These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Making Supercaps Super Again
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Limerance Zet-Giry
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-01-30 05:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Limerance Zet-Giry
You may also be interested in looking into this topic - almost the same idea, just more researched and with answers to all supposed objections
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=685680#post685680
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#22 - 2012-01-30 07:07:21 UTC
Limerance Zet-Giry wrote:
just more researched and with answers to all supposed objections

I see you trollin'

Cpt Bogus wrote:
This seems like it would just get exploited by alliances with infinite money and alts to grind everyone out of competition. The solution to supercapital abuse is to severely nerf their direct-combat abilities and drastically enhance their fleet support role, so it becomes a ship you want your side to have on the field of a major battle--or resupplying from a distance, whatever--but not something that it makes sense to put together a 50-strong gank fleet.

As long as carriers and moms function as uber-dominixes, any attempt to tweak availability will give one group or playstyle an advantage over another.

What sort of role would you put them in though? Very high EHP triage carrier type deals? CCP would get some pretty bad feedback from super pilots if they made that change.

Although that's not to say I dislike your idea, I just can't see a role for them other than high EHP/DPS capital ship/structure killers.

Soldarius wrote:
Only allow one per station under alliance control?

I think then we'd just see a very quick rise in the number of outposts.

Plus, how do you enforce it? Are you going to have CCP take away people's supers, if so what will they reimburse them with? How are they going to deal with the outrage this causes? What happens to low sec alliances who don't have outposts? etc.

[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]
McOboe
Viscosity
#23 - 2012-01-30 07:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: McOboe
I think the isotope idea has merit. If CCP wanted to put a hard-cap on how many Titans an alliance/corp could run, they could inject the idea that the isotopes are only manufactured by the Jovians, who cap the sale of isotopes to an alliance. Enough for five or 10 per alliance. It'd probably have to be played with by CCP to get a good balance.

Another option, which I've mentioned before in another topic, is the idea of proximity interference between super-caps. EVE lore already notes that Titans can disrupt planets when they get too close. Perhaps Titans can disrupt each other. Optional side effects- reduced cap/shield recharge, terrible tracking/rate-of-fire, sensor dampening, loss of ship agility/max speed, reduced resistances, etc. CCP could set some arbitrary distance, like 100 km. If super-caps get closer together than that, they receive interference. If 10+ super-caps get close to each other, they basically become weak and useless, as their gravity/EM-interference basically starts tearing them apart.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#24 - 2012-01-31 04:57:42 UTC
Zirse wrote:
First of all I think we can all agree that supercapitals were a bad idea.


No, we can't agree on that.

I think you hobos should just not be allowed to fire on supers, and supers shouldn't be able to fire upon you.

Next, we should boost caps and burn all space poor haters with fire.

We can start the fire with this OP.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
McOboe
Viscosity
#25 - 2012-01-31 05:35:48 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:


No, we can't agree on that.

I think you hobos should just not be allowed to fire on supers, and supers shouldn't be able to fire upon you.

Next, we should boost caps and burn all space poor haters with fire.

We can start the fire with this OP.


I agree that if supers want to be able to fire on smaller ships, they should have to fit smaller guns/missiles. By the same token, sub-cap ships should also do minimal damage to super-caps. A possible fix would be that sub-cap ship weapons by default only do 1/4th or 1/5th of the damage that they would normally do to a super-cap, before resists are factored in. It would effectively mean that you'd need four or five sub-cap ships to do the same damage to a super-cap as a single sub-cap ship could do now. At that point, like Asuka notes, capital ships would then rule the day in a fight against super-caps, as they should be able to deal effective damage to either class of ship (sub-cap and super-cap). This may require the creation of an even larger class of weapon for super-caps, perhaps an XXL Gun or similar, which would do immense damage to super-caps and structures, but be unable to damage anything smaller than a capital ship. Motherships may be problematic, as they do not rely on turrets, but it could be possible to tweak the fighters/bombers to get a similar effect.
Previous page12