| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Terios Corvalis
Gallente
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
   |
Posted - 2011.05.25 16:47:00 -
[1]
The problem: EVE is currently in the age of supercapitals. If you have more you win, if you have less you lose, a fleet subcapitals and normal capitals are unable to counter a fleet of supercapitals. On the other hand, many people say: I worked/cheated/scammed hard to get the ISK for it so they shouldn't be nerfed. I agree, in combat they should be monsters as they are now. The things I want to change are the cost and logistic background to operate them efficiently.
The million dollar question: How to do it?
Currently a Nyx, Aeon, etc has a jumprange of 10LY, with good jump skills it takes 6.000 isotopes (900m3) to make this jump. That costs around 3M ISK, what is a joke, if you consider the 15-20B ISK real price of these ships. Let's change this balance a little bit, say a 100 times: a jump of 10LY should cost about 600.000 isotopes (90.000m3) that's about 300M ISK. The fuel bay for supers should be around 100.000m3, so after jumping in, the supercapital fleet is stranded, unless you organize proper logistical background with jump-freighters in stand-by for example. The corp hangar should have the same size as now (50.000m3), so it's not making any big difference.
Effects - PROs:
- supercapital blobs would not be able to get to the other side of the universe in less then 2 hours, like nowadays
- less griefing - killing lonely ratting carriers, etc with a dozens of supercapitals would cost a lot more ISK, than the actual ISK damage inflicted
- in bigger conflicts, they could still be used in large numbers to break SOVs, etc since their combat abilities would be the same as now, and usually big alliances have good logistical background. But at least they would only use a single nyx to kill a lonely rifter camping a gate, not 20
- FC's should consider cost/effect
- if someone choose to deploy a fleet of supers, after jumping in there is no way to get far until refueled, so there could be GFs, without retreating from the pew-pew at the first sign of trouble
- would encourage of using supers in smaller scale warfare too, since you don't have to be afraid of deploying your few own SCs for being ganked almost instantly by a super-super blob from the other side of the universe
- titans could bridge more subcaps because of the greater fuel bay
- happy hour for ice-miners
CONs:
- This proposal wouldn't change the combat abilities of SCs, but still a lot owner would cry how expensive (300M/10LY) it became to travel in a 15-20B ISK ship, but I say if you have the ISK to buy one, you should have the ISK to pay maintenance fee too.
|
Dio Papa
The All-Seeing Eye
The Wrong Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:07:00 -
[2]
/signed
Nice idea. 
|
Gunther Anyadbagoly
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:14:00 -
[3]
supported.
|
Isanoe nothwood
The All-Seeing Eye
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:20:00 -
[4]
/signed
|
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:21:00 -
[5]
supported
|
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:23:00 -
[6]
Supported in theory.
But how do you propose that logistical support would work? Unless you allow Freighters to directly refill the fuel bay. Maybe a special jump freighter that can compress the fuel into a more manageable size and can move it into a fuel bay?
What would change for Titans and Rorquals?
A normal freighter would be worthless for the logistical role without a Titan, and a Titan might need all of the freighters just to move itself. So Jump Freighters or a new support capital would be needed... or hell, just buff the Rorqual/Orca for the job. Give CapIndies a combat role.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Tiericide |
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:24:00 -
[7]
+1 support but need more nerf, like a longer building time, because almost every months build 300 SC in the game, and reach their numbers over 4000.
The game went SC online at 0.0 sec.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:25:00 -
[8]
100x is way over the top. 10x is conceivable. Scarriers aren't purchased by people who make more isk/hr than other people. Scarrier pilots simply saved up isk for a longer period of time. What this would do is further stratify alliances between the alliances that can throw isk around and those who can't. This will have the opposite effect, in that big alliances will use them and it will be even more out of reach for the little guys. It would decrease the amount of hot drops using supers on ratters, but honestly, titan bridge in a couple subcaps with webs/painters add a few dreads and the ratting carrier will die just the same. The only reason people use scarriers to kill ratting carriers is cause that's nearly the only way to get the killmail without the carrier self destructing first.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Shepard Book
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:39:00 -
[9]
Interesting proposal but it still would not address how useless Dreads are atm. I bring that up because that is part of the Supers are too OP gripe.
I also see your idea creating a bigger gap between the top tier power blocks and those that are not. This might even cause less conflict in 0.0 and more power blocks to turtle up because of the cost to attack. I can imagine another north power block that blues everyone and does not travel. Why should they when they are the holders of the only tech moons in the game. It would be too expensive for any other power block to cross the map to attack with a big enough force to break the turtle. I canĘt support it. Anything that causes less conflict is not good to me.
|
Miralda Veer
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:40:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Miralda Veer on 25/05/2011 17:41:21
 Originally by: Bagehi
100x is way over the top. 10x is conceivable. Scarriers aren't purchased by people who make more isk/hr than other people. Scarrier pilots simply saved up isk for a longer period of time. What this would do is further stratify alliances between the alliances that can throw isk around and those who can't. This will have the opposite effect, in that big alliances will use them and it will be even more out of reach for the little guys. It would decrease the amount of hot drops using supers on ratters, but honestly, titan bridge in a couple subcaps with webs/painters add a few dreads and the ratting carrier will die just the same. The only reason people use scarriers to kill ratting carriers is cause that's nearly the only way to get the killmail without the carrier self destructing first.
Maybe 100x is a little too high, but I think I made a point. Supercarriers are purchased by people who have either more isk/hr or more hours and they can save up for fuel costs too. I dont think it will change balance between small and big alliances in a wrong direction, it's already way out of control. In fact by reducing the action radius of supers (fuel and logistical needs), it should encourage smaller factions to deploy the few SCs of their own.
Dropping 10 subcaps or regular capitals on a ratter carriers, instead of 2 SCs is a step forward.
|
Terios Corvalis
Gallente
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Shepard Book
Interesting proposal but it still would not address how useless Dreads are atm. I bring that up because that is part of the Supers are too OP gripe.
I also see your idea creating a bigger gap between the top tier power blocks and those that are not. This might even cause less conflict in 0.0 and more power blocks to turtle up because of the cost to attack. I can imagine another north power block that blues everyone and does not travel. Why should they when they are the holders of the only tech moons in the game. It would be too expensive for any other power block to cross the map to attack with a big enough force to break the turtle. I canĘt support it. Anything that causes less conflict is not good to me.
It's affecting the cost of attacking and defending with supers, for low priority targets subcaps and normal caps could be used again as a viable alternative. Great powerblocks have the financial background to move the SCs to the frontline, once they have arrived they can be fielded cheaper in the close vincinity (10-15LYs). After this change the distance between solar systems in light years would matter. If you already brought your fleet to the target region to break the turtle's armor, it's a real pain in the ass to bring them back home, so it will lead to more deadlier conflicts. Retreat won't be a good option.
|
Shepard Book
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 18:28:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Shepard Book on 25/05/2011 18:32:03
Originally by: Terios Corvalis
Originally by: Shepard Book
Interesting proposal but it still would not address how useless Dreads are atm. I bring that up because that is part of the Supers are too OP gripe.
I also see your idea creating a bigger gap between the top tier power blocks and those that are not. This might even cause less conflict in 0.0 and more power blocks to turtle up because of the cost to attack. I can imagine another north power block that blues everyone and does not travel. Why should they when they are the holders of the only tech moons in the game. It would be too expensive for any other power block to cross the map to attack with a big enough force to break the turtle. I canĘt support it. Anything that causes less conflict is not good to me.
It's affecting the cost of attacking and defending with supers, for low priority targets subcaps and normal caps could be used again as a viable alternative. Great powerblocks have the financial background to move the SCs to the frontline, once they have arrived they can be fielded cheaper in the close vincinity (10-15LYs). After this change the distance between solar systems in light years would matter. If you already brought your fleet to the target region to break the turtle's armor, it's a real pain in the ass to bring them back home, so it will lead to more deadlier conflicts. Retreat won't be a good option.
Defending costs a lot less because your not traveling as far. This promotes everyone not to travel. Regular caps even in much larger numbers are not a viable alternative vs super caps which is another advantage to the turtle. No on will want to travel when you could be buying more supers with he cost of moving your fleet to the other side of the map. Just my opinion for what it is worth. I'd much rather see dreads get buffed to bridge the gap than your kind of change.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 19:30:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Bagehi
100x is way over the top. 10x is conceivable. Scarriers aren't purchased by people who make more isk/hr than other people. Scarrier pilots simply saved up isk for a longer period of time.
I loled hard. That's exactly the reason why this ***gotry is to be nefred somehow. You guys are turning EVE into grindfest worst then ever before. Not only for youselves, but effectively for the rest of EVE since they have somehow to compete with these SC blobs - and the only way to deal with SC blob is a bigger SC blob.
100x looks decent. A bit modest for my taste, but still it will do.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 20:12:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Bagehi
100x is way over the top. 10x is conceivable. Scarriers aren't purchased by people who make more isk/hr than other people. Scarrier pilots simply saved up isk for a longer period of time.
I loled hard. That's exactly the reason why this ***gotry is to be nefred somehow. You guys are turning EVE into grindfest worst then ever before. Not only for youselves, but effectively for the rest of EVE since they have somehow to compete with these SC blobs - and the only way to deal with SC blob is a bigger SC blob.
100x looks decent. A bit modest for my taste, but still it will do.
That isn't a grindfest, that's just having the patience to wait for something nice, rather than run around in drake blobs.
If we want to talk about overpowered ships for the isk drakes, drams, cynas, and machs need a solid beating with the nerf bat. Scarriers cost a lot. If they cost a lot to move, they will turn into the WTFPWN of defensive units. Then there really wouldn't be a counter to them.
Up side to this is that PL and DRF would be eating a huge nerf bat with this change.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 20:16:00 -
[15]
Yeah. Go tell me you're saving your pennies to get just a 'nice' ship. 
|
Erus Fatum
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 20:20:00 -
[16]
/signed
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 20:23:00 -
[17]
Interestingly, increasing the logistics costs of moving supers will significantly alter force projection, so I support this. However, I don't think this will solve the SC problem.
There are two fundamental problems with SC's:
1.) Tackling -- You need a bubbler to hold a SC down. However, the SC has the ability to kill all tacklers quickly and efficiently. Its not vulnerable to any ship class.
2.) Scalability -- SC's daisychain into groups of unbreakable turtle hives that spew drone waves that wipe out all sub-super fleet types. They break the Roshambo of fleet engagements!
|
Tyme Xandr
Stones Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 21:18:00 -
[18]
I could agree with upping the amount of fuel needed to jump. Im not informed well enough to make a judgement on the numbers however.
|
Taryma
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 22:19:00 -
[19]
Just take them all their drones except fighter bombers, problem solved.
If that is too much to do, do this instead.
P.S:yes that would include fighters as well as wtfsentryswarms
P.P.S: 150m¦ normal dronebay might be ok, maybe, but not much more
|
Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 23:48:00 -
[20]
would making fighter/bomber bandwidth separate from drone bandwidth help?
i.e. they can launch loads of fighters/bombers but only 5 regular drones?
Thus with bombers/fighters theoretically balanced to not WTFpwn all the
smaller ships they become more balanced?
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function 
|
Rented
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 00:05:00 -
[21]
Honestly, simply leaving things imbalanced and broken with the hopes that a mechanic change like this would make supercaps too obnoxious to use... seems like a bad idea. This 'fix' is like smearing crap on a public restroom stall that's out of order, it doesn't fix anything, just discourages the use of what's broken.
Supercaps would still be imbalanced/uncounterable, and 'even more expensive' doesn't really fix that.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 00:52:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 26/05/2011 00:53:47
Originally by: Rented
Honestly, simply leaving things imbalanced and broken with the hopes that a mechanic change like this would make supercaps too obnoxious to use... seems like a bad idea. This 'fix' is like smearing crap on a public restroom stall that's out of order, it doesn't fix anything, just discourages the use of what's broken.
Supercaps would still be imbalanced/uncounterable, and 'even more expensive' doesn't really fix that.
Yeap.
But looks like the saturation point in this respect hasn't been achieved yet.
Given we've known CCP for ages, I doubt they will bother fixing anything untill each one of the playerbase owns at least one supercap.
This mass ******ization will eventually result in everyone 'saving up' for a supercap which he surely can not afford to lose. If anything, this breaks the basic EVE rule - do not fly something you can't afford to lose. So at the end of the day any PvP will cease. And 18 months from there CCP might actually say something in this regard.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 01:50:00 -
[23]
/waves hand
This is not the super capital nerf you are looking for. Move along.
|
Tyme Xandr
Gallente
Stones Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 05:06:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Rented
Honestly, simply leaving things imbalanced and broken with the hopes that a mechanic change like this would make supercaps too obnoxious to use... seems like a bad idea. This 'fix' is like smearing crap on a public restroom stall that's out of order, it doesn't fix anything, just discourages the use of what's broken.
Supercaps would still be imbalanced/uncounterable, and 'even more expensive' doesn't really fix that.
Wow .. i really like that analogy
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 05:39:00 -
[25]
The OP has a nice idea, but I think you guys are missing out on a massive opportunity here. Large quantities of normal isotopes are one thing, but that's bland and not very interesting.
Suppose instead that supercapitals required a special, highly refined form of fuel -- perhaps a mixture of their normal fare and a touch of liquid ozone and heavy water. Make it a reaction thing.
Now you've got to protect your POS infrastructure for both constructing and maintaining your supercapital fleet. I think that's a nice touch. |
Im Super Gay
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 06:03:00 -
[26]
Make fb's either unable to attack anything but other supers and structures, or tweak the mechanics so that its useless to use fb's on normal caps and lower. I'd like to dust off my dread one of these years...
|
Astroka
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 06:59:00 -
[27]
Did I just read a good idea on the assembly hall?
/signed for awesomeness
Originally by: Ioci
Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.
1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 09:31:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Rented
Honestly, simply leaving things imbalanced and broken with the hopes that a mechanic change like this would make supercaps too obnoxious to use... seems like a bad idea. This 'fix' is like smearing crap on a public restroom stall that's out of order, it doesn't fix anything, just discourages the use of what's broken.
Supercaps would still be imbalanced/uncounterable, and 'even more expensive' doesn't really fix that.
Pretty much this. You aren't fixing anything with your proposals. You're ignoring the imbalances and just trying to increase the cost of acheiving it or put in limits, so the damage they do is somewhat contained. They just need to be rebalanced and that is it and that might very well mean nerfing their capabilities in battle.
There are many ways to rebalance them though, but it needs to be done in some form. Increasing costs doesn't solve anything though. It just limits the use to fewer people and delays the inevitable proliferation. A cost based solely on movement is even worse, since it still leaves them as overpowered defence assets while nerfing using them aggressively. That means less supers destroyed, while being forced to rely more on non-supercap fleets to attack supercap defended systems. When your complaint is that you need a supercap fleet to engage a supercap fleet, this isn't going to end well.
There are two basic way you can go about the rebalance. Either seriously bring down the capabilities of supercaps or create realistic and practical vulnerabilities for them even when they operate as a group. I'm hoping CCP goes more the way of creating weaknesses for them, but they will have to get nerfed and made more vulnerable to non-supercap fleets.
|
Hermosa Diosas
Ministry Of Mining And Industry
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 09:34:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Terios Corvalis
The problem: EVE is currently in the age of supercapitals. If you have more you win, if you have less you lose, a fleet subcapitals and normal capitals are unable to counter a fleet of supercapitals. On the other hand, many people say: I worked/cheated/scammed hard to get the ISK for it so they shouldn't be nerfed. I agree, in combat they should be monsters as they are now. The things I want to change are the cost and logistic background to operate them efficiently.
