“anything I don’t like has no value”.
No.
In order to hurt the larger coalitions and entities though, you would have to make it scale on a level that makes it untenable for smaller groups. We need a system that hurts larger entities but doesnt necessarily hurt smaller ones. Upkeep hurts it all across the board, evenly.
So I actually presented this a long long time ago. Having a non-capital ship with viable anti-capital weapons, even if its dedicated and only one-time-use would definately give smaller groups the ability to destroy larger enemies without the need to ship into capitals themselves.
The problem with your idea is that it doesnt fix the N+1 problem of capitals. The other side will still be able to afford dozens of titans while you are unable to afford a single one because of both costs and upkeep. They may not be able to afford 500 anymore, but even if they were only able to afford a mere 50 titans, thats still a lot, lot more than what you would be able to afford.
We dont need LESS of them. We need to be able to DESTROY them.
Edit: Sorry i should say we dont SIMPLY need LESS of them.
When they came out with these ships no one ever warned of ship creep 
1 Like
Not necessarily. If you punish capitals hard enough you make them a much less significant factor on the battlefield and then falling behind in the capital arms race is much less significant. Even having zero capitals isn’t a big deal if your enemy can only afford one titan and is reluctant to ever risk it in battle.
So I actually presented this a long long time ago. Having a non-capital ship with viable anti-capital weapons, even if its dedicated and only one-time-use would definately give smaller groups the ability to destroy larger enemies without the need to ship into capitals themselves.
There are two issues with this sort of thing, which is proposed frequently:
-
It doesn’t make a lot of sense from a conceptual point of view. Why is this small ship able to fit capital-scale weapons at all, why can’t those weapons be used against smaller targets (where they will slaughter everything), and why can’t larger ships fit the god-mode weapons too? It ends up being this awkward mess of a ship where you have to handwave away all of the questions with “because we need to nerf capitals” and at that point you might as well directly nerf/remove them.
-
It’s very difficult to balance a hard counter like that. Too powerful and you might as well remove capitals entirely, too weak and you’re still better off bringing as many capitals as possible. It’s dangerous territory to get into that kind of balance struggle when you’re talking about a persistent world game where a month of easy capital kills can cause permanent effects.
The other side will still be able to afford dozens of titans while you are unable to afford a single one because of both costs and upkeep.
Not if you make the costs high enough that even the largest alliances can’t afford more than 1-2 titans, and only if they make massive sacrifices elsewhere to get them.
“if you remove the caps then I like it”.
Nobody cares.
“if you don’t agree with me I will insult you and therefore prove I am not here to discuss”.
Indeed, you are not here to participate in a discussion.
Your sole argument is that you don’t like caps. Sorry that’s not relevant to the discussion.
1 Like
But thats stupid though. Think about a situation where TEST or Goonswarm can only afford to have 1 titan.
If we made titans as expensive as building the Palatine Keepstar, that would also fix the problem too, and in a much simpler way. But thats a stupid solution, making titans useless.
How do 4 Y-wings easily disable a Star Destroyer? Those weapons certainly arent used against smaller ships like tie fighters. Why dont the larger ships equip the same weapons as the Y-wings and just disable every enemy ship out there?
But the truth here is, any system that we create, can be catered to whatever purpose we want to. Even if you were to impliment an upkeep system for supers, the question would be of course, why arent smaller ships, why arent citadels in need of these upkeep costs. Conceptually speaking, every single ship in the US navy right now, requires upkeep. Doesnt matter if youre talking about the smallest amphibious assault ship to the largest aircraft carrier, they all need upkeep. And yet, I would be against upkeep costs for smaller ships in EVE online, as it would only hurt newer, less established players. Imagine Every ship that a new player owns, just draining isk from their wallets every day. Kinda stupid.
Couldnt the same be said of upkeep? Too expensive and smaller groups can no longer afford it while larger ones can, and too cheap and it changes nothing?
Infact, couldnt that be said of any introduction of any new ships or weapons or systems? Isnt that why we have balance passes and SISI tests etc etc etc?
So its so expensive that even Goonswarm or Test can only afford 1-2? And no other smaller group can ever afford it, like, for example, groups that want to be like Rooks and Kings and use their titan to bridge ships?
I think about it and I love it. That was the original vision for titans, they’d be a massive centerpiece accomplishment for an entire alliance.
How do 4 Y-wings easily disable a Star Destroyer?
Because the main characters need to be awesome and defeat powerful enemies in heroic combat, and that means powerful fighters against capital ships that have no real reason to exist if you think about it too carefully. But EVE is not in the same position.
why arent smaller ships, why arent citadels in need of these upkeep costs.
