These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

No skills required for winning with the most capitals?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2013-12-13 08:00:15 UTC
Some person who shall rename nameless said there are not skill involved in fighting a capital battle. Because the one who jumps in most capitals win. And spamming capitals onto field is not skill.
But is this true? How much skill was required to collect such a vast number of capitals? Isn't there skill involved in amassing lots of ships and pilots and make them capable of buying ships? You have to recruit people, coordinate money-making and manufacturing, coordinate doctrines and fleet action to keep your PVP pilots busy (but not overwork them), do diplomacy with your neighboring corps and alliances, treat allies so good they risk their supers for you, and you must be able to coordinate so that you can help them in return.
Its all terribly complicated and involves hundreds of people all doing on average 17 hours of gametime per week (old numbers I think, but that is what the average player used at the time per week on Eve). That's a 50% job position.

I think there's lots of skill involved in spamming caps to the field, the spamming of caps to the field is the result of years of man-hours.

Maybe people who do it day to day can explain some of the work that goes into preparing to spam capitals onto the field? Explain to the ones that think you just sit on your lazy pod.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-12-13 08:03:17 UTC
Congratulations, now you understand EVE. Now brace yourself for the hundreds of replies by people who don't.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#3 - 2013-12-13 08:07:35 UTC
I don't disagree with you OP. It's how it usually is in real life too. CCP says EVE is real. Anyway, technically, it does take skills. I mean, you cannot fly caps without skills, right? Big smile
Jarod Garamonde
Jolly Codgers
Get Off My Lawn
#4 - 2013-12-13 08:07:42 UTC
Was about to flame you for making a stupid QQ post..... something made me keep reading.
Realized you were already flaming the QQ'ers... why am I even here?

Carry on, mate.

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
Jove Death
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-12-13 08:20:13 UTC
Read the first line

jumped to the last line

left feeling i need something more in life Shocked

Quoting "you will die" in EvE is fail Chars dont die in EvE. Unless you have a heart attack eek.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#6 - 2013-12-13 08:25:20 UTC
To be honest, you should be grateful EVE capitals are so terrible compared to their real world naval counterparts.

Yes, I said it. If the good old USA were building space carriers, they'd not only be carrying massive numbers of fighters, but also support and utility ships. And, unlike the gimped EVE capitals, they'd be bristing with point defense weapons and anti-Capital weapons, electronic warfare and anti-electronic warfare systems, and of course provide command and control for entire fleets.

So yeah, our carriers suck.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#7 - 2013-12-13 08:28:56 UTC
None of that helps you win at games like CoD, and thus is not considered skill by a certain class of gamer.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Digital Messiah
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-12-13 08:35:00 UTC
Supers need to be fleet boosting ships that provide utility like fitting, clone, and a ship bay. No weapons, no doomsday, and certainly no immunity to all forms of electronic warfare. To this day I don't see the point in a ship that fits the role of a ermagod i beat eve flying titan. It is a cheap excuse for ccp to try and balance resource, skill point, and isk sinks in the game. While forcing players to battle over space with who grinds more wins.

Thanks for the weather report Tippia, Digital Messiah signing off. I'll see you next time on who has more resources and time to invest on eve.

Something clever
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#9 - 2013-12-13 08:40:36 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
To be honest, you should be grateful EVE capitals are so terrible compared to their real world naval counterparts.

Yes, I said it. If the good old USA were building space carriers, they'd not only be carrying massive numbers of fighters, but also support and utility ships. And, unlike the gimped EVE capitals, they'd be bristing with point defense weapons and anti-Capital weapons, electronic warfare and anti-electronic warfare systems, and of course provide command and control for entire fleets.

So yeah, our carriers suck.


But remember, carriers don't exist independently. They need a large group of support ships too. And of course (apart from drones), they need thousands of individual people to function. An Eve carrier needs just 1 (OK, it has a crew, but they do NOTHING in Eve, nothing at all).
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2013-12-13 08:48:32 UTC
Why was this posted to begin with? Anyone who was going to get it already gets it and anyone who doesn't isn't going to.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#11 - 2013-12-13 08:52:33 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
To be honest, you should be grateful EVE capitals are so terrible compared to their real world naval counterparts.

Yes, I said it. If the good old USA were building space carriers, they'd not only be carrying massive numbers of fighters, but also support and utility ships. And, unlike the gimped EVE capitals, they'd be bristing with point defense weapons and anti-Capital weapons, electronic warfare and anti-electronic warfare systems, and of course provide command and control for entire fleets.

So yeah, our carriers suck.


But remember, carriers don't exist independently. They need a large group of support ships too. And of course (apart from drones), they need thousands of individual people to function. An Eve carrier needs just 1 (OK, it has a crew, but they do NOTHING in Eve, nothing at all).


So drop some AHACs with the carriers.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#12 - 2013-12-13 08:54:44 UTC
Quote:
Some person who shall rename nameless said there are not skill involved in fighting a capital battle.


Oh, do tell. I've been ganked by real life pretty hard lately, so I'd love to get up to speed on this one.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kryptik Kai
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#13 - 2013-12-13 10:08:48 UTC
What you're describing is the skill of running an effective corp/alliance, not specifically the winning of battles with capitals.

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-12-13 10:15:03 UTC
Kryptik Kai wrote:
What you're describing is the skill of running an effective corp/alliance, not specifically the winning of battles with capitals.


Seek victory, then fight. Don't fight, then seek victory. - Sun Tzu. It means you prepare enough until victory is assured, then you fight. If you need to seek victory by fighting, well, its a whole bunch of bad.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#15 - 2013-12-13 10:17:24 UTC
Well it takes a little more skill (+Some balls sometimes) compared to its Sub cap fleet BS doctrines as all you have to do is align lock targets off broadcasts and F1. Caps done correctly should mean you have not much to do but if it hits the fan then you have lots to do.
It’s by no means the skill needed in say small gang/Solo PVP but other types of skills.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#16 - 2013-12-13 10:23:11 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Kryptik Kai wrote:
What you're describing is the skill of running an effective corp/alliance, not specifically the winning of battles with capitals.


Seek victory, then fight. Don't fight, then seek victory. - Sun Tzu. It means you prepare enough until victory is assured, then you fight. If you need to seek victory by fighting, well, its a whole bunch of bad.


He also said to use overwhelming numbers, and to carefully scout enemy positions.

He would have been an excellent FC.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Kryptik Kai
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2013-12-13 10:23:26 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Kryptik Kai wrote:
What you're describing is the skill of running an effective corp/alliance, not specifically the winning of battles with capitals.


Seek victory, then fight. Don't fight, then seek victory. - Sun Tzu. It means you prepare enough until victory is assured, then you fight. If you need to seek victory by fighting, well, its a whole bunch of bad.

lol, thank you for the generic art of war quote everyone is familiar with.

The point is, in all that talk you made of the skill involved in cap fights, never once did you mention "training" or "tactics". Not a single mention of anything that would allow a smaller but more skilled force to overcome a larger force. That is the point. CCP could just randomly hand out capitals to corps and have them fight immediately (thus removing all the skills you mentioned) and the result would be the same.

Please though, keep the Art of War quotes coming.

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2013-12-13 10:38:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ronny Hugo
Kryptik Kai wrote:
The point is, in all that talk you made of the skill involved in cap fights, never once did you mention "training" or "tactics". Not a single mention of anything that would allow a smaller but more skilled force to overcome a larger force.


A smaller less superior force can not win in direct controntation with a larger force. Unless you do some trickery.
1. Conveniently don't leave a way out (have someone gank the cynos you were supposed to leave with). Then, if you manage to just last long enough, you can win by default since the only side capable of leaving, leaves. D-day springs to mind.
2. Have a higher rate of fire than the other guy. Then your troops see they kill enemy faster than they themselves are killed. And if they have remarkably few problems about dying (or you also don't leave a way out), the enemy might see it also, and hence run away, because they have bigger problems about dying.
3. Maneuver. If you know they are on their way to your city, you tell them through their spy that you have turned, that you are on your way to their city, then you win the battle for your city because they turn around and head back to their city. You don't actually fight at all then, but you won a battle. Though, a Sun-Tzu learned would simply still march on to your city, and then take it, then march home, and then take that.
Other than that, its sort of very little you can do. Except stall and dodge and diplomacy and attack undefended places and build more stuffs and increase your ability to fight.
Unless you want to manually aim the guns to account for transversal and travel time hit-boxes and so forth, this is the way it will be. The ones who do most eve, is best at eve. Hitch your trailer to theirs, or hitch your trailer to the ones that want to come together to take down the ones that are best at eve.
You can have lots of good tactics, but no tactic can make a force that is not already superior, superior. If the force can be made superior by a tactic, it is already superior, you just have to find the tactic.
I suggest lots of neuts against supers. And if you can't gather lots of supers, lots of subcaps can't be unhelpful. But you have to be aware of how much you can gather, otherwise you break an important rule: Survey your army. In peace times we can improve upon it by surveying it to find out what it needs to be better with the least effort. But once battle cry is called then you just have to fight with the army you have (or don't, if its not good enough).
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#19 - 2013-12-13 10:42:03 UTC
Kryptik Kai wrote:
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Kryptik Kai wrote:
What you're describing is the skill of running an effective corp/alliance, not specifically the winning of battles with capitals.


Seek victory, then fight. Don't fight, then seek victory. - Sun Tzu. It means you prepare enough until victory is assured, then you fight. If you need to seek victory by fighting, well, its a whole bunch of bad.

lol, thank you for the generic art of war quote everyone is familiar with.

The point is, in all that talk you made of the skill involved in cap fights, never once did you mention "training" or "tactics". Not a single mention of anything that would allow a smaller but more skilled force to overcome a larger force. That is the point. CCP could just randomly hand out capitals to corps and have them fight immediately (thus removing all the skills you mentioned) and the result would be the same.

Please though, keep the Art of War quotes coming.


No tactics here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg

And as far as EVE goes, Sun Tzu is pretty much spot on.

I think your real problem is you don't know how to make friends.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Kryptik Kai
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#20 - 2013-12-13 11:22:27 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
]

No tactics here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg

And as far as EVE goes, Sun Tzu is pretty much spot on.

I think your real problem is you don't know how to make friends.


Im not involved in cap fights so how many friends I do or don't have is irrelevant

I just like to argue with people Blink

Person A says cap fights always won by side with more caps
Person B says it takes skill to have more caps
Person C (me) points out that it might be nice for those involved in cap fights if there were some more variables involved

entiendes?

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
12Next page