Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alain Colcer]

What is the difference between your supercarriers and your dreads ?

If both were on the field at the same time, it would be like comparing a harbinger with a myrmidon. Both do the same, but use different weaponry.

However from another perspective, which is operational range, dreads become more flexible. You deploy "insurable" caps to make beacheads (once cynojammer is down) into enemy territory and then bring in the supercaps to provide fleet projection. Titans become the staging mobile base moving behind the front lines, but can also serve as reinforcement to the offensive or defensive fleet (that is if uber-ganglink bonuses are accounted) to hold position.

However my suggestion does not completely resolve one issue, proliferation of supercaps. Carriers logistics might become the weak link , and therefore other supercaps might be endangered if their tank-backbone is taken out, but you really don't put the supercaps at risk.

I've been trying to come up with some answer to that, and the only concept that spurs to my mind is "a parked supercap". In all intents it would be quite the juciy target for any confrontation, but it would require some sort of mechanism to lock the ship in a sort of POS array solely to one character. And not have it "floating" inside a POS or "tied" to a char for the rest of its eve game life. If that would happen, then i bet we would see some more risky fleet maneuvers to target strategic goals inside enemy lines.

[Bacchanalian]

Carriers: The logistics/supply backbone, up to 5 fighters only (no damage bonuses), fighters being defensive drones against capitals triage cycle shorter (2-3 mins?). No ability to use ganglinks at all. Best jump range.

Why only 5 fighters and no damage bonus out of curiosity?  Right now a carrier's damage is so inconsequential as to not matter.  A carrier 5 Thanatos is 1250 dps.  By comparison, an RR Geddon is 1150.  That's not particularly out of line with anything IMO. 

Removal of rigs to all caps/supercaps (in itself is just nonsense that i can rig a 14km long ship). In my less than well informed view, this could balance capships bewtween themselves and against sub-cap fleets, suddenly the spider tank holding the large supercap fleet has a weak point, the carrier, and they can be neuted and destroyed by subcaps.

I don't see how this would change anything about spider tanking at all.  You don't cap rig carriers for RR abilities as much as you do for fast jumping.  Strip the CCCs off of an Archon and you can still run 2 CRAR for 27 minutes if you circle-jerk 2 CETs with another Archon.  With implants that's probably cap stable, and in particular if you have the bonus from an Avatar or even simple Damnation bonuses you're probably cap stable.  What it'd probably do more than anything is gimp the Niddy and Thanny enough that major fleet battles would be taken over heavily by Archon/Chimera and/or you'd see the Chimeras go more cap-battery fit (you can armor tank a Chimmy to get more EHP than a Thanatos and have it act as a cap battery by using all of its mids for recharge and highs for cap transfer). 

I can see the argument applying to trimarks on supercaps, but I'm not entirely sure nerfing their EHP significantly would really fuck with their survivability.  Ultimately it's more about who has the bigger force to rep/kill hics/cap up than who has the bigger buffer.  If you're tackled/neuted/don't have the DPS to simply chase them off the field, you're going down whether it takes 20 seconds or 10 minutes.  That said, my personal uses for my Nyx differ widely from what most major alliances do with theirs, so a lot of what I'm talking about is theorycrafted too.  But I can tell you that my t2 trimarks on my Nyx are wholly irrelevant.  The only time I was in danger, no amount of tank would have saved me.  My fleet doing the right things and their fleet derping is what saved me.  In short, I'm not sure how removing the rigs would substantially change the current supercap meta.

[Lyn Farel]

What is the difference between your supercarriers and your dreads ?

If both were on the field at the same time, it would be like comparing a harbinger with a myrmidon. Both do the same, but use different weaponry.

So, I also suppose supercarriers prices would get in line with dreads prices ? Because in the current state of things, nobody with a sane mind would use a myrmidon that costs 20 times more (600M), and would instead use a harbinger (30M).

[Victoria Stecker]

I can see the argument applying to trimarks on supercaps, but I'm not entirely sure nerfing their EHP significantly would really fuck with their survivability.  Ultimately it's more about who has the bigger force to rep/kill hics/cap up than who has the bigger buffer.  If you're tackled/neuted/don't have the DPS to simply chase them off the field, you're going down whether it takes 20 seconds or 10 minutes.  That said, my personal uses for my Nyx differ widely from what most major alliances do with theirs, so a lot of what I'm talking about is theorycrafted too.  But I can tell you that my t2 trimarks on my Nyx are wholly irrelevant.  The only time I was in danger, no amount of tank would have saved me.  My fleet doing the right things and their fleet derping is what saved me.  In short, I'm not sure how removing the rigs would substantially change the current supercap meta.

What it would nerf is the ability to logoffski a fleet to save it. knock the EHP by 30% or so and it's just that much easier to take them down before they disappear. Not a big deal for your use, since you're not in a position to survive by logoffski, but for fleets including a lot more supers, it matters. Sorta.

Personally, I have a bigger issue with the same rig that fits a BS fitting a Titan. Make XL rigs and I'll be happier.

[Alain Colcer]

So, I also suppose supercarriers prices would get in line with dreads prices ? Because in the current state of things, nobody with a sane mind would use a myrmidon that costs 20 times more (600M), and would instead use a harbinger (30M).

uhhh good point, but i didn't try to put it that way. I was just trying to say that both ships serve the role of DPS projection, yet they use different guns.

Supercarriers have their Fighter bombers, Dreads their turret guns.

So, tyring to be fair to your point i suppose all caps/supercaps should have the same jump range, and therefore you will be able deploy them both to defensive and frontline engagements.

Still, none of my suggestions actually make caps/supercaps die as often as they should 

[Saikoyu]

The second bit of the 0.0 blog.

I don't know, some of these things sound interesting, even if I think that the major null sec alliances will game or control all of them sooner or later, unless CCP completely breaks the game.  Really I think that CCP has this all wrong though.  Why has their focus always been to get everyone to move to null sec?  Everything about null sec from CCP has always seemed like they have some sort of metric about population in null sec and they won't get a bonus if there are not enough people or something.  And if this is a sandbox game, why is null sec the only end game.  It seems with these blogs they are trying to please everyone and will therefore please no-one. 

I posted in the smallholding thread that the idea wasn't really good for the scale of null sec.  Honestly, High sec is about the NPC empires, null sec is about the player empires, nothing in either place can really be done about individules or small groups.  But something like smallholding in lowsec I think would be great, simply because almost everything in low sec is small groups, excepting FW.  So you could have one small group trying to set something up, and another small group can try to tear it down, balanced (as much as anything is in EvE) and simple. 

[Alain Colcer]

FW is also "small", the largest blobs are 50-60 peeps at most but such large fleets are very rare.

The usual is 15-20 and sometimes even less when it comes to plexing duties (4-5 the usual).

I would love to see "sovereignity" for small organizations in low-sec, and sovereignity for large organizations in null-sec.

[Myrhial Arkenath]

I jumped out of my chair and did a little dance when I read about the NPC 0.0 ideas. Fuck yeah. Do want! It's pretty retarded that at around 8.00 faction standings Angel rats decide they can still fire on me. I try to hug them and tell them I love them but it just doesn't work T_T

[Esna Pitoojee]

Some bits of that looked like decently good ideas, and there were some things which sounded kind of cool but I thought might break down in the long-term... and then there were some bits that made me kind of go "Have you people ever run a nullsec alliance? Ever lived in nullsec? Ever watched how they work there?"

[orange]

Provided some feedback in the Industry thread.  It really lead to me saying re-look at how Starbases work and making it so that the untrusted can help run & operate expensive stuff like Starbases.

Other than possibly redistributing moons (OMG I know), I do not think much needs to change on the raw resources end to make T2 industry in 0.0 mostly self-sufficient.   The real trick is making that option more appealing than high-sec (or low sec  ).

[orange]

Sorry for the double post, but I think it is worth it.

Based on what I have read, CCP is trying to guide player activity.  CCP Greyscale gave kudos to a concept presented by Holy One.

My issue with the statement by Holy One is that there is nothing stopping player alliance leadership from moving down this path other than will/desire to do so.

The tools may be cumbersome, but in my opinion the means to do so is present.

I have posted a longer version of my response in the thread.  I thought it worth discussing here, the idea that player decisions & policies, not game mechanics shape null sec.