These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1581 - 2014-09-08 09:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dr Cedric wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We can break it down into sections which, oddly enough, fits in well with CCPs new development plan.

We start off with addressing the need for empire sprawl. Right now there is a cap on how many players can actively rat in a single system, this currently stands at ten per system. This means groups like ours require vast areas of space to support our members.

"But most of your space is empty!" I hear you cry.

Yes this is true but that is down to another problem which is truesec. You see, the primary form of pve in null sec for your average pilot is anoms and they are tied to truesec. Most systems in null offer worse isk generation than blitzing level 3 missions in highsec with a mach. The best systems in null are on par to slightly worse than can be earned in high sec level 4 mission blitzing.

So we have a double whammy of poor isk income from most of null and the low player cap of 10 per system. This needs to change if we are to shrink the current two blocks from half of EVE each to a single region each and it must happen before any changes to sov.

Simply adding more anoms won't work, not only would a player cap still exist but you would also flood too much isk into the system. Inflation is also why you cannot just add more isk reward to anoms. Anoms must be replaced as the primary pve content and isk generator of nullsec. By far the easiest way to fix this issue is to add mission agents to player outposts. They allow for an unlimited population and null missions provide greater reward than highsec but importantly they will inject far less isk into the system than anoms and will be far easier to implement for CCP than a whole new system.


Capital talk - removed -

N+1: - removed -

Sov: stuff - removed -


I can get behind removing anomalies and replacing it with some type of agent generated PvE system. I don't think Missions is the right way to do it.

Firstly high sec PvE is there so that players can play solo. I don't need to be in communication with ANYONE if I don't want to. I can talk to my agent, do my thing, make my ISK, buy my bling and keep on trucking without saying/typing a word.

Low-Sec PvE (fleet warfare) is very much team/cooperation driven (and it is a great facilitator for PvP).

I think PvE in Null sec needs to be as much team/cooperation driven as possible. Agents should not be housed in a station, they should be hosted in a separate facility in the sovereign system. The agent requests (I don't want to use the word "mission") needs to be extremely difficult/impossible for solo players, but very doable and rewarding for small fleets. Somewhere in between burner missions and incursions. Difficult AI, that requires teamwork and cooperation. The requests should be varied enough that a single "PvE-fit" on a single "PvE ship" is not enough to complete the variety of requests.

The agent should be installed at the corporate level (rather than the allied level), however once initiated, any number of players from different corporations can complete the request. The request difficulty should be based off of total corp members and a ratio of online to total players.

The agent housing needs to be vulnerable to attack, and it needs to be possible to lose your agent, in this way you generate PvP opportunities in the form of truly harassing the ISK source of the significant portion of the system population. As there would be multiple corporations in an alliance, there will be multiple Housing structures in the system, which will generate multiple locations to stimulate PvP.

Thanks for the read!


Not a a fan of this as it is far too easy to mess around with. Agent missions should be outpost based.

The mechanics behind them would be just as now with other station upgrades and would consist of 4 levels. At level 1 you have a level 1 mission agent. After running enough missions you can then upgrade to level 2 which gives a level 1 and 2 agent. At max upgrade you would have 4 agents in the station consisting of level 1, 2, 3 and 4 agent.

The reason why it is best done this way is because it means CCP has far less work to do than building a whole new system. Running missions is already more dangerous than running anoms simply by having them jumping into another system 50% of the time and with the other changes in place you would have much more densely populated systems which will make intel from local much more unreliable.

As a side note anoms would not be getting removed.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1582 - 2014-09-08 09:37:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We can break it down into sections which, oddly enough, fits in well with CCPs new development plan.

We start off with addressing the need for empire sprawl. Right now there is a cap on how many players can actively rat in a single system, this currently stands at ten per system. This means groups like ours require vast areas of space to support our members.

"But most of your space is empty!" I hear you cry.

