EVE Search - As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM

» 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)
Lin-Young Borovskova	Posted - 2011.06.10 11:32:00 - [31] Seems the problem is more super caps to kill super caps? Is it really the super caps the issue or the number of people flying them? Is it really the super caps the issue or the fact that every thing in this game is always a matter of numbers? What if the DD effect would increase it's dmg accordingly to the size of the ships let's say 500%, would we see people calling Eve "titans on line" instead of "super caps on line"? Would we then start seeing Titans everywhere because they could insta dmg Super caps for over 60% their total hp while almost nothing to sub caps size? Would this help and make eve become "Dreads on line"? Or would it make become "BS's on line" ? You people are fun to read, we never see you happy comments when you win but when you start loosing your e-peen, you start feeding the forum with tears, but it's ok we love those. "Cancer killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds.Aids killed thousands and keeps killing hundreds. The common point of those is that one day or another we will vanquish them for ever, but the migh
Cpt Fina Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2011.06.10 11:33:00 - [32] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 10/06/2011 11:33:01 People that talk about how increases in isk is the reason behind why people afford more stuff today is just hillarious. It's easy to give an impression that you know stuff when everyone around you know even less. For basic theory of economic growth check out the solow growth model. I hope I never see rational like this again or i'll loose all hope of these forums.
Zyress	Posted - 2011.06.10 19:09:00 - [33] I gotta say I'm kind of sorry I missed the big BS days( pretty much just saw the end of them), seems like nobody much flys them in pvp anymore, too many smaller ships they can't hit that can victimize them now, tackle and hold them indefinitely till they can be pounded down. They are too slow to hang with most small gangs, and the targets they are good at hitting just aren't that easy to find anymore. Add to that the proliferation of Super Caps and they are just kind of obsolete now. I had dreams of big ships in big battles though.
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb	Posted - 2011.06.10 20:29:00 - [34] Originally by: Cpt Fina Edited by: Cpt Fina on 10/06/2011 11:33:01 People that talk about how increases in isk is the reason behind why people afford more stuff today is just hillarious. It's easy to give an impression that you know stuff when everyone around you know even less. For basic theory of economic growth check out the solow growth model. I hope I never see rational like this again or i'll loose all hope of these forums. People that quote theory names randomly make me laugh. Its like they heard it once in an economics/business studies lecture and now think they are the world authority on the subject. How about this; back your jargonerring up with some facts.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.10 20:34:00 - [35] Fuel consumption of the jumpdrives for supercaps (and at the same time their fuel bays ofc) should be increased by a factor of 10-15. And a nerf to their EHP by around 20-25%.
Cpt Fina Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2011.06.11 06:23:00 - [36] Sure, IÆll be glad to provide facts (or reputable economic theoretical literature), IÆll even provide an explanation of the model. YouÆlll have to excuse me if some of the terminology I use isnÆt the correct one because I havenÆt learned all of this in English, but IÆll try to explain it to the best of my ability. The solow growth model is based on earlier works of classical economist û growth accounting ûwhere it was established that the the domestic produce/product of a nation Y is dependent on certain factors; Capital C, Labour L and productivity of capital or technical development A). (1)Y= F(A,K,L) Now since we are interested in growth and not a photoshop moment of our economy we we can express (1) as: ( 2) Y = A + aK + (1-a)L Where Y now indicates the growth of GDP, (delta Y / Y), A is increases in productivity and the letter a signifies the income share of the nationÆs capital. (1-a)L denotes the income share contributable to Labour that affects Y. As you can see K and L are weighted inversely (this is due to the marginal productivity of productionfactors ). A is seen as directly proportional to Y since an increase in technology or the cost structure of the economy has an direct impact of the productivity of the factors. Since we want to know the GDP per capita (per eve resident) and not the nation-wide which doesnÆt tell us that much in this context we have to subtract the increase in labour L (which is assumed to be the increase in the general population û and this is true if workhours are the same) from (2) (2)Y/L = A + a(K/L) Where Y/L denotes the relative change in the GDP per capita. And as you can see; Changes in Y/L are due to 1) increases in the general productivity of productionfactors (L and K) A and 2) the increase in capital per capita û the capital-intensity. What solow and the neoclassical economists did was to introduce investments, capital accumulation and decay to the