I should have said it that way ... QFT
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.10.16 21:16:00 - [35] Anser to mom problem - 1) make dreads the capital/supercapital killers - increace damage and tank, fix siege mod to fit this role more appropriatly as well as being decent still for pos' 2) reduce mom dps significantly by nurfing fighte bombers - the problem with moms is not that they are slippery (they should be), not that they have such large tanks (they should have) but that they to far too much dps. Fix their dps output an make them the front line logistics ships they were intended to be, not the swiss army knife of large scale pvp. -----------
Tusen Takk Guy Fawkes Trust Fund 31ST Reliables Division	Posted - 2010.10.17 08:29:00 - [36] pretty sure that in the real world it doesnt really matter if its fair that a carrier ship can blow up a fishing boat, but rather it has the ability to if it decides to not sure why everyone whines about nerfing big boys like this, esp since if they ever get in one and suddenly it gets nerfed theyll be the first to ***** about it
NoNah	Posted - 2010.10.17 08:51:00 - [37] Originally by: Tusen Takk pretty sure that in the real world it doesnt really matter if its fair that a carrier ship can blow up a fishing boat, but rather it has the ability to if it decides to not sure why everyone whines about nerfing big boys like this, esp since if they ever get in one and suddenly it gets nerfed theyll be the first to ***** about it Pretty sure this ISN'T the real world(albeit a part of it) and that the instant you even consider realism in a game as close to as important as in game balance said game is screwed. 98% of the people that whine over one thing or another do it because they have personal issues of it, lack of experience or quite simply skill. Generally these have no idea what's actually going on. Remaining 2% do complain as they see an imbalance regardless of what side of it they stand. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 470719
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.17 18:36:00 - [38] Exactly, and look at the real world equivalent to the supercarrier, the aptly named supercarrier. They create a HUGE disperity between the nations who have them and the nations who don't, and the nations who have them use them as a homogeneous force. My problem with them is that when they become as common as dreadnoughts there will be few reasons to fly anything else. (Yes I said when not if as cost is not in any way a long term limiting factor)
Cousin Tom	Posted - 2010.10.17 18:54:00 - [39] We need anomalies and moon goo irl.
Scott Ryder Amarr art of eve Gunmen of the Apocalypse	Posted - 2010.10.17 19:12:00 - [40] Edited by: Scott Ryder on 17/10/2010 19:13:36 Lets factor out the 15b isk cost of a sc, but instead focus on the 3 - 5 years it takes to pilot one well. Shouldnt that ship be able to kill said 25 zealots? Edit: It needs boost!
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.17 19:33:00 - [41] Originally by: Scott Ryder Lets factor out the 15b isk cost of a sc, but instead focus on the 3 - 5 years it takes to pilot one well. Shouldnt that ship be able to kill said 25 zealots? Edit: It needs boost! Pretty much every other ship class in Eve can be killed with 3 of the "basic" versions. 3 Cruisers WTFPWN a HAC, 3 BCs a CS, 3 BS's a Marauder/BOBS, etc. Not the case with Supercaps - certainly not once you consider groups of them. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Scott Ryder Amarr art of eve Gunmen of the Apocalypse	Posted - 2010.10.17 20:42:00 - [42] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Scott Ryder Lets factor out the 15b isk cost of a sc, but instead focus on the 3 - 5 years it takes to pilot one well. Shouldnt that ship be able to kill said 25 zealots? Edit: It needs boost! Pretty much every other ship class in Eve can be killed with 3 of the "basic" versions. 3 Cruisers WTFPWN a HAC, 3 BCs a CS, 3 BS's a Marauder/BOBS, etc. Not the case with Supercaps - certainly not once you consider groups of them. -Liang Youre right. It should be nerfed. Its not fine the way it is, 3 carriers cant kill one.
Anyura	Posted - 2010.10.17 20:50:00 - [43] The solution is straightforward. We clearly need to buff Zealots.
Scott Ryder Amarr art of eve Gunmen of the Apocalypse	Posted - 2010.10.17 21:00:00 - [44] Well a probable fix would be to lower their buildcost to say 2b isk and nerf it so that 3 carriers can kill one solo :) Then introduce this new mothership that 3 supercarriers can kill. It has to be slightly better then todays SC. But yes, sounds like a good plan. Works for you Liang?
