|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2301
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:43:07 -
[1] - Quote
Is siege/triage duration being looked at? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:55:01 -
[2] - Quote
xttz wrote: Does this mean that optionally replacing existing carriers with force aux carriers is on the table?
Mentioned, but not "confirmed" was doing something like any carriers wiht a triage fit at patch day morph into the new ones.
May or may not work like that, but that was mentioned yes. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:45:18 -
[3] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Mr Floydy wrote: "NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
You misunderstand. That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead. Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me. Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing. If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame.
Yes, for the price of a single dread you could get maybe 10-15 tempests at 1500 dps each.
Sure, less tanky, but....I feel the cost/benefit just isnt there. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:50:37 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: As a squadron takes damage and its 'effective fighter count' goes down, then its damage output will also be stepped down accordingly. [/list]
I meant to ask, are you doing anyhting with their resists/HP pool?
Otherwise, it's skewed towards EM to get the inital teeth off the field.
Omni resists? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2302
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:27:16 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:2. With the talk on reduction of hit points on Supers and Titans, don't you think people will be even more risk adverse with capitals? That people will only commit them to the field if they have a guaranteed chance of not losing any?
A question for (all of) you: Do you think that being able to deploy with a guarantee that you won't lose anything is healthy/good for the game? Not even high-sec makes that promise.
No, but that's what people have been used to for years.
They'll be less happy about this, than phoebe.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:06:01 -
[6] - Quote
Querns wrote:Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.
But seeing as citadels will have real teeth, you'll likely need double, perhaps triple this number.
I have no problems with caps in high sec, provided the Cyno ban stays. Make them forced to be gated.
Caveat: I don't live in highsec but there's no use in carebear land that makes their resistance to concord relevant. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 08:04:05 -
[7] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Fishymonster wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Fishymonster wrote:...You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that. No, Fighter bombers aren't going away. They'll probably come under the Heavy Fighter category. We're actually adding new types of fighter, rather than removing any. So now if a carrier pilot wants to do DPS to anything other than frigates/drones/other fighter squadrons they will have to train a 3million SP skill up to 5 before they're allowed. Great design. Or train for a fraction of the time to level 4 for only a 10% or is it 20% damage output hit. Yea lvl 5 skills are really overrated.
I think he was moaning about fighter bombers potentially becoming needed for carrier pilots...at least that is the best I can make of it.
And if that were the case that is a bit of a PITA for a lot of people. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:15:38 -
[8] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote: What? Supers should have them trained anyway. And carrier pilots? well i am not sure they will get heavies/bombers, at least it is not clear that they will get them to me.
I don't disagree, was just the best I could make of that guys post (not yours). In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have bothered but my shitposting detector runs on caffeine and I'm short this morning. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2306
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:17:01 -
[9] - Quote
Engelheim wrote:These changes are very exciting and I'm very enthusiast about them. However I have some concerns not regarding the changes in themselves but regarding the transition phase between the day prior and the day after. I'm thinking specifically about the logistic capital role being transfered to a brand new ship. Quoting from the devblog: Quote:They will be the only class able to fit the Triage module and the only capital class with bonuses to remote repair modules. This transfer means that all current "doctrines" using carrier as remote repair platform will become obsolete over night. And it could take months before some players are able to adapt to the change.
We're talking about capital ship production here. It takes a lot longer to produce from scratch than subcaps. Add to that the skilling for this new class and it could potentially mean several weeks even months without any capital remote repair option. That is quite scary if you have assets to protect... On top of that, it offers a potential lever for the bigger organisations as they will be the first ones to obtain these ships and potentially they would be able to delay the acquisition by applying some form of market pressure for the smaller groups. In this kind of scenario, even if this would only mean a 1 or 2 weeeks delay for the smaller group, it would still be enough for the big fish to swipe assets easily. So the question is: how does CCP plan to work on this transition phase? Will the new ship be released while actual carrier will still be able to remote rep or is there some other idea behind the transition period?
If only they'd said in the presentation they were well aware of this and would be discussing options......
