Capital proliferation nerf is possible through Industry job balance

pvp

(Etherium Bladerunner) #1

Knowing that some of you might already be triggered by the title I will do my best to be short on the matter. Just want to prove that you can effectively nerf proliferation of capital ships construction and usage by other means than only resources balance.

Tl;dr

1:Implementing bottleneck of capital construction by limitation of capital/super capital Job run a structure can handle.

2:Limitation in the total amount of capital ships a structure can store inside itself.

3:Limitation of structure you can anchor in a single system. 1 citadel , 1 engineering complex , 1 tatara ,
x amount POS (or whatever the invasion structure will be as long as it cannot store capital ship), athanor can only be anchored around moon beacon.

  1. Bottleneck on the capital Job run a structure can handle.

This solve the problem of trying to balance the resources an alliance can harvest or the amount you need for capital ships since it is indifferent to your mineral stockpile. It forces you to organize inside your corporation/alliance who will have the privilege to build capital and when they will be able to do it for a given structure.

Example (just to give you an image):

-An azbel can only manage 10 capital ship job run at the same time.

-A sotiyo can only manage 1 titan or 5 super carriers or 40 carrier size/dreadnought type ship at the same time.

If you make it so that the capacity of a structure for job run is base on a certain Volume (m3) in order to build the ship , you can then mix some supers with some capitals etc. Having the intelligence on the exact amount of structures your enemy posses will give you a better idea of their capacities and limits, and also the effect of your destruction on them.

  1. Bottleneck on the storage capacity for capital ships a structure can handle.

Limiting the total amount of capital ships a structure can store will force alliance to increase their infrastructure to support the maintenance and capacity of their capital/super capital fleet.

Example (just to give you an image):

-An azbel can only contain 10 capital ships at any given time in its docking bays.

-A tatara can only contain 5 rorqual at any given time in its docking bays.

-A fortizar can only contain 20 capital ships at any given time in its docking bays.

-A keepstar can only contain 50 capital ships 20 super capital ships and 5 Titan at any given time in its docking bays.

Some might say that the easy work around is having alts holding capital ships in space. This idea does not try target people using this strategy but more about people owning 20 super carriers and/or owning 10 titans at the same time . It does not prevent the ability to own multiple capital ships for itself but more about making it more difficult and costly either by using more alts to hold them or making more structure to store them. Strong inconvenience is a good solution imo.

3. Limitation of structure you can anchor in a single system.

This one is specific to the idea on the necessity of expansion. If you can anchor 40 azbel in a single system it will defeat the purpose of the previous idea even tho the fuel cost will be enormous. It has been proven that many alliance in this game does not sweat to maintain their capacity to heavily focus their vital activity centers. This idea means that in order to increase military storage capacity for capital ships or industrial capacity to build them, you are forced to expand infrastructure in many systems in order to satisfy 200+ active members of a single alliance.

Example (just to give an image):

In any given system you can have a maximum of:

  • 1 citadel

  • 1 engineering complex

  • 1 tatara

  • x amount of POS or new invasion structure CCP come out with

  • Athanor can only be anchored around moon beacon.

It binds together upwell structures with direct control of a system vicinity in a stronger way. To be the only organization to have a combat structure in a system is a better potential to create tension and conflict, especially in high-sec/low sec.

1, 2 and 3 together.

It would mean that every time you destroy a structure that support capital ships (azbel sotiyo, fortizar, etc.) you are actively reducing the capacity of your enemy to produce and maintain properly their capital/ super capital ships by a precise number you have knowledge of. Being forced to anchor multiple Sotiyo on different system spread the industrial/economic force on more territory, which make exponential growth a dangerous adventure. It doesn’t matter how much your farmers farm the living ■■■■ out of themselves, they will be forced to face the limit of time, and infrastructure his organization can provide to alleviate the bottleneck.

Thanks for reading o7.


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #2

I didn’t even have to read a single word beyond the title to know that reading the body of the post would be a waste of time.

And even without reading the body of the post, I can tell you: Your ideas have been suggested before. Many many times. - And, more importantly, have been rejected. For good reason.


(Etherium Bladerunner) #3

can you send me a thread where those bad ideas have been refuted. I’m curious
.


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #4

lol no. I don’t generally file away useless info like that.

You can no doubt find them tho, if you really want to. But I certainly won’t go digging them up for you.


(Etherium Bladerunner) #5

The thing is I see alot of people talking about nerfing farming and cost but never saw one about industry job, in the sense of a specific thread about it, not a random comment drowned inside many. I’m searching for that kind of subject but it seems I cannot find a thread specific to my subject.

I am open to go read about it if you or someone else stumble upon it. On the other hand I am doubting you since you don’t even read my thread before judging :confused:. anyway o7


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #6

Not much point reading a wall of text when the title says it all.

And yes, people have suggested nerfing capitals by limiting the ability to manufacture them. Many times.


(Etherium Bladerunner) #7

ability to manufacture them is a vague point. By what mean? resources harvesting? yes I agree many times. By time and job run bottleneck tied to structure? don’t think so. Again if you want to comment I strongly suggest you read the thread otherwise we are not on the same page here so no point debating.


(Do Little) #8

If you want to reduce the number of capital ships in the game - do it by making them easier to kill, not harder to build.


(Dread Saboteur) #9

It’s too late to go after the production


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #10

This is by far the truest thing in this thread.

However, since you insist on people reading walls of texts, I’ll oblige. Here are a couple of critical faults in your suggestion.

Fault #1
The three points you suggest, taken together, would effectively mean large alliances like Goons and TEST could not exist. Their existing capital caches could not be stored anywhere. Even if they deployed every possible structure in every system they controlled, I sincerely doubt it would be enough.

Where do you suggest they relocate them? Should CCP just tell them: “I’m sorry, we know you’ve worked your asses of to build your empire, but we’re gonna have to delete most of your caps now. Don’t be too mad tho, this will let you do nano cruiser gangs into low-sec without risk of being dropped!!”

Not bloody likely.

Fault #2
But if they were to implement your first and second suggestions without the third, here is how that would play out: The null-sec empires would simply spam structures in response. (And if there is one thing pretty much everybody agrees on, it’s that structure spam is bad and not to be encouraged. It’s just bad for everybody involved.)

They’ll likely ignore Keepstars, as building enough of those to store all their Titans would be cost prohibitive, and instead go for old-school POS/teather-safe-logging. It would be an inconvenience, as it would return the game to a state of coffined Titan/Super alts. But that’s been done before, and could be done again.

For normal capitals they’d just spam Fortizars in their combat staging systems. They aren’t so expensive as to prevent being spammed as is required. - It would be a logistical clusterfuck, but it would get done.

Industrial systems would be much the same. You’d see large farms of Azbels for cap construction, with as many Sotiyos as is required to maintain the Titan/Super production. (They certainly wouldn’t cap it.)

… So, TLDR: Your third suggestion won’t ever happen. It’s just not an option anymore; we’ve moved way past that point. - And without that, your other two suggestions would fail to achieve what you want it them to achieve, and just create more problems while doing all that failing.

Not to mention that all of this is predicated on the assumption that people want things to change in the direction you seem to want them to change. Which is anything but a universal desire. In fact if we were to poll the entirety of EVE, I’d be willing to bet you fall into a very small minority.


(Etherium Bladerunner) #11

the point of this thread was to prove there is an effective way to nerf capital ship proliferation, now the question if it is a good idea that we should go for it is up to debate and I understand that. But pretty much your entire thread just confirmed that my points were effective in reduce the capital proliferation.

On the other end the number I gave are up to balance, it was to give you an image of it. in order to make goons stuff still a reality you can just upgrade the numbers but keep the cap at some point.

Should CCP not do these changes because they already allowed this excess and spamming of giant ships to happen and take over the overall game meta? That is their business plan to decide but I think it can be very dangerous to prevent strong balancing to maintain your niche playerbase when you can try to expand your overall player base.

I do not insist on you reading my post, I insist that if you want to debate you need to read my post and debate the things in it instead of your pre made ideas based on my title. which you just did thank you for your reply.


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #12

lol sure, your suggestions would definitely crap all over the capital meta.

But it’s essentially like suggesting that we can eliminate country music by nuking the southern US states. Sure, it would work, but very few people actually have a problem with country music, and the solution is so damn extreme and destructive it’s not even worth discussing.


(Sabriz Adoudel) #13

Just ignore the jerk posting in this thread. As soon as you read

“I didn’t even have to read a single word beyond the title to know that reading the body of the post would be a waste of time.”

then you know that person is here solely to troll and has nothing of use to add to any discussion. When someone makes a post solely to troll and start a flamewar, report it to the moderators and move on.


Hostile derailments aside, I don’t agree with your proposal.

There is absolutely nothing preventing more and more Azbels being built. The game mechanics already encourage spreading out capital production. If you do not do so, system indexes grow - both making your capitals more expensive, and also (more importantly) telling your enemies that large scale production is occuring in a specific system. They can’t necessarily tell it is 3 Titan production jobs rather than, say, a few thousand battleships, but they can tell you are up to something significant there.

Want to actually impose a bottleneck that impacts future capital construction? The way to achieve this is to increase build time of both the hulls and the intermediate components (Capital Construction Blocks, etc). This sharply decreases the amount that can be built in a given time.

This will, of course, benefit current owners of capital ships at the expense of people who acquire them in future, and so it would help Goons considerably in the present meta.

This would also need to occur alongside a reduction in EHP on caps/supers.


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #14

At least I stayed on topic, and didn’t devolve to something as petty as name calling. That is arguably a far greater offense towards the rules than not agreeing with the OPs post.

I also stand by what I said. I didn’t need to read the body of the post to know what he was suggesting, and that is was a bad idea.