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.17 21:08:00 - [45] Originally by: Scott Ryder Well a probable fix would be to lower their buildcost to say 2b isk and nerf it so that 3 carriers can kill one solo :) Then introduce this new mothership that 3 supercarriers can kill. It has to be slightly better then todays SC. But yes, sounds like a good plan. Works for you Liang? Implications: - 3 Carriers can kill one solo => lose disruptor immunity, huge EHP reduction, likely significant DPS reduction - SCs cost 2B ISK (a bit more than a dread) The above sounds fine. But the assertion that SCs are somehow underpowered or need a boost is utter BS. Nothing in Eve works as you posited. You could argue that they need a role redefinition (towards logistics?)... and I'd be ok with that. C/D? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.10.18 03:49:00 - [46] Buff SC's, they don't do even half the DPS they should. They should eclipse nearly everything in the game except Titans, which also need a massive buff.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.10.18 04:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Anyura The solution is straightforward. We clearly need to buff Zealots. while I would never disagree with a zealot buff, the fact that 200 zealots lose 1/8 of their number destroying a target worth more than (1/8)200costofzealot doesnt exactly necessitate a buff
Kireiina	Posted - 2010.10.18 05:35:00 - [48] The super-carrier DPS may be a bit too high... but I don't think that's the real problem. They are balanced somewhat on the basis that they are very expensive to lose. So they should ideally have a 50/50 chance of dying against a fleet of the same value. The problem is: 1) They are powerful offensive, defensive and most importantly logistics ships. This means the more SC's you have on the field the more the power of each is magnified. 2) They magnify the power of a very small number of pilots such that a small number of people can exert a huge amount of power. It is much easier to gather, motivate and find online a small number of supercap pilots (if you are a very high SP alliance) than it is for most of their opponents to find and gather enough pilots to be able to challenge them. This is magnified again by the mobility options when your fleet is entirely jump capable. The end result is the only counter is more supercaps (if you can't break their logistics you will get 0 kills and lose a lot of ships). The NC pretty much demonstrated this with losing an entire carrier fleet (15bn isk I think) to a relatively small Doom/CH/Evoke super-cap fleet and naturally got no kills. Atlas versus PL/WN was similar (though -AAA- was sub-cap because I assume PL wasn't confident fielding supercaps once IT got involved). Meanwhile sub-caps, the only ships noobies can expect to be flying for years, are really only useful when both sides have sufficient supercaps that they won't deploy them. Good luck to any new power breaking into 0.0. If you don't have a super-cap fleet, or a strong bond with a neighbor who does, it is very unlikely you'll be holding space if someone who does wants it. And naturally the existing powers are all going to be trying to enlarge their own super-cap fleets (and killing vulnerable CSAA's) because they have to. But this accelerates the progress of the game towards supercaps online while discouraging any new players who plug a super-cap training program into Evemon. But hey, maybe in 18 months CCP will notice / care.
kyrv	Posted - 2010.10.21 20:22:00 - [49] The Hel looks cool
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.21 21:11:00 - [50] What they really should do is Lower price on Supers, to say 6 Bil and Lower the Aeons EHP to say 20 mil EHP and others to follow suit [15ish]. And Make the Nyx do the DMG of the other 3 now 10k nstead of 12k, and the other 3 `s DMG down accordingly say 7k max. At the same time make Dreads EHP get a 50% buff, and have a 4 Minute Siege so a Dread could get hit by a DD but barely survive. This would make 3 Dreads Kill a Super but lose 2 of them, so it would cost 3 bil to destroy 6 bil. It would also make Titan pilots the "Kings" as they should be, right now a Mom does more DPS and has More tank and doesnt get stuck for a few minutes when it attacks. This would also mean Titans wouldnt waste there DD on any old Dread but be forcd to attack the fleets primary, otherwise you wont kill it, right now the support fleet kills 1 Dread and the Titan targets another, the DD should kil la support ship liek a carrier but not a dread in 1 hit. This also would spread the Mom field out a bit, Smaller Alli`s could afford 6 Bil to lose but 20 is massive loss also Titans now are kinda useless minus the Jump Bridge. I would like to see Mom`s risked more, one of the reasons they arent is they are 20 bil and can kill anything in the game. So to sum up, -Nerf EHP of Aeon to 20 Mil EHP others to 15ish they would be able to get killed while logging even without supers killing em like now. If a Mom logged with 17 mil EHP it would Die to a 15 man Dread gang. -Nerf DPS of Moms to Nyx being 9k as Max DPS, this would make others go down to 7k DPS making them hit like a Overheated Dread. It would also make it not be able to hit 1400 DPS with Heavy`s to kill BS`s, 700 with Med Drones and 440 DPS with lights that maul any small targets. It now can kill any sized target with great effect this would change to 1k to BS, 500 to Med Drones/Cruiser and 340 to Light stuff, all very very good but not game breaking at all levels. -Nerf Cost of MOM to 6 Bil base cost area. This would make smaller alli`s really have a "MIddle SC" Right now the gap between Dread/Carrier and SC is to great, it would also not be so much for Alli`s to help replace the