Yes this is true but that is down to another problem which is truesec. You see, the primary form of pve in null sec for your average pilot is anoms and they are tied to truesec. Most systems in null offer worse isk generation than blitzing level 3 missions in highsec with a mach. The best systems in null are on par to slightly worse than can be earned in high sec level 4 mission blitzing.

So we have a double whammy of poor isk income from most of null and the low player cap of 10 per system. This needs to change if we are to shrink the current two blocks from half of EVE each to a single region each and it must happen before any changes to sov.

Simply adding more anoms won't work, not only would a player cap still exist but you would also flood too much isk into the system. Inflation is also why you cannot just add more isk reward to anoms. Anoms must be replaced as the primary pve content and isk generator of nullsec. By far the easiest way to fix this issue is to add mission agents to player outposts. They allow for an unlimited population and null missions provide greater reward than highsec but importantly they will inject far less isk into the system than anoms and will be far easier to implement for CCP than a whole new system.


We then have to deal with capitals. Right now you either have a capital force that can match the two big powers or you are an irrelevant sideshow. Capital issues are all over the place and need several big changes. Firstly, carriers are going to have to lose access to sentries and move to a fighter based platform. Secondly, supers are going to have to lose their E-war immunity however they also need something big in return. Supers and titans must be allowed to dock in outposts. We have to end the bleeding of high SP subs because they are trapped in a space coffin that doesn't see much use. Lastly we must deal with their invulnerability to subcaps, this is covered in the next and most controversial fix.

N+1:

People rightly hate the blob, but why do they hate fighting outnumbered?

Well, its because they cannot hurt it. Right now fleet meat revolves around one simple fact, you must be able to alpha past the logistics of the enemy fleet. If you cannot do this then engaging is pointless. Logistics are going to have to be nerfed if smaller alliances are to stand any chance in null. Equally, it is logistics that makes capital fleets impossible to kill with a subcap fleet. It is going to be painful, it will mean much bloodier fights and chances are I will be among the first to fall in any fleet engagement but if we want to fix null it must happen.

"But you will just farm smaller fleets!" I hear you cry.

This is already happening. We are effectivly untouchable to smaller fleets as they cannot harm us. With a logi nerf in place new tactics such as cheap in your face DPS fleets can dive into the heart of a baltec fleet and inflict a large amount of damage. Sure, we might hold the grid in the end but we could very easily lose the isk war and that is exactly the sort of thing smaller alliances need to boost moral. "Yea we lost that tower but we killed three times more isk worth of stuff".

Sov:

Another need for big balls of ships is the way sov fights are handled. At the moment you fight a handful of timed fights over huge amounts of EHP. This system needs to go. Not only does it mean you need lots of ships to grind down the structures but it also means you need equally or bigger fleets to defend. Remove the ehp and you remove the need for the massive fleets.

The current sov system also lets us dominate huge areas of empty space so long as we can pay the bills. So to end this sov needs to move to residency based. At a stroke you would make at least 80% of the current sov claims drop as all of the unoccupied systems drop. This is by far the most complicated part of the null overhaul and should rightly come last.


I just disagree on some minor points of HOW that is to be done.

Carriers should keep access to all drones. But only 5 of them. The 10 deployments should be reserved to fighters. Fighter bay should have ONLY fighters. Carriers should have a drone bay of around 300 for normal drones.


I disagree completely on the super capitals docking. That would reduce their loss rate massively. If high SP characters leave game because they got into a titan that is THEIR problem, they knew that would happen.
What game needs is MORE INTERESTING high end options and gameplay for those characters, so that they do not go into supers.

And I think super capitals need a plex manteiance fee (or jump drive does nto work until you pay all due taxes). TO makealliances have only the supers that they really need and are willing to use.


Docking supers will just make an extra incentive to have more supers built and stores and would make the 0.0 super fleets problem far worse. We need reasons for people NOT use a titan, not the contrary.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1583 - 2014-09-08 09:51:18 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

I disagree completely on the super capitals docking. That would reduce their loss rate massively. If high SP characters leave game because they got into a titan that is THEIR problem, they knew that would happen.
What game needs is MORE INTERESTING high end options and gameplay for those characters, so that they do not go into supers.

And I think super capitals need a plex manteiance fee (or jump drive does nto work until you pay all due taxes). TO makealliances have only the supers that they really need and are willing to use.


Docking supers will just make an extra incentive to have more supers built and stores and would make the 0.0 super fleets problem far worse. We need reasons for people NOT use a titan, not the contrary.


I also used to think supers should not be allowed to dock but frankly, we gain nothing by forcing them to log out in a tower and having a high SP character stuck in a space coffin that sees use once or twice a month isn't a good thing. Letting them dock wont result in any more of a cold war style build up of supers than we have now.

They would be losing both their E-war immunity and their current immunity to damage when used in fleets and your idea for plex for titan would punish smaller alliances and do nothing to the larger ones.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1584 - 2014-09-08 09:56:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

I disagree completely on the super capitals docking. That would reduce their loss rate massively. If high SP characters leave game because they got into a titan that is THEIR problem, they knew that would happen.
What game needs is MORE INTERESTING high end options and gameplay for those characters, so that they do not go into supers.

And I think super capitals need a plex manteiance fee (or jump drive does nto work until you pay all due taxes). TO makealliances have only the supers that they really need and are willing to use.


Docking supers will just make an extra incentive to have more supers built and stores and would make the 0.0 super fleets problem far worse. We need reasons for people NOT use a titan, not the contrary.


I also used to think supers should not be allowed to dock but frankly, we gain nothing by forcing them to log out in a tower and having a high SP character stuck in a space coffin that sees use once or twice a month isn't a good thing. Letting them dock wont result in any more of a cold war style build up of supers than we have now.

They would be losing both their E-war immunity and their current immunity to damage when used in fleets and your idea for plex for titan would punish smaller alliances and do nothing to the larger ones.



Naa. smaller alliance have what? 4-5 titans? Easy to pay. But when you need to pay for STOCKPILED titans like goons and PL have, that starts to hurt a lot. Imagine paying a hundred plexes per month for something that might be used in the next 1 year?

Otherwise, with dockable titans, and no reason to not stockpile them, you know both sides soon would have 500 titans on reserve and stockpiled. Losing ewar immunity would not be enough, if lossing titans woudl mean nothing for any alliance because they can buy one from the huge stockpiles around.

If titans and supers dock, there NEED to be a reason to not make huge stockpiles of them. Even if the PLEX is charged for the right to DOCK them (so at least used titans form smaller groups are not affected, but stockpiling them becomes prohibitive)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1585 - 2014-09-08 10:15:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Kagura Nikon wrote:



Naa. smaller alliance have what? 4-5 titans? Easy to pay. But when you need to pay for STOCKPILED titans like goons and PL have, that starts to hurt a lot. Imagine paying a hundred plexes per month for something that might be used in the next 1 year?


We don't have stockpiles of titans. They are not national assets, they are privately owned but we do replace them if they are lost in strat ops, a plex a month is nothing. Private owners of titans in small alliances or corps however would be hurt by this added need.


Kagura Nikon wrote:

Otherwise, with dockable titans, and no reason to not stockpile them, you know both sides soon would have 500 titans on reserve and stockpiled. Losing ewar immunity would not be enough, if lossing titans woudl mean nothing for any alliance because they can buy one from the huge stockpiles around.


Losing a titan or ten is already a none issue to us.

Kagura Nikon wrote:

If titans and supers dock, there NEED to be a reason to not make huge stockpiles of them. Even if the PLEX is charged for the right to DOCK them (so at least used titans form smaller groups are not affected, but stockpiling them becomes prohibitive)


We do this by getting rid of the need to have vast capital blobs. This is where the change to occupancy sov comes in, if you get rid of the need to grind down vast amounts of EHP in a handful of set battles you reduce the effectiveness of the super blob massively.
Anthar Thebess
#1586 - 2014-09-08 10:44:44 UTC
Remember that massive use of capitals and especially supercapitals leads to "easy win" situations.
Not only because those ships are superior , but also because amount of sub capitals and capitals needed to brake their tank and eat their EHP is way to big for eve servers.

Both HED and B-R proved this.

In HED battle hundreds of dreads died as after jumping in pilots could not do any thing.
Cycle guns, activate hardeners, jump out when they had cap , some of people got their KM while still sitting in the warp tunel.
All of this because node was not able to withstand number of incoming players , players using adequate means to enemy forces already present in a system.

B-R was just confirmation of stuff that happened in HED - first objective - reduce people in local, remove as many subcapitals as possible in order for node not to become bugged like the HED- one.

B-R was only possible because subcapitals where blocking other subcapitals reinforcements in other systems.
Nodes under heavy TIDI don't work - normal conditions do not applied , they always favor people already present on grid.

Currently all groups know this , and if there is no other force capable of brining more supers , just drop as many you can in order to block your enemy from taking any action.

This also have to go.
CCP have to make supercapitals vulnerable to subcapitals in order to enforce proper subcapital cover.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1587 - 2014-09-08 10:48:03 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Remember that massive use of capitals and especially supercapitals leads to "easy win" situations.
Not only because those ships are superior , but also because amount of sub capitals and capitals needed to brake their tank and eat their EHP is way to big for eve servers.

Both HED and B-R proved this.

In HED battle hundreds of dreads died as after jumping in pilots could not do any thing.
Cycle guns, activate hardeners, jump out when they had cap , some of people got their KM while still sitting in the warp tunel.
All of this because node was not able to withstand number of incoming players , players using adequate means to enemy forces already present in a system.

B-R was just confirmation of stuff that happened in HED - first objective - reduce people in local, remove as many subcapitals as possible in order for node not to become bugged like the HED- one.

B-R was only possible because subcapitals where blocking other subcapitals reinforcements in other systems.
Nodes under heavy TIDI don't work - normal conditions do not applied , they always favor people already present on grid.

Currently all groups know this , and if there is no other force capable of brining more supers , just drop as many you can in order to block your enemy from taking any action.

This also have to go.
CCP have to make supercapitals vulnerable to subcapitals in order to enforce proper subcapital cover.


That is where the logi nerf and E-war immunity removal comes in.
Anthar Thebess
#1588 - 2014-09-08 11:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
I do not agree that this is enough.
Let say that you drop :
200+ slowcats ( sentry of fighter ones)
20-50 motherships
20-40 titans
Some dreads.


Something that is sadly quite common on todays timers, this is just base group , more ships are waiting.
Recalculate how much Damage you have to do in order to grind on those ships in resonable time.
Include in this calculations TIDI , and how much time it will offer for a reinforcements to formup and bridge.
Remember that all of those ships shoot.


Node will still die or bug itself.
You will be still on the worst situation as enemy is again on the grid.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1589 - 2014-09-08 11:08:47 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
I do not agree that this is enough.
Let say that you drop :
200+ slowcats ( sentry of fighter ones)
20-50 motherships
20-40 titans
Some dreads.


Something that is sadly quite common on todays timers, this is just base group , more ships are waiting.
Recalculate how much Damage you have to do in order to grind on those ships in resonable time.
Include in this calculations TIDI , and how much time it will offer for a reinforcements to formup and bridge.
Remember that all of those ships shoot.


Node will still die or bug itself.
You will be still on the worst situation as enemy is again on the grid.


Key difference with the changes would be the carriers not having sentries and the capitals not being immune to subcap firepower and the supers being able to be jammed or having disruptors put on them to reduce their range and/or locking time.

The two big issues with capital blobs of today is that the sentry carriers can hit anything with the firepower of two fleets and that capital reps mean you need a titan blob the alpha past the logi.
Anthar Thebess
#1590 - 2014-09-08 11:22:02 UTC
For me base concept capital only feets is something bad for this game.
Ewar immunity could solve some of the issues , but again this have to come with all other changes to jump bridges and titan bridges.
NCPL is just about (super)capitals if only changes to supers and capitals will be done they will just gone at the speed of timers.


Do you thing that significant boost ( yes boost ) to dreads could solve this situation a bit?

Let say that their dps will be increased 3-4 times - but only in siege , or lets introduce to them HIGH DPS ammo that will give this dps bonus at the cost of heavy tracking nerf or ship class dependency as goal of dread blaping T3 Cruiser is not what i have in mind.
But dread doing heavy dps against structures , poses , or (super)capitals is totally different issue.

Dreads are still most balanced capitals in the game - they have only ... dps , can be tackled and killed even by frigates and they will do nothing to subcapitals without proper support.

So im asking : will 20-30k dps dreads (or more versus BIG or static stuff ) could help in current situation.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1591 - 2014-09-08 11:30:34 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
For me base concept capital only feets is something bad for this game.
Ewar immunity could solve some of the issues , but again this have to come with all other changes to jump bridges and titan bridges.


Jump bridge networks will be heavily nerfed under our plan indirectly. Titan bridges are being indirectly impacted by removing the need to send fleets hafl way across null to protect assets.

Anthar Thebess wrote:

Do you thing that significant boost ( yes boost ) to dreads could solve this situation a bit?


No, dreads are by far the most balanced caps and are in a good place. Deal with the logistics problem and dreads will be very effective.
Anthar Thebess
#1592 - 2014-09-08 11:47:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
For me base concept capital only feets is something bad for this game.
Ewar immunity could solve some of the issues , but again this have to come with all other changes to jump bridges and titan bridges.


Jump bridge networks will be heavily nerfed under our plan indirectly. Titan bridges are being indirectly impacted by removing the need to send fleets hafl way across null to protect assets.

Anthar Thebess wrote:

Do you thing that significant boost ( yes boost ) to dreads could solve this situation a bit?


No, dreads are by far the most balanced caps and are in a good place. Deal with the logistics problem and dreads will be very effective.


Well are dreads in tearms of dps still so balanced.
In the old days - "OMFG this subcap have 1k dps"
Now ... things changed more than a bit.

So i think that some boost to DPS could be interesting.
Again what i'm asking .

Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?

Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1593 - 2014-09-08 11:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Again what i'm asking .

Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?

Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.



No, dread DPS is perfect as it is the problem is with the capital/super RR. Just like with subcaps the only way to beat capital RR is to alpha past the reps. You deal with the logi and you solve the problem.
Anthar Thebess
#1594 - 2014-09-08 12:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Again what i'm asking .

Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?

Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.



No, dread DPS is perfect as it is the problem is with the capital/super RR. Just like with subcaps the only way to beat capital RR is to alpha past the reps. You deal with the logi and you solve the problem.


Yes , but again.
What we are stating in this topic is totally new EVE.
Many mechanic that needs to be changed - we are talking about ~ hell of a work.

What i am asking is elevating dread DPS will help to solve the abuse of node killing EHP , and current structure EHP.
Why dreads and not carriers?
- they are again very vulnerable to sub capitals.
- their damage is only huge while in siege
- cannot receive remote reps while in siege
- base on their own damage system, and don't use smaller size weapons like carriers.

Again tweek to damage modifier on siege modules and tracking speed can be done by CCP within few minutes -> situation is going bad -> tweek - fast DT - and all stuff is going back to normal.

Eve urgently needs boosting of the ~fun~ part.
Yes thousands ships will die because of this change - but that's what eve is about, the nullsec part.

Now every thing is stagnant because you cannot do any thing without grinding enormous amount of ehp.
Lets assume 35k T2 Siege dread on max skills -> so typical dread alt will have 30k dps.
Form the grinding part perspective 6 dreads can put most of the structures in the reinforce timer within 1 cycle.
This could warm things a bit ( yes 'content' withdrawal is bad for me )

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1595 - 2014-09-08 12:29:30 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Again what i'm asking .

Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?

Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.



No, dread DPS is perfect as it is the problem is with the capital/super RR. Just like with subcaps the only way to beat capital RR is to alpha past the reps. You deal with the logi and you solve the problem.


Yes , but again.
What we are stating in this topic is totally new EVE.
Many mechanic that needs to be changed - we are talking about ~ hell of a work.

What i am asking is elevating dread DPS will help to solve the abuse of node killing EHP , and current structure EHP.
Why dreads and not carriers?
- they are again very vulnerable to sub capitals.
- their damage is only huge while in siege
- cannot receive remote reps while in siege
- base on their own damage system, and don't use smaller size weapons like carriers.

Again tweek to damage modifier on siege modules and tracking speed can be done by CCP within few minutes -> situation is going bad -> tweek - fast DT - and all stuff is going back to normal.

Eve urgently needs boosting of the ~fun~ part.
Yes thousands ships will die because of this change - but that's what eve is about, the nullsec part.


Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the firepower already.
Anthar Thebess
#1596 - 2014-09-08 12:56:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.

Hmm no.
You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions.
If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue.

Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1597 - 2014-09-08 13:51:29 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.

Hmm no.
You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions.
If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue.

Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?


They do have enough firepower, you don't need many to kill a POS. The EHP issues will also go away with the plan we have.
Anthar Thebess
#1598 - 2014-09-08 14:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.

Hmm no.
You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions.
If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue.

Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?


They do have enough firepower, you don't need many to kill a POS. The EHP issues will also go away with the plan we have.

I totally agree with you about this, especially last sentence.
But :
1. Like you stated - this is our plan - not the CCP one. We don't know if CCP even plans going in this directions.
2. I am not talking about POS , but also about sov structures.
3. We see from blogs/ posts that they work also on some other stuff - sometimes good one - but i see this as resources not focused on fixing nullsec , capitas, supers and sov.
4. We are talking about big changes , very big - and ccp is still balancing cruisers.

That is why i am asking , can a mid term fix to enormous ehp can be boost to dreads.
Why not reducing all structure ehp - because dreads will also put more pressure on other broken (super)capitals.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1599 - 2014-09-08 14:06:31 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.

Hmm no.
You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions.
If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue.

Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?


They do have enough firepower, you don't need many to kill a POS. The EHP issues will also go away with the plan we have.

I totally agree with you about this, especially last sentence.
But :
1. Like you stated - this is our plan - not the CCP one. We don't know if CCP even plans going in this directions.
2. I am not talking about POS , but also about sov structures.
3. We see from blogs/ posts that they work also on some other stuff - sometimes good one - but i see this as resources not focused on fixing nullsec , capitas, supers and sov.
4. We are talking about big changes , very big - and ccp is still balancing cruisers.

That is why i am asking , can a mid term fix to enormous ehp can be boost to dreads.
Why not reducing all structure ehp - because dreads will also put more pressure on other broken (super)capitals.


That would cause a whole raft of new problems.
Ilyana Nehla
Caldari Supply and Armament Inc.
#1600 - 2014-09-08 14:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ilyana Nehla
1. cut RR to one per ship if larger than medium. Smal reps are allowed 2 on a single hull (pretty much like in the AT with the logi count of 2 frig or 1 larger)
2. Make supers succeptible to E-war and highly succeptible to subcaps (dunno tracking, scanreso, signature, explo velo whatever it takes)
3. Give jump bridges a) shorter range and b) a respool time.
4. Furthermore a hefty limit on what the bridge can bridge (like with Wormholes)
5. No Jumpclone-jump wider than 15ly (arbitrary number)


/2cents