EVE General Discussion

unless a drake with officer BCUs is supposed to oneshot carriers?

gains in performance across tiers are marginal and the increase in cost is by an order of magnitude, and while some attributes increase across tiers others decrease (such as mobility)

CCP have repeatedly dropped the hammer in instances where the game was just becoming a game of bringing the most of the biggest thing available: see the removal of AoE DDs, rebalancing of supercarriers and titans and the titan tracking nerf

drone assist isn't a function limited to carriers or expensive ships in any way

You're being an idiot.

No-one said that 600 Rifters should beat 300 Megathrons.

Imagine that it was 600 Rifters vs 300 Megathrons though, and the Megas aren't fitted specifically to deal with frigates, how many Megathrons do you think will die? Because I think it's a fair amount, because 300 Megathrons on their own without logistics or support ships can do basically nothing to 600 frigates. Even if the 300 Megathrons was acutally a 300 man "megathron fleet" (i.e. it had logistics and things) I'm pretty sure a good number of ships would die.

This doesn't happen in the current scenario with carriers though, when we haven't dropped capitals the slowcat fleet takes little to no damage.

Note how I didn't say I think the rifters would or should win, just that actual damage is inflicted to the enemy fleet.

All of that is irrelevant though, as you managed to ignore the prevailing point of my post:

Imagine an EVE where the "top" class ship in the game was a Battleship, not a capital ship. The CFC has already proven it can field more BS then any other entity in EVE, so if capital ships didn't exist, do you think it would be OK for the CFC to be unbeatable no matter what?

Because this is essentially what you and people like you argue in favour of, you just move the goalpost. Whoever owns the more titans wins is "interesting" but whoever owns the most battleships is "boring". Whoever can field the biggest supercapital blob is "elite PvP" but whoever fields the most battleships is "blobbing".

What if in time the CFC is the one fielding the biggest supercapital fleet in the game, do you think it's right we can engage anyone with almost 0 losses in every fight? I suspect not.

"Cost" should not be a balancing factor, using the right ship with the right fitting should be the main aim of the game. Sure some ships are bigger/more powerful, but a fleet of battleships with no logistics or support WILL be killed by a fleet of frigates, whereas it's clearly not the case for the slowcats or supers, not least because they can perform all these functions in one go.

Fallacious argument.

There is a large difference in cost between battleships and carriers/supercarriers/titans.

If battleships were unbeatable, that would obviously be a problem because battleships are cheap and easily replaceable.

A titan/supercap is NOT easily replacable.

The situation is that one side, over the course of years, has accumulated a large supercap fleet. The other side either has not accumulated one, or is unwilling to commit them.

If both sides were willing to commit, and both sides suffered hefty losses, it wouldn't be sustainable to keep massing new fleets. One side would run out steam when trying to replenish such expensive ships.

It surprised literally nobody when CFC lost the fight where N3 comitted 60 Titans and CFC didn't even have the balls to field a single supercap.

This isn't a matter of "whoever has the most supercaps wins" we're talking about a situation where one side is willing to stick trillions of ISK on the battlefield, and the other is not.

Sure, an individual titan here and there gets replaced. Sure, occasionally one side loses a few supers. Sometimes even 20 or so. But there are never enough conflicts to reduce the numbers. Because one side is fielding them, and the other isn't.

it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist

you realize that cost is an afterthought, right

the market value of things is determined entirely by the player market, a consequence of the game being an economically driven sandbox, as you say

the only controls CCP have over the cost of any particular item are rarity (in the case of raw materials, officer loot, etc) and mineral cost (in the case of anything that is built with blueprints)

so yes cost is an afterthought

No, it needs to add "per unit of monetary value spent" and then it's your argument.
And I like how this is the first time words have been put in the mouth of CFC (If it happened at all).
It's almost like you don't like your own medicine.

For reference, check out a good amount of baltec1 or James Amril-Kesh posts, or any post by Alavaria Fera (Although there you could also get a mix of Reddit/EVE/general internet memes).

Aside from the fact that CCP have stated that capitals should never be invincible to subcaps we have the record of them nerfing capitals at least five times to stop capitals from being invulnerable to subcaps. N3 can bring just as many subcaps as we can so why, if we kill their subcaps, should we not be able to take down their now unescorted capitals?

You are literally arguing for a stalemate situation where two superpowers dominate null and are unable to gain victory over eachother while everyone else (the vast bulk of EVEs population) find it impossible to do anything to us.

The more the goons cry, the better this thread gets.