Ok it seems to keep cropping up in blog’s, the super cap debate…except, its not much of a debate. Everyone seems to agree there are FAR too many super cap’s tooling about the place.
From my point of view it doesn’t make much difference, the largest ship I can see me flying is a carrier in lowsec one day, and that would be more for logistics than any desire to take it into a fight. But never say never, I may return to null sec one day so, I pay attention when people talk about this stuff.
Now im not sure why CCP hasn’t addressed this issue yet, as it seems to be a large bone of contention and every one is saying we need less super caps, and the current mechanics seems to lend itself to super cap blob fests, which is dull for everyone.
There has been some suggestions about how to lessen the number , most of which seems to incorporate linking the super caps to revenue, so it takes x amount of isk to maintain one super cap…a good idea but overly complicated.
Why not just out and out put a cap on super caps?
What I mean is impose a cap from now, that a ALLIANCE may only have 5 supercap’s/titans. Once you reach that limit you are unable to build/buy any more. And that individual corps outside of an alliance cannot own any.
Now before all the people say what about the 100’s already built, leave them there. But they can’t build/buy another to replace it when they go pop.
The result would be in a year or so alliances would have 5 super caps each and , if they lose them it will leave the whole alliance a super cap down for the build time of a new super cap…a BIG loss. People would think if it was really needed before using their “big stick”.
It would also make people stop and think before committing the super caps out there already as once its gone it is really gone.
This would also make sov fights Far more tactical rather than “we have more money, blob them with super caps until they leave!” it may also see a return of BS fleets which would be a good thing.
Any thoughts ?
No this just won't work. The way to make super capitals get used less is to change their role in combat. Lessen the amount of fighter bombers they can use. Reduce their hit points a little. Make it possible to Ewar them. Things like this will reduce how they're deployed on a whim.
ReplyDeleteArtificial limits won't work. You'll just end up with super cap holding alliances or corps. They'll be blue to the main alliance and be able to fleet with them, so no problem.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the amount of ISK sloshing about from macros. The large alliances generate so much ISK that super cap losses are a short term, minor, set back. The solution to this is to either increase the cost of super caps, or reduce the flow from the ISK taps that the macros exploit.
I've never flown a supercap, and never flown with an alliance who has, either. However, it occurs to me that a large alliance who worked hard to get where they were (counting the botters, if you like) would be terribly put out if they could only field the same number of supercaps as a newly formed alliance of newbs. There is no measure of success then.
ReplyDeleteBest you could do is to reduce their stats, increase their costs, and/or introduce new costs such as having to make sure your fighter bombers are fueled and armed.
as the previous commentators have said, a simple fix like that won't work, for all the reasons above.
ReplyDeletewhat is really broken is sov warfare in general.. you may think that BS fleets are dead... they are most certainly not.
the real difference is that supercaps are used by and large for sov warfare because the ihubs and stations and SBUs have so many bloody hitpoints, that the only way to get them down in a reasonable amount of time is using the supers.
so alliances build more and more of them so that they become expendable, like anything else.
the real detriment here is that supercaps also in POS warfare, and are far too defensible.
the real answer is to make them *much* weaker, to the point where they become a glass cannon of sorts, akin to a carrier in real life.
one Mig-29 that makes it past the F-18s on a US carrier can launch a missile from 100miles away that will sink the carrier.
and so it should be in this case... i.e. there needs to be a effective counter to supercaps, so that while they keep their role (and their price) that they can actually be *lost* at the same rate they are produced.
this is what keeps EVE thriving, the endless cycle of destruction/production.. unfortunately, supercaps just aren't dying fast enough.
I dunno, I think a cap cap is an interesting idea. Needs to be scaled somehow, though, not just a flat "per alliance" cap. Like 1 super per 100 pilots or something, with a bonus for number of systems held? Makes "holding alliances" harder as well.
ReplyDeleteAny sort of cap will be circumvented in one way or other. As thesilentbaa said, you'll just start to see thousands of new corps/alliances spring up as super cap holders. I don't mean to sound like the bad apple here, but people need to stop thinking about super caps as this evil plaque. Compare Eve to any other game and you have the best armor, the best gear, the top dogs on the field. That's what super caps are really. Back in the day, for the really old school people, it used to be battleships were the expensive juice but now those are a dime a dozen.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really want to see less of them being fielded in conflicts, then yes. CCP needs to reevaluate the amount of HP the various sov structures have. Or, I like the idea of extremely powerful weapons available to use, but very fragile hulls (titans included).
Eve is rock paper scissors writ large (alright, extremely large). Problem with the supercaps is that the only option is rock vs rock....there is no other counter currently availalbe. So thats the key - either weaken the supercaps a bit so that existing counters will work, or modify other ships to respond. How about stealth bombers with 1 single very large torpedo launcher?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is also important to note when discussing "Caps" of the number of supers an alliance can have, is that most supercapitals are personally owned. Most Alliances will subsidise them to an extent, but the for the most part the pilots saved up for them and foot the bill for their use.
ReplyDeleteBut, at the same time, Supercarriers at least should be nerfed in some way. I would suggest tweaking Fighters and Fighter Bombers and adding an "Interceptor" Fighter, which would be very effective against smaller ships or other fighters, but lack the DPS to take on Battleships or other Capitals. This, and allowing regular Carriers to deploy Fighter Bombers, would allow coordinated carrier squadrons to take on Supers, and would force Supercarrier pilots to plan and coordinate their Fighter loadouts with others in the fleet rather than just bringing Bombers with a few spare drones for "just in case".
Also, Battleship Fleets are dead not because of Supercaps, but "Fist" type close range Armor HAC gangs. Also, Battlecruiser fleets that have been used recently are actually much more versitile than the Fleet Battleships of old, and less skill intensive and cheaper, allowing more of them to be fielded. Battleships were used in the past because they were able to tank Titan Doomsdays, but since Doomsdays were changed to be targeted, they have falled out of favor due to being outclassed by larger fleets of smaller ships that could not have survived Titan attacks.
Battleship fleets are far from dead. All the recent major conflicts have seen both sides fielding primarily battleship fleets (or :draeks:). What we're finding out is that ahax actually have a fairly narrow tactical role; in smaller fights they're able to take on many times their numbers in battleships or etc., but aren't primary fleet ships because they're expensive, perform poorly in high lag... and so few people can fly them. Even the NC has never put together more than about 150.
ReplyDeleteDrakes were FOTM for a while because they're cheap and can take on ahax, but the weakness of drakes is that they're easily taken down by battleship fleets, which have more alpha and EHP.
I agree with what thesilentbaa said.
ReplyDeleteYou will just end up with 20 alliances all under one bannar.
Instead of having an alliance of 20 corps you will have alliances of 1 corp and then 20 alliances blue to each other just so they can have 50 super caps.
I agree that there are probably too many super caps out there these days but I dont think they can really do anything about it due to the nature of EVE.
EVE is a sandbox it lets you do what you want so inevitable people will build loads of super caps rather than having fights with BS fleets ect..