EVE Search - My take on Supercarriers.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

My take on Supercarriers.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Caliph Muhammed Caldari Caldari Naval Command Intelligence Security	Posted - 2011.06.03 03:31:00 - [1] Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 03:35:29 Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 03:35:08 I don't have any experience with supercarriers in game however I do play Sins of a Solar Empire which to me plays out kind of like EVE alliance warfare ala RTS. One of the stronger strategies in the game is force multiplication by airpower. Its very effective. It's meant to be. The counter to it is anti air. How much is relative to the airpower. In the rts game it's not a big worry as you can auto build enough of the anti air frigates to deal with whatever threat you may encounter. In EVE, this isn't the case. Its alot easier to get 1 guy in a supercarrier than to coordinate 50 players in anti-air frigates. Its the logisitics of human player requirements that is in my opinion creating the imbalance. And for every additional supercarrier fielded requires this number to swell in size to almost impossible numbers. I'm going to state again that I do not have the in game knowledge for EVE to know exactly how many of X antifighter defense it takes. But, what I would suggest is perhaps increasing the effectiveness of whatever hull is best suited for the job (destroyers?) to where 1 of that hull is equal to present day "many" specifically versus drones/fighters. If that isn't an option then creating a new ship class with those characteristics to perform that role is a good idea. Left unchecked the unquestionable offense of air power coupled with the natural defense of multiple allied targets (swarms) and extreme dps (a dead ship doesnt shoot back) will rule the day.
Fix Lag	Posted - 2011.06.03 03:41:00 - [2] Thanks for raising a topic of which no one had any previous awareness. Also, thank you for enlightening us with such great ideas that stem from your considerable expertise in this field. Fix Lag!
Aiwha Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.06.03 04:03:00 - [3] Yes, we know the only way to beat supercarriers is more supercarriers. I can't heal stupid
Iva Posavec Posavec Innovations Takhar Matari	Posted - 2011.06.03 04:09:00 - [4] Supercarriers take a massive amount of resources and time to build and once it's built it requires a fleet to properly support it on the field to be used to full ability. Supercarriers are killed time and time again as do Titans so they are not the endgame that some people think they are. As for making a new destroyer type ship to be better suited for an anti-Supercarrier role I think it's pointless, plus to kill fighters I think larger ships are more suited anyway like cruisers and battlecruisers as fighters are not tiny drones. Also, when a battle is taking place between two large groups and they are fielding super capitals, I think the FC would go mental if he saw people coming along in destroyers as they wouldn't last two minutes against the opposition who have smartbombing capitals, a spider tanked fleet and stealth bombers. I'm not even sure if the fighters are a major priority nowadays, although could be wrong. Alliance Creation
Alara IonStorm	Posted - 2011.06.03 04:20:00 - [5] Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 03/06/2011 04:24:15 Originally by: Aiwha Yes, we know the only way to beat supercarriers is more supercarriers. Not true, Rifters, millions of them, MILLIONS, they smartbomb 1000, 1000 more take there place. If the try to warp, bumb them with the Rifter armada. If they Jump there are Rifters waiting in the next system because millions... Millions, it is so beautiful. Now go Aiwha and raise an Army of a million Rifters. They don't have to know what they are doing or be particularly intelligent, go to the WoW forums and recruit them there. Mention that in Incarna there will be Massive Shoulder Pads and Giant Swords that will compensate for anything they are lacking. They will come running so get them on Trial Accounts. We can do this! BTW CCP we need a Mega Cap to defeat the Bastard WOW Rifter Army we created in our short sightedness.
Insidious 0utbreak	Posted - 2011.06.03 04:25:00 - [6] Edited by: Insidious on 03/06/2011 04:26:38 simple really buff dreadnoughts make them supercarrier killers as their primary role dmg bonus against sc dmg resists against sc fighters dreads wont be kings as they will still be vulnerable to counter attacks by support fleets etc etc
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2011.06.03 04:41:00 - [7] sub system targeting. So BS and under don't have to deal as much damage disable a super carrier.
Zensige 0ne Percent.	Posted - 2011.06.03 14:37:00 - [8] Originally by: Iva Posavec Supercarriers take a massive amount of resources and time to build and once it's built it requires a fleet to properly support it on the field to be used to full ability. Supercarriers are killed time and time again as do Titans so they are not the endgame that some people think they are. Lol , checked the meta game lately? The current Super Cap fleets does not need any support fleet because of it's sheer size. When a reported sc fleet has 150 supahs and 70 titans, there is little you can do but bring the same or more scs yourself. Now use that little peanut and think how they got all those scs, the "massive amount of resources and time to build"certainly are not holding anyone back.
Clavian Voi	Posted - 2011.06.03 14:49:00 - [9] Edited by: Clavian Voi on 03/06/2011 14:50:34 Yes, let's just nerf to hell all the ships in the game that actually work and forever turn EVE into a glorified game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Or... Accept that idea that ships costing 20B ISK that are very difficult to build and highly sought after for kills should be badass. A concept that ought to be self-evident. I submit that any ship costing 20B+ ISK ought to be able to do its primary mission well AND protect itself from smaller threats. Sorry, your Drake should not be equal to a supercap. Quit whining.
Takseen	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:02:00 - [10] Originally by: Clavian Voi Edited by: Clavian Voi on 03/06/2011 14:50:34 Yes, let's just nerf to hell all the ships in the game that actually work and forever turn EVE into a glorified game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Or... Accept that idea that ships costing 20B ISK that are very difficult to build and highly sought after for kills should be badass. A concept that ought to be self-evident. I submit that any ship costing 20B+ ISK ought to be able to do its primary mission well AND protect itself from smaller threats. Sorry, your Drake should not be equal to a supercap. Quit whining. Eve Online, where the only counter to Rock is to bring a bigger Rock.
Gabba Tron	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:04:00 - [11] Edited by: Gabba Tron on 03/06/2011 15:04:57 Originally by: Clavian Voi Edited by: Clavian Voi on 03/06/2011 14:50:34 Yes, let's just nerf to hell all the ships in the game that actually work and forever turn EVE into a glorified game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Or... Accept that idea that ships costing 20B ISK that are very difficult to build and highly sought after for kills should be badass. A concept that ought to be self-evident. I submit that any ship costing 20B+ ISK ought to be able to do its primary mission well AND protect itself from smaller threats. Sorry, your Drake should not be equal to a supercap. Quit whining. Or relate it to several examples from Rl. Hello very expensive apache combat helicopter, meet very inexpensive stinger missile. Hello Abraham tank meet land mine, hello battleship meet kamikaze bomber, hello twin towers meet 2 airplanes...Too soon? Just cause something costs alot, does not mean it doesn't have any weaknesses/counters.
Takseen	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Gabba Tron Or relate it to several examples from Rl. Hello very expensive apache combat helicopter, meet very inexpensive stinger missile. Hello Abraham tank meet land mine, hello battleship meet kamikaze bomber, hello twin towers meet 2 airplanes...Too soon? Just cause something costs alot, does not mean it doesn't have any weaknesses/counters. Trouble is we don't really have a RL equivalent to a Supercarrier yet. And our offensive technologies are far far superior to our defensive ones, which makes such things impractical anyway.
Ella Bella Gallente Prophet Industries Chaos Theory Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:36:00 - [13] Originally by: Caliph Muhammed I don't have any experience with supercarriers in game You should have stopped here.
Borun Tal Minmatar Just Abide	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:55:00 - [14] Originally by: Caliph Muhammed I don't have any experience with supercarriers in game however I do play Sins of a Solar Empire Topic title: "My take on Supercarriers" First sentence in post: " I don't have any experience with supercarriers" Really? I stopped reading there. Good job on a fail post, OP.
Leeroy McJenkins GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.06.03 15:55:00 - [15] Originally by: Gabba Tron Or relate it to several examples from Rl. Hello very expensive apache combat helicopter, meet very inexpensive stinger missile. Hello Abraham tank meet land mine, hello battleship meet kamikaze bomber, hello twin towers meet 2 airplanes...Too soon? Just cause something costs alot, does not mean it doesn't have any weaknesses/counters. And yet if super cheap counters were made, we would all abuse them to hell and back and make supercarriers pointless so on balance they would not even be worth the effort cuz we would Jihadswarm them to death. And then CCP would have to buff them again. Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins There is no real pvp in EVE, there is only winning or losing and then feeling :smug: about winning or sore about losing. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement.
Gabba Tron	Posted - 2011.06.03 16:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins And yet if super cheap counters were made, we would all abuse them to hell and back and make supercarriers pointless so on balance they would not even be worth the effort cuz we would Jihadswarm them to death. I don't see a problem with that :P. Just make them as useless as Blops, expensive support ships meant to facilitate tactical advantage in addition to some dps/ewar/utility.
Caliph Muhammed Caldari Caldari Naval Command Intelligence Security	Posted - 2011.06.03 16:51:00 - [17] Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 16:57:17 Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 16:56:45 Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 16:53:30 Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 16:52:01 Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 16:51:23 Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins Originally by: Gabba Tron Or relate it to several examples from Rl. Hello very expensive apache combat helicopter, meet very inexpensive stinger missile. Hello Abraham tank meet land mine, hello battleship meet kamikaze bomber, hello twin towers meet 2 airplanes...Too soon? Just cause something costs alot, does not mean it doesn't have any weaknesses/counters. And yet if super cheap counters were made, we would all abuse them to hell and back and make supercarriers pointless so on balance they would not even be worth the effort cuz we would Jihadswarm them to death. And then CCP would have to buff them again. But the reverse of that is everyone eventually becoming a supercarrier pilot. There is no negative to adding another to the swarm if the logistics required to counter it require the same fleet composition. Im speaking in the general sense here. That's the impression i'm given from the forum discussions on the subject regarding how it appears to be heading. Also failing to provide a cheap or relatively cheap counter prevents newer alliances from ever fighting their way into a Super Carrier infested zone wants the holding alliance reaches a critical mass of them.
Leeroy McJenkins GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.06.03 16:58:00 - [18] I'm also assuming the cheap ships that could pwn a SC would also wtfbbq pwn all other caps and probably titans as well. Hence everyone will just spam them and cap pilots of all types would *** and get their buff and we are back to square one again. Originally by:** Leeroy McJenkins There is no real pvp in EVE, there is only winning or losing and then feeling :smug: about winning or sore about losing. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement.
Caliph Muhammed Caldari Caldari Naval Command Intelligence Security	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:01:00 - [19] Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 17:02:00 Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins I'm also assuming the cheap ships that could pwn a SC would also wtfbbq pwn all other caps and probably titans as well. Hence everyone will just spam them and cap pilots of all types would ***** and get their buff and we are back to square one again. That's why im suggesting a cheap ship to counter the fighters not the Super Carrier itself. If you can neuter the fighters you leave other parts of the fleet to take on the severly hampered Super Carrier(s).
Hesperius	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:04:00 - [20] Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins I'm also assuming the cheap ships that could pwn a SC would also wtfbbq pwn all other caps and probably titans as well. Hence everyone will just spam them and cap pilots of all types would ***** and get their buff and we are back to square one again. This. Making a new counter to broken mechanic will only break things further. Check this out.
Caliph Muhammed Caldari Caldari Naval Command Intelligence Security	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:19:00 - [21] Edited by: Caliph Muhammed on 03/06/2011 17:19:40 Originally by: Ella Bella Originally by: Caliph Muhammed I don't have any experience with supercarriers in game You should have stopped here. Isn't that the equivalent to telling prehistoric man he shouldn't have investigated or tinkered with fire because he didn't have firsthand knowledge about its every intricacy? There is nothing in this game at a level of difficulty that requires years of research to understand. The carrier/fighter problem is common in almost every game that includes them. EVE is unique only in the sense it requires 1 person per ship for any attempt at a counter and this is where the reality of logistics and gameplay clash at a level that causes severe balancing issues.
Miilla Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:23:00 - [22] What is a super carrier? Is it like a T2 carrier?
Skydell Caldari Morrigna Order	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:31:00 - [23] To the OP, you are correct in a number of aspects. A Titan can be killed by dreads but it's a 30:1 ratio so if a Super Fleet has 100 Titans in it, that's 3000 Dreads, fielded, focus firing in wings at 100 primary targets. Assuming the node didnt crash with 3000 dreads on the grid, that's a monumental, multiple FC under taking. Hell, that kind of remote logistical skill would get you a real job, screw EVE. Of course no need to worry, the node would crash.
Miilla Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Skydell To the OP, you are correct in a number of aspects. A Titan can be killed by dreads but it's a 30:1 ratio so if a Super Fleet has 100 Titans in it, that's 3000 Dreads, fielded, focus firing in wings at 100 primary targets. Assuming the node didnt crash with 3000 dreads on the grid, that's a monumental, multiple FC under taking. Hell, that kind of remote logistical skill would get you a real job, screw EVE. Of course no need to worry, the node would crash. When they introduce the dynamic node load balancing, now a single node will not crash, 10 nodes will.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:37:00 - [25] Originally by: Clavian Voi Edited by: Clavian Voi on 03/06/2011 14:50:34 Yes, let's just nerf to hell all the ships in the game that actually work and forever turn EVE into a glorified game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Clue: Eve is just a super glorified Rock, Paper, Scissors. ~Gnosis~
FuzzyLogik360 Caldari	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:43:00 - [26] Originally by: Clavian Voi Accept that idea that ships costing 20B ISK that are very difficult to build and highly sought after for kills should be badass. A concept that ought to be self-evident. I submit that any ship costing 20B+ ISK ought to be able to do its primary mission well AND protect itself from smaller threats. Sorry, your Drake should not be equal to a supercap. Quit whining. Yes, Yes, Yes. Supercapitals and Titans are very exclusive and so don't need nerfing, since so few people own them. I mean the figures speak for themselves looking at the 2010 Q4 economic report: 360,000 subscriptions 2,254 supercaps/titans built That's only 1 uber powerful ship for every 160 players.... oh, wait a second?!! P.S. I am not for nerfing supercaps, but lets be honest the real problem here is there seems to far too much wonga in a not so small number of wallets.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:55:00 - [27] My only concern with super capitals is that once one side gets a massive advantage, if they are not STOOPID, then have the ability to maintain that advantage forever. Because they can not be built in stations, only capital ship assembly arraies anchored at a POS, the most powerful coalition in the game can maintain their position by simply attacking and destroying any POS where a cap ship assembly array gets anchored. It takes 3-4 weeks to build one, giving ample time for the overloard alliance to find and destroy the POS before the ship can be completed. Now, NC was not so smart. While preventing others from building supers, they were building and selling supers, giving the enemy the tools needed to take over. If the new masters of the north decide to only build them for themselves, not let anyone else build them, and don't sell them to anyone... supers become un-counterable in the current situation. Fortunatly, from CCP response in the "ask any question" answer thread, and discussions with the new CSM, it is clear that CCP is already planning a nerf, or some buff to smaller ships that would break the supers' stranglehold on large alliance battles.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2011.06.03 17:59:00 - [28] Originally by: FuzzyLogik360 360,000 subscriptions 2,254 supercaps/titans built That's only 1 uber powerful ship for every 160 players.... oh, wait a second?!! Some of those have been destroyed, so bring the nmber in existance down a little... right? Or is that an "exists now" number? Now, figure that each actual human has an average of two or three accounts... well, more like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 actual human players have a super cap.
Leeroy McJenkins GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.06.03 18:21:00 - [29] Originally by: LHA Tarawa if they are not STOOPID This is EVE. You know stupid is a requirement to play this game right? Originally by: Leeroy McJenkins There is no real pvp in EVE, there is only winning or losing and then feeling :smug: about winning or sore about losing. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement.
Takseen	Posted - 2011.06.03 19:58:00 - [30] Originally by: Caliph Muhammed The carrier/fighter problem is common in almost every game that includes them. EVE is unique only in the sense it requires 1 person per ship for any attempt at a counter and this is where the reality of logistics and gameplay clash at a level that causes severe balancing issues. Except in Starcraft 2, where each race has a cheaper unit specifically designed to kill capital ships in a cost effective manner. The only thing that seems to be able to perform this role in Eve is another supercarrier, or an even more expensive Titan. Or the Red Alert series, which had clever counters as mind controlled giant squid. Or the Civilization series, which keeps its rock/paper/scissors counter system even when carriers are introduced.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.