Or even in the damned blog
Quote:We understand that a lot of capsulers purchased their carrier as a logistics platform. We don't have defined plans for a transition between existing Carriers to the new Force Auxiliaries, but I can assure you it is on our radar, and we'll be announcing the transition plan with plenty of time for everyone to get ready.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2307
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 11:30:17 -
[10] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Quote:Under the Citadel expansionGÇÖs capital changes, the bar to killing capitals is limited to what a single Force Auxiliary in Triage can tank. If you can kill that, eventually you can kill the entire capital fleet...assuming you can stay alive and keep them tackled (smile) So does this mean, only 1 Force Auxiliary can be active in a capital fleet at a time? How many capitals is it expected 1 force auxiliary capital in triage can rep? What is to stop the largest groups from having multiple Force Auxiliary ships on standby to jump in as each one dies? Or more likely, stop them fielding multiple small fleets each with its own.
It's fairly obvious.
Provided you can hold tackle, it doesn't matter if they have 1, or 100 FAX ships, if you can kill one, you can ~eventually~ kill all the capital reps and thus the entire enemy fleet.
Because they can only rep in triage and in triage they are limited to local tank only - overwhelm that and they will all die, one at a time.
As opposed to today, where 300 archons can all spider as one unit and you'd need to either a) alpha the caps or b) out DPS 300 archons worth of non-triaged reps. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2308
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 08:04:25 -
[11] - Quote
Rowells wrote:E1ev1n wrote:My suggestion is to increase the High Angle battery DPS over the 3k DPS mark, battleships are a heck of a lot cheaper and can do OVER 2k dps already so for a Dread to be stuck under that mark is very shameful. lol, your glass cannon vindi can do 2050dps at what range? With which drones? No, you are grossly overstating your typical battleship. Not to mention the range of the HAWB is supposed to be similar to current short range XL (I wish I had the video handy to source). I'm not against the idea of a bump in dps, but I don't like that kind of justification. If we really balanced damge based on isk, you would be flying battleships either. Not when tier3 BC and pretty much any other ship is laying around.
Rattlesnake, 1400 to 84km, well over 200k EHP.
Approx 1/6 the cost of a fitted dread.
Or the poor mans version, the fleet phoon can accomplish the same albeit at a much weaker tank. Change from 475m.
This is a particular factor in WH because of mass - it's not just cost. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2308
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 20:57:04 -
[12] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lady Rift wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:what's with all these people thinking battleships do thousands of dps 1000dps in a battle ship isnt that hard to push. much more than that and you have to start looking at only certain ships or much more pricey things. Do note that the dps is always referred to is the max dps it can do at its closest range weather or not its even feasible to be able to stay or get into that range. that's what I'm saying. all these scrubs who think a 2k dps dreadnought with unknown range and a million tank will be useless because their untanked blaster battleship with 5km range and heat can to 1500.
Most aren't saying useless, what people are rightly asking is: Is the step up enough to justify the cost and the massive limitations of it?
The tank will be less impressive seeing as refitting is dead, or the dps won't be up to snuff. They're not as good as you're making out. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2309
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 11:58:23 -
[13] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:With a few broken exceptions, Eve does not scale linearly. A marginal increase in performance usually comes at an immense cost in skill training time or cost. Why should it be any different with Capital ships?
Well fairly obviously because it is not just cost, is it
I think everyone more or less agrees that dreads are pretty well balanced as a class (some specific ships are questionable but the class is solid) today, they get a lot for their trade offs and those trades are fair.
I want to say "people" but I'll go with "my" instead because I'm not sure everyone is in actually agreement (and I think you're right about the escalation tears)....my concern is that the reduced DPS in the new turrets coupled with the nerfs on top of existing trade offs feels like it's tipping the scales towards too many downsides. Dreads are getting, effectively, nothing but nerfs and blap fittings rejigged.
Thus to my mind the key questions are these:
>Will the new weapons of tomorrow be superior to existing blap fit dreads? I.e. will they apply >= dps compared to existing ones? >Will dreads have enough tank to reasonably expect to survive a siege cycle coupled with an inability to refit (either for 60 seconds, or the full timer - TBC)?
Remember that today, blap dreads can go from literally 100% gank and quickly refit if primaried - they cannot do that in the future thus will have to either compromise gank, or risk someone hitting that glass cannon with a hammer.
Certainly, smaller alliances could potentially use them to shore up pilot shortfall, in theory but in practice, are these going to...pull their weight?
In short these might be fine, but the numbers being banded around do give me concerns that they are worth the trade offs when one considers the nerfs coming with it.
I don't think the sky is falling and my concerns are at as high a level as the detail, but right now stacking up what we know the numbers seem low. Yes, there are certainly unknowns and variables but it's still worth mulling over. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2309
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 13:18:03 -
[14] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Firvain wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? Why should it? To make sure the side that has more capships always win? Why should capital ships be fundamentally different from subcapital ships when it comes to tackling ability? Serious question. Why shouldn't all Eve ships follow the same principles when it comes to tackling? Subcapital tackling is in a pretty good spot right now. You have a basically equal system in which almost any subcapital ship can tackle another subcapital ship, with lots of room for diverse counter play and specialization. Why shouldn't capital ships follow the same rules?
It does devalue HICs quite badly.
However if they altered HICs to block not just capitals but subcapitals from using gates, you'd quite possibly never see me in another hull, ever again. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2309
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 13:35:23 -
[15] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Once this unbalanced mess comes into effect, they won't need the support ships. Their overwhelming strength in supers can freely operate without need for subcap support.
Of course the biggest group is always going to win - Which is the exact same reason this should never happen.
Giving the elitist groups elite tools is a big kick in the ass for everyone else.
What happens when a 200 man NPSI bomber fleet cynos in? Those supers start to die, because they can be tackled by bombers too. Support for supers isn't going anywhere.
The change overall is good (ESPECIALLY if it cascades down to BS hulls), just HICs need a little love to compensate. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2311
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 14:53:56 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Darirol wrote:hand of god doomsday:
basicly you could warp some smartbomb battleships in a perfectly scattered blobb of enemy ships, use the doomsday and a few seconds later you have 50 or 100 enemy ship right on top of your smartbomb squad. with like 10 smartbomb battleships you could basicly "pipe bomb" enemy fleets.
does it work that way? iam not sure how the warm up phase works and if it is possible to escape the doomsday. depending on this it could be kind of broken or just fine. The titan pilot can't select where the ships teleported by the Hand-of-God (or is that Hand-Of-Bob?) Class Doomsday will go, thats random :) So I'm not sure how the smart bombing battleships could take advantage of it?
What happens to targets which cannot move if they are hit by this, by the way? Or targets which wouldn't be allowed to warp?
So I'm thinking specifically entosising ships and active cynos but also bastion (mostly for completeness). |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2311
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:12:30 -
[17] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Izmaragd Dawnstar wrote:I'm by no means a capital expert, but since I'm mostly flying logistics, the force auxiliary would probably be my next choice. I'm okay with separating carriers and logistics ships, but restricting remote reps to triage only is a dangerous thing to do. If we consider the subcap version, it's basically if the guardians flying around would be unable to rep other guardians.
I understand that you're looking to reduce the effectiveness of "slowcats" and "wrecking balls", but this is probably a bit overboard. I see your point. The difference is with the EHP of the two platforms. A Guardian has a max EHP of around 120k? Maybe 150k with some wierd faction variation, so it is possible to alpha it out. It can also be damped/jammed/etc. An existing Triage Archon has a max EHP of 1m+, and its immune to all forms of EWar. Comparing the two isn't Apples to Apples :) Right, but forgive me if I wrong, but while the EHP is different, the Triage archon also loses all mobility for a period of time, and it also doesn't gain that ewar immunity unless its in triage. You had the balance right before. If you want substandard reps and a gtfo card, then you use "regular mode" If you want improved reps and ewar immunity then you have to commit to the whole triage cycle and lose mobility. I don't see how this was out of balance?
