These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Let's talk about Capitals and Supercapitals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shady Anonymous Donor
Doomheim
#441 - 2015-04-24 17:20:14 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

"We have no idea how to make these ships fit into a role, or how to make them not excessively powerful in large groups, nor are we willing to change their function significantly, so we are going to settle for an arbitrary mechanic that makes them **** if you bring a lot of them." Not going to happen.

I don't see the problem with your somewhat sarcastic description. I would argue that my proposed 'arbitrary' mechanic would be less '****' than any new 'role' or any other attempt at limiting their power 'in large groups', as well as easier to implement. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Anhenka wrote:

Even if titans got their tracking back with Fozziesov, it would not be all that relevant since the situations that created the massive battles where tracking titans were useful (Dominion timers) are getting removed.

IIRC Asakai was not triggered by a timer. I also fail to see how titans would only be useful in massive battles. As long as there are a few dozen battleships on grid, a tracking titan can prove its worth, as well as a dread or carrier.

Anhenka wrote:

The limited BPC auctions are bad because it takes the tools that benefit people who have them, makes it easier to acquire money if you own them, then restricts obtaining them to the people that already have the money and can afford to pay more in the auctions.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. If your point is that the cap BPC lottery would benefit rich people, I agree and am perfectly content with it. Let the fat cats drop some trillions into NPC auctions. Once they realize that more caps is not always better, prices will go down.
Shady Anonymous Donor
Doomheim
#442 - 2015-04-24 17:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Shady Anonymous Donor
Anhenka wrote:

However the changes capitals occur, there are three basic criteria that the change needs to fit.

1: People must have a reason to deploy capital class ships away from structures. And more than just as links.
2: Large numbers of carriers should not be able to fulfill both the tank and dps role at the same time.
3: Capitals must be accessible to everyone with the mineral resources to create them.

#1 is required because with the removal of Sov structure grinding, the only relevant uses for carriers/dreads in PvP is Bashing POS's, Repping POS's, and Triage (Yes I know you WH's have some unusual uses, but it's not relevant in this discussion). Simply tweaking existing numbers does nothing to encourage people to use capitals in Fozziesov.

Again, not seeing the issue with using them in medium to large subcap battles, as long as you add diminishing returns on bringing more caps.

Anhenka wrote:

#2 Is required because carriers ability to both tank and DPS at the same time means that carriers can be used exclusively in static defense locations through the use of non fighter drones. That's basically been the main problem with them over the past few years. Yet you can't remove non fighter drones or repping power/range and not add other abilities without both greatly setting back #1 and making ratting and Lv V mission carriers nearly useless.

I wouldn't mind at all if we got rid of ratting and missioning carriers. Then again, I don't have any, so YMMV. If by 'tanking' you mean ludicrous amounts of long range RR, my resistance and scan res proposal would dampen that by quite a lot (although probably not eliminate it).
Anhenka wrote:

#3 Is required because there are current massive capital stocks. Removing the ability to freely build caps and supercaps means that those who have caps now gain a massive advantage over any up and coming group. Especially in a limited auction format like you proposed.

The people with the caps own the highend moons, because it's too much effort to bash Dickstars without them. Since they have the caps, they get the moons. Because they hold the moons, they have the money. Because they have the money they can use part of it to capture the lions share of the new capital construction.


You seem to believe that there is no way of getting rid of 'dickstar' POSes without caps. I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are other possibilities including but not limited to marauders. As for stockpiles of caps: imagine you suddenly ended up with a garage full of toothpaste; more than you could ever use yourself. What would you do with it? (And more importantly, would you keep going to auctions for even more toothpaste?)

Anhenka wrote:

TLDR: None of the three proposals will work.

Each on their own they certainly wouldn't, but you have so far failed to demonstrate how they could not work taken together.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#443 - 2015-04-24 17:47:06 UTC
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

"We have no idea how to make these ships fit into a role, or how to make them not excessively powerful in large groups, nor are we willing to change their function significantly, so we are going to settle for an arbitrary mechanic that makes them **** if you bring a lot of them." Not going to happen.

