Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 04:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 12/08/2011 04:57:54 Super capital class ships are giant floating ****s. CCP seems to love ****s in their game. Problem is, whom ever owns the most ****s win. When a huge fleet of 100 floating ****s hit the combat field then all PvP stops. Even if it is only likely to happen then huge changes to fleet composition happens. Thoughts crop up whether or not to even choose to engage **** fleets of those sizes at all. We are talking about 100 pilots stopping 400+ pilots from even want to risk entering the field of combat.
Sure fine same can be said for capitals before ****s became the flavor of the month, but the field was more balanced then it is now. Sub capitals could be used to make up for the lack of capital support. Even with 3/2 odds, the tide could be turned with the use of good tactics, good sup cap fleet, and great target calling. It became a matter of pride being able to hold your ground against a superior capital fleet.
Now a days, a **** fleet of 100 can drop a capital fleet with far superior numbers and burn it down like they were made of paper. If you can not field a far bigger fleet of pure ****s then their is no sense of fielding any capitals at all, period. This breaks the game and prevents the biggest form of PvP their is from taking place, SOV warfare.
If you think this is untrue then tell us what you need to counter 100 **** fleet if it can not be done by having a superior number of ****s? For instance... What type of conventional capital/sub-capital support do you need if you can only field 50 ****s? 25? What coalition could field those combinations and afford to lose it and be capable of quickly replacing them? If the answer is none then the game is fundamentally broken.
You might be saying to yourself, if they removed ****s from the game then whomever with the most conventional capitals win, but thats not totally true. An alliance can afford to field a inferior capital fleet then the opposition because they can be legitimately bolstered by sub-capital ships. Also, the risk of losing capitals is much lower and the ease and speed of replacement is much higher.
A clear indication to what the **** buff has done to 0.0 would be to look at the 0.0 landscape now and compare it to pre- **** buffs. Today, more 0.0 players are members of Class C alliances (Renters) then are in Class A (Coalition Leadership) and class B (Coalition Pets). Look at all the alliances that have more then 1500 members. Majority of them are class C alliances. All of the class A alliances have less then 2k membership and are full of capital and **** pilots. These class A alliances own the best moons, receive huge sums of ISK per month from B and C class alliances, and are capable of sustaining their **** fleets off of their income, their by keeping their position. In and of it's self keeping class C poor, and class B in check preventing them from growing enough to become a class A alliance.
I call CCP to remove all ****s from the game. Remove fittings and reprocess the ships sending it all to the nearest market hub. All SP spent on **** only skills be reimbursed. All current build jobs aborted and the materials returned. This would make all capitals and sub capitals viable on the battlefield and fair game. It would bring at least some fun back to 0.0. It would also make it possible for alliances that don't already have 20+ ****s or 5k member alliances that can field 400+ fleets considered viable alliances valid on the 0.0 field once again.
On a side note, I am also FOR the removal or roll back of other PvP crushing changes CCP has made since Dominion... Jumpbridges being one of them.
|
Plippy Ploppy Cheesenose
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 05:07:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Plippy Ploppy Cheesenose on 12/08/2011 05:09:51 You didn't miss the upcoming supers nerf did you? Also, SB fleets ftw is obviously the counter to super hot drops ...
"Apparently the counter to a cumbersome supercapital fleet at 12:00 to 15:00 EVE is 40 bomber pilots with cloaks, a hold full of ammo and a grudge." (The Mittani on FA taking Fade despite PL supers fleets)
Also tl;dr. EDIT: JBs have already been nerfed thank you - please be informed in your rantings.
|
Reicine Ceer
Rodents of Unusual Size
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 12:23:00 -
[3]
Bugger that, i reckon the best thing to do is put a limit on the number of capitals and supercaps an alliance is allowed to have in its fleet, thereby forcing alliances to actually consider whether to deploy their carrier/etc rather than saying "Screw it, send in 100 supercaps, see what happens"
:P
-- You're a stark example of just what is wrong with the youth of today. I wish your parents had the presence of mind to have you recycled into a nutrient soup with which to feed the elderly |
Plippy Ploppy Cheesenose
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 12:39:00 -
[4]
Or ban all ISK-farmers and RTMers. Although that would probably strike hard against some alliances
Otherwise, it sounds like an artificial limitation of playing style to limit the number of (super)caps.
|
ry ry
Heroes. Merciless.
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 13:44:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Reicine Ceer Bugger that, i reckon the best thing to do is put a limit on the number of capitals and supercaps an alliance is allowed to have in its fleet, thereby forcing alliances to actually consider whether to deploy their carrier/etc rather than saying "Screw it, send in 100 supercaps, see what happens"
:P
then people run two, or three, or fifty fleets whilst sitting on TS together.
blobbers gonna blob, and any kind of mechanics to stop people Bringing The Numbers can be circumvented.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:20:00 -
[6]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 12/08/2011 20:27:45
where is the nerf info?
The problem I see is their is such a fine line on supers role in large scale PvP because of their cost to field. They are either going to be the flavor of the month and the ship to have or if they over nerf even slightly these won't be seen at all again.
They can introduce a capital class with the super non-DPS roles and be done with the supers all together. Large ship maintenance array, Bridge, and Clone vat bay.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:47:00 -
[7]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 12/08/2011 20:53:08
Originally by: Plippy Ploppy Cheesenose Or ban all ISK-farmers and RTMers. Although that would probably strike hard against some alliances
Otherwise, it sounds like an artificial limitation of playing style to limit the number of (super)caps.
CCP can't or won't ban these people.
Sure RTM has an effect allowing the building of these supers on mass, but you also have the complete unbalanced force multiplier of supers at the same time.
It's a perfect storm of crap that displays the ineptitude and overall disconnect CCP's developers and GMs have with the game they are developing and managing.
With every major expansion the Dev's have gotten slower and slower dealing with fixes and balance issues. They become ever more focused with adding features to bring in more players.
|
Plippy Ploppy Cheesenose
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 21:05:00 -
[8]
Originally by: The Racketeer Edited by: The Racketeer on 12/08/2011 20:30:22
where is the nerf info?
It's in the published "theory" blog on null sec. It says CCP are well aware of the unbalanced situation regarding super caps and they will do something about it. There isn't much info on it, more than that they say there is a nerf coming this winter extension.
There was much speculation in null alliances on how this will be done, but it seems many think super caps and titans will be structure shooting platforms rather than the anti-subcap platforms of today.
|
freshspree
Caldari Dissonance Corp
|
Posted - 2011.08.14 23:45:00 -
[9]
I sense a lot of jelly in this thread; if you are going to come up with ideas to balance the game at least make them sensible not whine and what is stopping you from getting a ****s if I may ask?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |