open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Solution to supercap overpopulation v 2.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.07.15 12:34:00 - [1]
 

TL;DR

* For each supercap in operation, your alliance need to own an industrialized system.
* Super carriers require lvl 3 industry and Titans require lvl 5.
* Existing active supercapitals can be operated even if they don't have enough systems supporting them, but trying to board a supercap without enough systems supporting them will not work.


Preamble

Originally I had this proposal: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1550624
But it didn't seem too popular, mostly because people believed it could result in uneven supercap distribution. But also that the amount of supercaps would be reduced.

This new suggestion will remedy the first fear, though it will still reduce the amount of supercaps.


Suggested fix - System Support

Essentially the idea is that to operate 1 supercapital you would have to have sovereignty in 1 system. The more systems you have sovereignty in, the more supercaps you can have active at once.

There is also an ulterior motive in this proposal; to increase industrial activites in nullsec. To do this the industrial index in the system would have to be at lvl 3 to support a super carrier, and lvl 5 to support a Titan.

Thus, if your alliance want another super carrier they would have to acquire sov in a system, and get that system industrial level to 3.

It's also lore-wise logical to use the industrial index for this, as one would expect a lot of industrial activity would be required to keep a supercapital ship operational.


How to migrate from old system to new system?

Essentially at first no one would notice any change. But whenever a new pilot would want to board a supercap a check would be made if there are any systems left to support this action. If there isn't, the boarding action fails.

This means that for a while an alliance can own a lot more supercaps than they have support for, but as those ships get destroyed their pilots won't be able to enter new ships if their alliance don't own enough systems to support this.


Advantages with this idea

* While this idea, like my first, do limit supercaps it doesn't limit them as hard.
* Supercaps are distributed according to actual sovereignty and not luck. It's more fair.
* Constant work is required to keep supercap numbers high.
* This encourages alliances to take sovereignty in all systems they own and just not hold pseudo-sovereignty. It also gives incentives to attack and break sovereignty in undefended enemy systems to reduce their fleet power; every system is useful, no throwaway systems.
* It promotes small scale attrition warfare (because not much is needed to disrupt industrial activity and reduce the industrial index in enemy systems). It also promotes actively defending these systems and the industrialists within.
* It promotes industry heavily, a lot of industrialists will be required in each alliance to support their supercaps.
* Supporting a large number of Titans will be HARD.
* Losing a supercap is not as heavily penalized as it would be in my original suggestion. As long as there exists support in form of industrialized systems it will be easy to activate a new supercap once one is destroyed.
* Many of the other advantages from the original suggestion still stands.

Tiina Turmiola
Minmatar
draketrain
Posted - 2011.07.15 12:48:00 - [2]
 

it will never work if you try to limit super capitals by some kind of limited access natural resource, you will never get support and it isn't realistic or fair to players in general.

limiting stuff by sov would work if you could actually win the game at some point but this is persistent mmo so you cannot. having limit by sov would mean that bigger alliances would just get bigger and bigger until there was only one left. also there has always been supercarriers without alliances...

easier way to limit "amount" of them would be just limiting their abilities and usefulness in general so people just wouldn't use them. just check out dreads.

there's few things which would reduce number of supercaps on field very quickly and they would also seem pretty logical to me:
- reduce supercarrier offensive capabilities, adding fighter bombers for them was a mistake at first place. they were suitably strong already and thus their amount in game was sane.
- reduce titan effectiveness against sub capitals, they're still too effective
- and most importantly in my opinion, normal cynosural fields need to change to have some kind of timer before cyno can be used, i could agree with even cynoship moving while doing it as long as there is a timer. in my opinion timer should be equal to aggression timer before you can jump or dock to make cynotrapping useless at gates or station undocks that would effectively reduce supercap usage in low sec also.

all these things make sense though, so i don't see that csm or ccp is going to support them.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.07.15 13:09:00 - [3]
 

You put a lot of thought in but I don't think you'll get any support for this. I don't fly supers, have no interest in doing so and I still don't support it. Your proposal would restrict supers to those in established alliances in sov space. There are a lot of us who prefer the pseudo sov of low, npc null and w-space to those mechanics. And I see no reason as to why we should be forbidden to have those ships. We already can't build them, being unable to board one takes it way too far.