I don't see the problem with your somewhat sarcastic description. I would argue that my proposed 'arbitrary' mechanic would be less '****' than any new 'role' or any other attempt at limiting their power 'in large groups', as well as easier to implement. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Don't need to. Consensus from both the playerbase and from CCP's statements is that capitals need tweaking to fit into the new sov system. We don't need to convince you of that. If you have an idea, it's up to you to convince other people it's a good idea.

Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

IIRC Asakai was not triggered by a timer. I also fail to see how titans would only be useful in massive battles. As long as there are a few dozen battleships on grid, a tracking titan can prove its worth, as well as a dread or carrier.

Tracking titans were used primarily in huge fights where you would bring titans in at range on a large BS vs BS fights where the targets were committed to the fight. Cyno them in, start hitting otherwise engaged targets of opportunity. The critical part here is that in Dominion, the BS fleets were typically unable to just up and leave, due to defending a critical target.

In Fozziesov, the standard action to seeing a tracking titan group cyno in would be to extract to one of the other dozens of capture points.

P.S: There was little/no use of tracking titans in the Asakai or Uemon fights. And those are the only two significant incidents of non sov related warfare that I can think involving titans + subcaps in the past 5 years.


Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

The limited BPC auctions are bad because it takes the tools that benefit people who have them, makes it easier to acquire money if you own them, then restricts obtaining them to the people that already have the money and can afford to pay more in the auctions.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. If your point is that the cap BPC lottery would benefit rich people, I agree and am perfectly content with it. Let the fat cats drop some trillions into NPC auctions. Once they realize that more caps is not always better, prices will go down.


I'm saying that bashing a dickstar in subcaps is insanity. Due to the overwhelming HP of hardened POS's, bringing in dreads is essential if you ever want your members to join a fleet again.

No Dreads -> No Moons
No Moons -> No Money
No Money -> No Dreads

Self reinforcing advantage loops are bad. It's one of the main reasons people have bitched about supercaps is that there is a perception that you need supercaps to hold sov, and you need sov to make supercaps.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#444 - 2015-04-24 18:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

You seem to believe that there is no way of getting rid of 'dickstar' POSes without caps. I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are other possibilities including but not limited to marauders. As for stockpiles of caps: imagine you suddenly ended up with a garage full of toothpaste; more than you could ever use yourself. What would you do with it? (And more importantly, would you keep going to auctions for even more toothpaste?)

Anhenka wrote:

TLDR: None of the three proposals will work.

Each on their own they certainly wouldn't, but you have so far failed to demonstrate how they could not work taken together.


A Dickstar is a faction tower with a large number of hardeners on it. It's very common to tower highend moons with towers that are basically a silo, harvester, CHA, SMA, and then a ton of hardeners. No jammers required, it's not a highsec ECM POS.

Depending on the variation, they commonly have over 150 million EHP, with a several thousand dps regeneration tank. Killing them is not a matter of ewar immunity, it's a matter of them taking forever to bash with subs, and then needing to come back to do it again.

Speaking from personal experience, needing to kill one without dreadnaught support is the sort of thing that makes you want to quit EVE for good.

The scaling resists idea is trash. It's not a matter of it fixing the problem, it's a problem because it's a really hackjob solution, one that accomplishes the very narrow goals without concern for anything besides removing the very specific problem you are trying to solve. It's the "light your shed on fire because the paint is peeling and it's an eyesore" sort of solution.

Lighting the shed on fire means that the peeling paint is no longer an eyesore. Mission ******* accomplished. You now have no shed, and an eyesore of an ugly shed foundation.

But better the quick and dirty method of burning the shed down than to spend a bit more time and either sand and repaint or shingle the shed, right? After all, if the only thing you care about is how the paint looks bad, then they are all equally good option.
Shady Anonymous Donor
Doomheim
#445 - 2015-04-24 18:45:15 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

You seem to believe that there is no way of getting rid of 'dickstar' POSes without caps. I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are other possibilities including but not limited to marauders. As for stockpiles of caps: imagine you suddenly ended up with a garage full of toothpaste; more than you could ever use yourself. What would you do with it? (And more importantly, would you keep going to auctions for even more toothpaste?)

Anhenka wrote:

TLDR: None of the three proposals will work.

Each on their own they certainly wouldn't, but you have so far failed to demonstrate how they could not work taken together.


A Dickstar is a faction tower with a large number of hardeners on it. It's very common to tower highend moons with towers that are basically a silo, harvester, CHA, SMA, and then a ton of hardeners. No jammers required, it's not a highsec ECM POS.

Depending on the variation, they commonly have over 150 million EHP, with a several thousand dps regeneration tank. Killing them is not a matter of ewar immunity, it's a matter of them taking forever to bash with subs, and then needing to come back to do it again.

Speaking from personal experience, needing to kill one without dreadnaught support is the sort of thing that makes you want to quit EVE for good.

The scaling resists idea is trash. It's not a matter of it fixing the problem, it's a problem because it's a really hackjob solution, one that accomplishes the very narrow goals without concern for anything besides removing the very specific problem you are trying to solve. It's the "light your shed on fire because the paint is peeling and it's an eyesore" sort of solution.

Lighting the shed on fire means that the peeling paint is no longer an eyesore. Mission ******* accomplished. You now have no shed, and an eyesore of an ugly shed foundation.

But better the quick and dirty method of burning the shed down than to spend a bit more time and either sand and repaint or shingle the shed, right? After all, if the only thing you care about is how the paint looks bad, then they are all equally good option.

I was not aware that POSes without ECM also go by the colorful name, to me it was always about both, hardeners and ECM. Be it as it may, IIRC POSes are also scheduled to go the way of the dinosaur and in the mean time, justifying one broken mechanic with another one is not a good way of improving the game overall IMO.

As for your shed analogy, maybe you could expand on which problems we would ALSO have to solve? In other words, do we need that tool shed in the first place, and what for? If not, occam's razor suggests that my solution is the exact opposite of a hackjob.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#446 - 2015-04-24 19:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

I was not aware that POSes without ECM also go by the colorful name, to me it was always about both, hardeners and ECM. Be it as it may, IIRC POSes are also scheduled to go the way of the dinosaur and in the mean time, justifying one broken mechanic with another one is not a good way of improving the game overall IMO.

As for your shed analogy, maybe you could expand on which problems we would ALSO have to solve? In other words, do we need that tool shed in the first place, and what for? If not, occam's razor suggests that my solution is the exact opposite of a hackjob.


The first problem is that there's no role for carriers in the new system, and especially not with your proposal. The usefulness of a heavy fairly static defense like a carrier carrier fleet is already very much diminished because of the many capture point nature of Fozziesov. The other issue is that your assumption that there is a use for them in small quantities (not in a triage role). If you only deploy a few of them, they are useless. Sentry carriers only get use if you can deploy enough of them to have a meaningful alpha strike. It's only once you start getting 10-20 of them in once place do they have a useful effect.

But with 21 on the field and a 1% reduction per other carrier, carriers take triple damage due to reduced resists. Even 11 carriers effectively doubles the damage taken. To what end? Defending a single defense point out of dozens? Useless.

There's also the issue that both friendly and unfriendly capitals stack in resists under your method. Say you had an enemy group of 10 carriers that were not breaking to your 50 man subcap fleet. It would be laughably easy to in turn cyno your own 10 capitals in 100km off just long enough for the magical bullshit field to drop the enemy resists another 10%, increasing the damage dealt by another 50% (With them already taking 100% more due to the resist drain from their own fleet).

It's like wardeccing yourself to drive up wardec costs for anyone else. Legal, but most people agree it's really a bullshit mechanic.

Taking that bullshit mechanic and importing it to space so that bringing your own forces makes your enemies weaker is ridiculous. It not only penalizes people from bringing more than a cap or two, it also even further reinforces avoidance of using caps if your enemy might potentially bring caps, since they will be able to do it on their terms in such a way that your caps become weaker, but you are unable to effectively retaliate against theirs.

Would a scaling resist nerf solve the issue of large groups of capitals being excessively powerful?

Yes.

Would it leave non triage capitals anything to do in Fozziesov? No.
Would it leave non triage capitals in a usable state? No.
Would it help encourage people to use mixed capital/subcapitals fleets? No

Does it do anything except "solve" the issue of excessively powerful carrier blobs by nerfing carriers into the ground?
Not a damn thing
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#447 - 2015-04-24 19:40:15 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
You could have a number of carriers on a capture point in an RR loop tanking massive amounts of dps if they wanted, which frees up your fleet to go capture other points.

Nobody knows how this sov thing is going to end up, but my guess is that you'll see bigger fleets of larger ships as you get closer to an alliance's home system.
Shady Anonymous Donor
Doomheim
#448 - 2015-04-24 20:16:01 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

I was not aware that POSes without ECM also go by the colorful name, to me it was always about both, hardeners and ECM. Be it as it may, IIRC POSes are also scheduled to go the way of the dinosaur and in the mean time, justifying one broken mechanic with another one is not a good way of improving the game overall IMO.

As for your shed analogy, maybe you could expand on which problems we would ALSO have to solve? In other words, do we need that tool shed in the first place, and what for? If not, occam's razor suggests that my solution is the exact opposite of a hackjob.


The first problem is that there's no role for carriers in the new system, and especially not with your proposal. The usefulness of a heavy fairly static defense like a carrier carrier fleet is already very much diminished because of the many capture point nature of Fozziesov. The other issue is that your assumption that there is a use for them in small quantities (not in a triage role). If you only deploy a few of them, they are useless. Sentry carriers only get use if you can deploy enough of them to have a meaningful alpha strike. It's only once you start getting 10-20 of them in once place do they have a useful effect.

But with 21 on the field and a 1% reduction per other carrier, carriers take triple damage due to reduced resists. Even 11 carriers effectively doubles the damage taken. To what end? Defending a single defense point out of dozens? Useless.

There's also the issue that both friendly and unfriendly capitals stack in resists under your method. Say you had an enemy group of 10 carriers that were not breaking to your 50 man subcap fleet. It would be laughably easy to in turn cyno your own 10 capitals in 100km off just long enough for the magical bullshit field to drop the enemy resists another 10%, increasing the damage dealt by another 50% (With them already taking 100% more due to the resist drain from their own fleet).

It's like wardeccing yourself to drive up wardec costs for anyone else. Legal, but most people agree it's really a bullshit mechanic.

Taking that bullshit mechanic and importing it to space so that bringing your own forces makes your enemies weaker is ridiculous. It not only penalizes people from bringing more than a cap or two, it also even further reinforces avoidance of using caps if your enemy might potentially bring caps, since they will be able to do it on their terms in such a way that your caps become weaker, but you are unable to effectively retaliate against theirs.

Would a scaling resist nerf solve the issue of large groups of capitals being excessively powerful?

Yes.

Would it leave non triage capitals anything to do in Fozziesov? No.
Would it leave non triage capitals in a usable state? No.
Would it help encourage people to use mixed capital/subcapitals fleets? No

Does it do anything except "solve" the issue of excessively powerful carrier blobs by nerfing carriers into the ground?
Not a damn thing


Can you expand on why you think carriers are useless in small numbers? Is it mobility? Again, I am honestly trying to understand this. From my point of view, why not bring a ship that is cheaper and more effective than ten guardians AND has drones?
Gemini Tordanis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#449 - 2015-04-24 20:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Gemini Tordanis
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

...


...

Would a scaling resist nerf solve the issue of large groups of capitals being excessively powerful?

Yes.

Would it leave non triage capitals anything to do in Fozziesov? No.
Would it leave non triage capitals in a usable state? No.
Would it help encourage people to use mixed capital/subcapitals fleets? No

Does it do anything except "solve" the issue of excessively powerful carrier blobs by nerfing carriers into the ground?
Not a damn thing


Can you expand on why you think carriers are useless in small numbers? Is it mobility? Again, I am honestly trying to understand this. From my point of view, why not bring a ship that is cheaper and more effective than ten guardians AND has drones?



First of all, I assume by 'More powerful than 10 Guardians" you are referring to stats during Triage cycle. Which means Zero Drones in play, and likely no drone modules fit. I will not argue that Triage is fairly balanced currently. However I do argue that one carrier, with all the SP required and capital fitting/hull cost to field, puts out less DPS with 10 squishy fighters deployed, than a HAC with good skills. Furthermore, a T1 Celestis can keep two carriers from being combat effective using only sensor damps. These things are huge, slow, and vulnerable to even a couple of ships.

Fielding a small number of these without a subcap fleet to back them up wont work. Unless you are attached to a fleet with Triage in play, the carrier really is worthless.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#450 - 2015-04-24 21:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Shady Anonymous Donor wrote:

Can you expand on why you think carriers are useless in small numbers? Is it mobility? Again, I am honestly trying to understand this. From my point of view, why not bring a ship that is cheaper and more effective than ten guardians AND has drones?


Before mods, a carrier has 10 effective drones, base stats. For Curators that means 525 DPS with 52.5 km Optimal and 12 Km Falloff. You also require using up several of your valuable high slots in order to fit Drone Link Augmentors.

On the other hand, a Dominix has 7.5 effective drones, 400 Dps, but 72 Optimal and 12k falloff, as well as a 37.5% drone tracking speed bonus. Each drone has 50% more EHP, and you can assign 10 peoples drones to a single trigger, where only 5 carriers can assign to a single target. You also don't sacrifice much in order to fit the Drone Link Augmentors.

Basically Domis are far better at actually killing things near them than carriers are. Carriers are great if surviving means you win. A quite common situation in dominion sov where the objective was to rep or bash a SBU, IHUB, TCU or station. All completely immobile, and all of them in situations where you can place your entire force in one location and simply hold your ground till you win. But they can't force the enemy to do anything, since they are highly immobile. This capability is worth fuckall in fozziesov.

As to the reason why you have to bring a significant number of carriers before it's useful, the primary culprit is damps.

ECCM counters jamming well on carriers, but for damps, 1.6( A scripted Sebo) * .29 (A scripted damp) = .464.

One Scripted Sebo vs 1 damp, and you are still at less than half your lock speed or range. And most damp ships carry four bonused damps. An Archon can fill up every single midslot with Sensor Boosters scripted to range, and a single Keres can still damp it down to a fraction of base lock range.

An Archon without sensor boosters vs a single Keres has a max lock range of something like 8km.

So if you bring only 3-4 carriers, they simply bring 3-4 Celestis and suddenly your Double sensor boosted Archon can only lock to 10Km. Whump. That's the sound of your cap and rep chain collapsing. And since you can't lock them anyway, you are useless, it's now basically just waiting to die. You don't even need to damp all of them, just all except the one you are killing.

But as the number of carriers increases, it gets harder and harder for the enemy to both bring enough damps to damp the reps/damage out and ensure the damps are correctly applied. If damps are not spread correctly, the undamped carriers can rep the primaries.

5 damps and 5 dps cruisers vs 5 carriers, just mark off ships to damp individually and bump out carriers to kill them. Easy. Carriers not supported by RR die like a wet paper bag.

10 damps and 10 dps cruisers vs 10 carriers? A bit harder to ensure that all carriers are damped. If even a single carrier is not damped, the reps it applies to the primary will likely be anywhere from 5k for an omnitanked carrier up to 10+ if they can specific fit against your damage.

50 damps, 50 dps vs 50 carriers? Making sure that they are all damped is practically impossible. And each one that is accidentally allowed to rep adds 5k-10k dps tank to the primary.

They got 100 carriers? You better be Goonswarm with a full fleet of Celestis or you ain't breaking ****.



But betting on a fight between 5 Archons Vs. 5 Celestis and 5 Ishtars?
I'd bet on the Ishtars even at 1:4 odds.


TLDR: If you need to defend ONE spot, everyone grab a carrier. If you need to defend 50, grab anything BUT a carrier.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#451 - 2015-04-24 21:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Rowells wrote:
the whole reason caps were introduced was for structure warfare. Not cap killing for the sake of cap killing.
I guess we want both.

You want to something to limit Caps and Supercaps, give them the option to anchor themselves as fixed structures or as additional Command Nodes in a system. Tie it to whatever bonuses or penalties you want. The point being that the player gets the choice.


Start seeding Cap. BPC's in the FW/low sec markets. (make them an LP/isk driven commodity). This handles availability and a certain market stability. This way anyone and everyone can easily obtain them, building them becomes something else.


More ships... Mwahahaha... MORE... MWAHAHAHA...
(Huh? Where's the damn lightening?)

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#452 - 2015-04-24 22:03:01 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

TLDR: If you need to defend ONE spot, everyone grab a carrier. If you need to defend 50, grab anything BUT a carrier.


Or you have everyoone grab carriers and split them to the spots you need to defend. 50 is a bit high with 10 each spot, but very few alliances need to defend 50 diffrent spots at the same time.
Bring 1-2 (triage) carriers to defend each spot and use subcaps to reinforce the defence where needed.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#453 - 2015-04-24 22:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

TLDR: If you need to defend ONE spot, everyone grab a carrier. If you need to defend 50, grab anything BUT a carrier.


Or you have everyoone grab carriers and split them to the spots you need to defend. 50 is a bit high with 10 each spot, but very few alliances need to defend 50 different spots at the same time.
Bring 1-2 (triage) carriers to defend each spot and use subcaps to reinforce the defense where needed.


And even fewer alliances can toss enough carriers around to put 10 fit slowcats on more than a handful of defense nodes.

If you are prepared for a sov war with an alliance that can do that, it's a very very good chance that you either have enough subcaps to rip through 10 carriers in a hurry, and/or have plenty of suicide dreads on standby.

No assuming the defenders are the only ones with capitals. You don't go hunting the sort of alliances that can deploy 100 slowcats on command using just subcaps.

You want to know what happens in a fight between 10 carriers vs 50 subcaps (including some damps) and 10 dreadnaughts? The carriers sure as hell don't last long. Even if the carrier side has 50 subs of their own coming, the fight started when the dreads dropped, not when the carriers reinforcements show up. And you can do a lot of trashing before they get there, especially with a decent dictor pilot or two.

If each side has 200 people available, then the side that take 100 carriers and spreads them out + 100 mobile subs is going to get smashed by the side that bring 150 subs + 50 dreads.

"Divide and conquer" is a beat to death military adage for a reason.

TLDR: You spread out your carriers to a bunch of locations and the opening salvo is going to be the enemy picking one of them and smashing it's face in.
Hemmo Paskiainen
#454 - 2015-04-24 23:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Anhenka wrote:


Even if titans got their tracking back with Fozziesov, it would not be all that relevant since the situations that created the massive battles where tracking titans were useful (Dominion timers) are getting removed.
.


You are missing the point or talking crap. Sorry i haven't read you post any futher cause you prolly don't know where you are talking about. Improving titan tracking favors the blob titan and basically removes the option of using battleships in any fleet. It favors the masses, the +150 titan fleets. No thanks! been there done that -10k active users. How did that work out? The age of supers left with Greyscale. Got any more terrible insights?

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#455 - 2015-04-24 23:57:28 UTC
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
Anhenka wrote:


Even if titans got their tracking back with Fozziesov, it would not be all that relevant since the situations that created the massive battles where tracking titans were useful (Dominion timers) are getting removed.
.


You are missing the point or talking crap. Sorry i haven't read you post any futher cause you prolly don't know where you are talking about. Improving titan tracking favors the blob titan and basically removes the option of using battleships in any fleet. It favors the masses, the +150 titan fleets. No thanks! been there done that -10k active users. How did that work out? The age of supers left with Greyscale. Got any more terrible insights?


You clearly didn't read anything, that's obvious.

First off, I was responding to someone else who proposed rolling it back. I doubt you bothered to go read the context though.

Second, I was saying that tracking titans would be far less useful than they were before because Fozziesov does not promote using large BS fleet in a situation where they can be forced to fight at one location.

Third, every single one of my posts here has been in support of moving capitals to a subcap support role instead of as a main combat ship.

You blathering fuckwit.

Even the people who have opinions directly opposite to me and think I'm dead wrong in this thread at least have the decency to read the post before they open their mouth to say something.

You are the pinnacle of why not all opinions are created equally valuable.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#456 - 2015-04-25 03:13:35 UTC
Too bad they all take up post space on the thread

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#457 - 2015-04-25 12:32:09 UTC
Pretty sure T1 Battleship fleets are still dead with or without tracking titans.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#458 - 2015-04-25 14:48:13 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


There is no need to put 5 carriers on each objective, you send your subcap fleet to take/defend what is needed and cyno some carriers to the actual fight for support. Same as people already do today with carriers!

As soon as the first carrier land on grid there is a reason to bring dread(s) or SC to kill it, and the ball start rolling.
Unless capitals are nerfed to the point where they are no longer worth using in any situation, the side with more capital support will win the objectives (super fleet on standby to prevent enemy capital use does count)

Carrier need a change so it dont do dps AND logi at the same time as good as it does now (in space refit counted as same time)
If you carrier need to dock to change from dps to logi, carrier fleets would not be a problem anymore.

Triage carrier dont expect to use drones or fighters, why should dps carriers expect to use logi modules?

Change carrier bonus from +1 drone/lvl to +10% drone/fighter dmg and ehp. This would mean a carrier can have 7.5 effective drones with max skills (compared to 10 now) but with 5x drone control units it would have 15 effective drones as it does now
This makes the diffrence between dps and logi fit bigger, trying to force people to choose what they want.

Nerf capital RR modules so they give 50% of what they do now and boost Triage counter it. Capital RR still gives 2x as much as large but you need triage to do serious repping. Reduce cap use and cycle time to get same cap efficiency as now
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#459 - 2015-04-25 15:05:47 UTC
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Anhenka wrote:


There is no need to put 5 carriers on each objective, you send your subcap fleet to take/defend what is needed and cyno some carriers to the actual fight for support. Same as people already do today with carriers!

As soon as the first carrier land on grid there is a reason to bring dread(s) or SC to kill it, and the ball start rolling.
Unless capitals are nerfed to the point where they are no longer worth using in any situation, the side with more capital support will win the objectives (super fleet on standby to prevent enemy capital use does count)

Carrier need a change so it dont do dps AND logi at the same time as good as it does now (in space refit counted as same time)
If you carrier need to dock to change from dps to logi, carrier fleets would not be a problem anymore.

Triage carrier dont expect to use drones or fighters, why should dps carriers expect to use logi modules?

Change carrier bonus from +1 drone/lvl to +10% drone/fighter dmg and ehp. This would mean a carrier can have 7.5 effective drones with max skills (compared to 10 now) but with 5x drone control units it would have 15 effective drones as it does now
This makes the diffrence between dps and logi fit bigger, trying to force people to choose what they want.

Nerf capital RR modules so they give 50% of what they do now and boost Triage counter it. Capital RR still gives 2x as much as large but you need triage to do serious repping. Reduce cap use and cycle time to get same cap efficiency as now


NOBODY BRINGS A FEW CARRIERS FOR DPS SUPPORT, BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIBLE AT IT.

DPS carriers are **** support. Seriously. Fighters are only good is your enemy has the brain of a jellyfish.

They don't do all that much damage, they don't have all that much HP, their damage gets killed off with amazing ease, they are barely mobile, and very expensive.

There is no tactical reason whatsoever to ever cyno in a few carriers to "support" with DPS. Triage yes. DPS carriers, no.

As with many of the ideas in this thread thread, your proposal "Solves" the issue with massed carriers. Of course, it "Solves" it by making carriers complete trash with no intention whatsoever of leaving them with any use other than triage carriers.

STOP having tunnel vision. An actual solution needs to both solve the intended problem, and not create a larger problem.

And for love of Cthulu, if people would stop assuming the defender has seeming infinite capitals, supercapitals, and the will to use them, while the attackers are running around in subs only, that would be great.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#460 - 2015-04-25 15:45:58 UTC
a support carrier is there for RR, they are there to support you dps (you know the same way logi is support)

The proposal is supposed to solve the problem with carrier fleets, while solo carriers keep their max dps and triage carriers keep their RR abilities. Using carriers for RR out of triage is only an option on larger ships as the locking time is so damn long.

Using carrier to support your subcap fleet is something bouth defender and attacker can do, easier for attacker since they dictate where to attack :P

In the new sov you need to hold grid to take the objective, this means you need to kill or outlast the enemy fleet to capture or defend. 50man fleet with triage support is strong than a 50man fleet using 5+ logi ships, if we assume around equal numbers for bouth sides, a triage carrier can easily be the deciding factor.