Jade Greenfire
   |
Posted - 2011.08.27 11:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Greenfire on 27/08/2011 11:22:58
Reicine Ceer Page 1 +1 like that idea.
Mioelnir Page 2 totally agree with yr 1st post.
SamTheTrader page 2, congratulations your idea just meant the death of not only 0.0 but the eve economy. You do realise that it is largely due to people losing ships in 0.0 that drives the eve economy in the first place. Not everyone in 0.0 likes to rat or do missions, so take away insurance payments can mean they cant afford to get a replacement ship
.
 Originally by: John McCreedy
The problem with Super Carriers is the same problem for a lot of ships in Eve. They lack a specific role. The ships that are most use are those with a specific role where as those without are bearly ever used. The thing about Super Carriers is that where as all the other ships with tightly defined roles are pretty rubbish outside of that role, Supers excel at most things. They're a Jack of all trades, master of all. Super Carriers should be made to be Super Capital Killers that are lousy at killing anything smaller than a Capital Ship. That will stop the proliferation of entire fleets of them.
Like you said Supers are currently the "Jack of all trades, master of all" & they were never meant to be. They are somthing in the area of 140% overpowered & project far too much power in their current state, which is why they are being rebalanced. The arguement as to what their role should be is up for debate, but not for much longer as that nerf will happen sooner than later. Dreads are supposed to be Cap & Pos killers, not supercarriers.
Nessu's page 3
+10 I know your pain.
The re-occurring theme seems to be the call for 0.0 resources to be non static and for overall, some form of seeding markets in 0.0, as resources that are abundant in 0.0 are cheaper to obtain in Jita than 0.0. Which shouldn't be the case, although it is.
Distances in 0.0 are fine the way they are. Should a alliances that has held sov long enough to have jumpbridges be penalised for it or for having Titans? No.
The answer maybe to restrict portalling distances/abillities and maybe remove jump bridges.
But that alone wont help small corps/alliances that live deep in (30-40+ jumps)in 0.0 nor will it give them a reason to live there in the first place.
PVP is a hughe part of 0.0 and the fact that fleets do travel so far to fight each other is a arguement for the reduction in the total size of 0.0 space not the expansion of it. Smaller space = more conflict as people would live closer together, not further apart& it in itself will cause more friction and provide opportunities for more PVP.
Also;
1. The idea of alliances holding freighter ops to move stuff is also highly flawed, given if you are going to do one, you do it with smallest possible numbers you can so as to improve your security and try and avoid detection, not increase detection by using big numbers.
2.The majority of people that live in 0.0 are not isk rich, many openly struggle and buy GTC's and sell plexs to survive, fund their game play. There is always a new flavour of the week ship alliances seem to demand you fly.
Lastly,
3. Since moon goo was nerfed so hard previously leaving only 1 moon "tech" (located mainly in the north) as of any real value, people should stop blaming moon goo as a source of all 0.0 isk problems. It has not been that way for a long time.
The fact is, you have to run multiple POS's in multiple systems to gather and react different goo to make some T2 components or any decent amount of isk and then you end up spending a fair porion of that in POS fuel and transport costs. |