You're missing his point. Triage was and IS balanced. What was broken, was captial reps OUT of triage, when you have enough.
So they're killing un-triaged capital reps. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2312
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:26:51 -
[18] - Quote
How are fighter resists/shield/armor/hull going to work? Are you reviewing these? Going to just a straight up HP pool of omni resist?
The fighter blob with members dying doesn't lend itself to the triple layered HP style we currently have.
Also what happens if they are bombed does the unit take Y damage, or members*Y damage ?
What about ewar? All jammed out, or a partial DPS loss or something in the middle? Ditto webbing them. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2312
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 16:46:15 -
[19] - Quote
It could trigger a weapons timer when the module deactivates. That's an acceptable workaround (to me). |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2320
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 08:23:30 -
[20] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: That's the future: crack the FAX or never crack subs.
I'll take a backhanded bhaal buff any day of the week |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2324
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 09:41:48 -
[21] - Quote
Remember from the Vegas presentation the modus operandi for the high angle weapons is high ROF. Which means low alpha, which should raise the bar required for alphaing subcaps and buff logis.
With regards to ewar, I suspect that (res) damps are going to be the way vs dreads unless siege changes and EC drones on the FAX.
Personally the thing I'm most interested to see is the Phoenix, because it'll be the hardest to balance. On that basis, I expect it will still be utterly useless because of the nature of missiles treading too fine a line. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2336
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 10:08:07 -
[22] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2337
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 12:45:51 -
[23] - Quote
Larrikin, are siege changes on the table? Limitations & duration specifically.
Also, is the warp core strength thing limited to supers only? I think it would make caps using gates much more interesting and viable (as well as a cheeky BS buff if it dropped to them) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:35:36 -
[24] - Quote
Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.
It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:34:38 -
[25] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:afkalt wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri some of your post is good, some of it is just whining because the winds are changing, but this is just flat out fundamentally wrong:
>>"Sub-Capital anything IS NOT A COUNTER TO CAPITALS"
Then why would I fly anything but a capital ever again? That's appalling game design and CCP have done a damned excellent job (with some exceptions) of keeping all sizes and classes relevant. That is your opinion, which I disagree with. And despite inaccurate claims of 'whining', as opposed to providing counter balance feedback, if CCP wants to turn Capital ships into giant Sub-capitals and blow PR smoke about it being a Buff; then I think I've paid my dues to call a 'spade a spade'. 'Escalation' in Null Sec PVP exist for a reason, it has always existed. A 100 man Battleship gang should never EVER be able to take down a 100 man Carrier group. Allowing otherwise, makes the entire existence of Capital ships worthless and redundant. Nothing more than a giant **** waving exercise. Iterating a 'light touch' toward Capitals that allows a 250 - 500 man Battleship Gang to give a 100 man Carrier group serious pause is absolutely appropriate. There are ships, and fleet compositions that are simply not counters to an opposing force. Simply stating the current state of affairs, that Sub-Capital is not a Counter to Capitals, and personally holding that belief as correct does not make it "...just flat out fundamentally wrong:". That with Fleet v. Fleet fighting there is a historic segregation that exists between Sub-Capital and Capitals, and the 'Counter' to Capitals on grid is an escalation of Capitals. Sorry but your stereo typical 250 man TryHard Alliance of 3 Carriers and 2 Dreads and 245 Sub-Capitals should not be able to control the Grid vs. a 250 man Capital Group. Just as we have a hierarchy of Skill point capabilities, we have a hierarchy ... a 'pecking order' of things a up and coming group needs to have in order to play in the deep end of the pool. If you remove this segregation, as seems to be being attempted, then you remove the motivation and incentive to ever develop a organized Capital Group in an Alliance. I think if we could have simply frigate spammed our adversaries into submission, we wouldn't have the (assumed) largest Capital force in EVE. But hey, if Developer Socialism is your thing, then by all means - I just happen to fundamentally disagree.
