EVE Search - Solution to Super capital issue

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Solution to Super capital issue

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dinatra	Posted - 2011.05.31 10:37:00 - [1] Super capitals are a huge problem in the game and are in their present form destroying both lowsec and nullsec. They are being hotdropped on everything, even solo cruisers/battleships running missions. I think the solution to this problem would be to significantly reduce the mobility of these ships, either jump ranges, exponential jump fuel requirements (resulting in far greater logistics required when moving them) and/or time between jumps greatly increased. Alliances would then have to strategically place their capital fleets in their conquered space and would also have to do massive logistical planning in order to wield them when conquering new space.
Ivana Twinkle GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.31 10:59:00 - [2] Delete all ships except Laser Rifters from eve. Problem solved
Acac Sunflyier Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:01:00 - [3] There is something off with supers. It bothers me that titan doomsday can't even get through half a Nyx's shields. And then a titan takes a half hour to bring down. In EFT the titan has 57 million ehp. That's a ton of health! Not to mention that there are so many super caps out. I think they should immediately have their production resource requirements doubled. I was in the tribute fight and the DFR/PL/Raiden group fielded 28 titans. TWENTY EIGHT titans in one area just kills the fight. But then again, if I was in a titan, and paid that much isk to get into one and paid that much in subscription fees I'd want the 57 million ehp. [url=http://fusion.eve-kill.net?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=767426] [/url]
scotty551 UK Corp -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:06:00 - [4]
Schani Kratnorr x13 Raiden.	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:21:00 - [5] Edited by: Schani Kratnorr on 31/05/2011 13:23:34 I once saw the exact same thing being said about Battleships. "battleships are way too overpowered. They are being used to engage single cruisers and frigates. out in 0.0 they roam around in huge blobs, they cannot be stopped, and it is killing the game." That was 2004-2005'ish... Granted, the jump-drive mechanic does make a difference. But then again Capital ships consume fuel when moving, so it all evens out in the end. add. for those unaware. At the moment there is a great deal of manufactured controversy surrounding super capitals. Most of that comes from people who have failed to accumulate enough of them to mount an effective defence of their space. As with almost all failing empires they will attempt to find an outside cause rather than look inwards. On the whole it will always be possible for one entity to get out blobbed by another. The ship types are secondary, some people on the receiving side will always lament their fate.
Narisa Bithon Caldari The Motley Crew Reborn	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:26:00 - [6] Originally by: Acac Sunflyier There is something off with supers. It bothers me that titan doomsday can't even get through half a Nyx's shields. And then a titan takes a half hour to bring down. In EFT the titan has 57 million ehp. That's a ton of health! Not to mention that there are so many super caps out. I think they should immediately have their production resource requirements doubled. I was in the tribute fight and the DFR/PL/Raiden group fielded 28 titans. TWENTY EIGHT titans in one area just kills the fight. But then again, if I was in a titan, and paid that much isk to get into one and paid that much in subscription fees I'd want the 57 million ehp. its possible to get an aeon's ehp upto 70 mil
Acac Sunflyier Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:38:00 - [7] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr Edited by: Schani Kratnorr on 31/05/2011 13:23:34 I once saw the exact same thing being said about Battleships. "battleships are way too overpowered. They are being used to engage single cruisers and frigates. out in 0.0 they roam around in huge blobs, they cannot be stopped, and it is killing the game." That was 2004-2005'ish... Granted, the jump-drive mechanic does make a difference. But then again Capital ships consume fuel when moving, so it all evens out in the end. add. for those unaware. At the moment there is a great deal of manufactured controversy surrounding super capitals. Most of that comes from people who have failed to accumulate enough of them to mount an effective defence of their space. As with almost all failing empires they will attempt to find an outside cause rather than look inwards. On the whole it will always be possible for one entity to get out blobbed by another. The ship types are secondary, some people on the receiving side will always lament their fate. We're talking about Super Capitals. where one ships takes an average fleet about 20 minutes to bring down 1 and then you find that there are 15 more on the field.
Schani Kratnorr x13 Raiden.	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:52:00 - [8] Originally by: Acac Sunflyier We're talking about Super Capitals. where one ships takes an average fleet about 20 minutes to bring down 1 and then you find that there are 15 more on the field. You math is wrong and here is why. IF you have a bunch of super capitals yourself, you use them to remove the enemy super capitals. I've seen titans vanish in minutes and super carriers in seconds. It is all relative to the amount of firepower you bring. Maybe your side are not able to do much about twenty of them. But since someone else might have the numbers, your lack of numbers are not a valid argument for design change (which is what I sense you really want to talk about.)
Naga Elohim Amarr The Reformed Bondage Patrol	Posted - 2011.05.31 13:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Ivana Twinkle Delete all ships except Laser Rifters from eve. Problem solved I approve of this!
Riley Moore Sentinum Research	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:09:00 - [10] A battleship blob has many counters (bombers, ahacs, tengus if done right, etc) A supercap blob has only one counter; more super caps. We've reached a point where a force can field 100+ supers in any battle they so desire. You would need to bring thousand(s) of battleships to even attempt it. That's not good game design. --- Sentinum Research Store

Caldari Acolyte	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:34:00 - [11] Originally by: Riley Moore A battleship blob has many counters (bombers, ahacs, tengus if done right, etc) A supercap blob has only one counter; more super caps. We've reached a point where a force can field 100+ supers in any battle they so desire. You would need to bring thousand(s) of battleships to even attempt it. That's not good game design. Bingo.
Riley Moore Sentinum Research	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Caldari Acolyte Bingo. What did I win? --- Sentinum Research Store
Kaisi13 Minmatar Broken Chains Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:39:00 - [13] Y not put a Corp/Alliance limit to the number of Super capitals and or Carriers that can be in any one system.
Diablo Ex Caldari Reasonable People Of Sound Mind	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:42:00 - [14] Edited by: Diablo Ex on 31/05/2011 14:48:04 Looking at the situation from a "real world" perspective, there is a reason why huge battleships have become mere support vessels to carrier fleets. The use of fighters and fighter/bombers. And there is a big difference in EvE which can tip the balance. incorporate a form of "Station/POS" based Fighter/Bomber that can defend against enemy fighters and fighter/bombers. Also, give Stealth Bombers a weapon that is effective against Supercaps and Titans, say a 1 mil dp Bomb twice the size (1 per rack) meant to target stationary structures and Super Capitols (real slow 20sec flight time bomb). Something that a sub-capitol if paying attention can reasonably avoid. Edit: Also, allow "Strategic Cruisers (T3)" to use these bombs, and mount multiple bomb racks, as their role is basically Strategic. ________________________________ I want a button that will force you to undock out of the station so I can shoot you.
VCBee 2fast2furious Aliastra	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:43:00 - [15] From the horse's mouth: Originally by: CCP Greyscale Well... basically caps are balanced (more or less) and supercaps are imbalanced. It's something that needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Originally by: CCP Greyscale T2 capitals - we've got plenty of work to do on existing capitals (balance, more fitting options etc) before we get around to making even more powerful version Originally by: CCP Greyscale Yeah, supercarriers in particular just flat-out need a nerf, I think this is obvious to everyone. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Riley Moore Sentinum Research	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Kaisi13 Y not put a Corp/Alliance limit to the number of Super capitals and or Carriers that can be in any one system. Artificial limits in a game that advertises sandboxyness is bad design. That's the equivalent of finding catpoop in your sandbox. --- Sentinum Research Store
Acac Sunflyier Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:49:00 - [17] Perhaps they should also, on top of increasing super cap fuel cost and mineral build cost, double the production time
VCBee 2fast2furious Aliastra	Posted - 2011.05.31 14:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Acac Sunflyier Perhaps they should also, on top of increasing super cap fuel cost and mineral build cost, double the production time Increasing build costs and/or time on existing ships only serves to seperate the haves from the have nots and makes it harder for new groups to build up the necessary fleet to compete with the existing established powers.
yani dumyat Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.05.31 15:06:00 - [19] The problem isn't the ships in themselves, it's how they're built. Each time CCP introduces a new biggest class of ship they say their numbers will be limited because the resources needed to build them are so vast they will only be alliance toys, a theory that only works if resources are limited. In eve however resources are unlimited, asteroids replenish and moons never run out of goo. What this means is that the real arms race is among miners and industrialists, you can put that in to an equation: Number of super caps = number of miners x efficiency of miners. As you can see the only real limit is the number of miners and their efficiency, this has led to a proliferation of both bots and supercaps. If CCP insist on on using player ability to extract resources as a limiter for supercap production there really is no other outcome. My own solution would be to have a special component required for supercap production. It would be found through exploration and have a limited drop rate. Only through this kind of rarity will you keep the biggest ships in the game an 'OMG they deployed a titan' type experience.
Iceni	Posted - 2011.05.31 15:28:00 - [20] I think the real issue is that ships only have a build cost. Once you've got it, it costs nothing to run. Except if the ship has jump-drives of course. What about crew wages, docking fees, fuels for warping and sub-warp flight, maintenance, essential supplies like food for the crews, oxygen for the internal atmosphere etc. We have to pay monthly fees for renting a corp office, why not for owning a ship? Every ship should have running costs, and the bigger the ship, the greater the running and servicing costs. This would add a much-needed isk-sink, and give people a greater incentive to use T1 and smaller ships more often.

yani dumyat Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.05.31 15:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Iceni I think the real issue is that ships only have a build cost. Once you've got it, it costs nothing to run. Except if the ship has jump-drives of course. What about crew wages, docking fees, fuels for warping and sub-warp flight, maintenance, essential supplies like food for the crews, oxygen for the internal atmosphere etc. We have to pay monthly fees for renting a corp office, why not for owning a ship? Every ship should have running costs, and the bigger the ship, the greater the running and servicing costs. This would add a much-needed isk-sink, and give people a greater incentive to use T1 and smaller ships more often. In such a scenario what is the limiting factor other than the number of bots you can run?
BeatMeChecker	Posted - 2011.05.31 15:35:00 - [22] It's just the way they can be build!!!!! It's soo ****ing easy that even a single person can build them alone just get a JF full of Railguns and reprocess them in 0.0 and u have the minerals for a SCAP/Titan... and that shoudn't be! it's way too easy
Jaari Val'Dara Caldari Deep Space Nomads Corp	Posted - 2011.05.31 15:53:00 - [23] Originally by: yani dumyat My own solution would be to have a special component required for supercap production. It would be found through exploration and have a limited drop rate. Only through this kind of rarity will you keep the biggest ships in the game an 'OMG they deployed a titan' type experience. I like this. The only problem is that EVE already has way too many SC's, so if that new component were released it should not be dropped until a certain number of SC's were killed. But that would seriously screw over those who have no SC's yet and help those who have ****load of them.
Mavinha	Posted - 2011.05.31 16:11:00 - [24] how about a new skill that is required for a corp to have capital ships, each level increases the amount you can possess, or at least active at one time. im sure there are flaws with the idea but at the end of the day, the only ways youre going to control this is with an artificial cap or a ridiculous nerf.
Doshan Ri	Posted - 2011.05.31 16:31:00 - [25] Self destruct a Tempest near the hydrazine tanks. Extra bonus if you eject your pod and survive the blast, a red couch to go in you cq
Yulith Luss'Ferus	Posted - 2011.05.31 16:42:00 - [26] Originally by: Jaari Val'Dara Originally by: yani dumyat My own solution would be to have a special component required for supercap production. It would be found through exploration and have a limited drop rate. Only through this kind of rarity will you keep the biggest ships in the game an 'OMG they deployed a titan' type experience. I like this. The only problem is that EVE already has way too many SC's, so if that new component were released it should not be dropped until a certain number of SC's were killed. But that would seriously screw over those who have no SC's yet and help those who have ****load of them. If the rare item were to be introduced immediately (as opposed to after X supercaps had been destroyed from EVE), the initial drawback would be that newcomers would have a harder time making supercaps where the big guys still had theirs. However, given time and enough fighting, the existing supercap population would start to drop off and the population of supercaps would balance itself out, as long as the item(s) that were rare are rare enough to prevent people from overly farming them.
NickyYo	Posted - 2011.05.31 16:47:00 - [27] Of all seriousness, this sounds like a great idea!! (+1 to the OP) Decreasing supercap jump range will infact make 0.0 space more larger, If you have a brain think about it.
Ocypete	Posted - 2011.05.31 16:51:00 - [28] the super cap arguement is very much like the cold war; in order to win you just have to have more of the most destructive weapons on earth/in eve Not quite MAD, but not far off.
SirHorace	Posted - 2011.05.31 17:02:00 - [29] I dont know if many of you guys realize, these alliances that are fielding 100 supers and all that are HUGE alliances. lets do some math real quick. lets say this huge alliance has 2000 players. corp taxes and stuff is at say 15%. with everyone ratting for 1 hour (least 20m in a bc) 20m*.15=3m per hour per person at a decent rate. 3m times say... 1000 people ratting for one hour. 3b her hour on that through taxes. Average super is what 50b? thats only a little over half a day of 1k people ratting. Now, increasing minerals and all that doesnt change anything. Just makes it take a few hours longer. say we double the price of a super. that only a day and a half of ratting. Just a few thought gems. let the flames commence
Coldhearted One	Posted - 2011.05.31 17:07:00 - [30] Edited by: Coldhearted One on 31/05/2011 17:07:59 that's one way of doing it. but how about those wanting super carriers, just get some killer miners, maybe supply them with Rorqual(s) support and some defense and let them tear up them sweet beautiful rocks. Then let your Capital construction builders go to town and build them bad boys. you got to give some to get some. you pvpers be surprised if you give some carebears some love, appreciation and some gratitude, what would you would get in return. A bloody hellacious super carrier fleet. unless, of course, you would all rather mine it all yourself and build it yourself. make some ties to some empire(oops, did I say that dreaded word) indy corps and allow them to tear up the belts and make you some scs in return you defend them while they do it and let them get some juicy minerals for themselves at the same time. don't be scared now. and don't be lowlife weasels and pod them after they build you a few MOMs. have soem honor.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.