These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[ Balance ] Super Capital Sink - Add Upkeep - Change Build Req
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bruce xxl
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-02-10 06:07:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Bruce xxl
So few days we all seen the sick post of how many super capital ships exist today and the stupid rate at which they are being build and a shameful rate at which they die.

Super Capitals are now in Crucible pretty much balanced out as they need to be apart from Titans very decent ability to track sub capital ships and Leviathans ability to be a useless primary target. Anyhow this thread is more about shrinking the rate at which they are being built to match the rate at which they die.

Now players alone found many ways to counter super capital blobs and super capitals them selves. We seen that in EVE everything is possible even a Iteron killing a Megathron http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6so9AT4UydQ ShockedShockedShockedShocked

In this thread i would want to discuss how to decrease the point at which super capitals are being build so much they match the rate at which they die and in the long run make alliances that can field 40+ at once think twice.

1) So my proposal to reduce the super capital population growth

- Increase Titan build cost by 40%
- Increase SC build cost by 20%

- Increase build time for Titans to be 8 months
- Increase build time for Super Carriers to be 5 months

- To be able to build a Titan alliance must first hold the system where Titan was going to be built for 6 months
- To be able to build a Titan alliance must first hold the system where SC was going to be built for 3 months

- Make it so that only 1 Titan and 2 Super Carrier build jobs can be active in one Region


Explanation: When these ships came out, they were kept a secret. It was an alliance effort to build one, they were fielded whit care and consideration, they were rare and loosing one actually had an impact on the alliance that lost it.

Today however loosing a Titan or a Super Carrier in majority of alliances means having to go to Jita to get a new implant set and mods for the new Super that is already waiting for you. Loosing a Titan or a Super Carrier has no or very little effect on alliance or corporation and they have came to be a personal investment rather than an alliance effort.

2) Reduce the frequency of fielding a Super Capital ship - CS Upkeep

- Monthly alliance bill where alliance has to pay ( 500mil x Number of super capital ships in alliance )
- 2 Week personal bill where every Super Capital pilot has to pay the upkeep bill for their ship 1bil / SC 4bil / Titan

- Titans and Super Carriers can only be remote repaired while in fleet. To be able to have a super capital in fleet you have to pay 200mil per super capital up to 5 super capitals if you want to have more super capitals then the bill goes up and its 500mil per super capital then if you want more than 15 its 1bil per super capital.

The ISK should be automatically deducted from the "Fleet division of Alliance Executor Corp" or something similar.

These are somewhat stupid proposals as they mostly take away from super capitals but they would reduce the numbers that would have been fielded for instance we see fleets of 40 Super capitals that would mean that this week you enemy had to pay:

- 40 to 160 billion for its upkeep
- about 43.5 billion isk to field

Just the idea of top of my head but i believe strongly in the following 5 points:


- They should be stupid hard to make
- They should have big impact if you loose them
- They should require up-keep
- You should be penalized for fielding a large number
- Riverini is a f a g
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#2 - 2012-02-10 06:29:44 UTC
while yes, something must be done to make super capitals super special, you seem to be taking a few steps in both the right and wrong direction.

Firstly, having requirements that alliances need to have multiple REGIONS is a little absurd. Constellations are little used yet would be very helpful. Then again, basing the amount of supers you can build based on how much territory you control is a little daft in the first place. Perhaps having the outpost/egg mechanic for setting up capital assembly arrays could be used instead for a new 'super capital assembly array', which due to requirements should only be put on a large pos

Secondly, basing upkeep on isk instead of a mineral (or something) is also not that great of an idea. Isk is very fluid, and can easily go across the entire galaxy if need be. conversely, the difficulty with fuels is getting them to where they need to be. All of that overhead and logistics often times is more expensive than the fuel itself if you were to break down how much that toon could be making if they were doing something more profitable, like missioning instead of transporting.

Overall, while you do have some good points, the proposed solutions are less than optimal.

Where the science gets done
Bruce xxl
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-02-10 06:52:06 UTC
I agree and think looking at minerals and maybe separate fuel for super capitals would be a better long term solution. Maybe diff fuel type for supers that would be bigger in size, harder to mine or make etc.. Therefore making for harder logistics and supply.
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-02-10 07:45:08 UTC
Super Capitals still need crews, so you would still have to pay them, even if it us 100 ISK total. 1 ISK in EVE is equal to a few hundred million US Dollars in real-life, according to CCP.

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Limerance Zet-Giry
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-02-10 11:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Limerance Zet-Giry
These changes will cease number of supercaps for a while, but they are bad, because make SCs completely inaccessible for small alliances. While huge alliances will just increase number of bots a bit, to get necessary ISKs for bills, and train some more characters and build some more SSAA, to keep as many supercaps in their fleets, as they need.

I suggest you to take a look at another possible solution, and at least, take some of that ideas.