ship cost. -Buff Dread EHP by 50% making them not insta Pop`d by DD unless softend up buy its weapons first or unless support fleet is helping, that way Titans haveto help fleets unlike now where they pick a fresh ship who isnt targeted and fires. -Make dread Cycles 4 minutes, if Hit by DD you will be down to the wire if you can jump out before Dying, also makes for much better gameplay in general, 10 mins in eve is a lifetime a Fleet can jump in that wasnt even formed in that time. This would make Dreads relavent again, make SC`s still very superior having 7x the EHP and the Same DPS a a overheated Dread, and make the 60 Bil Titan, King again, while letting Smaller Alli`s able to field Supers. The Idea of the SC is great lots of DPS Lots of Tank but now its to much, basically make them halfed in everything price and all. -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.10.22 09:32:00 - [51] the golden rule of EVE, is that your most valuable commodity is the number of pilots you can field. It's why a HAC costs loads more than a cruiser, for ... actually if you look at it .. not a great deal more in terms of DPS/tank. It's because the marginal advantage of 20% more ship, for 100x the cost, is worth it. Because the biggest (hidden) cost is in getting the pilots in space - getting a 100 man gang is exponentially harder than a 10 man gang, or a 2 man gang. And this is where capitals - and particularly supercapitals - start to fall down. Their price difference is lower, and their performance advantage is larger. They have a drawback - that you can't dock - but ... practically speaking, that doesn't actually alter their combat dynamics. It just means they're hate by both pilots _and_ victims. But not enough to actually give them up or anything. A carrier can die to an opportunistic threat - it gets pinned down by a small gang, and ... whilst it can tank a reasonable amount, it's not going anywhere, and mustering reinforcements is relatively easy - you only really need 5 BS worth of firepower to kill a carrier. Supercarriers... well, for starters, there's only a very specific set of ships that can actually pin them down at all. The list gets considerably shorter in lowsec, too. And then, you need to muster a very large amount of firepower to kill them - both because they're at least fairly good on sustained tank, and because they have a substantial amount of hitpoints, and enough firepower to demolish a small gang in short order. I think the idea was, that a mothership would be a fight attractor - one gang would get one tackled, and both would muster 'support' to try and kill/defend it. Unfortunately, that went out the window when people started getting multiple of them. So it goes. I think the solution would have to be a 'capital warp scrambler' or similar ('jump drive disabler' perhaps?), so you can use carriers/dreads to tackle supercarriers and titan. Problem is, carriers do still melt quite quickly under SC fire - 8000-10000dps will do that - but at least they have a chance of holding the field with suitable logistics support.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.10.22 12:29:00 - [52] I agree 100% with the OP... Just because the super capitals are expensive doesn't mean they should be equally powerfull. As if the ability to field fighter bombers aren't enough they can have the twice the amount of fighters as a carrier (before modules) AND being invulnerable to anything but dictors/hictors... 1 super carrier being able to solo 5 normal carriers just isn't right... I wonder what the effects of the new fighterbombers will be but even for 10-15b isk I don't think supercarriers shold be invulnerable to all EW and if they could suddenly only launch 2 additional drones/fighters/bombers pr skill instead of 3 I wouldn't object. Ofcourse many people have super carriers and they are boring to sit in all day. These people would get angry to have them nerfed - But maybe we could actually let the things dock in return - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
Elorie Liorden EFT Warriors	Posted - 2010.10.22 13:16:00 - [53] Originally by: Tusen Takk pretty sure that in the real world it doesnt really matter if its fair that a carrier ship can blow up a fishing boat, but rather it has the ability to if it decides to not sure why everyone whines about nerfing big boys like this, esp since if they ever get in one and suddenly it gets nerfed theyll be the first to ***** about it Easy. How many aircraft carriers there are in the real world? 22. 11 of them in the US. Cost/maintenance factor...
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.10.22 13:36:00 - [54] Who cares about real life - I just want to play Eve... - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
Brian Ballsack	Posted - 2010.10.22 13:38:00 - [55] cost never has been a factor in balance, case closed.
Terrance O'Conner	Posted - 2010.10.22 14:03:00 - [56] I'll adress the first statement of the OP. ISK is not a balacing power. Wrong, it is, problem with SC is that the balancing factor is not balanced. Every other ship class is balanced out at roughly 2-3 to 10, meaning 10 times the cost is countered with approx 2-3 ships of lower class. T2 frigs with fitting costs about 10 times that of t1 frigs, but will have serious trouble with dealing with 3 of them. Same can be said about cruisers<>HAC, HAC<>T3, BC<>CS etc. Now, SC will equal about 6-8 dreads?, maybe even more, - thats the unbalancing power, plus it's very effective against ALL ship classes. no other ships can say that. Note... I dont fly either SC or dread (cant afford them) but the above is my understanding of the core problem with SCs. Fix Fighters to be effective at BC+ and bombers at Supercaps, - should deal with most of the issue?