The million dollar question: How to do it?
Currently a Nyx, Aeon, etc has a jumprange of 10LY, with good jump skills it takes 6.000 isotopes (900m3) to make this jump. That costs around 3M ISK, what is a joke, if you consider the 15-20B ISK real price of these ships. Let's change this balance a little bit, say a 100 times: a jump of 10LY should cost about 600.000 isotopes (90.000m3) that's about 300M ISK. The fuel bay for supers should be around 100.000m3, so after jumping in, the supercapital fleet is stranded, unless you organize proper logistical background with jump-freighters in stand-by for example. The corp hangar should have the same size as now (50.000m3), so it's not making any big difference.
Effects - PROs:
- supercapital blobs would not be able to get to the other side of the universe in less then 2 hours, like nowadays
- less griefing - killing lonely ratting carriers, etc with a dozens of supercapitals would cost a lot more ISK, than the actual ISK damage inflicted
- in bigger conflicts, they could still be used in large numbers to break SOVs, etc since their combat abilities would be the same as now, and usually big alliances have good logistical background. But at least they would only use a single nyx to kill a lonely rifter camping a gate, not 20
- FC's should consider cost/effect
- if someone choose to deploy a fleet of supers, after jumping in there is no way to get far until refueled, so there could be GFs, without retreating from the pew-pew at the first sign of trouble
- would encourage of using supers in smaller scale warfare too, since you don't have to be afraid of deploying your few own SCs for being ganked almost instantly by a super-super blob from the other side of the universe
- titans could bridge more subcaps because of the greater fuel bay
- happy hour for ice-miners
CONs:
- This proposal wouldn't change the combat abilities of SCs, but still a lot owner would cry how expensive (300M/10LY) it became to travel in a 15-20B ISK ship, but I say if you have the ISK to buy one, you should have the ISK to pay maintenance fee too.
Interesting idea but for alliances that make billions in moon gold this will have no effect on their pockets - why cant ppl realise that!
|
Salpun
Gallente
Paramount Commerce
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 09:56:00 -
[30]
I have always thought that turning jump machanics on its head and only allow jumps to super caps by non caps would work better maybe with a larger range so more people get in on a fight but the total dps on the field does not climb as fast.
If you included it with your idea then moving a super cap is a stratigic decision but allows the rest of the players to still get good fights.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.26 10:19:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Rented
Honestly, simply leaving things imbalanced and broken with the hopes that a mechanic change like this would make supercaps too obnoxious to use... seems like a bad idea. This 'fix' is like smearing crap on a public restroom stall that's out of order, it doesn't fix anything, just discourages the use of what's broken.
Supercaps would still be imbalanced/uncounterable, and 'even more expensive' doesn't really fix that.
This pretty much. I do think the idea has some merit, but only as part of a larger package since this does not actually fix that SCs are simply overpowered in combat.
|
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2011.05.27 12:39:00 -
[32]
SCs are uberweapons, and the check in logistics would really bring them under better control. Likewise, have jump or non-jump freighters capable of directly resupplying them.
Make them persistant in game, too. If you can't log them, why be able to vanish with them? Put a key on the lock so only the owner can get in.
|
LetItbee
Amarr
Enclave Community
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 18:12:00 -
[33]
/signed
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 17:52:00 -
[34]
Scarriers do need something done to them, or however (and probably alraedy proposed) Make dreadnaughts XLarge weapnons far more devestating when used against SCAPs
This has two effects, revives the currently underused dreadnaught and brings down the I win button effect of super carriers.
But supported as somethign needs doing.
Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
The Treehugger
The Treehugger Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 18:52:00 -
[35]
Not down the same path as your ideas, but a way to counter the Super Carrier blobs could be a capital size smart bomb, or, give dreads 50% added damage / range pr level on smart bombs when sieged.
Also a capital ship warp disruptor to fit on carriers that can hold down super carriers / titans would solve a lot of the issues.