That's not what you said, your original statement implied, or at least I read to be that capitals should have no subcap counter.
If I drop a couple of hundred bhaals on two dozen archons, you better believe they should murder them.
If you disagree, then you can stop here and we can agree to disagree and move on. Equally if I've misread your originally quoted post then that's my mistake.
If not, then I don't think the changes are bad, I think the direction is good. Delineation of capitals roles is good. Whilst on one hand they said they are reducing EHP, they are also talking making capitals able to be much more effective at murdering subcaps. Whilst I've concerns about the precise numbers I've raised, I believe that overall direction is good. Just as your thanatos can no longer ignore 20 thoraxes, nor can the thoraxes ignore the thanatos (ship numbers and names merely for an example, don't get caught up in the details).
The direction is to move the meta into choices - sacrifices - more refined/rewarded player skill. I don't think they are in a bad direction. I also think that yourselves and PL stand to make the most effective use of these changes to boot.
The changes seem designed to bring make sure more things blow up, both subcap and cap. I'm particularly looking forward to revitalised "proper" combat carriers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:37:54 -
[26] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. ..... I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Love my batphone. Hate the other side's batphone. Don't really know how to "fix" that, it's human nature + metagame.
Well, they are definitely making things more susceptible to blowing up - depending on how that works out, that may raise the bar required for a batphone to work.
Today, if you bridge enough in, losses are almost non-existent. Tomorrow it seems a lot like the aim is no matter what you bridge in, if the other guy has numbers stuff of yours WILL blow up no matter how much (to a point) you bring with you.
Whether that is enough to give people pause about picking up that phone or not really remains to be seen. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 11:52:43 -
[27] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? For the average player there is a huge difference between a 20 mil isk cruiser and a 1.5 billion isk carrier being disposable. The Fax is designed to be disposable (its main role is to die) so how much are they likely to be? Have you seen the image CCP Larrikin showed of the Force Aux.? The thing is ENORMOUS... It's not going to be 'disposable' nor 'cheap' - it will be a full carrier, if not even a bit more in build costs. Image: https://eve.gameheadlines.com/images/d97da336-9bb0-30fc-bcc2-703c90915c20In the foreground, is a Dominix, for scale. These things will be massive. Ahh so size makes it less disposable? Without the ability to receive remote reps, not being able to quit the field due to only being able to operate in siege, it is going to survive an onslaught from a blob of Dreads or over sized Domis, Titans and or Supers? I'm losing faith in your not just being a Goon troll Kas. The bigger the ship the bigger the sig radius the more damage it takes per volley - As per the blog, Fax will be able to be killed and once it is dead you can kill the rest of the fleet. If you can keep it tackled (don't forget the smart ass smile at the end of the sentence). They will be the primary target in EVERY battle - They need to die before anything else on field can - That makes them disposable. And yes your probably right, they will cost more than the soon to be disposable 1.5 bil isk ships we use now - So, CCP making change to suit only the richest and biggest groups in the game. CCP creating new content for the Blobs at the expense of everyone else. Kas, do yourself a favour - Go read the blog and take in what it says, not what you want it to say.
Or they make them cheap because due to the mechanics, n+1 is never an issue with them. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:37:46 -
[28] - Quote
Sepheria O'Mally wrote:afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. Dude, do you even have a capital. With the fatigue as it is, you are often lucky you can call on your neighbor, when even your core alliance guys are too fatigued cause they just had something they jumped to 45 min ago. Batphones only work in places like Provi, where the groups only work together when needed, and stick to their little corners when not. When you have pilots living in an entire region, you can barely handle moving around just that.
The tears about fatigue are getting old.
Not all of us have neighbours who are dropping titans on mining barges. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2338
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 09:43:42 -
[29] - Quote
Why are you hell bent on comparing things to the meta which CCP are firmly on record as wanting to nuke from orbit? That's like holding a candle for AoE doomsdays. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2339
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:45:38 -
[30] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote: Capital ships are the premier weapon for killing structures.
Capital ships should be effective in most combat situations without completely dominating the battlefield and without invalidating other ship types.
I kind of disagree. Sure capitals are the best at destroying structures. but considering the amount of time it takes to fly a capital well, and the amount of isk you will drop both on the training, the ship and, the fits I have to think there should be much more to them than "structure destruction". .
On this basis, I demand an immediate and MASSIVE buff to my marauder as a well fit marauder will run you a bill to rival a cap.
And my 4b blops (I know, space poor). That needs more pzzzzzzzzz as well, since you know....it was expensive.
Except, of course, that's really not how eve works, is it? |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2339
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 08:52:41 -
[31] - Quote
Hit the quote limit.
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote: I think the point here in not fatigue itself but rather its effects on capital warfare. You cannot have a discussion about capitals and choose to ignore a major limiting aspect. That would be like us discussing new industrial mechanics and ignoring CCP changing some core mining aspects. If you don't look at all the issues as a whole, you end up with the traditional broken mechanics Eve is so rife with.
If caps were legitimately needing to be flung around to the point fatigue causes real problems, there would be a massive war on. There is not.
And to be frank, so long as people are still able to do junk like drop titans on barges/cruisers, blops onto ventures and so forth, the whole "fatigue is killing me" garners no sympathy, none. Zero. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2345
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 14:58:20 -
[32] - Quote
Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it. We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now.
I think the better question would be - would it make you move/redraw borders/coalition members?
I suspect the answer, certainly in the short term, would likely be "no".
Which leads to two questions (neither of which I expect you to answer - with the greatest of respect, you'd be mad to answer even if you could)
1) In the longer term, would T2 item cost pressure/the possibility of a market being cornered by nomads provoke such a move (I suspect unlikely, you likely have enough market clout to weather that)
Which leads to
2) What would it take to move/redefine coalition members?
If anyone can answer #2 with a viable suggestion then they win the game (and probably get offered a job).
Thing is, though, I don't believe there is an answer to #2 because of the logistical challenges presented. The upheaval required in the meta to make you guys (for example, not specifically you, it applies everywhere) up sticks and move from Dek would have to be...basically biblical.
Thus more likely, is the possibility of resetting standings - but again there is no good reason for that. You're tightly coupled, it would be like ripping out stitches - you'd need a real powerful reason to do so. Could such a reason be created? Absolutely. Could such a reason be created, without murdering the game....? Well that is the trillion isk question, is it not?
Edit: I feel I should add that I hold no ill will to large groups. They make perfect sense, I'm neither bitter nor resentful, I have respect for what has been achieved by all of them - over all of the years. The post is mainly a "what if/what would it take" to change the meta, rather than any criticism. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2347
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 16:15:33 -
[33] - Quote
Thanks for the responses, approximately as I would have imagined :)
Well, borders are redrawn as a result of mechanical changes (mostly), I would doubt that many of those areas would have been ceded without phoebe/aegis. I was more musing that if, by means of game mechanics changes that border redrawing became a necessary part of life. Again though, I don't think it's realistic proposition. /shrug. Perhaps.
Yes, "move" meaning up sticks and relocate - I can't imagine a reason to ever do that. I asked because I think (and this is conjecture/reading between lines/extrapolation) that some would prefer if the game splintered into smaller, nomadic groups - but of course such a concept would never work because NOT working together is...well...it's dumb. Plus moving is a monumental pain in the ass at the best of times.
As interesting as it is to mull, however, overall it seems to me like a lot of people want empires to topple but won't put in the effort to create their own - it's as if they think the current powerhouses sprung into being overnight.
But I/we digress, thanks for the reply |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2383
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 14:05:24 -
[34] - Quote
How can people not get this?
The problem isn't N+1 per-se, the problem is that at a sufficient level of n+1, the opponent is literally unable to kill a single thing.
N+1 isn't going anywhere, what is getting tossed under the bus is being able to blob with no reasonable possibility of ship loss. |
|
|
|