formula where the economy will gravitate to a ôsteady stateö-state (lol) where growth per capita (Y/L) only increases if the general productivity of the production factors increases. To show this in a adequate way IÆd have to have a whiteboard handy so IÆll explain it briefly and provide a reference to solows early work on this. The marginal productivity of capital is assumed to be diminishing as we increase the capital intensity in society the actual investments (I/L = s(Y/L), where I is actual investments and s is the share of national produce that is being reinvested into the economy) that are being made are also diminishing since thereÆs a direct relation between the two (remember that Y = A + K/L). A is seen as an endogenous factor that increases productivity across the board. But actual investments arenÆt the same thing as necessary investments (for at least a constant Y/L). To keep the GDP per capita constant we need to 1) increase our capital base with the rate of increase in the general population, n and 2) replace all the capital goods that are being lost and depreciate over time with the rate of depreciation, d. The necessary investments are thus (n+d)K. You quickly realize that the actual investments s(Y/L) have to equal the necessary investments(n+d)K unless we want a retracting economy. And this is SolowÆs steady statescenario; where s(Y/L)= (n+d)K, which every established economy (where sudden changes in A isnÆt common) tends to gravitate to. If the nation decides to increase our propensity so save we can lift ourselves from this steady state by increasing the capital intensity of the society and gravitate to a higher GDP per capita. Solow, Robert M. (1956) A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Cpt Fina Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2011.06.11 06:25:00 - [37] Beside from the solow groth model û which is one of the most established model for long term growth in modern economy, and not something IÆve overheard somewhere û you have the quantity theory of money to further prove my point. This theory has benn worked upon and improved upon by a number of neoclassisits and Austrians most notably Irving Fisher, The Purchasing Power of Money - its determination and relation to credit interest and crises (1920). You can trace this theory back way before that though. For those into austrianism û Ludwig von Mises agrees on the overall idea of money neutrality as a good force in the long run but insists on the distortive forces of money growth in the short term (which translates to sub-performance in the long run) in his The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) What the theory basically says is that the price level is directly proportional to the money supply. The money supply M times the velocity of money equals the general price level P times GDP Y. Since V has been shown to be very rigid throughout history itÆs assumed to be constant û not changing. And if changes in Y is dependent on the capital intensity of the society and the productivity of production factors as Solow showed above then Y = F(A,K,L) and not dependent on M, P nor V. This leads us to conclude that changes in prices is equal to changes in the money supply: p=m (where lower letters denote rate of change). This means that increases in the money supply does not affect the produce of a country. The neutrality of money is a cornerstone if classic growth theory û permanent changes in nominal variables have no effect on real economic variablesin the long run . There have been empirical research in the neutrality of money other than for the most notorious scholar to research this theory, Milton Friedman who have found empirical evidence for it (which I sadly couldnÆt find on a short notice but if u insist I could look it up). Robert G. King and Mark W. Watson (1997) Testing Long-Run Neutrality, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly, Vol 83 Found that ôàthere is little evidence in the data against the hypothesis that money is neutral in the long run.ö when investigating long run neutrality. Ben S. Bernanke (lol I know donÆt hold it against me please) and Ilian Mihov (1998) The liquidity effect and long-run neutrality, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol 49 Found ôàlittle basis for rejecting either the liquidity effect or long-run neutrality.ö When investigating the long run effects of monetary policy on real output. The literature in this field is extended and itÆs not really my field of expertise, but I reckon those articles are a good point of entry if you want to read up on the subject. This is, however not something that I only vaguely remember from some econ-class. I believe I have provided ample explanation and reference to support my claim, especially if you compare it with the other posters in this thread.
Gierling Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.06.11 06:34:00 - [38] Buff dreads, give them all a role bonus which ignores resistences with thier turrets/launchers. Say 5% per level of racial dread, so a character with maxed dread skills would hit with thier weapons as if the target had 25% less resistences across the board. It would make them hurt structues modestly more, negligably more effective againt BS, not increase thier effctiveness against anything sub bb at all and make them absolutley brutal on supercaps.
