#baltec fleet
#ishtar fleet
#naga fleets
#zealot fleet
#all the other fleets i dont feel like listing which wrecked shop. Sentries carries were cancer yet there still wasnt the same capital numbers as there’s today. I would bet 500B there are over 20x as many caps now vs 2013.
People are a bit too fixated on a group of newbies going out into a frontier and managing to grab some. There are other routes to a kingdom besides a swarm or a betrayal.
Edit: Muting this thread. I think it has hit the point where people have different opinions, will talk in circles and just waste time.
Absolutely none of those were any problem whatsoever for the Wrecking Ball. And yes, there are vastly more capitals now than there were then. If you want to go back to 2012-2014 mechanics, you’re going back to supercarriers that can perfectly apply to and out-range all of those fleet doctrines you’ve listed.
All of them.
This way or other there is only one cocnlusion CCP made game for “big players” and there is no content for “small potatoes” and after that SUPRISE!!! no influx of new players to EVE, I’m just wondering why ???
2 Likes
They can still plan, they can still use a Rorqual. They’re moaning because it’s going to a bit more vulnerable.
They just wanted an invulnerable isk printing machine but now they’ll have to plan more and have a bit more risk…
Sure, but the point I was disputing was that these changes don’t affect them. They do, if only in the planning stages and the ‘how much ISK do we need to start up?’
It’s not just the startup cost that we have to consider, it’s the replacement cost and the cost of operation vs return on investment.
I could get lucky and have a great return on investment, to the point where I’m able to significantly scale up operations, or I could get my ass kicked and end up being out 2-3 month’s worth of ISK just to even consider getting back into that same ship, only to lose it again if I have just one bad day.
Y’all seem to forget that for some of us small corps, having even just a few billion ISK in the corp wallet is a significant amount, and for us, it takes a lot of hard work to maintain that.
2 Likes
CCP needs to look into how fleets are made. All capitals should have a support quota that needs to be filled to remain effective. For example… 1 capital ship needs to fill 5 support slots (1 ship 1 human) per slot, for that capital ship to keeps it’s base stats.
SUPPORT SHIPS
0 - 50% reduction to capital ship stats
1 - 40% reduction to capital ship stats
2 - 30% reduction to capital ship stats
3 - 20% reduction to capital ship stats
4 - 10% reduction to capital ship stats
5 - 0% reduction to capital ship stats
They really just need to drag the existing XL hulls back down to earthly levels kicking and screaming.
Ok, just gonna say this bluntly to get it out of the way: you’re wrong. You’re not wrong because the objective is bad, you’re wrong because you’re approaching it from the wrong direction.
Any item in the database, be it a ship, a module, ammunition, etc, it all has its own attributes. Those attributes are the baseline. They’re the default, the numbers that are in effect before any other db items come into play. So to say ‘ok, without anything else, we’re going to apply debuffs’… that’s adding needless levels of complexity and math that puts a burden on the server just by the capital existing.
So instead, establish lower baselines performance numbers, and then find ways to improve them with addition of subcaps. For example:
Frig-Cruiser module: Network Uplink Unit. Connects to Network Command Sub-processor or Network Command Unit. For each NUU in a network, all ships gain X performance bonus.
Battleship/Battlecruiser/T3C/CD module: Network Command Sub-processor: connects to NCU. Provides 5% bonus to all Network effects. Can accept connection from up to 10 NUUs.
Capital module: Network Command Unit. Provides 2% bonus to all Network effects. Accepts up to 5 connections from NCS/NUUs.
Supercapital module: Network Coordination Processor. On it’s own, it doesn’t really do anything. Can accept connection from up to 5 NCUs.
That way, the more you bring a mixture of ship sizes, the better the results. Capitals and supers are used to scale up formation sizes.
If you were going to do this, why not just make it based on positions in the fleet?
Forcing a module means that especially in the cases of things like frigates, they lose more from that module slot than they stand to gain. Or capitals get stupidly good if the percentages are large enough.
Regardless, Capitals would end up nerfed, since they don’t need to be better than they are even if it’s a support fleet rather than a pure cap fleet with them. And if they can get a buff by some means, they need to still be balanced when they get that buff.
I would note that it means N+1 is again better until you fill a fleet, because you can’t take your fleet of 10 vs 50 and with smart piloting win the day, because they are 40% better than you are in all applicable stats.
Unless you also put certain attributes that then get nerfed by fleet size. I.E. Scan res might go up with fleet size assuming you bring the correct classes to stack your fleet, but tracking might go down (to avoid hitting your own ships). That then creates a bit of counterbalance to large fleets, and makes it not a pure buff, but a positives & negatives thing.
Because they effectively removed those, more or less. Before the boosting change, I’d have said that would’ve been the better way to go for on-grid boosts: wrap them up into this and make the fleet structure relevant.
And yes, using a module means losing a slot. And N+1 will always be better. Always. You can’t really fix that unless you start introducing completely arbitrary limits onto combat in ways that violate the core concept of the sandbox.
And really, scan res? An example that is exactly backwards? You get better resolution out of multiple tracking positions the farther apart they are, and the more of them you add to the network. That’s how you use a few dozen radio telescopes in an array to form one massively powerful one.
Diminishing returns on the bonuses would be a better way to go, but that just increases the odds of ‘ok, instead of 5 supers, 25 caps, and 225 subcaps, we’ll do our fleet as 5 wings of 5 supers, 20 caps, and 25 subcaps’. You want to place the maximum benefit to the fleet onto bringing as many of the weakest ships as you can.
You might want to read again. I was saying scan res should get better with fleet size.
All the fleet positions also still exist and do stuff with regards to broadcasts. Just boosts got moved out of it.
You don’t answer the problem of giving up modules on ships with basically none either.
Fair point on the scan res, I did misread it. But why would the number of ships in the fleet impact the speed any turret turns at?
And no, I don’t answer the problem of giving up modules. I also don’t claim to have all the answers. I was just tossing out a ‘for example’ on bonusing, rather than debuffs.
The idea behind tracking was to simulate having to fire around friendly ships. Since we don’t have Line of fire mechanics in EVE. And to avoid a magnifying effect.
Say each ship adds 1% power to the fleet. The 100th ship adds 2 ships worth. The 200th ship adds 3 ships worth.
If there is also a negative it stays at an x = y fleet power or close to that while still providing some interesting benefits.
Yes N+1 will be better than N, but you don’t want to create multiplicative effects or it becomes too good.
But why should it stay at an x = y fleet power? Why should 40 ships work as well as 60 ships?
x = y means 40 ships in fleet would work as well as 40 ships not in fleet (assuming the same c&c etc which obviously isn’t the case).
60 ships would still be 60 ships, not 40 ships.
But if you get a cumulative buff per ship, it better fits an exponential curve for how adding ships magnifies the fleet power, where the larger your fleet the more benefit you get per additional ship.
Now obviously if there is no benefit it doesn’t encourage fleeting at all beyond the broadcasting system and fleet boosts. And the idea of getting bonuses from or giving bonuses to a subcap fleet associated with capitals does seem an ok one.
But it does need something to stop it from following a true exponential curve, and make it something more like x = 1.05y.
Then I definitely ask: ‘why should x = y?’.
40 ships in fleet should be better than 40 ships not in fleet.
But 40 ships in fleet are already better than 40 ships out of fleet. Due to boosts and C&C. Which I mentioned.
But they don’t get any additional cumulative bonuses. And if you don’t bring boosts you don’t get any bonus stats for being in a fleet.
But why shouldn’t it follow the higher curve? Why shouldn’t a combined capital/subcapital fleet function significantly better than a fleet that doesn’t contain both? Why shouldn’t a larger fleet function better than a smaller one?
Let’s get principles and the bases for them established before plugging in numbers. Because I’m not sure a bigger, more complex fleet with more specialized elements shouldn’t get better force multiplication out of the deal.