The solution as said is to reduce their appeal. SC's are an all in one wonder ship, when that changes, we'll see their numbers go down.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.07.15 13:14:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 15/07/2011 13:14:33
Originally by: Tiina Turmiola
it will never work if you try to limit super capitals by some kind of limited access natural resource, you will never get support and it isn't realistic or fair to players in general.

limiting stuff by sov would work if you could actually win the game at some point but this is persistent mmo so you cannot. having limit by sov would mean that bigger alliances would just get bigger and bigger until there was only one left. also there has always been supercarriers without alliances...

easier way to limit "amount" of them would be just limiting their abilities and usefulness in general so people just wouldn't use them. just check out dreads.

there's few things which would reduce number of supercaps on field very quickly and they would also seem pretty logical to me:
- reduce supercarrier offensive capabilities, adding fighter bombers for them was a mistake at first place. they were suitably strong already and thus their amount in game was sane.
- reduce titan effectiveness against sub capitals, they're still too effective
- and most importantly in my opinion, normal cynosural fields need to change to have some kind of timer before cyno can be used, i could agree with even cynoship moving while doing it as long as there is a timer. in my opinion timer should be equal to aggression timer before you can jump or dock to make cynotrapping useless at gates or station undocks that would effectively reduce supercap usage in low sec also.

all these things make sense though, so i don't see that csm or ccp is going to support them.


So the alternatives are either make them unlimited and useless or limited and useful? In my opinion the second alternative is better.

Also remember that this idea has general advantages when it comes to nullsec industry and small scale warfare.

And the relative power between the blocks will be kept. Typically as it looks now, the larger your alliance, the more systems you have and the more supercaps you have. The same will still be true with my suggestion only now supercaps will be something special instead of just, meh another Titan.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.07.15 13:15:00 - [5]
 

you say lvl 5 indy for a titan ???

pls check the eve map and tell me how many lvl 5 indy systems there are atm pls

last time i counted i had 5 or so

you need 20+ hulks mining 24/7 to get it to lvl 5 and keep it there

i think that's kind of hard to do

and how are small non 0.0 alliances ever going to be able to get suppercaps ?

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.07.15 13:22:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: King Rothgar
You put a lot of thought in but I don't think you'll get any support for this. I don't fly supers, have no interest in doing so and I still don't support it. Your proposal would restrict supers to those in established alliances in sov space. There are a lot of us who prefer the pseudo sov of low, npc null and w-space to those mechanics. And I see no reason as to why we should be forbidden to have those ships. We already can't build them, being unable to board one takes it way too far.

The solution as said is to reduce their appeal. SC's are an all in one wonder ship, when that changes, we'll see their numbers go down.

Why would you want supers in low sec anyway? They are more or less expressly built for nullsec warfare. I mean if you are going to nerf super carriers anyway, why would you as a low sec pilot want to use one if you instead could use a much cheaper carrier with superior RR support?
As I see it, there is no harm in making the supers nullsec only, it defines nullsec and nullsec warfare.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.07.15 13:28:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 15/07/2011 13:31:00
Originally by: bartos100
you say lvl 5 indy for a titan ???

pls check the eve map and tell me how many lvl 5 indy systems there are atm pls

last time i counted i had 5 or so

you need 20+ hulks mining 24/7 to get it to lvl 5 and keep it there

i think that's kind of hard to do

and how are small non 0.0 alliances ever going to be able to get suppercaps ?

As I said it would not be easy to have a large fleet of titans, but remember that there is A LOT more room in nullsec for industrialists than today. Part of this suggestion was to get more industrialists out there by giving this as incentive.

Well as a small non-nullsec entity you wouldn't be able to field supercaps. You would just have to take some smaller out of the way system first, hold it with regular caps, get an industry going and start producing supers.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.07.15 15:20:00 - [8]
 

Linkage

My take on the issue ?

The bare minimum, quick&dirty but sufficiently efficient supercapital changes needed...

All:
* remove EWAR immunity, or, ALTERNATIVELY, have EWAR modules work at 50% effectiveness against them
* PREFERABLE : add jump drive "spool up" time (not very long, under a minute)
* OPTIONAL : logoff "vanishing" timers doubled (or even tripled)

Supercarriers also:
* bomber-only bay separate from drone bay (which is made too small to fit a fighter)
* change +2 bonus to controlled (now only) bombers from "always on" to a +2 boost for one DCU per level

Isbariya
Caldari
Fnord Works
Posted - 2011.07.15 16:07:00 - [9]
 

Your proposal is interesting, but not well thought trough.

Problem N1

Big Alliances will effectively have more Suppers than small ones, that may even be true for today, but what happens if that one alliance keeps winning because of their amount of suppers ? As for today one can narrow it down to this statement, field more suppers than your opponent and you win. The result would be one alliance that rules all of 0.0 as there is no chance of anyone beating them due to their lack of suppers.

Problem N 2

You state, that an alliance can only have as much suppers as they have Industry 3 zones, but every supper that exists will still be operational even without sov. So let's beat your system. First you build a supper and board is as you got enough sov and kick that char out of the alliance. Now you got another free space for an suppercap and can go on with that method until the end of time ...

Although the second one maces the first obsolete, both are still flaws in your system and therefore the hole idea has to be rethought.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.07.15 16:26:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Isbariya

Problem N 2

You state, that an alliance can only have as much suppers as they have Industry 3 zones, but every supper that exists will still be operational even without sov. So let's beat your system. First you build a supper and board is as you got enough sov and kick that char out of the alliance. Now you got another free space for an suppercap and can go on with that method until the end of time ...

Yes this is a pretty large hole isn't it? I didn't think of that at all.

But I think it can be fixed with some creative thinking. Say for example that if you sit in a supercap and move between corps all modules in it get deactivated. Then the game runs the check every time a module is activated on a supercap. This would also prevent refitting of the supercaps as long as you can't support them, which may be both good and bad.

But it sounds like the general consensus is that most players want the supercaps nerfed and unlimited instead of powerful and limited anyway. Question is if "most players" know what is best for the game...
Personally I would like to see the supercaps as something special, the way CCP imagined them when they were created, but maybe it's just time to give up on that notion.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.15 16:40:00 - [11]
 

It wouldnt actually fix that supers are OP. Supers need a nerf, which as akita pointed out should start with making sure they cant fit an unlimitted ammount of regular drones and lose some more of their flexibility (either by forcing them to use their high slots for DCUs, but I have also seen other proposals that simply nerfs their ability to fit neuts for example).

Furthermore, apparently there are 5 industrial 5 systems, that are 5 more systems than I expected. It is stupidly hard to keep industrial levels on a reasonable level. (especially since it is trivial to put an afk cloaker in them and simply bridge in a fleet once in a while to obliterate the mining ships, you cant defend agaisnt that, thats why it is now way more useful to have multiple lower level industrial systems).

And then finally you give the dominant 0.0 powers as only ones the ability o field supers, I cant see how that could possibly go wrong...

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.07.15 16:50:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
Originally by: King Rothgar
You put a lot of thought in but I don't think you'll get any support for this. I don't fly supers, have no interest in doing so and I still don't support it. Your proposal would restrict supers to those in established alliances in sov space. There are a lot of us who prefer the pseudo sov of low, npc null and w-space to those mechanics. And I see no reason as to why we should be forbidden to have those ships. We already can't build them, being unable to board one takes it way too far.

The solution as said is to reduce their appeal. SC's are an all in one wonder ship, when that changes, we'll see their numbers go down.

Why would you want supers in low sec anyway? They are more or less expressly built for nullsec warfare. I mean if you are going to nerf super carriers anyway, why would you as a low sec pilot want to use one if you instead could use a much cheaper carrier with superior RR support?
As I see it, there is no harm in making the supers nullsec only, it defines nullsec and nullsec warfare.


You missed the point I was raising. Though I have no interest in leaving low sec, many new alliances use low sec as a stepping stone to null sec sov. In order to take and hold null sec sov, you absolutely have to have 50+ SC's. That's just the way it is these days. Your requirement basically forbids any new alliances from entering null sec except as pets.

Secondly, your whole proposal evades the entire problem. SC's are overpowered, make them not overpowered and they will be less desirable due to them requiring a dedicated character slot and being relatively expensive. I don't see very many titans running around, do you? The reason they are less popular is they aren't game breakingly overpowered like SC's are. In fact once you ignore titan bridging, the 15B isk SC's are superior combat ships compared to 50B+ isk titans. And you're telling me there is nothing wrong with that?

SC's need a good whack with the nerf bat. I'm not totally opposed to some production restrictions but yours seem heavy handed and skirt around the real issue anyways. For production limitations, I've always like the unobtanium idea. Make it so only a fixed number can exist.

Asm Khurelem
Open University of Celestial Hardship
Art of War Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.15 22:17:00 - [13]
 

This is bad - it gives even more power to those who already had it, and takes it form those who don't. It makes it even harder to lose what you already have, and harder to gain space if you're small... :S What's good about this?

Lakuma
Posted - 2011.07.17 01:08:00 - [14]
 

The idea has merit - but again you have a slippery slope. Once an alliance reaches a 'critical mass' of systems they'll forever have far more supercaps and, by virtue of their NOT being limitless systems, opposition will continue to be unable to retaliate...resulting in zerg tactics if they can succeed.

I'd suggest that a given alliance can only have X number of super-capitals active - literally link this to the alliance as an alliance asset, not a player asset. That number is entirely up for speculation - I can imagine 20 is about as high as I would want to see for a given alliance. This INCLUDES ALL CAPITALS - rorqs, carriers, dreads, SC's and titans. Freighters and Jump-F's would be excluded given their absolutely necessary role as logistics and the fact there is no 'super freighter' to balance.

That's my two isk. Balancing the cost of the ships could be easier - as well as their actual stats, since this problem really didn't exist until Supers. Then you're just getting into whether the nerfbat needs to come out or if dreads and carriers need buffing.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.07.17 03:57:00 - [15]
 

nerf artillery!

Isbariya
Caldari
Fnord Works
Posted - 2011.07.17 11:25:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Lakuma
...
I'd suggest that a given alliance can only have X number of super-capitals active - literally link this to the alliance as an alliance asset, not a player asset. That number is entirely up for speculation - I can imagine 20 is about as high as I would want to see for a given alliance. This INCLUDES ALL CAPITALS - rorqs, carriers, dreads, SC's and titans. Freighters and Jump-F's would be excluded given their absolutely necessary role as logistics and the fact there is no 'super freighter' to balance.
...


That's even more doomed to failure as the original proposal. What ships do you think an alliance would choose to have active if all capitals would count into this limmited number ? They would have X Titans and or Suppercarriers. Why should one use a standard carrier if those two are just so much better, same with dreads.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.07.17 11:36:00 - [17]
 

Sounds like a plan if the aim to solidify the chasm between the haves and the have-nots.

Two things need to be done to make supers/capitals less of iWin.
1. Destroying them needs to be "easy" without having to resort to super/capital spam oneself.
2. Production of them needs to be made more vulnerable.

Point two is already being debated as an option by having POS modules (incl. CSAA) outside of shield bubbles.
Point one can be done by removing immunity, adding vanilla-drone bays and reducing EHP slightly.

There, fixed them for you. Now lets move on to the Sov revamp, LS boost, hybrid boost, FW revamp etc. Very Happy


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only