Marco Breau	Posted - 2011.06.11 06:50:00 - [39] Originally by: Cpt Fina Hi, I'm an undergraduate economics student. Look at me! Wheeeeeee! Hey I'm an economics student as well, look what we have in common! Besides the somewhat relevant fact that not every market in EVE is analogous to RL, (lol seeded BPOs) I would like to point out that I don't think that anyone was saying that the quantity of isk in the system is what is affecting the availability of of supercarriers. Rather I think the supposition is that the average income (gdp per capita) of eve players is increasing, and that this is what is leading to the proliferation of scs. No need to go and regurgitate your intermediate macroeconomics course for us. That was boring enough the first time around.
Cpt Fina Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2011.06.11 07:19:00 - [40] Originally by: Marco Breau Originally by: Cpt Fina Hi, I'm an undergraduate economics student. Look at me! Wheeeeeee! Hey I'm an economics student as well, look what we have in common! Now, how am i supposed to point out the basic fallacies in peoples reasoning in economics without referencing basic economic theories û yes, they are thought at macro 101. But does that make ME look bad... or does that make THEM look bad? Originally by: Marco Breau Besides the somewhat relevant fact that not every market in EVE is analogous to RL, (lol seeded BPOs) Either you point out specifically how this make my post irrelevant or wrong or you don't say anything, that's how a discussion works. When Paul Krugman writes an article you dont rebuke it by saying "lolzors Keynsianism". You give an extensive enough and intellectual response that he can respond to. Originally by: Marco Breau I would like to point out that I don't think that anyone was saying that the quantity of isk in the system is what is affecting the availability of of supercarriers. I would like to point out that on several occasions in this thread, people either directly say it or hint at it. Originally by: Marco Breau No need to go and regurgitate your intermediate macroeconomics course for us. That was boring enough the first time around. Again, I'm open for suggestion of how one discuss basic macro economics without bringing up basic marcro-economic theories.

Qalm Anity	Posted - 2011.06.11 07:36:00 - [41] New to the game here and wanted to toss my hat into a fray well beyond the qualifications I possess. I've seen several topics claiming that it takes more supercaps to beat a supercap fleet, and I doubt the veracity of the claim. Perhaps it's because I simply want to doubt it. I want to believe that fleet composition makes a difference. However, if it is true that only supercaps beat supercaps, then Eve becomes a lot more bland. I saw a post from a supercap defender, in response to a 'nerf supercap' thread, pose the (paraphrased) question "Well, why don't we all fly t1 frigates then?" Well, why not? The only difference when one class of ships rules all others is simply the price of purchasing and fitting one, along with the ingame time necessary to skill for it. Set the bar high enough, and forever relegate to Eve history epic stories of newbs challenging the status quo. I understand these events are rare, but tales of the swarm echoed far enough for even this pilot to find Eve so many years later. I don't envy the pilots who cannot dock their expensive ships, and would personally not want to subject myself to what seems like a very limiting mechanic. I appreciate the Vets for the awesome game they've turned Eve into, and have no desire for CCP to change the game for my benefit at their expense. However, I would hope that fleet composition matters in sov. warefare and that subcaps would play an important and relevant role in battles over turf.
rampro Heroes. Merciless.	Posted - 2011.06.11 11:26:00 - [42] nerf SC cause high end players are able to generate the isk to buy them . No seriously dont be jelous get off ur backside and earn one then see if you still cry.
Headerman Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.06.11 11:44:00 - [43] course you can beat SCs with sub caps, it just takes a fair number of them and a decent amount of DPS
Wyke Mossari Gallente	Posted - 2011.06.11 12:33:00 - [44] Edited by: Wyke Mossari on 11/06/2011 12:36:37 Before we had the proliferation of capital ships, we had massed battle ship fleets, these were counted with the introduction of stealth bombers. Therefore introduce new Heavy Bomber (Cruisers) and Super Heavy Bomber (BC) with the dedicated role of attacking super caps. Arm them with large slow bombs with very low explosion velocity to prevent them being used as area effect weapons against flotillas of small ships. This would make attacking SC a credible possibility by smaller alliances and require the SC fleets to have an escort.
Mastah Mazoku	Posted - 2011.06.11 12:50:00 - [45] The nerf should be easy : Hel stay as it is (30m ehp more or less) Nyx get a bit less or equal tank as Hel Aeon and Wyvern get 15-20% more ehp than Hel/Nyx Make the Hel and Nyx fighters boosted (currently Nyx only) Make the Aeon and Wyvern the tankers Because, holly **, why the Nyx as better tank than an Hel and more dps, that's just bull**. Nyx don't have bonus for tank so it should be the same exact tank or about the same as Hel. And the Aeon need a drastic nerf in tank to be equals to the Wyvern.
Naomi Knight Amarr	Posted - 2011.06.11 14:06:00 - [46] Originally by: Mastah Mazoku The nerf should be easy : Hel stay as it is (30m ehp more or less) Nyx get a bit less or equal tank as Hel Aeon and Wyvern get 15-20% more ehp than Hel/Nyx Make the Hel and Nyx fighters boosted (currently Nyx only) Make the Aeon and Wyvern the tankers Because, holly **, why the Nyx as better tank than an Hel and more dps, that's just bull**. Nyx don't have bonus for tank so it should be the same exact tank or about the same as Hel. And the Aeon need a drastic nerf in tank to be equals to the Wyvern. matar whine stfu
ELECTR0FREAK Eye of God	Posted - 2011.06.11 15:33:00 - [47] Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 11/06/2011 15:36:19 There is a problem with Supercarriers, and its not with the ships themselves, but the game mechanic around them. The problem is that they aren't subject to the Rock-Paper-Scissors effect like the rest of EVE. They need to be particularly susceptible to a certain kind of ship type for it to be balanced. Here's how it should work: Titans should be support, (through fleet bonuses) anti-capital and anti-subcap weapons. Somewhat ineffective versus Supercapitals. Supercarriers should be support (via Projected ECM and RR ability) anti-capital and anti-supercapital weapons. Fairly ineffective versus subcaps. Carriers should be support (via RR and Triage mode), and anti-subcap weapons. Somewhat effective versus capitals, very ineffective versus supercapitals. Dreadnoughts should be anti-POS and anti-supercap weapons (in siege mode). Somewhat effective versus capitals (out of siege mode), very ineffective versus subcapitals. In addition, changes should be made to Siege mode and Triage mode. Triage Mode: When the carrier goes into Triage, it onlines a suite of sophisticated electronics to aid in its remote support duties. This causes signature radius to expand significantly, making the ship much more susceptible to attacks by supercapitals. However, it also offers a small additional improvement to capacitor recharge rate. Siege Mode: When the dreadnought goes into Siege mode, it shuts down all non-essential electronics to devote all available power to the XL turrets and repair systems. This causes signature radius to decrease significantly, making the ship much less susceptible to attacks by supercapitals. So lets go through what this means for capital ships: Titans remain largely the same. SuperCarriers don't change a whole lot either. Carriers gain a small improvement in damage output versus capitals and subcaps but become more vulnerable versus supercaps and have a small improvement in cap recharge rate when in Triage mode.(Basically, Carrier in Triage = supercarrier gank bait, but slightly better neut resistance and tank sustainability.) Dreadnoughts gain a significant damage improvement versus supercapitals when in Siege mode and a significant improvement to damage done versus capital ships when not in Siege mode. In addition, they become less vulnerable versus supercapitals when in Siege mode. (Supercapitals have to beware Dreads in Siege mode, subcap blobs can easily kill them though.) For the sake of full disclosure, I've been playing since early 2004, I've been a carrier pilot since early 2006 and flew a dreadnought from 2007-2009 through the worst of EVE's POS warfare. Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula
Tiny Mongo	Posted - 2011.06.12 07:43:00 - [48] Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 11/06/2011 15:36:19 There is a problem with Supercarriers, and its not with the ships themselves, but the game mechanic around them. The problem is that they aren't subject to the Rock-Paper-Scissors effect like the rest of EVE. They need to be particularly susceptible to a certain kind of ship type for it to be balanced. Here's how it should work: Titans should be support, (through fleet bonuses) anti-capital and anti-subcap weapons. Somewhat ineffective versus Supercapitals. Supercarriers should be support (via Projected ECM and RR ability) anti-capital and anti-supercapital weapons. Fairly ineffective versus subcaps. Carriers should be support (via RR and Triage mode), and anti-subcap weapons. Somewhat effective versus capitals, very ineffective versus supercapitals. Dreadnoughts should be anti-POS and anti-supercap weapons (in siege mode). Somewhat effective versus capitals (out of siege mode), very ineffective versus subcapitals. In addition, changes should be made to Siege mode and Triage mode. Triage Mode: When the carrier goes into Triage, it onlines a suite of sophisticated electronics to aid in its remote support duties. This causes signature radius to expand significantly, making the ship much more susceptible to attacks by supercapitals. However, it also offers a small additional improvement to capacitor recharge rate. Siege Mode: When the dreadnought goes into Siege mode, it shuts down all non-essential electronics to devote all available power to the XL turrets and repair systems. This causes signature radius to decrease significantly, making the ship much less susceptible to attacks by supercapitals. That would be a rather drastic change to a carriers roll - at least in low sec. Currently a carriers primary job is to keep there fleet up and triaging almost as soon as they hit the field. This means they put out 0 dps. The best solution imho is to make an SC just a giant carrier able to fit 6-8 reps and function proportionally to there carrier counterparts. Also boost the entry requirements into an SC to be racial Carrier 5, capital ships 5, and Jump drive operation 5 it is really dumb that it takes less than a 3 days of extra training to get from a carrier to an SC (neglecting fb's). Titans should have there DD boosted so that they can murder SC's - maybe make DD's depend on sig radius for damage applied as well thus making them less effective the smaller the ship gets.
Klausan GK inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.06.12 10:16:00 - [49] Supercarriers are just fine.
Seishi Maru Ministry of War	Posted - 2011.06.12 11:05:00 - [50] I always defended something on the sorts of introducing ships/conditiosn that make supers vulnerable but that cannot be countered with more supers. Simple examples would be the specialized T2 bomber liek some people said (on soemthing like BC hull) A new REAL t2 battleship of tier 3, with 90% tracking nerf but 100% damage bonus. T3 guns, that on battleship sized ones could be specialized to hit large targets only (liek the above description of the t3 BS) A mini siege module for battleships. They can still move, just cannot warp and receive a large damage bonus and trackign penalties. All these options also have the extra side effect that they give a new way to shoot sov structures without SCarriers.

Camron Champagne Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2011.06.12 11:13:00 - [51] Originally by: Headerman Originally by: Wacktopia Originally by: Headerman Originally by: Wacktopia Nerfing the ships themselves will not help. The problem, as already stated, is that ISK is too easy to come by in volume hence loosing an SC is not the big deal CCP planned it to be and as a result they're used like a BS. Solution: nerf income; stop the bots; balance the economy such that an SC is 'expensive'. ... do you even own a SC? ...do I need one to post in a SC failnerf thread? Yes you do. I for one own three, hence my many posts in this thread. The Fact that (If true) you (one person) own three Super Carriers is the poster child for the problem at hand, and of course you don't want them nerfed or altered in any way that makes them vulnerable since you have three. (we won't go into how you managed to afforded them) The days of the SC steamroll are likely coming to an end, it'll be a nice effect if coupled with a suitable Technetium price/requirement nerf and perhaps a small Titan mobility one as well. Sprinkles! we need more Sprinkles!!
Swynet	Posted - 2011.06.12 11:39:00 - [52] Edited by: Swynet on 12/06/2011 11:40:09 Give dreads the SC's murderer role. Give BS's 100% dmg increase vs capitals SC's or take them away from the game. WTF is the purpose of bs's? Incapable to travel alone without fear 2 or 3 dramiels/daredevils that easily span any of them from T1 to T2 no matter the version, a simple candie for 2 canes or an amusement for lachesis+bomber? -incapable to hit and dmg properly every thing smaller than their own size and just good to neut or paint scratch capitals/sc's, totally inefficient and don't even deserve the isk spent in their rigs for other purpose than missions? This is what the game is about, either you fight with overpowered frigs, either you fight with overpowered bc's either you fight with carriers, super carriers or titans. Great game but please deliver us the market of all that garbage of inefficient ships. Take them off the game, make carriers and dreadnaugts replace bs's and give them power enough to counter bigger stuff, for every thing smaller you already have overpowered battle cruisers.


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.