Help save the universe from Exhumer pollution and fight the ever increasing price war from low-price ship seller corporations.
Help us bring the Battleship price back to an enviormentally sound |
Tinky-Winky
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 08:57:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Tinky-Winky on 10/06/2011 08:59:25
-
|
LightSnow
Drunk GanG
Reckless Chavs
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 08:58:00 -
[37]
/signed
|
freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 03:17:00 -
[38]
Increase the cost of SC to 40bil... case solved. Dreads already deal titan dps, so you can't ask for more and SC were made to wtfpwn dreads and co.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 05:22:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Hermosa Diosas
Interesting idea but for alliances that make billions in moon gold this will have no effect on their pockets - why cant ppl realise that!
Having to organize refueling after a long-distance jump will effectively reduce their power projection capabilties considerably.
Given the amount of fuel that would be needed for a moderately sized supercarrier fleet going by the OP proposal, that would leave that fleet in a very vulnerable position after deployment at maximum jump range.
And yes, it will have a huge effect on their pockets. Look at the numbers on typical killmails with supercarriers involved, you'll see 20+ regularly.
To jump a fleet of 20 to their maximum range, it would cost the respective alliance 6 billion.
Now imagine a larger engagement with 60 supers on each side. And keep in mind the loser might not only find his supers pulling the emergency logoff, but also stranded with the need to bring in massive quantities of fuel to hostile space.
Good idea, not sure if it needs to be that extreme, but the fuel cost definitely should be increased a whole lot and the fuel logistics made more important.
|
Manique
Caldari
Ominous Corp
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 08:39:00 -
[40]
/signed awesome idea
|
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 11:03:00 -
[41]
Seeing so many supports to this idea is extremely depressing, and demonstrates exactly how these imbalances arise in the first place. Ship balance cannot be achieved through cost-based nerfs, and this is especially true when the ships are so prevalent ingame already. The reason titans were so imbalanced the first time around is because CCP assumed that their cost would keep numbers low, with occasional ship deaths to keep balance.
In fact it just served to enable the rich to buy more and keep maintain the status quo by never losing titans.
The logistical aspect of this change becomes more of an annoyance than a nerf. Established groups and alliances already have plenty of suitable logistics support, and there is no real risk as the underlying balance issues of supercaps versus everything else is not addressed.
The overall effect of a change like this would be:
1) Established and well-funded groups with many supercaps will be unaffected. They will cover the fuel costs with an alliance wallet and use their numbers to dominate nearby territory - further increasing their strength by taking high value moons and similar assets.
2) Smaller groups with less cash will find themselves struggling even more to use their prized flagships. Many will simply opt to sell them onto the richer groups mentioned above.
3) Null-sec space in general will become more stagnant, as alliances leave their supercap fleets at home due to cost of movement. Wars are then degraded to attacking sub-caps and capitals versus defending supercaps - which is still as broken as ever.
Fix the underlying balance issues, don't just slap a new price tag on and call it fixed
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 12:21:00 -
[42]
Supported, this as a part to make the use of SCs more expensive is a good way to decrease ridicolous usage of them. Include a much increased cost of fighters and fighterbomber, doomsday fuel cost and maybe even remote ecm cost.
-
|
Scroobius Pip
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 12:23:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Scroobius Pip on 20/07/2011 12:25:03
Originally by: The Treehugger
Also a capital ship warp disruptor to fit on carriers that can hold down super carriers / titans would solve a lot of the issues.
This, its ******ed that one capital ship cant tackle another one, also change the triage module to effect only the repair/hit points of the ship itself not for remote repair.
RP hat, carrier points SC (maybe not titan?), pushes the triage button and survives at least long enough to do some good. HP buff to the carrier itself would need to be significant (I don't know what that would be, 400% off of the top of my head). Add into that a massive boost to self rep and all of a sudden you have the chance of a fleet of 20 1bil ships at least holding there own against a handful of 20bil ones.
Come up with a counter over a nerf any day, guaranteed to **** less people off and add more interest to the game. You can add but you cant take away as they say....
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |