Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tore Vest
211
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 11:39:00 -
[91] - Quote
Some CEO's (mittens) should be fired for not paying attention when supercap arms race started .
Now... they want CCP to help them
Highsec carebear... and proud of it |
baltec1
611
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 11:48:00 -
[92] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:In PVP, there is usually a 100% correlation between an alliance comprised of very high skilled characters and an alliance that employs inovative tactics and good strategy. I aplologize for not staing that in big bold letters for you.
The titans is currently the tool of choice for the elite PVP alliances. And no, when i talk of blob I talk about numerical superiority - as in more players. Quantity is better ships, better tactics. Titans are better ships.
I assume you ment quality there.
Titans are blobed. There is no special tactic involved they just arrive and kill everything in front of them in utter safety, elite PVP alliances are just as boned as everyone else because there are no tactics or better ships that can confront them. Just bigger blobs of titans.
Blobs have always happened and always will. What makes it different now is that there is a blob you cannot counter. You continue to say that the CFC would have an unfair advantage if titans got nerfed but would you be saying that if the CFC were the ones with the titan advantage? The argument that titans should not be nerfed because of blobs is abserd. EVE history is full of examples of the blob being beaten by a smaller, better force. Blobs much larger than the CFC.
There are times for making new ships to provide a counter for something and times when it is just best to nerf something to be in line with everything else. Like ECM titans require that nerf, as they have in the past. But it is important to make sure they do have a roll to play in a fleet rather nerf them into the ground. They should be the last word in capital killers, they should provide a fleet with support like a being a fleet wide command ship (flagship if you will). So they need to be both nerfed and buffed to make them right. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
211
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 11:54:00 -
[93] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:In PVP, there is usually a 100% correlation between an alliance comprised of purely high skilled characters and an alliance that employs inovative tactics and good strategy. I aplologize for not staing that in big bold letters for you.
The titans is currently the tool of choice for the elite PVP alliances. And no, when i talk of blob I talk about numerical superiority - as in more players. Quantity is better ships, better tactics. Titans are better ships.
Right, I understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the best tactics seems to be to one of quantity - i.e. more titans or a bigger blob. And that would never change unless mechanisms that favor synergy among ship types are strengthen and I think that was basically what you did discuss in your OP - but only as a counter against titan blobs. More titans would probably still be the best strategy if you had the means to deploy them.
Another way would ofc be to target the blob itself, cap or subcap, by introducing mechanisms that would limit deployment (e.g. spool up timers), decreasing the efficiency (electronic interference) or increasing vulnerability (AOE).
|
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
355
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 12:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You continue to say that the CFC would have an unfair advantage if titans got nerfed but would you be saying that if the CFC were the ones with the titan advantage?.
Yes Baltec, as the matter of fact I would, because unlike you, I have a game design perspective when I post. I dont belong to any powerblock, and my nullsec characters are in alliances with zero titans.
That said, had the roles been reversed I suspect that the CFC propaganda - and by extension you - would have taken the opposite view of what you hold now. If you had them, titanblobs would be "fine".
Speaking of which - I dont intend to fill another thread with you sperging propaganda like a god damn parrot on autorepeat, so consider this my last answer to any of your posts in this thread. Go sperg somewhere else, preferably start your own thread. |
baltec1
611
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 12:08:00 -
[95] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:baltec1 wrote:You continue to say that the CFC would have an unfair advantage if titans got nerfed but would you be saying that if the CFC were the ones with the titan advantage?. Yes Baltec, as the matter of fact I would, because unlike you, I have a game design perspective when I post. I dont belong to any powerblock, and my nullsec characters are in alliances with zero titans. That said, had the roles been reversed I suspect that the CFC propaganda - and by extension you - would have taken the opposite view of what you hold now. If you had them, titanblobs would be "fine". Speaking of which - I dont intend to fill another thread with you sperging propaganda like a god damn parrot on autorepeat, so consider this my last answer to any of your posts in this thread. Go sperg somewhere else, preferably start your own thread.
This is why the CFC openly says tech should be nerfed.
Dismissing an argument based upon what alliance I am in is no way to discuss something. |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
355
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 12:24:00 -
[96] - Quote
Lexmana wrote: Right, I understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the best tactics seems to be to one of quantity - i.e. more titans or a bigger blob. And that would never change unless mechanisms that favor synergy among ship types are strengthen and I think that was basically what you did discuss in your OP - but only as a counter against titan blobs. More titans would probably still be the best strategy if you had the means to deploy them.
Well there is blob and there is blob. Strategically speaking the CFC has the numerical superiority in players, while team tech has fewer players but are better skilled, trainend and equipped (with among other things titans). Tactically, dropping 40 titans in a battle is certainly a titan blob, but when i refer to blob vs titans or quantity vs quality i speak about the strategic level. |
Glarealot
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 13:19:00 -
[97] - Quote
0.0 combat is borked. Just stay out of 0.0 and do FW in highsec. BAM, winner! |
Shadowsword
The Scope Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 13:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:I dont assume anything. It is a fact that the CFC enjoys a numerical superiority over team tech, about 3:1 I think is close to reality.
I've seen the Death/XXX bring 700+ members into a solar system, so implying they don't themselves blob is dishonnest. But that's really besides the point.
I missed the part where you said that the temporary and fleeting numbers of one coalition or another was pertinent to discuss ship balancing. But I'd be interested to see you backing up that theory.
Quote: It is a fact that alliances like PL consists for all intents and purposes purely very higly skilled characters. Last I checked, their average SP was around 100 million. Alliances like Goonswarm and Test isnt even close. Finally it is a fact that team tech holds a numerical superiority in Titans.
You missed what I said.
Is there a SIGNIFIANT difference in combat power between a guy with, say, 30M SP, and another with 100M? Sure, that other guy might do 3% more damage, will use 5% less cap on it's MWD, has a borader choice in racial ship and recycle better. Big deal.
It's not SP amount that define sovereignty. It's willpower, and that willpower translate in large part into the number of pilots you can mobilise.
Quote: What I am saying however, is that QUANTITY (The blob) should NOT be the only viable doctrine in nullsec warfare. For most of its existence, EVE has had smaller QUALITY ("elite PVP") alliances that have won battles, campaigns and even wars. I dont want to see that gone in favor of the return to the blob only.
So lets just agree to disagree on that particular issue.
Don't try to paint the world in only black and white. The two coaltions we discuss have BOTH quality and quantity. The only difference is that one of them has an edge in number (collective willpower), while the other is heavily relying on a flaw of the game design (supercaps when in large numbers). |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
355
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:17:00 -
[99] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote: Don't try to paint the world in only black and white. The two coaltions we discuss have BOTH quality and quantity. The only difference is that one of them has an edge in number (collective willpower), while the other is heavily relying on a flaw of the game design (supercaps when in large numbers).
And with that you told me everything I need to know abouth where you come from. ktxbye |
Vaffel Junior
Resilience.
83
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:22:00 -
[100] - Quote
Those alliances that failed joining supercap arms race can just pack their bags and move to npc space Dont blame CCP ... Blame your leaders |
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
211
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:23:00 -
[101] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:Well there is blob and there is blob. Strategically speaking the CFC has the numerical superiority in players, while team tech has fewer players but are better skilled, trainend and equipped (with among other things titans). Tactically, dropping 40 titans in a battle is certainly a titan blob, but when i refer to blob vs titans or quantity vs quality i speak about the strategic level.
I agree that a smaller group of experienced players should be able to beat a much larger crowd in battle by superior planning, tactics, co-ordination and individual skill. That is just good game design.
But from what I can see from your reasoning you think that should not apply as soon as you (and your alliance) are able to fly and afford titans. At that level of game play only quantity should matter - i.e. more titans. And that is the strategy you name: "Elite PvP".
What is so "Elite" with having SP and ISK? It can be bought straight off the market and character bazar with your daddy's credit card before you have even finished the tutorials.
Now, EVE is an ultra capitalistic game so it might fit perfectly within the game (and meta game) that a certain amount of SP and ISK, even if it is bought with $$ from the market, should enable you to steamroll those who have less. But I personally think it just reflects lack of creativity from game designers and points towards a very dull and boring "end-game" of titan blob online.
|
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
355
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:35:00 -
[102] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:[Don't try to paint the world in only black and white. The two coaltions we discuss have BOTH quality and quantity. The only difference is that one of them has an edge in number (collective willpower), while the other is heavily relying on a flaw of the game design (supercaps when in large numbers).
Vaffel Junior wrote:Those alliances that failed joining supercap arms race can just pack their bags and move to npc space Dont blame CCP ... Blame your leaders
Lexmana wrote:What is so "Elite" with having SP and ISK? It can be bought straight off the market and character bazar with your daddy's credit card before you have even finished the tutorials.
You know, I really dont care. This thread is about probably the biggest game design issue that faces CCP currrently, namely how to create a counter to the titan blob, withouth killing the titan as a combat ship
It is NOT a thread about discussing the relative merits of either side of the conflict. To be honest I couldnt ******* care less. You can continue to finger f***k me with the finer points of the relative strenght and weaknesses of the warring parties or definitions provided as part of the bacground, or you can stop beeing f**king useless spergelords and stick to the god damned topic. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1179
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:49:00 -
[103] - Quote
Riley Moore wrote:Any additional* titan on the same grid reduces all capital class ships electronics by 33%. Stacking without penalty.
3* titans on grid = no locking capabilities from ALL capital ships (including supercaps) on the same grid. This simulates the vast electronic interference a titan produces. Bases on standing or somesuch. Or just make a hardcap of 4 titans per grid, any more = useless capital fleet.
Now you can use your 30 titans to attack 15-30* odd targets at the same time on different grids/systems.
* Numbers are open for balance discussion
You know... I can live with that.
+ 1
|
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
327
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:51:00 -
[104] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Riley Moore wrote:Any additional* titan on the same grid reduces all capital class ships electronics by 33%. Stacking without penalty.
3* titans on grid = no locking capabilities from ALL capital ships (including supercaps) on the same grid. This simulates the vast electronic interference a titan produces. Bases on standing or somesuch. Or just make a hardcap of 4 titans per grid, any more = useless capital fleet.
Now you can use your 30 titans to attack 15-30* odd targets at the same time on different grids/systems.
* Numbers are open for balance discussion You know... I can live with that. + 1
I worked it out a bit in the scc-lounge
Riley Moore > 4+ titans on same grid = so much electronic interference from the vast systems on the titans rendering all capital and super capitals on the same grid unable to lock anything
Riley Moore > lets add in more negative effects: 200% increase in time to warp, cap recharge -50%, resistances -50%
Riley Moore > the super carriers could be like 20 on grid, any more = penalties across grid on all supercaps
Riley Moore > 200 carriers max, same penalties Riley Moore > then you're forced to split to different grids
Riley Moore > it does fit into the scifi stuff though, large ships do create so much electronic "noise" Riley Moore > you can explain it that way (lore wise) Riley Moore > too much electronic noise from other ships causing electronic's failures across vast systems on titans, capitals and supers carriers Riley Moore > subcaps are small enough to not be effected by it Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524 |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1179
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 14:58:00 -
[105] - Quote
Riley Moore wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Riley Moore wrote:Any additional* titan on the same grid reduces all capital class ships electronics by 33%. Stacking without penalty.
3* titans on grid = no locking capabilities from ALL capital ships (including supercaps) on the same grid. This simulates the vast electronic interference a titan produces. Bases on standing or somesuch. Or just make a hardcap of 4 titans per grid, any more = useless capital fleet.
Now you can use your 30 titans to attack 15-30* odd targets at the same time on different grids/systems.
* Numbers are open for balance discussion You know... I can live with that. + 1 I worked it out a bit in the scc-lounge Riley Moore > 4+ titans on same grid = so much electronic interference from the vast systems on the titans rendering all capital and super capitals on the same grid unable to lock anything Riley Moore > lets add in more negative effects: 200% increase in time to warp, cap recharge -50%, resistances -50% Riley Moore > the super carriers could be like 20 on grid, any more = penalties across grid on all supercaps Riley Moore > 200 carriers max, same penalties Riley Moore > then you're forced to split to different grids Riley Moore > it does fit into the scifi stuff though, large ships do create so much electronic "noise" Riley Moore > you can explain it that way (lore wise) Riley Moore > too much electronic noise from other ships causing electronic's failures across vast systems on titans, capitals and supers carriers Riley Moore > subcaps are small enough to not be effected by it
I think you should perhaps look at basing that per x-amount of supers per fleet as opposed to per grid.
Also, sub caps should be effected as well.
I'm not 100% behind your figures, but I approve of the idea behind it. It will not be something that prevents you from spamming a titan/sc/cap/sub cap blob on the grid, but it will have its side effects that will definitely not make you or your brosefs happy pandas. |
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
327
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:02:00 -
[106] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:
I think you should perhaps look at basing that per x-amount of supers per fleet as opposed to per grid.
Also, sub caps should be effected as well.
I'm not 100% behind your figures, but I approve of the idea behind it. It will not be something that prevents you from spamming a titan/sc/cap/sub cap blob on the grid, but it will have its side effects that will definitely not make you or your brosefs happy pandas.
Can't put them per corp, or per fleet or per alliance, you need to have the penalties per grid. Otherwise you'll end up with 30+ fleets all blue to each other each contraining X titans/supers. Same with corp or alliances.
Sub caps need to not be effected so they can actually take out the bigger ships if they blob.
I know it's not an elegant solution, but it's the best I can come up with to counter the more=better problem. Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2070
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:05:00 -
[107] - Quote
so you basically have a race, whoever is the first to bring 30 titans on grid (i.e. log them in and jump) is victorious
no thanks! yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
359
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:11:00 -
[108] - Quote
Andski wrote:so you basically have a race, whoever is the first to bring 30 titans on grid (i.e. log them in and jump) is victorious
no thanks!
Yeah... Andski is right here. I have yet to read a hard-capping proposal that doesnt run into this problem tbh. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:14:00 -
[109] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:At that level of game play only quantity should matter - i.e. more titans. And that is the strategy you name: "Elite PvP".
What is so "Elite" with having SP and ISK? It can be bought straight off the market and character bazar with your daddy's credit card before you have even finished the tutorials. Oh my, people are figuring out why we call people ~elite pvp~.
The secret is out. |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
109
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:16:00 -
[110] - Quote
Jooce McNasty wrote:Reilly Duvolle wrote:Jooce McNasty wrote:Personally with these 2 changes Titans and Supers remain a massive defensive force but when on offense they lose the ability to hotdrop on fleets. Jooce Yes. The problem with this however, is that it will give the defender a massive advantage over the attacker, probably to a level were it would be futile to try an attack in the first place. So, the Titan blob shifts from a offensive weapon to a defensive weapon, making it impossible to eject alliances from space they allready hold. This would be bad. After all, we want to promote conflict, not restrain it. It could but then if they have all their titans in one place, attack somewhere else. Also Titans and Supers can be **** caged in poses. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a problem in itself. It also might be a good idea to give a reason to attack two systems at once or three systems instead of focusing on one. it's not a perfect solution but I view it as one of the major problems of super caps.
Enough of the nerfs.
Just lock them out of the rest of space. Set them to SOV claimable space only and restore their use of bridges, etc.
That would leave battleships as the biggest combat ships in highsec, capitals for WH, low and NPC null, with SOV having the super capitals - which leaves them for use, where they can be built. Just remove the current "I win" factor from when they pick fights outside of SOV lands.
This way the rest of the game can go on with it's battles and if they wish to participate outside of SOV wars, they can bring something that is the right size for the fight and "allowed" in that space.
There are a lot of problems in the game that could use fixing and I don't think investing huge amounts of time trying to nerf supers into something, those who cannot build them can fight, is really worth the time and effort - better to just limit where they can go/what they can do and leave them alone.
IMO - This beats the hell out of trying to nerf those beasts into something that can be faced by those who cannot build them and bring them to the fights.
SOV lands are already "owned space" with easy intel and the "I win" ships. As such, you can't challenge there from outside so why the hell try to nerf those ships? Join up with the SOV holders if you want and be part of the super caps movement or find other parts of the game to play in where you have a shot at fighting and winning -- right now this isn't possible so just fix that part and go on to the next issue. |
|
5p4c3 M4n
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:20:00 -
[111] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:
You literally made my roommate laugh :P
His words:
"Adding **** to a game is the exact opposite of improving balance."
This is exactly why devs get so many complaints about their game. Sometimes or actually a lot of the time, adding stuff to game is a perfect way to balance and also makes the game tremendously more interesting for the people paying them to live. Most devs have that stupid God complex that makes them think they know everything just because "it's their game". Maybe if devs would pull their heads out and listen to the people that spend hours and days in game living with stupid dev mistakes then things would be MUCH MORE BALANCED!!!
Tell your roommate to try listening and give up the arrogance, then he/she might be amazed at what they can accomplish and how many more subscribers "suddenly" find their game more fun than anything else. |
Tore Vest
219
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:21:00 -
[112] - Quote
Supers and titans are just fine... enough nerfed.... Now... Its up to ppl... alliances... CEO's... to adapt..... Leave CCP and the nerf hammer out of this... This is just stupid Highsec carebear... and proud of it |
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
327
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:26:00 -
[113] - Quote
Andski wrote:so you basically have a race, whoever is the first to bring 30 titans on grid (i.e. log them in and jump) is victorious
no thanks!
Until you use your grey mass and realise if the enemy has 30 titans on the grid, they'll be useless. Thats an expensive wall you're bringing.
Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524 |
baltec1
612
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:27:00 -
[114] - Quote
Tore Vest wrote:Supers and titans are just fine... enough nerfed.... Now... Its up to ppl... alliances... CEO's... to adapt..... Leave CCP and the nerf hammer out of this... This is just stupid
Name a counter to a titan blob other than more titans. |
Tore Vest
219
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:30:00 -
[115] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Name a counter to a titan blob other than more titans.
Build more titans then.... and pick your figths.... Dont sit here and cry
Highsec carebear... and proud of it |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
211
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 15:40:00 -
[116] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:You know, I really dont care. This thread is about probably the biggest game design issue that faces CCP currrently, namely how to create a counter to the titan blob, withouth killing the titan as a combat ship
There would not need to be a counter to the titan blob if it would make no sense blobing with titans.
For example, if titans received bonuses from the proximity of other ships in the fleet there would be no titan blobs and the ship would still be very viable for combat. It would also benefit those who bring mixed fleets and protect their own:
frigates = + tracking cruisers= + range battleships = +damage capitals = +hp titans = - all of the above |
Leana Akachi
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:04:00 -
[117] - Quote
So the point is that titans need to be nerfed (again) since if the other side doesn't have same or superior number of titans to drop in the fight, they cant win?
Lets say CCP nerfs titans...(again), so they have 50% less hp, and 50% less tracking. What would happen? Nothing, the titan blob would continue to rise. If 30 titans is not enough, drop 60....in reality it just doubled the number of guns and the chance of them hitting something. If you nerf them below the SC level, somebody will just drop 500 Nyx in a system.
As the end game ship, its supposed to be a monster in its own class. Funny thing is, less titans would be hot dropped to fight if they still had AoE DD, some older players can remember how much titans were in fights with AoEs.
Right now this thread looks like a whine with pros and cons about titans. Can alliances in 0.0 build titans - yes. Can you buy a titan in-game - yes. Can they afford titans - yes. Can they train/buy chars capable of flying titans - yes. What is stopping a null sec superpower alliance to own 50+ titans - nothing.
Titans are owning right now, true. A blob of welpcanes (dont remember the number, sorry) also owned a sub-cap fleet and raped 2 SC (hel and wyvren IIRC), and nobody called for cane nerf. I get a feeling somebody would cry for a nerf if 500 rifters couldn't kill a titan. |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
359
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:16:00 -
[118] - Quote
Leana Akachi wrote:So the point is that titans need to be nerfed (again) since if the other side doesn't have same or superior number of titans to drop in the fight, they cant win?
No.
the point is to find good counters to the titan blob without nerfing the titan itself. As I have said in the OP, ship for ship the titans are where they ought to be. the problem is that they scale badly with numbers, becoming unstoppable rapetrains when used en-masse. Right now, the only counter to a titan blob is a bigger titan blob. This thread is about what other posibilities there is (or should be). |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:24:00 -
[119] - Quote
Depending on the relative costs of Dreadnaughts vs Titans (how many times is it?) you could bring a "cluster flock" of dreads. But if you were to say outnumber them 10x, 30 titans would mean you take in 300 dreads, which is pretty damn lot.
And I think the time ratio it takes to make a dread: titan is not as favorable as the cost. Anyone know the cost and time to make a dread/titan?
There's also interesting mechanics with subcap fleets and cynojammers. But titans should be nerfed (I mean this seriously). Having a thousand over people tiptoing around because of 30 ~elite pvp~ fellows in massive capital ego booster. Oh well. |
Captain Torgo
The Geedunk Expedition
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:36:00 -
[120] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.
Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.
Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.
Problem solved.
*Dusts off hands and walks away* Unfortunately you dusted your hands and waked away with the problem unsolved.
I fully agree that increasing the build costs dramatically will help solve the cap problem, forcefully removing titans will only cause problems. Who's do we delete and who do we allow to keep theirs? Some alliances only have one whereas others have 40+ to toss around. The forced removal will dramatically shift power and players will cry foul and CCP favoritism.
CCP needs to address the real problem with caps. In small numbers, they're reasonably balanced. However with large cap blobs they're severely overpowered with no counter.
So, why are there so many caps on the field? Simple, EvE has an overabundance of minerals? Where did the massive quantities of minerals come from? They came from the rampant and unchecked botter infestation mining 23/7/365. The botting infestation that CCP is neglecting again.
If the material cost for cap production was dramatically increased, then the cap blob warfare would eventually thin out over time due to insufficient materials and/or cost. However since bots are pumping in minerals at an alarming rate, alliances can easily afford to pump out caps at equally alarming rates.
TL;DR summary - deal with the bots and dramatically increase cap ship production costs. Then the problem will sort itself out on its own over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |