open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Way to combat isk -titans-caps-jump bridges-cyno blockers-isk Devalued
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Andreya
Red Federation
Posted - 2008.08.15 00:51:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic


edit: Not to mention the level 4 runner can sit in highsec, only fearing being suicide ganked, which is soon to be nerfed by CCP. Yay! CCP needs some serious risk/reward evaluation. There's no way in hell you pull 50m/hr ratting in 0.0, or continually mining in 0.0


lolmuahahaha get rid of local as an intel tool, and we can sort out them roid humpers and ratters real quick :P

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.08.15 00:53:00 - [32]
 

Viva la highsec isk farming! ugh

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.08.15 01:12:00 - [33]
 

Yeah, as others have stated, it is not inflation. As prices for most items have not gone up. It is more of a growth in living standards :p

I agree with some of the OP's points, but the solution I disagree with. Caps are just too powerfull to not be stockpiled. CCP did talk about nerfing carriers (so they would actualy use triage mode) a while back (which might have solved part of the problem) but they bottled out of it. Caps (except dreads) are out of whack to everything else. Supercaps are even more out of whack.

End of the day no matter how much you restrict something high end the numbers will grow if more can be produced than can be destroyed. The only thing you can do with restricting something is to ensure that certain factions have all of that something. You would kill warfare in eve because the big powerblocks would become even more unassailable than they are now, and they would do that by controlling cap and supercap production (supercap production to a large extent already is controlled by a few powerblocks).

I hate nerfs in general, but a total rethink of the role of capitals and supercapitals and cyno jammers in the game would not be a bad thing.

Allesteria
Posted - 2008.08.15 01:52:00 - [34]
 

Personally, I like the idea of anti-capital ships and I do not believe that the idea requires "bigger" ships.

What it does require is thinking outside the box and whiners to hold off before going, "OMG th@t's teh uber-powered!!!11 NERF NERF N3RFNERFNERF!111!@!!!"

One ship that I'd like to see would be the light carrier. Whether or not it would be allowed into high-sec would have to be threshed out at a later date but I'd like to see a sub-capital ship class with fighter capabilities.

The general idea is a ship that costs about 150-200m, can toss out 2 fighters, and is deigned to be a fast escort ship class with good align time, good warp speed, and being able to keep up with all but the fastest elements of a fleet such as the interceptors and covert ops ships. Perhaps some logistics functions as standard carriers have so that we can have sub-cap logistics ships that work better, and last longer, than the T2 cruisers but I don't know how well that would work out.

My other idea is something along the lineso f marauders but instead of using siege module technology to super-charge a bunch of large guns design a ship class that's a mobile gun in siege mode. Something that'll put out a hellacious amount of DPS with almost no ability to hit sub-cap ships for any appreciable damage, is fairly armored (no super-tanks) and relatively easy to make but not so cheap that they'd make dreadnoughts useless. A battleship with 2 capital guns and a siege module with lower fitting abilities than current battleships to avoid over-tanking might do it.

Again, the issue of how would an anti-capital ship going into high-sec affect things "topside" comes into play but outside of POS ops in high-sec (is this even practical?) I don't really see them being a major problem, except perhaps to suicide-gank (assuming a valid war is not in play) freighters or freshly built capitals before they can jump to low-sec.

Actually, for that matter how about adding a few new modules. Modified ECM that completely disrupts fighters FoF systems so that sides get swapped or every ship looks like an enemy or no ship looks like an enemy. EW module designed to knock dreadnoughts out of siege-mode, perhaps ones that suck up all the using ship's cap and knocks their shields to 0. A new class of T2 battlecruisers called "disruptors" or somesuch that are designed to make a total hash of fleet structures, gang bonuses, and gang mods, an anti-command ship if you will.

In the end I am firmly of the belief that capitals in and of themselves should not be changed but that sub-capital methods of dealing with them more effectively should be introduced, but these methods should not be more cost-effective than capitals or superior to capitals in any sort of overall sense.

Shereza
Posted - 2008.08.15 01:53:00 - [35]
 

I swear, you create a new alt to test something and she thinks she can post for you without your permission. Just pretend Allesteria's post was mine.

Strom Kryos
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.15 02:04:00 - [36]
 

Something to think about as far as balance...
Titan and Mom cant dock
Either log out in them and never get to use that toon for anything else or risk looseing your ship.

Think that should be considered when your listing all teh major unbalances of those ships.

Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.08.15 03:15:00 - [37]
 

The only thing a 'capital maintance cost' would do is to make new, small, or upstart alliances pay even more to play with the big boys. As it stands, if you have a titan or multiple titans around, a few bill a month is just pocket change. . .on an alliance level anyway.

The carrier tax would hurt the most. . .

ultimatly, I agree with your assesment of the problem, I disagree with your particular solution.

Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.15 03:39:00 - [38]
 

WTF... inflation is necessary. the reason every noob and their grandmother flies around in battleships these days is EXACTLY because of ZERO inflation due to artificial price caps a la shuttle reprocessing and static insurance rates.

You fail.

Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.15 05:59:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky
The only thing a 'capital maintance cost' would do is to make new, small, or upstart alliances pay even more to play with the big boys. As it stands, if you have a titan or multiple titans around, a few bill a month is just pocket change. . .on an alliance level anyway.

The carrier tax would hurt the most. . .

ultimatly, I agree with your assesment of the problem, I disagree with your particular solution.


And inflation would make it more expensive for the larger groups too. c/d?

Andreya
Red Federation
Posted - 2008.08.15 07:12:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Ekrid
WTF... inflation is necessary. the reason every noob and their grandmother flies around in battleships these days is EXACTLY because of ZERO inflation due to artificial price caps a la shuttle reprocessing and static insurance rates.

You fail.


thanks, but you fail.
if you read the rest of the comments, you would see we reassessed how i used the word inflation, i was incorrect, but we (unlike you) managed to understand the point i was trying to get across and discuss that issue productivly

go away

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.08.15 11:40:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Allesteria
Personally, I like the idea of anti-capital ships and I do not believe that the idea requires "bigger" ships.

What it does require is thinking outside the box and whiners to hold off before going, "OMG th@t's teh uber-powered!!!11 NERF NERF N3RFNERFNERF!111!@!!!"

...

In the end I am firmly of the belief that capitals in and of themselves should not be changed but that sub-capital methods of dealing with them more effectively should be introduced, but these methods should not be more cost-effective than capitals or superior to capitals in any sort of overall sense.


Any introduction of ships to counter caps would of course be an indirect nerf to both Caps and all sub-caps, you do realise this, right?

But sorry, caps are overpowered, which is why they are so essential. Asking for a nerf of a ship class where the whole balanced fleet option takes 2nd fiddle to more caps is a reasonable responce. And once you get alot of caps together their abilities increase exponentially with spider tanking.

Take sub cap fleet combat for instance. Alot of different smaller ships can effectively fight BS and help BS who form the core of the sub cap fleet. Recons, logistics ships, inties, HACS, etc. form the support and anti-support.

Once it comes to caps then logistics aren't needed, BS aren't needed, galenti recons and amarr recons can have an effect vs small numbers but they aren't going to live long and arent effective vs large numbers, falcons and rapiers are useless (rapiers can though stop people getting into pos shields). BS are pretty much useless, HACS useless, inties useless, etc.

A whole new tier of combat was created with these ships pretty much immune to sub-caps and without all the balance and counters available in sub-cap combat, without transveral and distance and speed and so on playing so much of a part. Cap combat is a very different game costing individuals alot of sp and isk, seperate accounts (yeah you need seperate accounts, especialy for supercaps) and alot less excitment.

Tl;DR 1 more of any subcap cannot ever be the choice over one more cap. Is this not alone enough to ask for a nerf?

Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:27:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Omarvelous on 15/08/2008 14:27:30
Interesting thread - well laid out, and good points.

Not sure about the solutions - seems it would hurt smaller groups more, but I see why you're mentioning them.

Perhaps the way to look at it is not - how can you make cap/super cap ships less desirable - but how can you make sub caps more desirable/durabel vs cap-ships.

Perhaps a module useable by BS or other sub caps could be used as an anti-DD mod. It could radiate a defensive bubble effective against area of effect weapons - worthless against direct attacks. It could look like the warp disruption bubble - with a really blue tint.

I also think a great way to enhance isk sinks would be to completely remove insurance on anything BC and larger, yet leaving it for frigates and cruiser would still help newbies out as they lose ships.

I'd like a chain reaction type weapon too (perhaps replace area of effect doomsday with this?). Weak against 1 target - however it amplifies its effects the more ships that are nearby that the weapon discharges onto. Kind of like chain lightning that hops between ships - but gets stronger the more ships there are within x range of each other.

Bye bye blobs ;)

These are some of my thoughts. Good post, look forward to hearing other ideas, and critiques of my own.

Mychael
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:45:00 - [43]
 

to be honest, i would fix only one thing!

the MONSTER LAG!

then all pew pew lvls would be uber!

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:49:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
snip

edit: Not to mention the level 4 runner can sit in highsec, only fearing being suicide ganked, which is soon to be nerfed by CCP. Yay! CCP needs some serious risk/reward evaluation. There's no way in hell you pull 50m/hr ratting in 0.0, or continually mining in 0.0


hahahahahahahahaha 50m/hr running missions

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:00:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 15/08/2008 15:00:26
Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 15/08/2008 15:00:05
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Originally by: AstroPhobic
snip

edit: Not to mention the level 4 runner can sit in highsec, only fearing being suicide ganked, which is soon to be nerfed by CCP. Yay! CCP needs some serious risk/reward evaluation. There's no way in hell you pull 50m/hr ratting in 0.0, or continually mining in 0.0


hahahahahahahahaha 50m/hr running missions


I'm with the "haha" also.. I do at least 1bill/hour high sec missioning. Rolling Eyes

Shereza
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:01:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Any introduction of ships to counter caps would of course be an indirect nerf to both Caps and all sub-caps, you do realise this, right?


Actually, no, I don't "realize this."

Not to make too fine a point on the subject but I do not see introducing new ship classes as in any way, shape, or form "nerfing" pre-existing ships as it does not alter those ships at all, merely the way battlefields interact with them.

Also, I honestly don't see how introducing anti-capital ships/modules would "nerf" sub-capital ships.

As far as I'm concerned new ship classes can be introduced without "nerfing" (whether by impacting the effect of those ships or by the devs modifying their stats directly) pre-existing classes and whether by new ship classes or new modules capitals can be given effective non-blob counters both in terms of what would be used against and instead of capitals.

Of course, having said that this is possible I must also bear in mind that this is CCP we're dealing with. The company who's coders made sentry drones and logistics drones follow much of the same basic code as combat drones so that logistics drones "attack" their targets and sentry drones can shoot at anything inside your control range, even if the drone itself is outside said range.

So yes, it's quite possible, just not very probable.

Shereza
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:03:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Shereza on 15/08/2008 15:03:55
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 15/08/2008 15:00:26
Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 15/08/2008 15:00:05
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Originally by: AstroPhobic
snip

edit: Not to mention the level 4 runner can sit in highsec, only fearing being suicide ganked, which is soon to be nerfed by CCP. Yay! CCP needs some serious risk/reward evaluation. There's no way in hell you pull 50m/hr ratting in 0.0, or continually mining in 0.0


hahahahahahahahaha 50m/hr running missions


I'm with the "haha" also.. I do at least 1bill/hour high sec missioning. Rolling Eyes


I'm lucky if I make 120m/day running missions. Sad

Even then I need to have a third acount mining while I combat with one account and salvage, simultaneously, with my second. Crying or Very sad

Edit: Run-on italics suck. Don't remove the /s people, please. Very Happy

Athanasios Anastasiou
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:23:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Athanasios Anastasiou on 15/08/2008 15:27:33
This is actually a great idea. I remember the days when loosing a t2 sniper actually hurt the wallet; these days, its comparable to loosing a t1 cruiser 2 years ago.

Hopefully, by reducing the amount of isk the the economy, people will have less ships to blob/loose everyday and fleet battles will become smaller and be more meaningful (and less laggy).

Less capitals is a plus as well.

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:24:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Andreya

Capitals should have ISK valued upkeep, for example, a cost to keep the ship running. i will throw out some general estamites at how much it would cost to upkeep the ship per month
Titan- 5 Billion
Mothership- 1 billion
Dreadnaught- 300 mill
Carrier- 200 mill

Sounds very fair to me.
Quote:


jump bridges, ruining the pvp aspect of the small corps, cause big alliances just warp to and from their destinations... one idea is, make it a whole pos itself, or have it so the pos cannot equipt guns if theres a jump bridge...
other option is, MAKE IT COST (isk) resources, based on class of ship or mass. basically
shuttle 1 mill
frigate 5 mill
cruiser 10 mill
bc 15 mill
Bs 20 mill



I like the idea, but the prices are way off.
A shuttle cost about 10k, so you are charging 100 times the price.
Frigates are about 300k, so you are asking for about 15 times the price.
Cruiser are about 5 million on average, so that's twice for a jump.
BC's are in the 50's, so now you only require 1/4 of the price.
and BS's are about 100mill, so that's 1/5 of the price.

So the bigger the ship, the cheaper it will become? Sounds kinda odd to me, to be honest Smile. 1/5 the price of the ship, could be a fair amount for the safety. Not knowing the prices of jump fuel, I think that is what you pay today in consumption.

atomic killer
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:25:00 - [50]
 

Anti capital ships called Dreadnoughts in siege mode. If a titan gets caught by a fleet of dreads it gets poped in less then a minute. Major alliance can afford to have 100+ capital in one fleet.

The income for supercaps doesnt come from missions.

All what you suggest will not change anything in big alliances, it will simply screw up small/med size alliance.

P.S. Look at the real world economy. US, Russia, Georgia and then you might understand that your sugestions are stupid

Athanasios Anastasiou
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:31:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: atomic killer
Anti capital ships called Dreadnoughts in siege mode. If a titan gets caught by a fleet of dreads it gets poped in less then a minute. Major alliance can afford to have 100+ capital in one fleet.

The income for supercaps doesnt come from missions.

All what you suggest will not change anything in big alliances, it will simply screw up small/med size alliance.

P.S. Look at the real world economy. US, Russia, Georgia and then you might understand that your sugestions are stupid


Actually, I disagree. This will hurt bigger alliances a lot more then the smaller ones. Each additional carrier an alliance has added a diminishing effect. If your alliance have 200 carriers, an additional one won't add too much. Therefore, a larger alliance (whose members) will have to pay a lot in tax for very little realistic gain. Not to mention most carriers are personally owned and payed for, so your point is moot.

Real world suggests that we do tax people for their economic assets.

atomic killer
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:36:00 - [52]
 

look, income for supercapitals comes from moon mining + taxes (moon materials are like oil in real world).

So once the cost will increase, alliance increase the price for "OIL" and tell me please whou is going to suffer at the end ?

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:39:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Originally by: AstroPhobic
snip

edit: Not to mention the level 4 runner can sit in highsec, only fearing being suicide ganked, which is soon to be nerfed by CCP. Yay! CCP needs some serious risk/reward evaluation. There's no way in hell you pull 50m/hr ratting in 0.0, or continually mining in 0.0


hahahahahahahahaha 50m/hr running missions


Uh... not my fault you can't farm the right missions/lp store/use the right ship. It can be done. Rolling Eyes

Adaline Gray
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:00:00 - [54]
 

I believe everything listed in the OP is bad for the game. I wish they had never implemented any of it except capital ships, which are fine with me. Jump bridges, Titans, Cyno Jammers, etc were all terrible ideas which are hurting the game.

Andreya
Red Federation
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:59:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Titan Pilot
Isk sink is in place. You need to maintain sov to keep your Titans relatively safe.

Titans aren't exactly cheap, so proposing a user fee is almost as brilliant an idea as nerfing the Sabre, your beloved ship. Razz

If I can get the Sabre unnerfed can you promise to stop these posts? Crying or Very sad


HAHHA damn you, whos alt is THIS one :PVery HappyVery HappyVery Happy

yes... i would stop all my *****ing in eve if they unnerfed the dictors :P (make em second fastest class :P)
DO WANTTwisted Evil

Andreya
Red Federation
Posted - 2008.08.15 19:07:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Athanasios Anastasiou
Originally by: atomic killer
Anti capital ships called Dreadnoughts in siege mode. If a titan gets caught by a fleet of dreads it gets poped in less then a minute. Major alliance can afford to have 100+ capital in one fleet.

The income for supercaps doesnt come from missions.

All what you suggest will not change anything in big alliances, it will simply screw up small/med size alliance.

P.S. Look at the real world economy. US, Russia, Georgia and then you might understand that your sugestions are stupid


Actually, I disagree. This will hurt bigger alliances a lot more then the smaller ones. Each additional carrier an alliance has added a diminishing effect. If your alliance have 200 carriers, an additional one won't add too much. Therefore, a larger alliance (whose members) will have to pay a lot in tax for very little realistic gain. Not to mention most carriers are personally owned and payed for, so your point is moot.

Real world suggests that we do tax people for their economic assets.


THIS ^ atomic killer

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.08.15 19:09:00 - [57]
 

Real world doesn't suggest we go around killing other people and selling their remains.

Say it with me now. Game.

Locke DieDrake
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:00:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Locke DieDrake on 15/08/2008 22:00:52
Originally by: AstroPhobic


Uh... not my fault you can't farm the right missions/lp store/use the right ship. It can be done. Rolling Eyes


50m an hour? Solo? Not bloody likely. Even with a q20 agent and in .1 space you can't do that kind of income an hour. Not solo.

Sure "it can be done". But I can rat 5 0.0 systems at once too, making VERY good money on an hourly basis. (especially if I start right after down time and chain spawns all day) But realistically, thats not something most people can do.*

*some of us have (as a forum identity once said) Nasa computers. I think thats an apt way to describe it.

Lastly for you mission runners, divide your isk per hour by the number of accounts you use to get it, then post that number instead. Because thats what the rest of us are thinking... a single ship/account. Because thats what "most" people have.



Evil Enigma
Gallente
GAIDSAURAS
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:08:00 - [59]
 

Solution.

Leave 0.0 ... join faction warfare and all your problems have gone away.
No titans. No fleets of massive remote repping carriers. No jump bridges ... No cyno Blockers.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:24:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Locke DieDrake
Edited by: Locke DieDrake on 15/08/2008 22:00:52
Originally by: AstroPhobic


Uh... not my fault you can't farm the right missions/lp store/use the right ship. It can be done. Rolling Eyes


50m an hour? Solo? Not bloody likely. Even with a q20 agent and in .1 space you can't do that kind of income an hour. Not solo.

Sure "it can be done". But I can rat 5 0.0 systems at once too, making VERY good money on an hourly basis. (especially if I start right after down time and chain spawns all day) But realistically, thats not something most people can do.*

*some of us have (as a forum identity once said) Nasa computers. I think thats an apt way to describe it.

Lastly for you mission runners, divide your isk per hour by the number of accounts you use to get it, then post that number instead. Because thats what the rest of us are thinking... a single ship/account. Because thats what "most" people have.





Get a paladin, farm xyz ubermission, make 25m/hr from bounties/rewards, 10m/hr from salvage, 5mil/hr from loot, another 10m/hr easy from good LP store purchases.

Hell, you can easily surpass that with pirate faction missions.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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