Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1420
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 18:59:08 -
[1] - Quote
With the coming of new capital modules (plates). Masses for C5 and C6 wormholes are going to have to be changed and altered to take this in to account.
At the summit I brought up the subject of maybe allowing more capitals though a wormhole. Which people felt was worth getting player feedback. Since the mass on these have to change anyway. This would be fairly simple to do.
So if people would like to discussion if its a good or bad idea on maybe allowing more than 3 caps through a wormhole.
There is obviously pro's and con's. But we'd be interested in getting feedback on these.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1808
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 19:20:20 -
[2] - Quote
corbexx wrote:With the coming of new capital modules (plates). Masses for C5 and C6 wormholes are going to have to be changed and altered to take this in to account.
At the summit I brought up the subject of maybe allowing more capitals though a wormhole. Which people felt was worth getting player feedback. Since the mass on these have to change anyway. This would be fairly simple to do.
So if people would like to discussion if its a good or bad idea on maybe allowing more than 3 caps through a wormhole.
There is obviously pro's and con's. But we'd be interested in getting feedback on these.
From a C4 point of view, I absolutely would not want Capitals to come in and out, no matter how they are fit. From a C5 point of view, My experience is a bit rusty, but this would merely increase the destructive level one could bring in. Is that a good thing? Or just increase the opportunity to encourage PVE in the static? It probably would not be sufficient to affect PVP results, but might encourage slightly bigger fights?
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
biz Antollare
Suddenly Carebears
116
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:13:59 -
[3] - Quote
I dont care how CCP works the numbers.... just make it so you can only still fit 3 caps through WH's. |
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
553
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:27:46 -
[4] - Quote
I think the change would be mostly positive for high class space. I'll edit this post as I think of more things.
Advantages - Fights would allow both sides to commit more capitals, so multiple carriers or multiple high angle gun dreads could actually become viable. At the moment from a high class perspective with the mass limits the way they are, there's going to be very few situations in which people are going to use high angle gun dreads in PvP, a similar thing could be achieved with a vindicator or 2 which has significantly less mass and isn't constricted to a siege cycle.
- More capitals could be seeded into the home of a target at any one time, speeding up the seeding and/or eviction process which, when citadels come out, is going to become significantly harder.
- Increase in battleships in w-space. Most people love flying battleship hulls but in larger groups it's often difficult because of mass restrictions. Higher mass on the hole would probably force most major groups to incorporate large numbers of faction battleships into the typical T3 meta. If anything the entire T3 meta might go away and entire battleship fleets could become a very realistic thing. The counterplay there would also be interesting if one side was able to drop 4 high angle gun dreads and begin to volley battleships, so more interesting setups and the subsequent counterplay to these setups is always fun.
- Many people seem to believe that static sites is the way forward for wormhole PvE, alluding that there's more risk and danger if you do this rather than locking yourself down in your home and farming. I don't agree with this in the slightest, especially when groups that support this are usually the first to crit and roll all holes in their static before farming, just like you do farming in your home, but if that was the direction CCP took with PvE, this is a great step to make it viable, allowing 2 caps into the static to actually farm static sites.
Disadvantages - Increased time to rage roll. Instead of a dread and a battleship to roll a 3b hole, you might need 2 dreads and a battleship. This would make it harder for smaller rage rolling crews or smaller corps who want to frequently roll. Not a major thing though, just a slightly longer roll time.
- Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.
- Prevalence of null groups using these high mass connections to get massive fleets through. For example, if you increased the mass on a H296 connection to 5B (theoretical number there), you would also have to increase the mass on a Z142 to 5b, otherwise you would jump your 5 caps out your H296 to seed a target and not all of them would get out to null, from which they would move into another wormhole. With the increased mass to 5b larger null fleets would be able to make it through and back chains. Having said that I don't think it's a big deal, 3b is more than enough as it is now for a large null fleet to make it through and it's not something that I've seen often.
So yeah, overall I think it's positive. It's definitely a buff to larger groups though, I see very few advantages in the change for smaller groups. |
biz Antollare
Suddenly Carebears
116
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:29:59 -
[5] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
From a C4 point of view, I absolutely would not want Capitals to come in and out, no matter how they are fit. From a C5 point of view, My experience is a bit rusty, but this would merely increase the destructive level one could bring in. Is that a good thing? Or just increase the opportunity to encourage PVE in the static? It probably would not be sufficient to affect PVP results, but might encourage slightly bigger fights? Changing the limits, so two (specific) caps can do a hole roll and not get locked out, can be popular, but lower class holes, don't have such an easily predictable, ship/hole combination, so a little unfair. Am I right a dread can pass both ways, but add another cap and it isn't making it back?
wow......
gotta love the feedback from people who have never flown caps. |
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
32
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:31:06 -
[6] - Quote
Instead of breaking the balance that is WH mass, tweak capital ship mass numbers instead, it would be less hastle and less people would complain. Force auxiliarys also shouldnt have more mass than carriers do right now.
|
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
4821
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:25:49 -
[7] - Quote
I think it's an extremely bad idea to up the mass on high end WHs. wspace is blobby as it is and adding mass just feeds into that. Are there any actual numbers of how much mass the plates are going to add?
honestly, i'd be very much in favour of leaving hole mass as it is. you can still bring one plated capital as the last one through since that doesnt affect anything and plating the other 2 should come with downsides. i think if you can fit 1 non plated and 2 plated caps through as it is, there's no reason to up the mass.
If you mean upping the allowable single jump mass, that's a different story. if the mass of the caps with plates is higher than that, it should be raised accordingly. !!!NOTE!!! MAKE SURE IT IS NOT RAISED TO A POINT WHERE SUPERS FIT.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Ariete
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:31:24 -
[8] - Quote
Total Mass should stay the same, so 3 Bill. The jumpable mass ie 1.35 bill mass doesn't really matter as long as the total mass stays the same and supers and titans can not use wormholes.
3 Bill Jump mass with a 3 Bill Total Mass.......
Higs Dreads for rolling?
Ok make it 1.5 Bill Jump mas. |
Pancocco
Unsettled Unsettled.
19
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 23:06:13 -
[9] - Quote
How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/
Extra Foramen vermis nulla salus
|
biz Antollare
Suddenly Carebears
117
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:02:51 -
[10] - Quote
Pancocco wrote:How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/
how about staying on subject? |
|
Axel Stenmark
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:03:11 -
[11] - Quote
I think it is necessary to increase the total mass and max jump mass to account for the use of citadels. The CCP test run with the current dreads against an XL citadel showed how a substantial force is required to even go through the first vulnerability cycle. It looks like the defenses in WH's will get a significant buff with citadels compared to current POS defenses. Added mass for high-class wormholes could offset that defensive buff by a small amount.
If you are paranoid about losing a citadel, you should live in low-class WH space and fit it for anti-subcaps and you will have a massive advantage over any attacker trying to evict you. High-class WH space should have more risk involved to coincide with the increase in rewards. The ability for the attacker to bring in more caps in a siege is important to make killing citadels even remotely possible.
New capitals will also have less EHP and less effective DPS against subcaps, so it should still be balanced for fleet fights if an extra cap or two can get through the hole. The added mass will allow for more battleships in high-class wormhole fights, but T3's will still reign supreme in low class, so it adds variety overall without allowing for excessive blobs against low-class dwellers. Added mass also helps balance out shield versus armor because the relative mass difference between individual capital ships is not as important, especially if plates are a viable fitting choice for capitals. |
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
4821
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:14:04 -
[12] - Quote
Pancocco wrote:How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/ Given actual everyone runs shield tanked capitals atm, even on their archons, how exactly would this shake up the meta? I assume adding plates, and other things, is an attempt to change this. Realistically the meta will change anyway given there's a large scale rebalance for caps coming but as it is now, armour caps are useful more or less only for PVE.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Lyron-Baktos
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
489
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:59:49 -
[13] - Quote
Do not want more caps to come through holes |
Michael1995
Lazerhawks
226
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 03:40:50 -
[14] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group...
So Low-Class would benefit quite nicely from it then ey?!
Selling WH CFC Standings
10b/month for +10 with:
Lazerhawks,
Hard Knocks Citizens,
Isogen 5,
No Vacancies,
Sky Fighters,
Sleeper Social Club.
Join up for swag drake ganks with guardian fleets and chain rolling C1s for more dank drake ganks!
|
Winthorp
3815
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 09:14:26 -
[15] - Quote
I am fence sitting on this potential change for now as i feel we need more information to make an informed decision. There is an upcoming PVE change coming for escalations that i feel we need a devblog released before we say that WH's can now jump 4 or more caps. We don't even know how that will affect the landscape before we say either the bears or the blobbers should be able to field/drop more then 3 caps.
GET YOUR PVE ESCALATION DEVBLOG OUT FIRST CCP.
Changing mass limits that will allow more then the current 3 caps will in the end only benefit the larger groups tbh, and i am not even sure i am saying that will be a bad thing as they may enjoy being able to field 5-6 x 5-6 caps in battles and it may spice things up for them that can realistically fight them.
Smaller groups will be harmed by this mostly as with most changes but they will benefit from this also with the possibility of doctrine changes to field BS's in engagements, perhaps not against the group that can now drop 5-6 caps but they couldn't fight them anyway.
Thanks Corbexx for seeking feedback for these possible changes. |
Eikin Skjald
Kill at Will
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 10:57:53 -
[16] - Quote
Braxus Deninard wrote:I think the change would be mostly positive - for larger groups. There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.
Sticking to 3 capitals through a wormhole is probably the best idea, simply because it allows smaller groups to still effectively fight with capitals without getting capital blobbed.
Advantages - Fights would allow both sides to commit more capitals, so multiple carriers or multiple high angle gun dreads could actually become viable. At the moment from a high class perspective with the mass limits the way they are, there's going to be very few situations in which people are going to use high angle gun dreads in PvP, a similar thing could be achieved with a vindicator or 2 which has significantly less mass and isn't constricted to a siege cycle. I'm really still at a loss as to why anyone would use high angle dreads in w-space and this mass change would be a solution to that. Realistically though how many groups would actually experience the sort of situation where 2 large fleets with 4 caps each go against each other? Probably very few.
- More capitals could be seeded into the home of a target at any one time, speeding up the seeding and/or eviction process which, when citadels come out, is going to become significantly harder.
- Increase in battleships in w-space. Most people love flying battleship hulls but in larger groups it's often difficult because of mass restrictions. Higher mass on the hole would probably force most major groups to incorporate large numbers of faction battleships into the typical T3 meta. If anything the entire T3 meta might go away and entire battleship fleets could become a very realistic thing. The counterplay there would also be interesting if one side was able to drop 4 high angle gun dreads and begin to volley battleships, so more interesting setups and the subsequent counterplay to these setups is always fun. If you're connected to another group through anything that isn't a high class connection though the whole battleship fleet goes out the window.
- Many people seem to believe that static sites is the way forward for wormhole PvE, alluding that there's more risk and danger if you do this rather than locking yourself down in your home and farming. I don't agree with this in the slightest, especially when groups that support this are usually the first to crit and roll all holes in their static before farming, just like you do farming in your home, but if that was the direction CCP took with PvE, this is a great step to make it viable, allowing 2 caps into the static to actually farm static sites.
Disadvantages - Increased time to rage roll. Instead of a dread and a battleship to roll a 3b hole, you might need 2 dreads and a battleship. This would make it harder for smaller rage rolling crews or smaller corps who want to frequently roll. Not a major thing though, just a slightly longer roll time.
- Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.
- Prevalence of null groups using these high mass connections to get massive fleets through. For example, if you increased the mass on a H296 connection to 5B (theoretical number there), you would also have to increase the mass on a Z142 to 5b, otherwise you would jump your 5 caps out your H296 to seed a target and not all of them would get out to null, from which they would move into another wormhole. With the increased mass to 5b larger null fleets would be able to make it through and back chains. Having said that I don't think it's a big deal, 3b is more than enough as it is now for a large null fleet to make it through and it's not something that I've seen often.
