| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fighter26
Space Gremlins
   |
Posted - 2011.05.12 07:31:00 -
[1]
So Supers are destroying the game wrecking true pvp some claim. I suggest the way to help with the balance concerns and increase pvp conflicts for fleets is to introduce a new and real mother ship.
This ship would deploy over a dread or carrier wreck for a 2-3 hour (debatable) period. During this time firing on the capital wreck would be considered damage on the mothership itself. If their is enough fuel and the mothership survives the duration a packaged ship of the destroyed type would appear in a special hull on the mothership.
But this is going to help -insert who I hate here-! Following past specialty mods on capitols logic, it will cost a good amount of whatever expensive resource you wish to make it use. Isotopes would be best because it would force a friendly group of haulers or other ships to be bring the ship more topes to jump any respectable range to safety. This encourages fleet usage. Remeber, a capital wreck has very small amount of hit points when discussing fleet fights- this vessel will need to be fielded to "claim" a wreck before the ships wreck is destroyed by the enemy to avoid its use.
This means that this is a expensive ship that must be fielded during combat, which adds the risk to the reward of rebuilding caps. This will be controversial, however it could be suggested that the ship may be able to reanimate a traditional super (NOT ANOTHER MOTHERSHIP) if it remains deployed on the wreck site for 24 hours. This truly makes a mothership a strategic asset which creates more conflict
How so? By creating a nonmoving target who must deploy for 24 hours, no matter how many hitpoints it has- without a reinforcement timer it offers the opportunity for multiple fights in the system over the time period. It would involve all timezones, and a true reward worth fighting and losing billions of assets to gain.
THIS WILL SAVE RATTING CAPS! If you can kill the cap being discussed in 15 mins, you can certainly pop the wreck quickly. This vessel really only works on a battlefield where it is deployed and ready to claim the wreck immediately... however I would suggest a 15 second invulnerability of a wreck before it can be blown up- the idea being a deployed MS would take time to deploy and prepare for claim- but once ready could instalock a wreck that is within 100km. It would take at least 10min to deploy and 10min to undeploy (debatable) if not having a claim over a wreck. The process cannot be stopped if it is started on a wreck. (if you could just run it would not be fair to the enemy considering you are gaining possibly a titan) <--- which means you need to pick your claims carefully.
How expensive? This is a interesting discussion point, but would most likely land around the cost of a titan to make.
I want it to pwn everyone a unique capital like this would have no personal offensive weapons. If possible, it would be interesting to explore options such as a very large ship maint array and some form a super repping for friendly targeted ships when in deployed mode. These would need to be balanced however.
I believe this would add a new level to the game and create another form of reason to want to risk large assets and create a new level of risk vs. reward in the game. For example if a enemy lacks a support fleet and drops dreads or supercarriers and you gain the upperhand, the enemy now must face serious consequences- in the form of their own ship being used in the future against them. Encouraging fleets and support ships is what in theory what is considered desirable at this time.
Comments/Trolls/Hatred/Alterations welcome
|
Fighter26
Space Gremlins
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 07:32:00 -
[2]
Reserved
|
bartos100
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 07:58:00 -
[3]
there are already way to many suppers in the game and you want to resurrect the dead ones in a day ???
you do realize that that is the only use that ship will ever see right ?
|
Fighter26
Space Gremlins
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 08:13:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: bartos100
there are already way to many suppers in the game and you want to resurrect the dead ones in a day ???
you do realize that that is the only use that ship will ever see right ?
