Ok 1 more go, where you posted:
What exactly is it you disagreed with? Don’t tell me to review my post again to try to arrive at what you disagreed with, actually explain why you disagree with the notion that small ships kill small ships and larger ships kill large ships.
That’s exactly what I think yes, as mentioned several times above. The only exception being my point about Dreads, which is why i support CCP’s design direction.
Which? It was a yes or no question
I’d rather not repeat myself, here is my post from above again:
I’ll keep it simple as I suspect you’ll be very keen to dissect my post, this is my thinking in a nutshell:
Small ship battle
1 side losing so they drop Dreads to counter the small ships
Opponent sees Dreads and escalates to Supers to deal with Dreads whelping their subcaps
Sometime later you can end up with both sides having supers,fax,titans on field in a massive battle.
The above gives each alliance different options and counter plays which add depth and thought which is engaging and supports all manner of playstyles from your subcap players to your titan players. There should be designs that CCP can shoot for that cater to all playstyles - as the more playstyles and choice there is to players in the sandpit, the healthier and more engaging the game.
Over to you! Keep it civil please.
Look, it’s really simple.
There’s just no reason to bring any ship other than a supercap to a fight, if you’re able to bring a supercap. Why would you put pawns on the chessboard if you can use as many queens as you want?
The argument that “small ships are made to engage small ships and large ships are made to engage large ships” is nonsensical when you consider the fact that one, in itself, is simply the more optimal choice in every possible situation.
But the funny thing is that this only applies to supercapitals. In all other cases, there are handy counters across all ship classes. EVE is a game of rock-paper-scissors, except when you get to the supercapital stage, the scissors are dull and the paper is on fire.
I wouldn’t even care if they removed capital ships from low-sec, honestly. I had my final fill of null when the FC was throwing a fit and threatening to kick people after not getting the minimal amount of “required capital support” after some dude found a three-month-old ratting in a Myrmidon in a nearby low-sec system.
I dunno, you seem to be attached to the current hull types and “utilities” of the current caps, and are keen for more large fleet actions.
I dont really see the upside, but then I sold my carriers because they were really boring to use.
The only way to “fix” the precieved problem is to remove caps and reintroduce them once there’s a decent idea of how the should operate.
Because under the design i explained (point 1) supercaps cannot kill subcaps. You can try to out-logic all you want, but this is clearly the design CCP is pursuing with the light fighter tubes and HAW gun changes.
And under point 2 above I explained that 20 subcaps kill a super.
Yeah, that’s the ticket, huh? Do let me know when it’s time to bring my 20 subcaps to kill a super, and which system to go to.
Null bros always argue in absolutes. “It’s possibly to kill a supercap with subcaps!” they’ll say. Never mind the fact that the last time less than 500 of them appeared on a field was fifteen years ago.
It’s super easy sniping at my suggestions without putting something up yourself so appreciate you putting something on the table so i can respond in kind. Wish @Destiny_Corrupted would do the same.
So my immediate thoughts are twofold:
I fully support an alternative design for caps provided it still made them feel cool - structure bashing for instance is something I’ve advocated for if you check my post history.
What? Subcap roams kill supers all the time. You may not do it, but our alliance roams into enemy space daily and we regularly drop ratting supers with < 20 subcaps.
Also, in a world where a super cannot kill subcap it doesn’t feel out of balance to me for the opposite to be true.
I dont think I did snipe at your suggestions.
I just dont think they’d change much at all.
You see, as an Alliance memeber with a cap fleet and presumably Sov to defend, your persepective is different from mine, which I accept. You dont want to lose the power you feel you have with the caps, and the camaderie of your alliance mates (fortunately for you, you seem to be in an Alliance that is friendly, not strict, at least thats how I read what you say).
I on the other hand dont have any love for Caps, Im not in an Alliance, and basically that means theres no point in taking more than a single ship into null in most cases.
Therefore, neither of us can state we have a non biased view.
However, even while I did operate a pair of carriers, I still was of the view they were super dull, and I was still of the view that Caps should operate either more like their RW analogues, or be removed.
Can you answer me this: Why is the scale between a Battleship and the smallest Cap so big?
So this objection is for economic and not gameplay reasons
Of course, but given no one can agree what that niche is, and Alliances arent going to collapse overnight if no one has them, whats the problem takign a breather?
And I regularly kill ratting subcaps with a Battle Badger.
Doesn’t mean that it’s a notable achievement, or something that sets a baseline standard.
Ok cool, I get your perspective and I’ve been in your shoes. I would say that roaming into null is super viable, i regularly roam Frat/Horde space both small man and solo and caps can’t stop me doing that anymore so there definitely is good reason to take single ships into null.
Carriers are ok, they lose fighters super easy now and don’t whelp subcaps like they used to.
Re scale between battleship and smallest cap, I think that’s primarily due to the massive difference in raw materials to build them. If you want to bring the scale closer together, you’d probably want to bring the industrial requirements in line too. I think CCP probably wanted caps to be bigger and harder to build to provide that longterm hook. I’m not sure making caps similar to battleships is going to help, I’d prefer a world where caps are rarer rather than more common. Keep them feeling special.
Just tracking back, I think the problem you’re facing isn’t actually caps, it’s the N+1 meta. If caps were deleted tomorrow, you would still struggle visiting null as, using TEST as an example, we typically have 900 players in alliance chat at any one time + thousands more on Discord who are just a ping away.
If you bring a 20 man subcap fleet, even with no caps, you could end up being dropped on by 500 players.
I personally think the power of the big alliances is a problem, it diminishes options for smaller groups who are forced to be absorbed into the alliances or made their subjects paying rent to maintain a pocket of space.
Not sure how you solve that though as it’s an out-of-game social construct.
A heavy bomber class destroyer or frigate would be a god-send for dealing with big ship spam. Just fast enough to sig tank capital ship guns and some battleship fire whilst having enough fire power to ensure that a small group of them can bring down a capital or two in major engagements. A variant of the bomber with nothing but a 1 or 2 shot anti-cap mega bomb, with ok tank/speed but nothing else.
The dynamics of combat are completely different when capitals aren’t involved. At the very least, it’s possible to fight outnumbered and win, or at least cause some damage to your enemy. With subcaps, you know exactly how many people you’ll be fighting, for example. The fight isn’t going to start out as 20v30, and then turn into 20v750 thirty seconds later.
Fair summation, but if caps are supposed to be aspirational things people want, (and correct me if Im wrong assuming you agree) then you need to meake them something that it doesnt matter if you limit, they can be used right or wrong and the results will vary accordingly. It seems to me that right now, its either use em right, or dont undock. Is cap attrition more numerous than I think it is?
Destiny makes a good point with subcaps: theres no one way to operate a fleet, theres plenty of options, and sure N+1 will always exist, it needs to exist if battles are militarily anything other than abstract game concepts, so why cant this variation of ultility and -/+ benefits extend to caps and cap fleets?
Opinion piece (slight tangent)
Im not actually against Null Bloc military supremacy in their own space, I to be honest would like the situation to be the majorioty of players are either in a bloc or are free lancing independants, the Them and US view of Null vs everyone else (in both directions) feels counter-productive to the game’s USP in general.
This is too gameable. I just break up my large fleet into smaller fleets to summon more. Use more proxy alliances to create fleets to summon more.
What CCP need to do is address the super cap blobs that exist. Not add new super caps.
So then you just get blobs of smaller fleets doing the exact same thing anyway and now you have multiple instances of this ship on the field, i already broke your idea
It’s a convoluted idea that’s not realistic even by video game standards.
In what way?