Lost Greybeard	Posted - 2010.10.22 14:56:00 - [57] ISK cost is not a factor in balance. Resource, time, and SP investment cost? Definitely a factor in balance. --- If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous
Captain Sweatervest	Posted - 2010.10.22 18:07:00 - [58] Originally by: Terrance O'Conner the above is my understanding of the core problem with SCs. Good job, you got it right.
Caldari citizen52145894561	Posted - 2010.10.22 21:03:00 - [59] you get a minmatar fleet boosting titan with skirmish warfare links with a full snake implant (to reduce sig radius) and unprobe-able T3's sensor boosting it until it becomes unprobe-able you then get all the HACs you can get (amarr preferred so you dont run out of ammo) and they all have snake implants and afterburners. with the recent change to fighter-bombers they have trouble they use turret mechanics for hitting things. which means they cant hit fast moving targets with a small sig
Klyst Lysander	Posted - 2010.10.23 10:54:00 - [60] Edited by: Klyst Lysander on 23/10/2010 11:04:24 Well, if cost isnt a balancing factor... to counter something, just field twice the of the same. That ought to be funny!
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.10.23 11:31:00 - [61] Originally by: Klyst Lysander Edited by: Klyst Lysander on 23/10/2010 11:04:24 Well, if cost isnt a balancing factor... to counter something, just field twice the of the same. That ought to be funny! I think you are confusing cost and numbers. Anyway, going to quote myself from F&I drake topic: Quote: Now when busy with the rock, paper, scissors anyway, lets upgrade that model. As some say, HAC is more expensive than drake and cheaper than a reaper with estamels invuln field so should lose horribly to those rifters, which needs to be changed. Anyway back to HACs being more expensive. It is like replacing your scissors with a chain saw. Chain saw beats scissors, and completely owns paper. However it still loses against a rock. In other words: Higher price means it should be more effective, but doesnt mean it should defeat its counters. In other words, cost is definately factor in balance, otherwise estamels shouldnt be better than t2s. However that doesnt mean that it should defeat its counters.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.23 12:07:00 - [62] Edited by: Tippia on 23/10/2010 12:11:52 Originally by: Furb Killer In other words, cost is definately factor in balance, otherwise estamels shouldnt be better than t2s. However that doesnt mean that it should defeat its counters. I'd rather formulate that as cost being a differentiator than a factor in balance, but it highlights the semantic problem of the issue: "balance," in a more general sense, exists on two axes. On the one hand, we have balance between ship classes and roles (the rock paper scissors kind); on the other hand, we have balance within these classes and roles (which is what you're describing). Cost is only (or should only be) one of the differentiators in that second case. The balance part is where a > b > c > a. Cost only rationalises the part where A > A > a > a. (And even here, the massive amounts of a:s you can buy and field is usually the argument for why a > A, thus closing that loop as well.) Then the main question of cost rather becomes, how much of the cost of (if any) A should be a factor in its ability or inability to occasionally beat c? How well should it fare against c? Or against C? Or against C? The argument in this thread is that c should beat A, because cost shouldn't be a factor in that cross-class balance, but that A should definitely beat all other ships in that class ù possibly even an entire legion of a:s ù because that's what you're paying all that money forà and what it will do to all the various b:s is best left unmentioned because it's so gruesome. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.28 04:12:00 - [63] Perhaps I should have phrased it "Cost is not enough of a Balancing Factor" or "Cost is in No Way a Limiting Factor" The purpose of this thread is to address the argument that always comes up when people suggest a change to the SuperCarrier. People always say "ZOMG but its 20 Billion ISK it should pwn" By that logic a Zealot should pwn an Armageddon because its more expensive. my problem is not that the SC is effective, my problem is that the SC is effective against EVERY ship in the game, and no other ship can say that sans a titan with the DD The main problem with a "superweapon" in a persistent game like this is proliferation meaning sooner or later everyone has one (or 100) which is why it needs to have a weakness or nobody will ever fly anything else. In the case of a supercarrier, it has no weakness so when everyone has one, there will be no reason to fly anything else.
mech res	Posted - 2010.10.28 14:41:00 - [64] Originally by: Sigras Say you have a ship that deals 500,000 damage to all ships on grid that are not in fleet, has 100,000,000 EHP and has a 1 second align time. you may say this ship is overpowered, but in order to balance it, it costs 5 trillion isk and once youÆre in the ship you cannot eject making it ridiculously annoying to own. Since we are making up nonsense, say this ship costs $9999999999 trillion instead. Is everyone going to have one? Originally by: Sigras ....In the case of a supercarrier, it has no weakness so when everyone has one, there will be no reason to fly anything else. Well yes there will be a reason to fly something else - cost. Saying cost and sp doesn't balance is absurd. If supercarriers are so great and cost and sp means nothing then why doesn't everyone fly them right now?? This notion that cost has no balance is just crazy. The game is set up so isk is power. That is why getting isk is a large part of the strategy in eve. Making the assumption that cost does not work as a balance in the game would dumb the game down tremendously. If a vagabond does not edge out a stabber but just costs more then few would fly them. The complexity and realism of the eve economy is one of the pillars of the game. You fail to recognize that. That is why you fail to recognize that cost is one of the largest balancing factors in the game. Isk, friends, ability to motivate large groups, skill (not skill points), and last and least sp, are all things that make a character powerful in this game.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.28 17:55:00 - [65] Problem is they were (I hope) designed with the idea that they would be used (and killed) more often. Currently the toilet is stopped up and there are a huge surplus of superturds that are circling the drain on a regular basis, but just don't die (I blame the ease of logoffski maneuver, the fact that they can pretty easily scare off a HIC in lowsec with endless drones, etc.). It mainly depends on conflicts to eradicate them. If large alliance blocks aren't duking it out, they're building up SC fleets and the SC alts are **ing bored (I know mine is) waiting for something to happen, so we hot-drop some poor *** in lowsec for laughs. Not the most noble thing we could do with our megaships, but since it's incredibly dangerous to drop them in nullsec, lowsec is the obvious choice.
Sigras	Posted - 2010.10.28 19:54:00 - [66] Edited by: Sigras on 28/10/2010 19:56:50 Originally by: mech res Since we are making up nonsense, say this ship costs $9999999999 trillion instead. Is everyone going to have one? In 5 years or so, yes Originally by: mech res Well yes there will be a reason to fly something else - cost. Saying cost and sp doesn't balance is absurd. If supercarriers are so great and cost and sp means nothing then why doesn't everyone fly them right now?? This notion that cost has no balance is just crazy. The game is set up so isk is power. That is why getting isk is a large part of the strategy in eve. Making the assumption that cost does not work as a balance in the game would dumb the game down tremendously. If a vagabond does not edge out a stabber but just costs more then few would fly them. The complexity and realism of the eve economy is one of the pillars of the game. You fail to recognize that. That is why you fail to recognize that cost is one of the largest balancing factors in the game. Isk, friends, ability to motivate large groups, skill (not skill points), and last and least sp, are all things that make a character powerful in this game. Yes, however a high cost does not justify the ship being totally overpowered Time was, cost was a reason that people flew frigates instead of cruisers, now, to most people the savings in isk is trivial, I know its going to take a long time to get supercarriers there, but it will get there. Lets just say that there's a reason that battleships don't kill frigates really well, if they did, frigates would have no role as battleships are common ... when supercarriers get that common, they WILL obsolete everything else for veteran players.
omgfreemoniez	Posted - 2010.10.28 19:59:00 - [67] A supercarrier is not expensive for most players anyway.