The timeframe is up for discussion, remember the side who is attacking the mothership can destroy the vessel at any point and brings more fights overall to the game. Now the real problem is around the wreck in this situation does it become destroyed with the wreck or does it reappear for possible destruction or a opponents mothership to claim- A conservative approach would be to destroy the wreck completely. A increase the reward to encourage the enemy to try and take the field back would be to leave the wreck up for grabs with no invulnerability (either it is blown up or a mothership grabs it.) Keep in mind the attackers forces have destroyed a mothership at this point- they would need significant forces to commit this act and a "supers" worth of resources in the form of a mothership has been destroyed which cannot be claimed in any way shape or form. The net effect of the battle can then lead to the loss of TWO supers in theory at the least, not counting the mass of capitals, support, and subcaps required to defend and attack the field in each fight. These fights would never have occurred without this massive reward to fight for. Perhaps not even considering the mothership not having immunity to e-war, which keeps up the idea of the need for a support fleet at all times to defend the mothership.
|
bartos100
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 08:19:00 -
[5]
why would an alliance have an asset worth the same as a titan or more on the field that can do nothing to help win the fight ?
and at the rate it's going it's most likely easier for said alliance to just replace the suppers they lose
|
Fighter26
Space Gremlins
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 09:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: bartos100
why would an alliance have an asset worth the same as a titan or more on the field that can do nothing to help win the fight ?
and at the rate it's going it's most likely easier for said alliance to just replace the suppers they lose
The possible highly bonused remote reps on such a vessel with a respectable range would offer at least some reason to assist the overall fleet. But its main point is to help an allaince take assets off their targets and use them to win the overall war. You just argued that 24hrs is to short and now are discussing "just replacing it" which would take weeks or make a alliance pay retail for the ship. Something to ponder: if the enemy has a deployed mothership and you do not, they have undisputed claim over the wrecks on the field, until they are destroyed, and these things would have a heck of a tank- even dwarfing titans if the MS is in deployed mode. Another issue, should a clamied wrecks loot be destoryed in the process? If a wreck is looted (no MS were present to claim) then should it be unclaimable?
|
Lin Yhu
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 09:59:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Lin Yhu on 12/05/2011 09:59:10
So in short,
to solve the probleme with the super caps, you want to add yet MORE supers??
And then, wenn we have even more supers it will becom necessary to introduce:
a super super cap to counter the supers!
then a super super super cap to counter the super supers!
followed by a super super super super cap to counter the super super supers!
.
.
.
and so on and so forth.
seems a pretty sily idea i say.
So, NO NO NO that definitely is not a good idea!
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 10:50:00 -
[8]
I have the solution about motherships!!
Make fatherships.
/I'm out
|
Cuircuir Moustache
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 13:11:00 -
[9]
The general shape of the titans make them fatherships.
Really this is pointless. I don't know what corp would field such a ship. All the constraints of fielding a supercap (pilot training, building, etc) for no added value on the battlefield, no dps, no support whatsoever. Only the vague possibility of repairing a 2B carrier... and putting a supercap at risk for 24 hours.
Oh, and if you start loosing caps, it means things are not going well. And if things aren't going well, then DON'T field a supercap that can do nothing about it.
Moreover destruction of ships is needed to run the eveconomy. If you make this crap viable the industrial corps will not be happy.
|
Laurent Savard
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 20:47:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Fighter26
Comments/Trolls/Hatred/Alterations welcome
I think your heart is in the right place, but as has been pointed out numerous times, this kind of idea would either make things worse, or be ignored.
If people could regain their lost caps on the cheap, it would hurt an already fragile economy.
The root cause of the problems are not caps and supercaps... but rather the abundance of ISK in the game that allows those ships to be fielded as if they were cheap Battleships.
Cost was supposed to the be the controlling factor for supercaps and Titans, but frankly, there is too much money floating around.
In some ways this is a good thing, as the "average" citizen who is in a small hisec corp has more ISK and more access to "toys" but it becomes exacerbated with the huge alliance blocs.
Concentrate on the economy and less on ships.
|
|
|
Aglais
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.12 23:53:00 -
[11]
Make capitals extremely resource intensive to build. Like EXTREMELY intensive. Enough so to make fielding Carriers and Dreadnoughts difficult. If the little cousins of the various supercapitals are hard to produce, how difficult do you imagine that'd make supers to generate?