So yeah, overall I think it's negative. It's definitely a buff to larger groups though, I see very few advantages in the change for smaller groups.
I totally agree!
Good Statement |
Bloemkoolsaus
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
209
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 11:56:41 -
[17] - Quote
I think it would be nice to have a bit more mass so that battleships can be used more, however, I think the limit for caps should stay at 3 capitals, and for these reasons:
Braxus Deninard wrote:There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.
Braxus Deninard wrote:Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go. |
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
4821
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 12:06:50 -
[18] - Quote
Michael1995 wrote:Jack Miton wrote:yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group... So Low-Class would benefit quite nicely from it then ey?! I honestly don't know if this is meant to be funny or just ironically stupid.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Borat Guereen
Chao3 Chao3 Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:06:36 -
[19] - Quote
The main advantage smaller groups should always have over larger groups should be that the game design should grant them better mobility. To that end, going through WH should be choke points for larger groups more than it is for smaller groups.
Allowing more capitals to go through following mass changes to WH would be a direct benefit to the larger groups. The calculations should provide similar results as now, or, if anything, always making collapsing on odd numbers of max mases rather than making it easier to collapse through even number of largest ships going through. I.e. If the max mass is 300m for example, the total mass should be a multiple of 300m and not be a multiple of 600m.
Candidate for CSM XI
Speaker of Chao3
|
Winthorp
3818
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:15:56 -
[20] - Quote
Borat Guereen wrote:The main advantage smaller groups should always have over larger groups should be that the game design should grant them better mobility. To that end, going through WH should be choke points for larger groups more than it is for smaller groups.
Allowing more capitals to go through following mass changes to WH would be a direct benefit to the larger groups. The calculations should provide similar results as now, or, if anything, always making collapsing on odd numbers of max mases rather than making it easier to collapse through even number of largest ships going through. I.e. If the max mass is 300m for example, the total mass should be a multiple of 300m and not be a multiple of 600m.
Are you high son? |
|
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
3014
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:30:02 -
[21] - Quote
Look, being brutally honest here; 1) CCP does whatever CCP wants to does 2) CCP usually just screws you over first, then has a 'consultation' or discussion, leaves the problem to fester for 1 Ishtar length of time, fails to patch/fix/rebalance, then an Ishtar length of time later, just ishtars the thing 3) You are aware carriers are going to be giant bloated ishtars, right? Ishtar! 4) If CCP is going to all the trouble of swallowing a handful of dice and vomiting them out as a 3-part FAX/Fattar/Crapdread system and we're expecting the result to be all 6's, it's going to be all 1's, and at least if they toss the soap on the tiles with wormhole mass and we reach over to grab it, we'll all be equally borked. Except the small guys.
Seriously, our feedback is utterly meaningless. We would be better off sitting down in a pot of vaseline than trying to use logic.
From my conception of the upcoming capital Ishtardation, I can't see how you can make it worth you while bringing anything through a wormhole other than a FAX/Carrier combo. it will be a bit of a shakeup to the meta, and a change of clothes is as good as a romantic date i suppose, and it'll take wormholers a year or two to exhaust the new meta in new ways. So, that'll be cool.
If the mass on wormholes went up to 10 caps each way, it wouldn't matter.
let's be honest, small fry rental cheek-spreader type people in C5 space are boned, unless they can somehow deploy a citadel as a one man farm corp, in which case maybe they'll be hard to dislodge by Quaserknocks WHCFC. Hard, costly, but not impossible. Since when has it taken 5 caps on the inbound to gank a farmer? I'e been away a few months, but wasn't Dura Lexx regularly rage rolling a half dozen caps in to PUG Fleet defenders for mad ganks and dank frags and sick evictions, even at 3 per shot?
Oh my, it's going to take less time to seed a ten dread fleet. Boo hoo.
Brax is right about the nul-C5 and null-C6 connections. But also, remember the N944's and S199's as well, you'll have to change them. Ten dreads each way S199's and N944's will theoretically allow more nullbears to make Sort Dragon cry hate tears into his space diaper, becase it'll be harder to roll them shut with Higgs ruptures, and it might make logistics a bit easier. Easy fix to that is to just nerf their sawn rates even further, ever thought about that as a solution to emergent gameplay, CCP?
Oh, i guess you have. Well, go again. Nerf them until there's one per day in all of EVE.
Conclusion Do whatever you want, Goonbexx. Just ensure that whenever you jump a wormhole, you're cleared off everyone's watchlists, and Dunce Ravinne will be happy.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
228
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 09:09:06 -
[22] - Quote
I think the 3 cap max is a good limit. But i think you guys are forgetting the changes in the capitals mods. The capital plates will have some weight as the subcap version does. So if i read between the lines correctly it is more of a problem of added mass to some capitals. Imagine if you can only fit 2 armor caps through a hole wich would otherwise fit 3 shield capitals. Or because of the changes to carrier/fax/dread the number would change with each type. The problem is we don't know what the added mass will be and what mass difference there will be between fax , carrier and dread.
Lets say the mass allows 3 armor fitted caps, but allows 4 shield fitted caps what will be the consequences? Lets say FAX-mass is between carrier mass and dread mass, what is the effect then? Is there a possibility to just count the number of caps before a hole dies and not the mass?
THese things can change the meta of wh-capital battles quite a lot. We do not have engough data, probably CCP is also not sure about where to land all this.
Is there a possibility to just count the number of caps before a hole dies and not the mass?
No local in null sec would fix everything!
|
Axel Stenmark
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
16
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 22:11:06 -
[23] - Quote
"Internal Playtest update: XL citadel successfully reinforced. We entered the field with 41 faction fit dreads, left with 26." - CCP Fozzie
Tweet Reddit Thread
I've been trying to emphasize the increase in defensive capabilities in all classes of wormholes. Has there ever been a single POS that killed 26 out of 41 faction fit dreads by itself before being reinforced? Imagine attacking a citadel with that much firepower while there is an enemy fleet defending it as well.
Note that the OP mentions high-class WH mass only. If you get an XL citadel up in a C1-C4 it will be nearly impervious as you can focus all defenses entirely on subcaps.
C6-C6 should have an appropriate amount of risk for the higher site payout. Part of that has risk has been invasions, which has led to some of the most memorable fights. It would be a shame if invasions become impractical/irrelevant in the citadel expansion. WH space is supposed to be dangerous, not just an ISK printing option.
That said, hopefully the capital escalation changes are done right to keep the reward side balanced as well. |
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
3015
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 03:55:35 -
[24] - Quote
Well, if the rate of attrition for a nullsec blob style dread fleet is 30% going up against an XL Citadel, and the most dreads per side in wormholes is...er, lets say 30, then clearly when Hard Knocks builds its XL Citadel in its C6 Magnetar it will become literally impregnable.
Which is fine, because the way the meta has been going lately in high-end evictions, what you are doing is actually forcing losses on the attacker in the RF phase instead of the usual way things go, which is that the attacker spends 23 hours of solid brain death RFing 68++ Large POSs which are utterly helpless against even a couple of dreads, and then you fight on the timer during the mopping up phase.
So I'm not sure that this really changes much, it just removes the boring gameplay of RF timers for POSs and forces a major battle to occur in the RF phase. The honest "evict for gudfite" crowd will get their gudfite at day zero, instead of having to seed 16 yachts and spend a month being a PITA and then 72 hours of structure grind to loot pinata. They'll lose some dreads, big whoop, go grind some more krab pots.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Winthorp
3824
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 06:54:33 -
[25] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: then clearly when Hard Knocks builds its XL Citadel in its C6 Magnetar it will become literally impregnable. .
**** when did HK move into a C6 mag, i am so behind on the intels......... |
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2164
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:45:39 -
[26] - Quote
I would like it so that you could do 4 capital jumps through a C5/6 wormhole. This would make it so that you could field 2 capital ships in a connecting c5/6 and then return home. This is especially important if CCP are still planning to change the escalation mechanic to incentive farming your static in stead of your home.
As for capital size plates, their volume should be carefully considered to ensure that we can fit several of these in out cargo bay.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2164
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 12:53:33 -
[27] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote: Lets say the mass allows 3 armor fitted caps, but allows 4 shield fitted caps what will be the consequences?
People would switch to shield capitals.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
3015
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 13:38:39 -
[28] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Trinkets friend wrote: then clearly when Hard Knocks builds its XL Citadel in its C6 Magnetar it will become literally impregnable. . **** when did HK move into a C6 mag, i am so behind on the intels.........
I dunno. I'm just spitballing.
I think that the current meta is pretty much exhausted as far as C5/C6 Lyfe goes. We have had six years o develop a meta around 3B mass, 3 caps + small fleet one way, or any combination thereof, and counters to it. The meta has evolved with the nerfs and buffs and rebalances to subcaps insofar as to what subs you bring along with what capitals (+/- how pimp you want your Nid to be or Peenix, etc etc).
Theres been some interesting metas. The Nid + Sleip fleet. The Nid and Curse + Cerbs. Etc etc. But the basic maths are to make a fleet work around a set number of caps, even if you go in YOLO style and plan on losing everything for a gudfite.
One argument is that this should change. I don't see why not, especially if you're going to have to lose a dozen dreads taking out a XL Citadel owned by one bear with no defence fleet. Anyone who says this won't happen, just see the toon Iron Bank. QED.
So, the caps through a hole equation might change the number of subcaps through the same hole, because maths. But lets not fool ourselves, we've seen 250 a side fights in wormholes before, multiple times. Mass per connection is no object as long as people want to let a batphone brew up for a nice fight and a nice vid of one side wiping the floor with the other or whatever.
Thus, CCP really needs to make a decision whether they decouple frigate holes from subcap holes from capital holes, or just keep mass alone as the sole attribute governing hole capacity.
for example, frigate holes have a mass set below cruisers (except HICs). C2-C4 holes have a mass set below capitals. Adding mass to C5 and C6 holes to allow more caps through will change the number of smaller ships you can jam through, complicate rolling time and maths, etcetera.
But setting a hard integer limit on capital jumps, exclusive of subcap jumps, might be an option. Ten caps, but only 2B subcap mass, for instance. Bring ten carriers and dreads but only 20 BS (50 cruisers, 250 dessies and 1000 frigs) one way.
This will change the meta of wormhole fights at the big end of town. No longer just 3 caps one way, plus a subcap fleet. Shake things up. Might be exciting.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
424
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 23:31:23 -
[29] - Quote
Axel Stenmark wrote:"Internal Playtest update: XL citadel successfully reinforced. We entered the field with 41 faction fit dreads, left with 26." - CCP Fozzie TweetReddit ThreadI've been trying to emphasize the increase in defensive capabilities in all classes of wormholes. Has there ever been a single POS that killed 26 out of 41 faction fit dreads by itself before being reinforced? Imagine attacking a citadel with that much firepower while there is an enemy fleet defending it as well. Note that the OP mentions high-class WH mass only. If you get an XL citadel up in a C1-C4 it will be nearly impervious as you can focus all defenses entirely on subcaps. C6-C6 should have an appropriate amount of risk for the higher site payout. Part of that has risk has been invasions, which has led to some of the most memorable fights. It would be a shame if invasions become impractical/irrelevant in the citadel expansion. WH space is supposed to be dangerous, not just an ISK printing option. That said, hopefully the capital escalation changes are done right to keep the reward side balanced as well.
Invasions are fun for the victor (well after they win) but cancer for the alliance/corp that loses all its stuff.
Why should we care... cause once a eviction happens a significant proportion of the evicted leave w space.. either for k space or the game entirely.
maybe its just me... but i want the prey to stay in w space... breed... and so i can kill them another day.
but with the death of cloaky hunting in w space after citadels... hey maybe evictions.. will be all we have left.
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
Paul Vashar
Periphery Bound New Signature
82
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 17:57:30 -
[30] - Quote
Without more info.... Das ist mir wurscht |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |