Lol I’m talking about subcap fit caps that are cheap so fighter support units are not on the 'basically free ’ list as neuts are. My point isn’t about epeen kms it’s about having way too much stats for so little investment.
exactly, whatever happened to that old saying we had “if you ever find yourself in a fair fight, one or both of you ■■■■■■ up”
CCP fuclked the game up with injectors and rorquals…game is bored as fock no wonder ppl stop playing even game is free somehow
There’s an obvious disparity between carriers and marauders, though I’d first point out that the marauder is a PVE boat. Active tank your carrier and then we’ll talk. Could kill your average marauder in a bhaalgorn, if we’re just talking about dropping a hard counter on something.
That said, I’d still expect the carrier to win. So does that mean there’s something wrong with carriers, or marauders? Does that mean there’s anything wrong at all? At the end of the day carriers are intended to be anti-subcap boats by design.
1 Like
Not talking about hard counter vs marauder that’s just an example. The point is a carrier hard counters any sub cap and atm and costs less than a HAC to lose. Seriously even with no modules but a networked sensor array and tech I fighters you either run away or die unless you’re in another cap or have overwhelming numbers. All for less than a HAC
Edit: unless you’re a Griffin 
So… you want capships changed so that they can’t kill subcaps? Why? Do you just hate capships? Or, you figure you’ll never fly one, so you want them nerfed so that they can’t kill whatever ship you are flying in?
You are a moron if you think you think a carrier costs less than a HAC to lose. I just checked the price of an Ishtar and they are in the 200 mil ISK range.
2 Likes
Maybe a HAC costs about 1,5-2b with fit where he lives?
Would be hillarious tho.
I really don’t ‘get’ people who want to nerf the ships they don’t personally like or fly. To be honest I hate frigates and cruisers, and have never trained them beyond whatever level needed to get something further down the chain. But it’s not like I want them removed from the game, or nerfed just because I don’t like them. And I’ve been killed by more sabres, stilettos, asteros, tengus, etc. than I can count. But I’ve never been killed by a capship.
1 Like
At the end of the day I think it’s cap haters following too closely a few mantras:
- Bigger isn’t better
- Cost isn’t balance
- High SP isn’t supposed to “always beat” low SP
The problem with all of these, is they expect it to be true for all hulls across all hulls. They don’t want to bring counters to capitals, they want to bring what they were going to bring and be able to not get dunked by capitals. They don’t want to adapt, they just want capitals to go away in favour of their preferred gameplay.
Do I think umbrellas are too much at the moment? Hell yes.
But a 4 bil fitted carrier can be permanently shut down by a single griffin costing less than 3 million isk (I honestly have no clue what a fitted griffin costs, and don’t care enough to look - I just know it’s peanuts). That griffin needs less SP, less isk, and will fulfill its role 10 times out of 10 with perfect effectiveness.
If you don’t want to fly a Griffin, bring some Rooks. They generally don’t have more than 1 ECM module on them so you’d either need to snowflake fit it or just bring more, but then you’re getting all of the advantages of a Rook or Rooks (dps, tank). Falcons, Blackbirds.
Okay, maybe you don’t want to run ECM at all. Fine, bring webs. A gorn, huginn, hyena, even a vindi if you want to stick your hand in the blender to shut it down. All of them will web fighters down, and they won’t be able to do jack ■■■■. You’ll be popping them faster than a meth addict popping pimples for second fix.
Counters exist. They just don’t want to have to counter them.
3 Likes
I heard the same BS against battleships years ago, especially the “bigger shouldn’t be better” spiel. Not that I ever agreed with that mentality, but what they want is “smaller is better.”
1 Like
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then you should be able to run level 4 missions solo with a frigate in this same amount of time as a battleship (same ticks). Of course then that begs the question of why we’d even have battleships.
If cost isn’t balance (whatever that means), then all ships should cost the same. Why would you ever pay more for one ship than another ship?
If high SP isn’t supposed to always beat low SP, then why have skilling at all?
I think the biggest butthurt comes from the extra capabilities of capitals.
Higher SP may not be an i-win button, but it SHOULD justify having the extra capabilities. Higher cost, again, should justify extra capabilities.
There’s a definite difference between balance and capability (dps for example is a balance thing, a jump drive is a capability).
Personally, I’d like to see Carriers be more effective against small/nano stuff and less effective against bigger/buffered stuff (which is where supers would shine). If they were to make carriers have SSF bonuses rather than just LFs in general, and give supers heavy fighter bonuses only, it’d go a long way toward appeasing these people and making it useful to not just drop supers on everything.
I say just ignore them and don’t appease them at all. They’re wrong, period, full stop.
So they don’t like being dropped on by supers. Well I don’t like being caught in sabre bubbles. I don’t like running into gate camps. I don’t like a lot of things. I had a stupid Jackdaw fly under the guns of my battleship, orbit it tight, and degrade it by killing it with light missiles. I was warp scrambled, webbed, and completely jammed the entire time, and couldn’t get a single shot off (not that I would have hit him anyway). Well guess what… I didn’t like that.
1 Like
Eh… as a carrier pilot though I’d like to see more of a difference in engagement profile between carriers and supers.
I believe fully in the concept of support. More specifically, that a fleet which covers all the angles should always beat a fleet that does not through virtue of having more effective counters (of course we’re talking even strength here, once you skew the pilot count all bets are off).
I don’t like the fact that a Carrier is just a baby super. I don’t like the fact that there’s literally never a time when you say “yea bring the carrier instead of the super”. When a null bloc pings for max caps, the priority is Titans > supers > Carriers/Dreads (and of course everyone has their fax alt with their supercap as well).
I want carriers to be the anti-nano, and supers to be the anti-biggerstuff. I want my carrier to utterly annihilate frigates and destroyers, but start to struggle with cruisers and up. I want supers to only just barely be able to engage cruisers, but fare better as the hull gets larger.
I want carriers to be very afraid of heavies killing them, and I want supers to be very afraid of SSFs killing their heavies. Checks and balances. The simplest way to do that is to swap all of a carrier’s bonuses to utility and SSF fighters, and to swap all of a super’s bonuses to heavy fighters.
It just feels more interesting. I say this as a person who chooses 10 times out of 10 to fly a cap when the option exists.
It’d do a HUGE amount to solve the super ratting problem (and yes… those kinds of ticks are a problem lol). Supers wouldn’t be nearly as efficient at running sites because their fighters would struggle with frigates. And of course, carriers would struggle with BC/BS.
I’m not necessarily opposed to further differentiating ships, giving them more focused roles, etc. I’m not necessarily for it, but I’m also not necessarily against it.
I’d caution against too much ‘rock paper scissors’ - I think that’s bad game design and always have. I’d also examine the motives behind any changes. If the motive is “because I hate capships!” then no, I don’t support any change and won’t listen. If the motive is entirely different - “this would result in more interesting gameplay and interesting ships, and here’s how” - I’d listen.
I don’t necessarily agree that there’s a super ratting problem. And this is coming from someone who wrote this: CCP screws everyone but big nullsec cartels My thoughts are, if you’ve skilled for a year straight to get into one of these things, and you’re willing to take the risk to undock one, you should have the potential reward of making dank ISK, and how else are we supposed to support such expensive ships if we don’t have the means of making the ISK for them? I don’t want only ‘whales’ with big fat real life wallets dropping PLEXes to be the only ones to fly big ships.
1 Like
In the end yea, I think that rebalancing carriers and supers to hit different spectrums of subcaps (they are intended to be anti-subcap so…) would be more interesting. It’d increase diversity, which is always something I want to see in a fleet.
As for super ticks… no I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree there. I do feel they’re too high. At the very least, they shouldn’t be nearly as low risk as they are (they have but one vulnerability and that is while they’re in warp). The rest of the time they’re aligned out, with a cyno fit.
Small gangs can’t tackle them at all without a high number of points or a bubble, and the ones that CAN tackle them need to contend with the counter-drop that will be coming. I’m not opposed to that… fights are good… but it also means that supers are exceptionally safe if they’re piloted with even half of a brain cell. Risk and reward should definitely be tied to each other.
Merely having the isk on field is not a risk, when you’re always aligned out. The dumbs get tackled all the time. But they’re dumb and deserve it. Intelligent super pilots will never lose a super whilst ratting.
If the ticks are too high, that’s not a problem with the hull or the ship, it’s a problem with the sites they are allowed to run. So put gates on the sites with gate restrictions, and make ‘supers/titans’ sites with no restrictions.
I said this before, when the idiots at CCP nerfed carriers because of the ticks they made running sites. I was like… really? Nerf a fracking ship in PvP because you don’t like the ticks they make? MAKE NEW SITES THEN, IDIOTS! But the nerf went through anyway, so I unsubbed for an entire year, never logged-in once during that time, and didn’t even look at the forums.
1 Like
My point is it’s a two-birds-with-one-stone solution. It fixes ratting ticks (whether or not it’s a problem is ofc up for debate - I believe it is too high), it increases carrier utility and encourages a mixture of carriers and supercarriers, AND it provides suitable subcap engagement profiles… with these changes, a carrier would get utterly murdered by a couple of battleships… not that it wouldn’t already get murdered if you knew how to play Eve, but it feels like an acceptable and positive change.
No I just want caps to cost more to lose. No need to call me a moron or insult me. A fit HAC is about 350-400 mil and if you insure a carrier and fit it subcap you lose about the same amount.
I mean really if you could insure a HAC like a tech1 it would be a whole different story.
True. Good point.
I definitely wouldn’t want that. Way too much of a sharp counter, way too much ‘rock paper scissors,’ and I would find it absurd that a carrier would or should fear a couple of battleships that much.
I didn’t flat-out call you a moron, I said if you believe [INSERT SOMETHING MORONIC] then you are a moron. But point taken, you appear to have a modicum of some rationale or reason, whether we agree or disagree, so I apologize and withdraw the comment. I do think something is wrong with your numbers though, but I don’t care to grind them out right now as I haven’t even had coffee yet 
Sounds like your issue should be more with insurance and materials costs of hulls, not capships per se.