|
Collateral Damage posted:I'm amused to see that after winning EVE for five years because I got sick of every subcap fight ending when one side dropped 20 titans on the other, CCP still haven't managed to solve supercapital proliferation. In CCP's defense, no one really has. The community hasn't really put forth a workable idea either that people will be satisfied with, but Falcon's post at least alludes to people there seriously thinking about it.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Carriers would no longer field fighters? Also, isn’t the case that dreads in siege So I am really struggling with: 1. Why would they be carriers at all, and not just essentially FAXes... which would be deleted? I mean, just delete carriers if that’s what you want; 2. With envisioning carriers being reduced to a role that is “supporting dreads”;
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
I think the intent is to water down the carrier as a potential but weaker remote rep solution, and a weaker DPS solution, than say, what happened when slowcats were dominant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Is the main problem still that a large enough group of supercapitals is essentially invulnerable to subcaps no matter how large the subcap fleet? I think capitals should be nearly defenseless against subcaps. They can have smartbombs and a limited amount of regular drones (not thousands of sentries). Delete HAWs. If you want your capitals on field, you should need a subcap escort. As for the capital ratting problem, they could just add gated anomalies in nullsec that disallow capitals. Tune them for subcaps and make them suitably valuable. That would also help ratting in nullsec in general in a no-local era as attackers would have to decloak to take the acceleration gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
The thing with that CCP Falcon screed is that the dude has no actual say in development direction. That's just him talking out of his rear end and has as much weight as any other post on that bad forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
I was kind of on board with falcon until he suggested stripping carriers of the thing they carry. Then he lost me completely with the no capital ratting...
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Just delete all super capitals and refund the SP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Hi, someone told my they deleted local in nullsec? Should I be resubbing and blops dropping until the end of time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
smertrioslol posted:Hi, someone told my they deleted local in nullsec? Should I be resubbing and blops dropping until the end of time? There's nothing to drop on. Everyone rats in Titans and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
orange juche posted:There's nothing to drop on. Everyone rats in Titans and poo poo. That's dumb, guess I'll skip the annual resub this time around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Zazz Razzamatazz posted:I was kind of on board with falcon until he suggested stripping carriers of the thing they carry. Then he lost me completely with the no capital ratting... Yeah it was right around where he got to "Carriers don't carry fighters!!!1" that I started to wonder what drugs he was on suggesting we delete FAXs. And I have no idea how he proposes making capital fleets "weak" to subcaps, or what a capital ship's role would be in this new meta. According to Falcon, Titan = Stargate, Supercarrier = Cap killer, Carrier = Logistics, Dreads = Structure Shoot. Which begs the question, if you have a decently sized subcap fleet, you can ALSO structure shoot for far cheaper, and as Falcon establishes a large Subcap fleet can threaten capital fleets... why would you ever field a capital fleet and risk that much ISK? Changing how capitals interact with structures is the most important thing he could post about to justify his galaxy brain meta and he just "lol nah post is too long." It also occurred to me that what he is suggesting is basically taking everything surrounding capital ships back to circa 2011 or so. He could have saved a lot of words by just saying that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Just delete all super capitals and refund the SP. Drifters attack all major shipyards across New Eden. They are repelled, but the construction base of the cluster is so heavily damaged, capsuleers are now forbidden from building their own super capitals. And carriers. Also Faxes and dreads. All forbidden now! And if you take resources to try to build new ones, you can but Super-Drifters show up to destroy your ship yard structures with whatever was building inside. Or for added comedy, CONCORD shows up in NullSec to enforce the no-player-built-caps-law. Done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Yeah it was right around where he got to "Carriers don't carry fighters!!!1" that I started to wonder what drugs he was on suggesting we delete FAXs. Right? It sounds like POS era thinking. Do you even really need to use caps for structure shooting when citadels have a damage cap?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Let's have carriers that don't carry the thing the word carrier implies them carrying. How about just balance fighters with things that can kill fighters
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Let's have carriers that don't carry the thing the word carrier implies them carrying. Carriers carried drones for faaaar longer than they ever carried fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
gently caress it, I'm gonna snort some CCP Falcon. Delete supercaps. Replace titans with Mobile Starbases. Basically the death star, have to begin a 30 minute long siege timer to do anything other than jump drive to the next cyno, and become essentially a structure with no timers when sieged. The timer makes them useless of anom running no matter how pimp you make them. Carriers, Dreads, and FAX stay the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Let's have carriers that don't carry the thing the word carrier implies them carrying. To be honest, before the carrier changes, I deployed regular drones as often as I deployed fighters, hth. Honestly if they reverted carriers and deleted FAXes, then shoehorned titans/supers further I'd be totally happy. The big thing, and the overriding objective, should be making subs relevant though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
covert cynos and cloaks for jump freighters? whut?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
wafflethief posted:covert cynos and cloaks for jump freighters? whut? idea being that they can prevent the contemporary supercap umbrella from operating without affecting JF travel also they can increase the cost and irritation factor slightly by increasing the minimum cost of each cyno hull + character by a factor of 25x it is not very well thought out
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
I dunno, globby going full mind blown over JFs using covert cloaks and cynos is worth any price really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Carriers carried drones for faaaar longer than they ever carried fighters. I know, but the new fighter mechanics are genuinely cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Gwyneth Palpate posted:idea being that they can prevent the contemporary supercap umbrella from operating without affecting JF travel And make JFs effectively fully invulnerable in the process. Even as a former JF pilot I find this retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I know, but the new fighter mechanics are genuinely cool. Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised that when I got in my carrier it wasn't going to be yet another AFK fest. Though it does get boring, so I generally try to avoid doing it unless I'm very much in a "I feel like doing something mindless and repetitive."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:To be honest, before the carrier changes, I deployed regular drones as often as I deployed fighters, hth. Instead Falcon’s floated idea is delete FAXs, take away carrier fighters, give them back the triage. You know delete FAXes so you can convert current carrier hulls into... FAXes. I love how reddit is fellating Falcon, and are like “yeah this guy plays the game!” When everything he says is a testament to a guy who hasn’t logged on since FAXes were introduced—he literally talked about refunding FAX skill points, as if they required a skill other than racial carrier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Deleting FAXes would probably be fine. Rolling Triage back into regular carriers would probably be beneficial. Allowing carriers to keep fighters would be fine, but in general, I think the paradigm should be: Capital fleets, centered around dreads, are what threaten sov and threaten structures. Supers counter dreads and carriers, dreads in numbers counter supers, carriers are OK at fighting capitals, and marginally OK at fighting subcaps while providing capital level logistics. (Only the carrier should be a viable ratting option, and even then shouldn't be blowing specialized PVE subs out of the water like they do. Titan ratting should be eliminated wholesale). Subcap fleets can threaten all of the above, as they should, while requiring critical mass of numbers to meaningfully threaten sov. Breaking the capital dominance over subs I think is what a lot of people are pining for, I think Falcon just took his stab at it. Buffing battleship speed/agility to make them worthwhile and make them dominant against capitals would refill their lost niche to some degree. Then tuning subs away from tech III cruiser spam. I still hate what they did to HACs -- fist fleets were probably the most enjoyable meta null ever produced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Supers counter dreads and carriers, dreads in numbers counter supers I don't understand how this is supposed to work. Rock counters scissors, except if you have enough scissors. This is how it actually "works" and the reality is everyone just moves enough rocks at once that the number of dreads you need to "in numbers" counter supers is far more than the node can handle because dreads only counter supers in a very theoretical sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:In CCP's defense, no one really has. I can think of one solution 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't understand how this is supposed to work. Rock counters scissors, except if you have enough scissors. This is how it actually "works" and the reality is everyone just moves enough rocks at once that the number of dreads you need to "in numbers" counter supers is far more than the node can handle because dreads only counter supers in a very theoretical sense. CCP would have to significantly buff the combat ability of dreads against caps in siege mode. A critical mass of overwhelming numbers is going to foil most attempts at balance in this regard, I agree. I guess the objective would be to make all doctrines/ships feel vulnerable, but I don't quite know how. I do know the power gulf between capitals and subs is incredible though, and needs to close to something more linear than it is now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Siege mode allows dreads to reduce targets' resistances, but only if the tatget is another capital?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Make titans require a Siege Module with all its drawbacks to use doomsdays or guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
Nerfing capitals is lame, instead they should make T2 carriers that can jump to covert cynos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Nerfing capitals is lame, instead they should make T2 carriers that can jump to covert cynos. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Thats what we keep telling him Kimsemus but he keeps coming back. Stick the covert carriers up yer arse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Zazz Razzamatazz posted:Right? It sounds like POS era thinking. Do you even really need to use caps for structure shooting when citadels have a damage cap? I doubt it. I went on a bunch of bomber fleets where we shot structures with torpedos, and it seemed to work fine. Usually 20 bombers per structure was more than enough to hit damage cap. Occasionally a bomber would get popped by structure defences, but nobody gave a gently caress because the ships cost like 60 mil. With larger fleets of subcaps the fc often told us to just use drones or just use one gun because we were way over damage cap. Once subcaps got the cyno inhibitor things down caps and supers started to come out for big important structures, but that seemed to be in anticipation of a real fight and/or to get blingy killmails, rather than caps being necessary for the kill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Nerfing capitals is lame, instead they should make T2 carriers that can jump to covert cynos. This, except they're BlackOps battleships, unfucked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Nerfing capitals is lame, instead they should make T2 carriers that can jump to covert cynos. I'm with you on this one. That's how bad your idea sound.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
All these talks about nerfs and so forth makes one not really want to buy/own capitals. The poor rorqs got hit hard. what is next?  . On a more serious note CCP is at least trying to find the right path with their drastic changes and I think it is kinda the only real wayto really see what changes can fix this stale game. If they keep chipping away with small changes then this game will die faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
ITT: a bunch of people who are not, and should not ever be game designers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
that falcon post is like, three entire major expansions worth of changes you gonna whiplash the gently caress out of your players if you even did a quarter of that poo poo all at once i'm not knowledgeable to speak on whether those changes would be any good but i dont need to be qualified to see that that is a whole lotta change, too much change
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
It doesn't matter anyway, falcon is not involved in game design and gives very few fucks after he cashed out all his shares from ccp getting acquired. That last bit is my impression after talking to him at eve Vegas last year 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 11:39
|
|