Space Pinata Amarr Discount Napkin Industries	Posted - 2010.10.28 23:52:00 - [68] Supercarriers are bloody expensive. For a short time. You pay your 20B and then your upkeep is what, a little jump fuel like every other capital ship? It's not like they die fast at all. So yes, 20B is a big cost. But then it's cheap to maintain once you've bought it. Want to reduce supercarrier bloat? Make them require fuel, like a POS. Constantly, just to operate. If the fuel runs out it goes offline. So now you have a gas guzzling ship that you have to pay to keep running, and the long-term costs of "get a supercarrier alt; supercarrier for years" goes way up. Now, when I say they're expensive, I mean to the individual. If you're a large entity, dropping the price of a single dread fleet for five motherships (which won't die very fast, most likely) doesn't seem so unattractive, eh? tl;dr: Same rule as titans. They're expensive, but that doesn't limit their use over time, it just means it takes slightly longer for them to build up. In other words: Expensive ships that don't die often (supercaps) will not be kept off the field by cost, it'll just take longer to build up a supercap fleet, and once you have it you're golden unless you screw up royally and **** it away. Add an upkeep cost to supercaps and THEN you might see some limitation. Simply: Resources are constantly flowing into your pockets. If you can buy something and have it forever (or for years, most likely), why not buy as many as you can? It just takes time; the number increases steadily forever. But once owning one starts to cut into your income stream, you legitimately have to say "My alliance can only afford to own X of these.". As it is, if you had time to buy 2000, you could own 2000 just fine.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.10.31 18:30:00 - [69] Originally by: Space Pinata Supercarriers are bloody expensive. For a short time. You pay your 20B and then your upkeep is what, a little jump fuel like every other capital ship? It's not like they die fast at all. So yes, 20B is a big cost. But then it's cheap to maintain once you've bought it. Want to reduce supercarrier bloat? Make them require fuel, like a POS. Constantly, just to operate. If the fuel runs out it goes offline. So now you have a gas guzzling ship that you have to pay to keep running, and the long-term costs of "get a supercarrier alt; supercarrier for years" goes way up. Now, when I say they're expensive, I mean to the individual. If you're a large entity, dropping the price of a single dread fleet for five motherships (which won't die very fast, most likely) doesn't seem so unattractive, eh? tl;dr: Same rule as titans. They're expensive, but that doesn't limit their use over time, it just means it takes slightly longer for them to build up. In other words: Expensive ships that don't die often (supercaps) will not be kept off the field by cost, it'll just take longer to build up a supercap fleet, and once you have it you're golden unless you screw up royally and ** it away. Add an upkeep cost to supercaps and THEN you might see some limitation. Simply: Resources are constantly flowing into your pockets. If you can buy something and have it forever (or for years, most likely), why not buy as many as you can? It just takes time; the number increases steadily forever. But once owning one starts to cut into your income stream, you legitimately have to say "My alliance can only afford to own X of these.". As it is, if you had time to buy 2000, you could own 2000 just fine. Flawed logic. 20b isn't a lot of ISK. I've **ed away more than that on cruiser fits for fun before.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.31 23:01:00 - [70] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources 20b isn't a lot of ISK. I've ****ed away more than that on cruiser fits for fun before. This.
Sader Rykane Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate	Posted - 2010.11.01 05:26:00 - [71] I to believe that I should be able to take on the U.S.S. Dwight D Eisenhower with nothing but a fleet of 200 row boats, equipped with a couple bottles of rum and a few AK-47's. Cost should not be a factor!
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.01 05:33:00 - [72] Originally by: Sader Rykane I to believe that I should be able to take on the U.S.S. Dwight D Eisenhower with nothing but a fleet of 200 row boats, equipped with a couple bottles of rum and a few AK-47's. Cost should not be a factor! Assuming everyone with an AK was also strapped with C4 that would be quite possible.
Feilamya Pain Elemental	Posted - 2010.11.01 10:07:00 - [73] The op apparently doesn't have access to supercarriers. A lot of other players don't have access to them either. This is the counter the op asks for. There is no problem. Thread can be closed.
Veronica Kerrigan	Posted - 2010.11.07 06:53:00 - [74] <observation> I see 2 different theories emerging. One is that because more isk is put into the game, the price of a supercapital is becoming a smaller percentage, meaning more people can afford them. The second says that they still cost a large amount of isk.</observation> <opinion> I think that many people are right in thinking that a homogeneous group of supercapitals is king. I also think that many people are right in saying that something should always have a counter. The points of dreadnoughts is to destroy capitals and Structures. However, A relatively small number of supercapitals, let's say 10, can destroy an absurd number of dreads. Therefore, a fleet of dreads does not counter a capital fleet. Instead of increasing the tank of a dread, to make it so that the supers can't kill it (which would make dreads near impossible to kill with sub-caps), increase the gank against suercaps so that even though the dreads are losing numbers, so is the super cap fleet </opinion> -Vern
I likegirls Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.07 08:50:00 - [75] Edited by: I likegirls on 07/11/2010 08:52:50 YOU ARE A TROLL. SUPER CARRIERS ARE NOT SUPER UBER SHIPS! THEY ARE VULNERABLE. YES I AM MEANING TO USE CAPS. I AM A SUPER CARRIER PILOT AND ****ED OFF ABOUT IDIOTS LIKE THIS. SUPER CARRIERS DO NOT DEAL 3K DPS TO CRUISERS. SUPER CARRIERS REMOTE ECM BURST IS NOT A SUPER ESCAPE PLAN IN LOW SEC! YOU EVER HEAR ABOUT NEUTS AND NOS? PROPERLY FIT SUPER CARRIERS HAVE CRAPPY CAP REGEN. IT IS VERY EASY TO BUMP SUPER CARRIERS SO THAT THEY CANNOT WARP. ENERGY NEUTS QUICKLY DRAIN SUPER CARRIERS CAP SO THAT THEY CANNOT JUMP. IN 0.0 REMOTE ECM BURST HAS TINY EFFECT ON GETTING OUT, BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? IT HAS NO EFFECT ON BUBBLES. GUESS WHAT IS REALLY BEST AT TACKLING SUPER CARRIERS? DICTORS. A SOLO SUPER CARRIER IS NOT WTF PWNAGE. SO WHAT, IT CAN KILL A JUMP FREIGHTER OR RORQUAL BEFORE IT CAN DOCK/GET INSIDE OF POS SHIELD OR WHATEVER. A SOLO SUPER CARRIER CANNOT EVEN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT REDOCKS, GUESS WHAT DOES? MULTIPLE SUPER CARRIERS. IS IT REALLY WRONG THAT MULTIPLE SUPER CARRIERS CAN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT CAN DOCK? IS IT WRONG THAT A SINGLE SHIP CAN BASICALLY KILL ANYTHING SOLO? NOT REALLY. GUESS WHAT A SUPER CARRIER CAN TACKLE ON ITS OWN BEFORE THE TARGET WARPS OFF? CAPITALS. EVERY SINGLE OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME CAN WARP OFF/BURN BACK TO GATE/BURN OUT OF BUBBLE BY THE TIME A SUPER CARRIER CAN EVEN LOCK SOMETHING.