Simple increasing of SCs cost/build time will be almost ignored by large alliances, because they always can increase number of SSAAs/farm bots.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#6 - 2012-02-10 11:09:52 UTC
Bruce xxl wrote:
So few days we all seen the sick post of how many super capital ships exist today and the stupid rate at which they are being build and a shameful rate at which they die.

Could you link the post please? I've heard about it in game, if I remember correctly it was about 3,300 supers and 1k+ titans? But haven't seen it myself.

Bruce xxl wrote:
In this thread i would want to discuss how to decrease the point at which super capitals are being build so much they match the rate at which they die and in the long run make alliances that can field 40+ at once think twice.

It would be easier to raise the rate at which they die, I think CCP have already said they're toying with allowing super caps to point other supers. Also lengthening SD timers for supers/titans would give a genuine incentive to attack them, rather than watching the majority of them simply SD in a normal fight.

Bruce xxl wrote:
- Increase Titan build cost by 40%
- Increase SC build cost by 20%

- Increase build time for Titans to be 8 months
- Increase build time for Super Carriers to be 5 months

- To be able to build a Titan alliance must first hold the system where Titan was going to be built for 6 months
- To be able to build a Titan alliance must first hold the system where SC was going to be built for 3 months

- Make it so that only 1 Titan and 2 Super Carrier build jobs can be active in one Region

The region idea is bad, it means only the largest established alliances will ever have a hope of building a super cap. And no new alliances will ever be able to match them.

Bruce xxl wrote:
These are somewhat stupid proposals

Yes, yes they are. All supercap pilots would automatically, should this come into effect, join the alliances that can afford to keep them running. Or, more likely is that they'd just feel cheated, and unsubscribe.

At a conservative estimate most super/titan pilots have three accounts. 5,000 multiplied by three is a large amount of money for CCP to be gambling with. Especially since these are the players that have in all likelihood been playing for years.

Bruce xxl wrote:
- They should be stupid hard to make
- They should have big impact if you loose them
- They should require up-keep
- You should be penalized for fielding a large number
- Riverini is a f a g

I agree with most of these points, up-keep is simply ridiculous though. The penalty for fielding a large number should be that you are risking 30-40 supers at one time.

tl;dr: increase the risk to using supers, don't add arbitrary and artificial costs that will force long time players to unsub.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-02-10 17:12:47 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
It would be easier to raise the rate at which they die, I think CCP have already said they're toying with allowing super caps to point other supers. Also lengthening SD timers for supers/titans would give a genuine incentive to attack them, rather than watching the majority of them simply SD in a normal fight.

Oh look, another casual butthurt whine about SD.

Protip: If your attacking it and it self destructs in 2 minutes...POOF! You won because you probably wiped out all the support and or had more cap ships then they anticipated but your fleet wasn't doing enough damage. You don't need a KM as an incentive, its gone and Bob is your uncle.

Perhaps if everyone could get off their ass, point their collective effort in the same direction of nullsec, and just READY! GET SET! GO!!!! ....well I bet you could destroy a Titan while suffering massive numbers of losses (Aw look at that, its cause they want to hide their losses to Titan guns....just as much as the same person claiming others using SD to hide their own). Or....by just keeping up the pressue...dude can't sit at the computer 24/7/30 days a months....you will break them eventually .

My opinion though: They can't be assed to get in gear (no incentive to attack), afraid to loose to a titan fleet, and their best effort is to just whine about how unfair EVE is when EVE isn't supposed to be fair so why nerf a Titan if their currently isn't a suitable reward for you and the risk is just to great to care. So, we can then agree - EVE is fine as is, except to you but you can't get enough willpower to just "Do it!" *makes a Nike sign* and to afraid to lose ships to a titan.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#8 - 2012-02-10 17:23:38 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
It would be easier to raise the rate at which they die, I think CCP have already said they're toying with allowing super caps to point other supers. Also lengthening SD timers for supers/titans would give a genuine incentive to attack them, rather than watching the majority of them simply SD in a normal fight.

Oh look, another casual butthurt whine about SD.

Protip: If your attacking it and it self destructs in 2 minutes...POOF! You won because you probably wiped out all the support and or had more cap ships then they anticipated but your fleet wasn't doing enough damage. You don't need a KM as an incentive, its gone and Bob is your uncle.

Perhaps if everyone could get off their ass, point their collective effort in the same direction of nullsec, and just READY! GET SET! GO!!!! ....well I bet you could destroy a Titan while suffering massive numbers of losses (Aw look at that, its cause they want to hide their losses to Titan guns....just as much as the same person claiming others using SD to hide their own). Or....by just keeping up the pressue...dude can't sit at the computer 24/7/30 days a months....you will break them eventually .

My opinion though: They can't be assed to get in gear (no incentive to attack), afraid to loose to a titan fleet, and their best effort is to just whine about how unfair EVE is when EVE isn't supposed to be fair so why nerf a Titan if their currently isn't a suitable reward for you and the risk is just to great to care. So, we can then agree - EVE is fine as is, except to you but you can't get enough willpower to just "Do it!" *makes a Nike sign* and to afraid to lose ships to a titan.

So, today Raiden solo dropped a Nyx on a goon rorqual. Goons caught the idiot, the guy self destructed (although he still lost his pod, obviously).

So by your logic goons were scared of being wiped out by "all the support [and] extra cap ships" raiden had in the fight? No, it was a solo Nyx, and goons, one of the largest and best organised alliances in Eve, couldn't kill it in under two minutes.

Hence, there is no real incentive to risk whelping fleets to try and kill super caps at the moment. That was a solo Nyx, try killing a fleet of them without them self destructing.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-02-10 18:10:01 UTC
If a Super self-destructs, its one less Super your enemy can field for a while, how is this not a positive thing?

Oh because you wanted a killmail? Seriously if this is your driving factor to play EvE your priorities are messed up. Killmails are trophys, if you killed it, you killed it. If it self-destructed its just as good, its still gone, that pilot is still out some serious ISK, and his Slaves are probably stuck in the bubble anyway.

If I got called primary and there are 60 something titans on my killmail, I'd be smug as **** about being considered that much of a threat that my enemies decided they needs supers to kill me. Stop whining about supers already, and they are already stupidly expensive, even with tech money. Increasing the base cost by 40% or the build time is just ridiculous.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#10 - 2012-02-10 18:19:26 UTC
Xolve wrote:
If a Super self-destructs, its one less Super your enemy can field for a while, how is this not a positive thing?

Oh because you wanted a killmail? Seriously if this is your driving factor to play EvE your priorities are messed up. Killmails are trophys, if you killed it, you killed it. If it self-destructed its just as good, its still gone, that pilot is still out some serious ISK, and his Slaves are probably stuck in the bubble anyway.

If I got called primary and there are 60 something titans on my killmail, I'd be smug as **** about being considered that much of a threat that my enemies decided they needs supers to kill me. Stop whining about supers already, and they are already stupidly expensive, even with tech money. Increasing the base cost by 40% or the build time is just ridiculous.

I don't really want a kill mail, I don't even PvP that much any more to be honest. I'd just like to see some risk involved in solo dropping them, for most people "risk" = kill mails. The lack of loot drops is also somewhat annoying, although tbh I daresay unless you're ganking a solo super smartbombs would destroy the wrecks anyway.

Anyway when people can drop a solo Nyx on a Rorqual, mess up horribly then simply hide it by self destructing, I see that as a flawed mechanic.

I agree on the 40% increase to base cost/time though. It's just a bit pointless, an extra 4-5b isn't really going to stop anyone buying a super.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-02-10 18:19:27 UTC
Xolve wrote:
If a Super self-destructs, its one less Super your enemy can field for a while, how is this not a positive thing?

Oh because you wanted a killmail? Seriously if this is your driving factor to play EvE your priorities are messed up. Killmails are trophys, if you killed it, you killed it. If it self-destructed its just as good, its still gone, that pilot is still out some serious ISK, and his Slaves are probably stuck in the bubble anyway.

If I got called primary and there are 60 something titans on my killmail, I'd be smug as **** about being considered that much of a threat that my enemies decided they needs supers to kill me. Stop whining about supers already, and they are already stupidly expensive, even with tech money. Increasing the base cost by 40% or the build time is just ridiculous.



^^^ +1
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc
Antisocial Social Club For Tax Reduction
#12 - 2012-02-12 03:08:53 UTC
Cross Posted In Module Ideas

A possible super cap / sub cap tactic balancing idea

Bore Module.

This module turns your ship into a ramming ship. Ram and begin to bore into the ships exterior.

Enemy warps, both ships warp, enemy jumps both ships jump (your attached)

Drones can fire on the ramming ship but the ship being bored into cannot use its turrets or missiles since they cannot track the combined target.

Bore ship stays attached until destroyed or the ship being bored into reaches hull breach and explodes.

Uses three high slots to work... One for boring drill and Two for ship clamps. Twisted

**************************************************************

Imagine a small fleet of these kamikazes attacking a Pandemic Legion station bashing fleet.

(Sub Caps cannot dock while mole is attached)

Log off would just insure death so it would require a fleet member to target the mole and destroy the ship to get it off you. Twisted

If the fleet cannot target and kill the mole (boring ship) in time and subs cannot dock ( Jump, warp yes but dock no.)

Imagine the jumping away to safety...

It would be a bit more complex, jump and you take the mole with you and he could drop the location in fleet Intel for nearby fleets to pursue or provide a warp to if victim tries to safe up !

Cloaking could work but why bother if either fleet can warp to their respective member Twisted