Citadels are static and can have simpler systems. Smaller ships could theoretically have upkeep costs, but because cost scales with size even battleships would have very minor costs. Paying 1 ISK per day to maintain a frigate would be irrelevant for even the poorest newbie.
Too expensive and smaller groups can no longer afford it while larger ones can, and too cheap and it changes nothing?
Not really. Too expensive and even the biggest groups lose the ability to use capitals, which is a win IMO.
groups that want to be like Rooks and Kings and use their titan to bridge ships?
Bridging could easily be separated off into a separate ship class, a dedicated support class with little or no battlefield power that would not have the same proliferation issues as capitals.
Seeing as how much I loved Rooks and Kings, im glad that never happened.
EVE is a video game in a fictional universe, its in the exact same position.
How do you know Citadels have simpler systems? Did you try to build a citadel in real life and compare it to a ship you also built in real life?
The problem here is twofold.
First, that cost would scale upon having multiple ships. I myself own atelast two, three hundred sub-capital ships on this character alone. Ive never counted, but in jita alone i have 120 ships. Do regular, non-capital ship owning people have to suffer devastating losses that add up to a huge amount, too? Under your system, it looks like it does.
Secondly, a single isk a day for a frigate that costs, right now, what, 500K isk? Is what percent of the cost of the ship? 0.00002% of the cost of the ship? Do you know what 0.00002% of a titans cost is? like 16 million a day. Thats affordable enough for Goonswarm to have tons of titans. Its been a while, but Titans are like 80 bill last time i checked. What percentage in upkeep are you proposing?
Now your position isnt "We need to create upkeep for capitals, its “Lets get rid of them all together”.
Youre not even a supporter of your own argument, which is a completely dishonest way to argue.
With an upkeep that rivals a titan and therefore makes it so that no one can own one? Bridging is a powerful tool, and the ship would be worth its relative power. We already have a Step down to that, the Covops Battleship, and that costs 2 Billion isk to fit and operate alone. Youre basically suggesting a ship that would cost the same as a supercarrier, while instigating a system where even supercarriers would have trouble existing with upkeep costs.
Youve fixed nothing with this suggestion.
It really isn’t. EVE is an MMO with hundreds of thousands of “main characters”, it has no equivalent to Luke Skywalker who needs to blow up a death star with a tiny one-man fighter that maximizes his heroism.
How do you know Citadels have simpler systems? Did you try to build a citadel in real life and compare it to a ship you also built in real life?
It’s a lore explanation to not tax them. Don’t over-think it.
What percentage in upkeep are you proposing?
A scaling percentage by class, which invalidates all of your numbers. A frigate might cost 0.00002% per day, a titan might cost 10% of its build cost per day.
Now your position isnt "We need to create upkeep for capitals, its “Lets get rid of them all together”.
No, my position is that capitals need to be massively scaled back and if the doomsday scenario of over-nerfing is that they disappear entirely I’ll be perfectly content with that outcome.
With an upkeep that rivals a titan and therefore makes it so that no one can own one?
No, please don’t build straw man arguments like that. A specialized bridging ship would be a powerful ship but it would also be a ship that doesn’t scale the same way as current capital ships. Having 500 titans is an immensely powerful asset, having 500 bridging ships isn’t meaningfully better than having 5 bridging ships. Therefore any upkeep taxes on the bridging ship could be far lower without creating proliferation issues.
Uh, that was from Rogue One, not from The Empire strikes back. If we asked 100 random people who the names of those 4 Y-wing pilots were, do you think any of them could even name a single one?
Sure. And a new Voltron Nuclear-Spatial Hypervelocity Beam that can lock on to large-mass targets and deal substantial damage but burn out after one use, but simply “misses” on smaller targets because their mass is not significant enough for the beam to lock onto, is also a lore explanation.
Dont overthink it.
Why 0.00002? Why not, just 0%?
Youre saying it should be nerfed so far back that no one would be able to afford it, though.
Thats literally what youre saying.
Everything that you say is simply “Well, the upkeep on those will be small, but the upkeep on the titan must be big”. I dont understand why you cant just say “No upkeep on anything but titans.”
There is nothing that prevents me from saying “It doesnt make a lot of sense from a conceptual point of view. Why is the titan requiring 10% of upkeep costs while your new bridging ship is only 0.01% or whatever fraction of a percent you want to make it?”
Its impossible to differentiate your arguments from that of simply “Because i say so” or “because its new lore, dont think about it too much”. And im fine with that, or atleast i would be, if you hadnt just argued against me saying that we shouldnt be doing that sort of thing because it “Doesnt make a lot of sense from a conceptual point of view”.
One of your main arguments against my frig doomsday was “Doesnt make sense”, then you turn back and say “Doesnt have to make sense, dont worry about it”.
Isnt that hypocrisy?
No, but that’s not the point. Other fighters have to exist because the protagonist has to be part of a squadron, and the protagonist’s accomplishments have to be at least somewhat plausible. So Luke gets to blow up a death star, the anonymous y-wing pilots get to disable a star destroyer. But if you apply any common sense to it there’s no reason the empire would build massive (and expensive) space battleships that can be pretty effortlessly knocked out by a handful of cheap fighters.
Youre saying it should be nerfed so far back that no one would be able to afford it, though.
1-2 titans per alliance =/= nobody can afford it.
I dont understand why you cant just say “No upkeep on anything but titans.”
Because people seem to object to systems that are inconsistent like that, and the best resolution is to just have a small tax on small ships. But all capitals need an upkeep cost, not just titans.
One of your main arguments against my frig doomsday was “Doesnt make sense”, then you turn back and say “Doesnt have to make sense, dont worry about it”.
Frigate doomsdays don’t make sense for game design reasons. You expect that a big ship can fit a small ship module, that small ship weapons do less damage than big ships, etc.
Your argument about citadels is about fiction reasons. They already have an upkeep system so you can attach whatever fictional justification you like to it.
Sure. So who is the protagonist in the youtube video i just posted? Which of the 4 Y-wings is the named protagonist?
What? None of them?
Well, that sorta destroys your argument.
Thats the role of the Y-wing Bomber. Ships have roles, and the whole point of the Y-wing is that its weak against starfighters but strong against Capitals.
Much like a frigate with an anti-capital weapon on board. Weak and near-useless against other sub-capital ships, but strong against capitals.
That makes sense.
Too expensive and even the biggest groups lose the ability to use capitals == Nobody can afford it.
And why would bridging ships and battleships that cost billions of isk be different than Carriers and Dreadnoughts?
Thats pretty incosistent.
Tell that to Stealth Bombers.
Sure. And you can add any fictional justification to frig doomsday weapons too. Thats the thing about fiction. You can add any justification you like to any fictional content.
Sigh. If you are going to quote my post answering your “who is the protagonist” question and explaining why non-protagonists get to do those things with “WHOSE THE PROTAGONIST I DESTROY YOUR ARGUMENT” then you’re clearly not interested in honest discussion and I see no reason to continue. Are you capable of doing better?
That makes sense.
It really doesn’t. Clearly capital ships can be taken out fairly easily by a much cheaper force of starfighters, so why build capital ships instead of a capital ship worth of starfighters? Build some y-wings to destroy anyone foolish enough to bring a capital ship, and a swarm of x-wings or a-wings to escort them and destroy enemy fighters. This is fine in a story about Luke Skywalker and his friends fighting the evil Empire NPCs, it doesn’t work in a game like EVE where the star destroyer equivalent is other players.
Too expensive and even the biggest groups lose the ability to use capitals == Nobody can afford it.
You’re dishonestly quoting that out of context and ignoring the part about the biggest groups losing the ability to field capitals at all being a worst-case scenario not the intended goal. Please do not do that.
And why would bridging ships and battleships that cost billions of isk be different than Carriers and Dreadnoughts?
Why do you assume that a bridging ship must cost billions of ISK? Please stop building straw man arguments
Tell that to Stealth Bombers.
Which have massively less firepower than your proposed anti-capital ship and are already pushing the limits of plausibility. And they don’t have even close to as narrow a role as your proposed hard counter to capitals.
Sure. And you can add any fictional justification to frig doomsday weapons too. Thats the thing about fiction. You can add any justification you like to any fictional content.
You can. Which is why I pointed out the gameplay reasons, which exist independently of fiction reasons, for opposing your idea.
Ooooo, my two favorite trolls going at it. What a treat!
1 Like
The problem with your argument is that these aren’t upkeep costs, they are barriers to entry. In order to have Supers a coalition requires a keepstar to Dock them, a sotiyo to build them and we’ll secured sov. (I’ll agree the keepstar isn’t necessary, but to encourage as many pilots as possible it’s pretty essential.)
To use them costs fuel and the account plexing.
To keep them requires, well, nothing. They can be logged off in space for as long as you wish.
Those barriers to entry are much more likely to put off a small group than it costing 5% of its value each month to maintain.
To keep them requires those stations to be fueled and defended.
If you keep your super logged off in a station in space with no alliance support, you may come back to see your super dropped as loot when the abandoned station was destroyed.
An alliance that has jumped over the entry barrier will find keeping the infrastructure easier. Especially as defending those stations will be easier once you have supers.
Also I meant literally safe logged in space. You can leave a super logged off for as long as you want at no cost. So a group can keep their supers with minimal running costs if they are careful enough
indeed, hypocrisy at its finest.
So obvious it’s sweating from all its posts.
Like they’d do that anyway.