chrisss0r Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.11.07 17:48:00 - [76] Originally by: Ilikegirls A SOLO SUPER CARRIER CANNOT EVEN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT REDOCKS, Oh noes. the sky is falling. Buff supercarriers!!!!!
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.07 18:25:00 - [77] Originally by: I likegirls TROLL. I agree, my aeon needs buffs. Nerf dictors or something, lol.
I likegirls Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.08 01:03:00 - [78] Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Ilikegirls A SOLO SUPER CARRIER CANNOT EVEN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT REDOCKS, Oh noes. the sky is falling. Buff supercarriers!!!!! I was just making a point that super carriers are not super awesome. They are just tough ships that can put out a fair sized amount of damage against capitals and structures.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.08 01:46:00 - [79] Originally by: I likegirls Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Ilikegirls A SOLO SUPER CARRIER CANNOT EVEN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT REDOCKS, Oh noes. the sky is falling. Buff supercarriers!!!!! I was just making a point that super carriers are not super awesome. They are just tough ships that can put out a fair sized amount of damage against capitals and structures. Your fighter bombers must be defective, mine easily kill battleships aswell.
I likegirls Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.08 02:46:00 - [80] Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk Originally by: I likegirls Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Ilikegirls A SOLO SUPER CARRIER CANNOT EVEN KILL A CARRIER BEFORE IT REDOCKS, Oh noes. the sky is falling. Buff supercarriers!!!!! I was just making a point that super carriers are not super awesome. They are just tough ships that can put out a fair sized amount of damage against capitals and structures. Your fighter bombers must be defective, mine easily kill battleships aswell. They do decent damage to battleships :) target painters ftw
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.08 02:48:00 - [81] Originally by: I likegirls They do decent damage to battleships
I likegirls Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.08 03:02:00 - [82] Edited by: I likegirls on 08/11/2010 03:06:01 Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk Originally by: I likegirls They do decent damage to battleships Ok! they do decent damage, but not full damage. :)
simon perry	Posted - 2010.11.08 03:30:00 - [83] Originally by: Sigras May I ask what the counter to Super Carriers is? Yes I understand that the ship costs a lot and takes a long time to train and is inconvenient to fly but I maintain that this is not a factor in balance IE, if I propose a ship that costs 3 trillion isk, takes 2 years to train for, and once in it, a pilot can never eject and cannot dock, but it destroys all ships on grid and not in fleet it would still be unbalanced. The problem is that a single Nyx can deal 3000 DPS to a group of cruisers battlecruisers and battleships; to put this in perspective, 200 zealots could attack a Nyx and it could kill 25 of them safely before warping out. Additionally the Remote ECM Burst just adds insult to injury. This module allows even a well prepared group of ships with devoters and logistics cant keep this thing tackled; all it needs to do is fire the Remote ECM burst and order its fighters to engage the HIC as it activates its bubble to maintain tackle, destroying it in under a minute as it cannot receive remote assistance. In light of the prior arguments I suggest one of two following changes: 1. Change the Super Carrier's bonus to "Can deploy 3 additional Fighter Bombers per level" removing 15 of the potential fighters fielded by the Super Carrier making it less able to destroy all ships of any size. 2. Change fighters to be in line with a battleship class weapon. This would also remove the Super Carrier's current ability to destroy all ships of any size. but would also nerf normal carriers . . . I'm as of yet undecided as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Gratz on making a post this long when you clearly know nothing about the subject you speak. 1/10.
The Newface	Posted - 2010.11.08 12:14:00 - [84] To be honest itÆs not that SC are that different from other ships in the game, the issue is as some already been into is that the jump from carriers/dreads to SC was too big. ItÆs like if they jumped from cruisers to carriers and there were no ship classes between them. If the game is to live on new and bigger things are pretty much needed, how many would still play if there were only frigates in game.. So whatÆs needed is actually yet another class ships that are between carriers/dreads and SC. (I would also redesign dreads to they acted more like big bad jump BS) Last things that should be looked at is they give ships roles that makes them useful in fleets over all, lets take destroyers. What would happen if they had a big target speed and damage increase against drones?
mech res	Posted - 2010.11.08 16:57:00 - [85] Originally by: Sigras Edited by: Sigras on 28/10/2010 19:56:50 Originally by: mech res Since we are making up nonsense, say this ship costs $9999999999 trillion instead. Is everyone going to have one? In 5 years or so, yes.... You are assuming that there is rampant inflation in eve. I am not so sure. Consider the cost of plex at about 350million. 2xplex costs $35. A 20 billion isk ship is about 700 isk x 29 or $1,015. How much has the cost of plex varied since we were able to buy them? Not really all that much. Recently they have gone up quite a bit but then again they were about 400mill per plex about a year ago if I recall right. So the price fluctuates but I can't say that it is going up or down that much.
Zyress	Posted - 2010.11.08 22:13:00 - [86] As I understand the coming changes to FB's they will be ineffective against subcap ships, so the mega DPS they could do won't be appliable to a subcap fleet of 200 hacs, still endless medium and light drones is nothing to sneeze at, there are workable counters to them. They cost 20 bil, once you are in one apparently thats all you can do? can't dock can't eject, so basically you sacrifice the rest of the game to sit in a SC hoping for a battle to make your life worthwhile. Doesn't sound like something I'm interested in. In short if they can use anysize drone and tank a ton of damage then yeah they will be effective against any class of ship but the right fleet should be able to take one out eventually, that does depend on being able to point them and keep them from disengaging.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.11.08 22:29:00 - [87] Originally by: Zyress As I understand the coming changes to FB's they will be ineffective against subcap ships, so the mega DPS they could do won't be appliable to a subcap fleet of 200 hacs, still endless medium and light drones is nothing to sneeze at, there are workable counters to them. They cost 20 bil, once you are in one apparently thats all you can do? can't dock can't eject, so basically you sacrifice the rest of the game to sit in a SC hoping for a battle to make your life worthwhile. Doesn't sound like something I'm interested in. In short if they can use anysize drone and tank a ton of damage then yeah they will be effective against any class of ship but the right fleet should be able to take one out eventually, that does depend on being able to point them and keep them from disengaging. Battleships will still be quite easy to hit. And my SC is piloted by an alt (as i assume 99% of SCs are). Just to clear those points up. I think what **es most people off is the fact they can drop into lowsec, gank a target or two, ecm burst and be gone long before a HIC can be sent in to get it pointed (infipoint being the only method of tackling them in lolsec). I find this is a valid complaint much more so than ehp, etc. Then again, I don't use my Aeon as a lowsec pwnmobile, so you might say i'm just trying to get the nyx pilots **ed at me.
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2010.11.08 22:32:00 - [88] I think the problem is not that cost isn't a balancing factor - HACs in no way make normal T1 cruisers obselete, despite being almost always better - but that cost becomes less of a balancing factor as cost increases. What I am trying to say is that if you are going to buy a big expensive ship, you are going to try and make it last as long as possible, and if by saving five times that you get a ship that is far more than five times as hard to kill, then who wouldn't do that? Personally, I think that supercarriers are almost perfectly fine in and of themselves; however, they need to made vulnerable to some other ship that isn't a supercarrier. I don't see how any arguement can justify the existence of a ship that is only truly countered by itself.
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.11.09 16:36:00 - [89] 4 dreads is a counter to an SC. But 8 dreads isn't a counter to 2 sc's. ----------------- Friends Forever
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2010.11.09 21:38:00 - [90] thats because SCs are logisitcs ships and fighter bombers were a very bad idea that came at the end of a long chain of bad ideas by ccp to 'fix' moms - along with changing the name to super-carrier. . .
Quendishir Caldari The Immortal Dawn	Posted - 2010.11.10 02:52:00 - [91] Nyx KM No supercaps fielded. This Nyx was supported by several normal carriers, a battleship, and another Nyx that decided to self destruct rather than provide a killmail.
klyeme Soft War	Posted - 2010.11.10 04:22:00 - [92] If someone wants to they can calculate the DPS/ISK ratio for every ship fit possible, and then be able to find the most efficient ship to PVP in.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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.