Losing a supercapital has to MEAN SOMETHING. If it's like it is now, it's really just a slap on the wrist. It has to be a really damn good ship, yes, and for that, it has to be really expensive, otherwise balance will be lost. Imagine if faction ships cost as much on the market as their materials. You would have these extremely high quality frigates absolutely destroy the expensive T2 frigates and absolutely wipe the floor with everything else in their price range; nobody would fly anything but them. The same goes with cruisers. Yes, a Gila is somewhat more skill intensive than a Vexor, but if you can build a cruiser that has more EHP than a well fit Drake and nearly twice the DPS output, as well as a top speed that only the Stabber, Vagabond and cynabal might be able to catch for that size classification, nobody would use battlecruisers anymore. Though I seem to have gone off on a tangent.
The point is, adding another supercapital to stop supercapitals, by resurrecting supercapitals, is a rather counterproductive stragety; the best thing to do would be to jack up their price a good deal.
|
Tel'me Am Peur
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 00:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Aglais
Make capitals extremely resource intensive to build. Like EXTREMELY intensive.
Again the idiots spout this. The problem is not, I repeat, NOT NOT NOT the cost of supers.
Look at the alliances that house the biggest super fleets and take a look at the time and resources poured into their contruction. It's a monumental undertaking to put hundreds of players at the helm of titans and moms. The alliances who don't have the ability to produce them on this scale: they don't risk them. Why? Because they're still a ****ing incredibly important and expensive asset.
What the problem? Well butt-****ing obviously the problem is they've obsoleted the rest of our fleets. They have few weaknesses to exploit, if any, and they are neigh-impossible to kill outside of the unlikely scenario where one alliance commits them to a battle against more supercaps.
The answer is simply to nerf SCs both in offense and defense, to some degree. Power-creep has turned them into monsters and a reduction of their power CAN right them and bring them into balance. I'm just as mad as anyone else who plays the sov. game over this, but it has to be done right. Forcing an alliance that can already field hundreds of supers to pay more for them is idiotic beyond all comprehension. We'll simply continue to build them at a slightly slower pace and the rest of our competitors will have absolutely no chance to keep pace.
|
bartos100
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 06:32:00 -
[13]
as long as SC are overpowered as they are now without a counter no mater the prise they will be build in large numbers as they are worth it
|
luvmehard
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 08:31:00 -
[14]
I have asked this before. I have been ignored before.
I ask it again, in this here thread:
HOW ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SUPERCAPS IN FLEETS TO ONE-PER-WING?
I suppose I will be ignored again, in this here thread.
|
Chuc Morris
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 08:41:00 -
[15]
Seems SC's are about to get some nerf.
/clap
Maybe I'll train for a carrier when it's done.
|
Cuircuir Moustache
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 09:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: luvmehard
HOW ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SUPERCAPS IN FLEETS TO ONE-PER-WING?
I suppose I will be ignored again, in this here thread.
Can't ignore as you have called upon the might of ALL CAPS (which is double effective in a thread about caps).
Well this would do, like, nothing. Only a pain in the FC's butt because he will have to manage multiple in-game-fleets, but still with the same number of SC.
|
SpargePietre Hinken
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 09:17:00 -
[17]
maybe CCP will fix the LAG . This is the absolute solution
|
Captain J Planet
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 18:09:00 -
[18]
Originally by: SpargePietre Hinken
maybe CCP will fix the LAG . This is the absolute solution
Guessing you have never seen a few hundred fighter bombers going at once? Get rid of them and you'll fix lag pretty fast.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 18:48:00 -
[19]
Originally by: luvmehard
I have asked this before. I have been ignored before.
I ask it again, in this here thread:
HOW ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SUPERCAPS IN FLEETS TO ONE-PER-WING?
I suppose I will be ignored again, in this here thread.
It was propably ignored before because anyone with a thinking brain can see it's totally pointless and won't solve anything, since it's simple to get around it and it retains the overpowered nature of the ships. It's also against the spirit of EVE to use hardcaps as a limiter in these cases.
Changing the few things that break the existing balance really is the simplest solution and there is no need to break the game by trying to implement crude artificial limitations. If a ship is overpowered, it simply needs to be nerfed to bring it back in line. If you can't do that without overnerfing it to uselessness, you fiddle with the wider ship balance until you've created a new place for it in the ship lineup.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |