I found the root of all evil.
2 Likes
Something I didnât like with the capital changes - before that a capital was much less attractive to the mainstream player to get into though even then youâd see capital blobs at time but then they made it much more like a logical progression as a next step after battleships more like just a bigger sub-cap.
A lot of the higher end capitals should be something that only a relatively small number of players aspire to get into that are relatively inconvenient and need some dedication and logistics to utilise (but not to the level that even getting into that at all requires large alliance level resources - needs a fine balance that doesnât just concentrate power into the hands of the already powerful).
That isnât to say capitals should be off limits to anyone else that still leaves room to classes of ships at capital level that are more suited as a step above battleships but with less power projection and better suited to fighting at a localised level.
1 Like
The real problem is they came out with caps/supers and had them occupy the same space as sups, essentially obsoleting subs and making the gap between new and existing players a 1000 times worse.
The classic example of pointless ship creep.
4 Likes
Theres also no real need for the larger vessels npc wise, no target that they might be at risk from (if they know what theyre doing/not a complete tool)
ie there are no plexes or npc content afaik that a titan or supercapital is needed for.
So less risk involved in owning one if all you do is press f1 in a big fleet.
I think that goes for carriers as well. What people needed was friends, not soloroflstompmobiles
having killed carriers with small gangs (we even killed one with about 8 frigates and no logi) i still dont think a nerf to the damage output was needed.
Sure, in the hands of a capable pilot hey seem oppressive⌠but doesnât everything?
In either case i dont use mine much anyway, theres just not much need fot it unless you want to use overwhelming force (ie when just a solo bs would do⌠or an oracleâŚ)
1 Like
You are worried about unnecessary things. Things that could destroy the game.
Iâm still butthurt over a 40 second rapid launcher nerf what you are people on about?
Carriers? Whatâs that? I never had one. I has the poor.
IMO they should have just made them easier to defang. A marginal nerf to fighter EHP, removal of squadrons (a single fighter you can just volley off), and possibly a fighter hanger bay size nerf.
When I think of a fighter, I think of a gun on the front, a cockpit in the middle, and an engine on the back. All held together with some cardboard.
Theyâre fast, theyâre nimble, and they put out the hurt in a big way. But heaven â â â â â â â help them if you shoot them.
Thus, carrier vs subcap becomes a simple matter of fighting off the fighters. Once the carrier has been defanged, itâs helpless.
Good gangs can already easily defang carriers, but itâs clearly too hard for the masses. So a small nerf to fighter EHP and the number of fighters a carrier can carry would go a long way.
1 Like
This is kinda the point.
If they had nerfed the ability to oppress subs at ranges above 50km it would of preserved the role of carriers while giving subs back the ability to effectively exploit range maneuverability and strategic modules such as MJDs. a heavy nerf to range of heavy attack fighters and to the mwd of fighters would of been far more balanced. My mains mainly fly snatch and stukas in sub destroyer sized ships. And every fleet the only real issue we faced was the fact fighter moved to fast and could hit out a bit to far.
And of course fax were unbreakable.
The fact they killed us if we screwed up was not the issue. In fact it was kinda what makes it fun. If you screw up you die. now its a bit to easy to fit abs to everything and just run around capitals like the roadrunner. The nerf to dreads titans and fax was plenty. The carriers seems harsh asâŚ
2 Likes
Thats one of the big issues in eve and why a lot of good pvp groups leave i think, take rooks and kings for example - almost every playstyle they seemed to come up with got nerfed hard, so much so that what they were left with was pipebombing over and over.
Ok not a perfect example but it is a good one.
Its like rewarding the idiot of the class a better pen, he still wont know how to use it and your basically kicking the clever kid in the teeth but hey⌠the idiot feels good.
5 Likes
While I do agree in concept with the sentiment, Iâll argue that any good pvp group in any game will get bored.
Weâve all played a single player game, turned the cheats on, and gotten bored of it. These dudes arenât cheating, but theyâre still practically god-tier pvpers compared to the masses. Thereâs only so many times you can step on a retardâs sandcastles before you realize that youâre only stepping on retardâs sandcastles.
I know a couple dudes who are âholy â â â â next levelâ pvpers⌠One in particular who FCâd two fleets at the same time (different locations), feeding some incredible fleet v fleet content to both at once. When he goes into LS, â â â â just dies at his feet and theyâve no idea just what they are signing up for when they engage a T1 destroyer in something that should by all rights have won handily. And unfortunately, thereâs only so many times you can roflstomp everything before you just get bored.
The vast majority of us are nowhere near that skill level. So on the flip side of that, we need to balance the game for the masses, not the R&Ks of the world.
4 Likes
OP
Reasonably well balanced PvP doesnât get boring.
I donât see a way to make PvP in EVE as a whole balanced, but I think itâs a point EVE players discount too casually.
EVE encourages one-sided PvP. Which is ok in principle, but it makes the PvP model potentially unstable. If it moves to âone side can never be defeatedâ or âone group feels theyâre only ever victimsâ the game has a problem.
1 Like
For reasonably average players this is true. Reasonably balanced doesnât make a lick of difference when you basically always win because itâs still too easy for you to beat other players.
Thatâs simple risk aversion. The cost of loss is high in Eve. But thatâs a function of the overarching model of the entire game, not just the PVP model. Which has been more or less stable for the last 13 years.
It does if the losing side also gets some nice kills. You might win overall but they get some minor victories to keep them coming back as well.
When all that happens is one side gets removed while the other doesnât get hurt⌠and that keeps happening⌠that is when you get issues. And that is where EVE is atm.
and yet you keep arguing this point, advocating for more of this.
You clearly havenât read anything Iâve posted properly. I am not advocating for EVE to be more one sided. What I donât want to ever see though is a strict no pvp zone in EVE. It will ruin EVE one way or another. Either by turning high sec into a newbie zone⌠which it currently is not. Or by turning highsec into afk farm central thereby causing too much inflation and income.
The things I want to see change are about creating situations where both sides explode regularly.
This is an âold-schoolâ claim, but itâs really just part of the fantasy.
One-sided PvP is only risky for the inevitable loser, since itâs extremely difficult to force a PvP-optimized attacker to engage. This makes any reference to âriskâ questionable. Especially in todayâs EVE, where risk is being âsocially engineeredâ out of nullSec. The relationship between risk and reward is inverted: high reward for low/no risk and vice-versa.
The same is true for the fabled (but actually meaningless) issue of âthe cost of lossâ. In one-sided PvP, only the target can lose anything significant.
It hasnât worked well since I first visited EVE (somewhere between 10 and 12 years ago), but in the past:
- There were enough victims entering at the bottom of the âinverted pyramidâ for low- to mid-range PvP to be fun for existing players. And of course existing players have never cared about retention issues.
- While EVEâs âSecurity Levelsâ model has never actually worked, nullSec was dynamic, so there was at least one place where interesting PvP was possible
I always considered Wormholes to be an attempt to fix the intractable issues with the âSecurity Levelsâ design. The approach might even be workable, but CCP didnât follow up, so weâll probably never know.
NullSec without continual large-scale fights over sovereignty is a failure. Now itâs full of players who are rich PvEers and/or botters. Any who enjoy combat will get bored and stay bored. But if they leave, it will be too gradually to upset the status quo.
EVE probably needs a new âGoonSwarm Version 1â: a large number of players who can be trusted, and an ISK-affordable way to disrupt the game. But AFAIK itâs only happened once, and the lunatics are now running the asylum.
This isnât the EVE of the last 13 years.
3 Likes
trying to get a fight these days seems hard to be very honest, i recall one roam we had carriers dropped on our kiting gang 3 or 4 times.
KITING gang⌠and theyre dropping carriers⌠no one died to the carriers⌠oddly it was darkness space.
The last few times ive bothered to roam even lowsec seems devoid of anyone not camping a gate or in a ten man gang⌠tbh, i didnt see many gangs.
And so i am currently alpha as there is very little point to being omega for me.
They nerfed my combat ceptor too so no more of this stuff 
The game was far more stable hen capitals were much smaller parts of the game. Iâd might be interesting to see alliances get a new rule set like stations having to fuel, and upkeep capitals with some sort of âsupplyâ limit to each station, so capitals have to be dispersed, and maintained as a form of âcontrolâ over their numbers.
I would advocate for combat related buffs, if there was lower amounts of them, but i find it so much more easier (less development resources) and better to just take capitals out of the sub-captal field of battle and start designing content for them.
this way, people can fly caps, maintain proper levels of income (etc) but they do so just because they like their feel, not because they can 1v50 new player base.