Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
The supers nurf is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a nurf, but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
Positive to supers nurf> Being limited to fighters & fighter bombers is a well thought out an acceptable nurf. Will mean that evolving tactics & strategys will be implemented around supers.
Major Cons to supers nurf> Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability. Then to have a hugely unreasonable,not well thought through outrageous nurf to be implimented is factually not the right thing to be done, narrow minded & a far oversight. If the nurfs are true then it could hit player participation greatly an faith in ccp knowing what there customers want.
Dreds of course have long awaited a buff to abilitys. If its true then dreds having more HP, damage & the 5mins siege cycle is a huge step forward & positive outlook for the future of dreds.
In conclusion what I,like so many people are concerned about is if the nurfs are true, why make your weak arm stronger ( DREDS ) & cut off your already strong arm ( SUPERS ) There has to be a balance there for player satisfaction & ensureing a positive future for gameplay. The nurf in question however is only going to yet again make a single class of ship relatively useless. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
55
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Likes received: 0 and thus it shall remain - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo EVE Trade Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Considering the specifics of the nerf aren't in stone yet.... you could voice your opinion in a less whiny more constructive way. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD Tragedy.
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Confirming that the OP looks like for fool for spelling "nerf" wrong whether it was done deliberately or not.
Since nobody knows exactly what kind of nerf caps are getting, this thread is also rather premature. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. When something like that happens, it immediately opens up combat mechanics to exploitation.
Remember Falcons a few short years ago? Now imagine if those Falcons had had tens of millions of EHP and were immune to EWAR and could take out other capitals in seconds.
There is no reason for 0.0 to be based solely on who has a super capital fleet of hundreds and who does not. It devalues the entire system and turns PvP on its head.
Lose a conventional fleet when trying to have some fun? No problem, let's just take out the super capital fleet and win automatically against 90% of the 0.0 dwellers in the game. |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
It is constructive, but also voicing as I have said concerns about the in question " Nerfs" being unnacceptable. Better to voice concerns know rather than when they are implimented in the patch, will get a useless Class of ship otherwise. An "nerfs" supposedly arn't long away anyhoot.
There are ways, as example a low cost cane fleet 200+ the other day almost insta newted out a wyvern & Hel an killed them. Without cap they have no tank. Supers arn't ment to be easy to kill. If you can't be bothered to muster forces an have a thought through plan then you deserve to fail. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
31
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own.
Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers
like a stealth bomber on steroids
make it happen |
StillBorn CrackBaby
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hope they get a huge nerf / nurf nuts |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
184
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Vicar2008
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nerf the Nurf |
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 13:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
I don't get where you think that nerf is synonymous with 'being rendered useless' because there are clear examples of where this is untrue.
Falcons were nerfed, rightly so, and they are now just as vulnerable, relatively speaking, as their other Force Recon counterparts, as they should be.
Nano was nerfed, but now you find people in Dramiel's, Vagabonds, Cynabals, and many other hulls still fitting for speed and outpacing the combat grid and mostly being able to dictate the terms of engagement as they had before, just not quite as effectively.
Where are you under the impression that CCP is going to make super capitals useless? ...and please provide evidence of your claims.
|
Xearal
SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Supercapital tears.. best tears..
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers like a stealth bomber on steroids make it happen
I'm hopeful that they will expand on Black Ops into two hulls that closely resemble the type of paradigm we have with Covert Ops and Stealth Bombers, i.e. we would have a Black Ops ship that can warp cloaked and a Heavy Stealth Bomber that can warp cloaked and fit XL bomb launchers that do massive damage to super capitals.
|
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
With the buff to dreds as good as it is supposedly going to be, & if the nerf to Supers is as severe as it is in question, then why bother having Supers at all if a fleet of dreds is going to do the job better. You want to have a super nerf with hugely reduced effectivness & survivabilty?
More cost efficient to have 100/200+ dred fleets again than Supers. The nerfs in question does not bring equalibrium or balance things out. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
/facepalm |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote: Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability.
The money and skill argument has been debunked countless times already.
Here we go again...
- Skills: Not an excuse for having nearly invulnerables ships. Or do you want to end up, in a few years, with thousands of veterans wandering around in supers, and new players being told that they're useless canon fodder until they have 50 millions SP?
- Isks: Even less defensible argument. With moon goo giving large amounts of passive income, alliances of renters, and the botting some ******* indulge in, some alliances are making multiples hundreds of billions each month. Isk has become meaningless for them.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
136
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
Xearal wrote:Supercapital tears.. best tears..
HedonismBot wrote:Let the games begin!
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
The money and skill argument has been debunked countless times already.
Here we go again...
- Skills: Not an excuse for having nearly invulnerables ships. Or do you want to end up, in a few years, with thousands of veterans wandering around in supers, and new players being told that they're useless canon fodder until they have 50 millions SP?
- Isks: Even less defensible argument. With moon goo giving large amounts of passive income, alliances of renters, and the botting some ******* indulge in, some alliances are making multiples hundreds of billions each month. Isk has become meaningless for them.
Not true at all, Supers are vulnerable,but not to a bunch of clueless noobs that expect to go into a fight in abit of everything with no structure. How it should be. Shouldnt be able to easily kill a Super. All you need to kill a super is organisation, good fleet comp a thought through plan. Newt a super an its left with a grossly smaller tank. FACT So with hardeners off an massively reduced tank can go hence an kill a super fairly fast.
Newer players have there roles in fleet scouts tackle bomber wing etc and are very useful, an with a little time an thought can focus into effective specialisation within fleets. So older players should by no means be kicked in the balls for sticking with the programme. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
56
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.
solution
- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
17
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
My biggest issue with Supers now is that their presence nerfs Dreads. At least a dread fleet will not **** a battleship or hac fleet, while a super fleet easily rapes a dread fleet, bs fleet, bc fleet, and a hac fkeet (all at the same time). Supers have made dreads obsolete. Personally, I suggest giving supers jump range greater than carriers (like double), keep damage, and drop hp to pre-dominion. Actually, I would be fine with supers being nerfed to their pre-dominion position. |
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote: Not true at all, Supers are vulnerable,but not to a bunch of clueless noobs that expect to go into a fight in abit of everything with no structure. How it should be. Shouldnt be able to easily kill a Super. All you need to kill a super is organisation, good fleet comp a thought through plan. Newt a super an its left with a grossly smaller tank. FACT So with hardeners off an massively reduced tank can go hence an kill a super fairly fast.
Newer players have there roles in fleet scouts tackle bomber wing etc and are very useful, an with a little time an thought can focus into effective specialisation within fleets. So older players should by no means be kicked in the balls for sticking with the programme.
I think the problem is that you just really do not get it.
No malice intended, I just think you are missing the entire point of why super capitals are a problem in today's EVE.
|
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
21
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 14:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:The supers "nerf" is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a "nerf", but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
Positive to supers "nerf"> Being limited to fighters & fighter bombers is a well thought out an acceptable. Will mean that evolving tactics & strategys will be implemented around supers.
Major Cons to supers "nerf"> Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability. Then to have a hugely unreasonable,not well thought through outrageous nurf to be implimented is factually not the right thing to be done, narrow minded & a far oversight. If the nurfs are true then it could hit player participation greatly an faith in ccp knowing what there customers want.
Dreds of course have long awaited a buff to abilitys. If its true then dreds having more HP, damage & the 5mins siege cycle is a huge step forward & positive outlook for the future of dreds.
In conclusion what I,like so many people are concerned about is if the nurfs are true, why make your weak arm stronger ( DREDS ) & cut off your already strong arm ( SUPERS ) There has to be a balance there for player satisfaction & ensureing a positive future for gameplay. The "nerf" in question however is only going to yet again make a single class of ship relatively useless.
TLDR: I jumped on the bandwagon and bought a super + char after the ridiculous buff, and didn't have the foresight to see that they'd be brought back in line, i have spent hundreds of bucks and now i'm mad, like hella mad. Hella kelmad, infact.
|
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 15:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
I dont fly capitals, I am not any big player on null field either.
Nerf is neccessary to bring some major players back on field.
Major reason for changes null sec is to keep it flow, noone can get upper hand and hold whole null for certein ammount of time.
Changes will happens. |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 15:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Soi Mala wrote:Dirk Tungsten wrote:The supers "nerf" is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a "nerf", but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
Positive to supers "nerf"> Being limited to fighters & fighter bombers is a well thought out an acceptable. Will mean that evolving tactics & strategys will be implemented around supers.
Major Cons to supers "nerf"> Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability. Then to have a hugely unreasonable,not well thought through outrageous nurf to be implimented is factually not the right thing to be done, narrow minded & a far oversight. If the nurfs are true then it could hit player participation greatly an faith in ccp knowing what there customers want.
Dreds of course have long awaited a buff to abilitys. If its true then dreds having more HP, damage & the 5mins siege cycle is a huge step forward & positive outlook for the future of dreds.
In conclusion what I,like so many people are concerned about is if the nurfs are true, why make your weak arm stronger ( DREDS ) & cut off your already strong arm ( SUPERS ) There has to be a balance there for player satisfaction & ensureing a positive future for gameplay. The "nerf" in question however is only going to yet again make a single class of ship relatively useless. TLDR: I jumped on the bandwagon and bought a super + char after the ridiculous buff, and didn't have the foresight to see that they'd be brought back in line, i have spent hundreds of bucks and now i'm mad, like hella mad. Hella kelmad, infact. This. And nothing else.
I thought you'd bring up some valid points, instead you just say "I bought/trained a char and paid for the ship because it's overpowered". That's just plain funny.
What supercarriers need is an EHP nerf. Titans I can sort of understand because they're rather expensive - moms aren't. It is ridiculous that 200 gank hurricanes can only down 2 of 40 supercarriers (and that is the weakest tanked ones) before they die.
5 frigates gank a cruiser, 5 cruisers gank a battleship, 5 battleships gank a carrier/dread, 5 dreads can not gank a mom. See where this is going? |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 15:49:00 -
[25] - Quote
Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg. |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn Warped Aggression
24
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:02:00 -
[26] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to x-wings RIFTERS that target the exhaust vent.
fixed that for you |
David Lo Pan
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
massive ehp and log off mechanics need to be looked at. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg.
I almost splashed coke all over the keyboard when I read that.
You're in NCdot, part of the biggest supercap blob ever seen yet, and you're arguing that overpowered supers allow you to fight without blobing?
Were you living under a rock when the DRF used it's SC blob to conquer the north? Or are you just taking us for fools?
|
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Supers kill it with fire |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Eternal Evocations
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:
I almost splashed coke all over the keyboard when I read that.
You're in NCdot, part of the biggest supercap blob ever seen yet, and you're arguing that overpowered supers allow you to fight without blobing?
Were you living under a rock when the DRF used it's SC blob to conquer the north? Or are you just taking us for fools?
I've decided to stop replying to him directly because I feel decidedly trolled with every additional response he makes.
|
|
Satav
Latinum Exports
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers like a stealth bomber on steroids make it happen
I totally am for this! I've been talking about this a long time with my alliance and friend in eve. This would be the correct counter.
I would stick my balls out to make sure this happened.
Supercarriers aren't OP. Theres just no counter to them. Plus CCP's wonderful invention of trying to figure out a isk sink in the game to prevent inflation from all the ratting ended up with PLEX's? Horrible idea. Now anyone with a semi decent RL job can buy a super without actually have to go thru the eve economy to get it. Hence the DRF is fielding 200 nyx's and 40 erebus's an such.
Gone are the days of when Battleships actually made a difference in 0.0 warfare. Bring those days back!
|
Mysa
EVIL PLANKTON
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:24:00 -
[32] - Quote
The day ccp makes the change to were supers and titains only can shoot/hit whit fb's on capitals is the day when they are balanced. As it is now were a titan can warp to a belt and 1shoot a cruiser as its aligning away and not beeing pointed by said cruiser they deserv any nerfbat swinging at their direction. |
baltec1
26
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:28:00 -
[33] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg.
This from the largest collection of blues in the game who stomp on any sized fleet with a supercap blob larger than just about everyone elses combined?
Winter is coming. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
I agree, CCP should listen to the players on the issue of Super Carrier balance....
... after all, it worked out so well last time... To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 16:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
I love these threads. Absolutely love them. |
Avon
Versatech Co. Raiden.
55
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 17:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: This from the largest collection of blues in the game who stomp on any sized fleet with a supercap blob larger than just about everyone elses combined?
Winter is coming.
I seem to remember Goons laughing at smaller alliances and dismissing their "blob" complaints as an inability to make friends. Now when the shoe is on the other foot they complain about it.
I love watching them become all the things they used to complain about.
As for supercarriers, I don't think nerfing them will actually have intended effect. It just means people will bring even more of them rather than less. They don't need nerfing, they need a more effective counter.
I'd rather see destroyers changed so they can auto-target and engage any drones in range, with tracking and damage bonuses against them. It should be indiscriminate but highly effective.
Nerfing ships because an alliance is too pathetic to build them or too scared to use them is not a path we should be going down. |
EvilBunny DeathSpore
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 17:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
how about fixing dreads to?
MeBiatch wrote:1: Reduce seige mode time to 5 min/half the consumption amount
2: remove the scan resolution penalty from the siege mod
3: add new role bonuses to dreads such as: ability to use capital nos/nuets (since the mod is soo big its sig radius based on if it works or not... so is useless against non cap ships) ability to use capital capacitor injector (uses 8000's) add bonuses to the mods in siege mode
4: make it so RR works on dreads in siege mode but are still invul to ewar mods in seige mode (edit this is up for debate whether or not ewar should be able to be used against a dread in siege mode if its receiving rr too... personally i am ok either way)
5: add one extra high slot to all dreads so they can fit a nuet or nos.
6: Remove the -50% to tracking and -60% to explosion velocity and replace it with a -30% to tracking and -40% to explosion velocity built into the guns (this is in effect a titan nerf)
ok so this would be my new moros fittings:
rigs: 3 trimarks
lows: 3 faction mag stab 2 true sansha endergy adaptives 1 ex harner II dcu II
mids without ewar:--------------------------------------------------mids with ewar: capital cap injector-------------------------------------------------- capital cap injecot faction sensor booster (locking script)-------------------------magnometric eccm II faction sensor booster (locking script)-------------------------faction sensor booster (locking script) faction tracking comp (optimal range script) -----------------faction tracking comp (optimal range script) faction tracking comp (optimal range script) -----------------faction tracking comp (optimal range script)
highs: 3 ion using faction antimater 1 capital nuet 1 seige mod
drones: 5 sentry II |
Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
22
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:11:00 -
[38] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I agree, CCP should listen to the players on the issue of Super Carrier balance.... ... after all, it worked out so well last time...
Because CCP did such a good job when they implemented them... At least they're being used now.
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
The Seal Cub Clubbing Club.
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:17:00 -
[39] - Quote
I <3 SC pilot tears.
I hope they nerf them through the floor, you follow FOTM you face the consequences. Deal with it. Train for something good instead of hilariously OP and you are less likely to face the nerfbat.
Same with angel ships, give em a few years of being generally inferior, keep the cycle of FOTM moving. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Yeah your major cons dont really make sense.
If supers dont get damage reduced they will just remain the ultimate hotdrop ships and anti any structure ship..I dont think its fair that everytime I go into russian space solo or small gang that i have to run around with the fear of having a nyx dropped on me everytime i fight something. Something needs done here, more fuel usage or something.
People dont spend years getting perfect super pilots, they buy them with ISK (or RMT) farmed by the alliances mass amount of moons and/or bots.
People dont spend a **** load of money on them, same again, funded by the broken 0.0 mechanics such as bots and moons, lets not forget RMT'in.
Need I go on? |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:18:00 -
[41] - Quote
death2allsupercaps |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
26
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.
/thread
|
Crunchmeister
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:29:00 -
[43] - Quote
I'm fully in favor of the super nerf, but to an extent. I agree that it should only have fighters and bombers, and that EHP should be reduced. But only a bit. Totally nerfing the EHP would be disastrous.
The super needs a role other than "everything killer" which it currently has. While it's possible for a sub-cap group to take out a super (it happens), most of the time, when you have a large group of supers on field (which tends to be the rule rather than the exception), really the only way you can take them out is with a bigger group of supers and superior support fleet or dreads. The idea is to balance them, and not to make them useless. They should still be the kings of the battlefield and still be hard to kill. They just need to be a little more vulnerable, even in numbers, against support fleets.
And of course, the long awaited buff to dreads is something I look forward to. It sucks that such potentially powerful ships are currently as useless as a nun's vag. You rarely see them, and when you do, they're more often than not shooting POSes or stations, or getting raped by other ships in battle. Right now, there's no strategic use for them on the battlefield that won't result in heavy dread losses. They need more EHP to have some doomsday resistance, need to do more damage, and need that damn siege cycle shortened. It seems like all those are on the table as possible options, which is a good thing IMO.
With the ability to only attack caps and structures, |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
157
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:34:00 -
[44] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:death2allsupercaps
Burn them all. This is subcap space now.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. |
baltec1
30
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Avon wrote:baltec1 wrote: This from the largest collection of blues in the game who stomp on any sized fleet with a supercap blob larger than just about everyone elses combined?
Winter is coming.
I seem to remember Goons laughing at smaller alliances and dismissing their "blob" complaints as an inability to make friends. Now when the shoe is on the other foot they complain about it.
Wern't laughing when Antares Shipyards payed them a visit. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
40
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:46:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:The supers "nerf" is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a "nerf", but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
Positive to supers "nerf"> Being limited to fighters & fighter bombers is a well thought out an acceptable. Will mean that evolving tactics & strategys will be implemented around supers.
Major Cons to supers "nerf"> Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability. Then to have a hugely unreasonable,not well thought through outrageous nurf to be implimented is factually not the right thing to be done, narrow minded & a far oversight. If the nurfs are true then it could hit player participation greatly an faith in ccp knowing what there customers want.
Dreds of course have long awaited a buff to abilitys. If its true then dreds having more HP, damage & the 5mins siege cycle is a huge step forward & positive outlook for the future of dreds.
In conclusion what I,like so many people are concerned about is if the nurfs are true, why make your weak arm stronger ( DREDS ) & cut off your already strong arm ( SUPERS ) There has to be a balance there for player satisfaction & ensureing a positive future for gameplay. The "nerf" in question however is only going to yet again make a single class of ship relatively useless. computer says "no". [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:46:00 -
[47] - Quote
Crunchmeister wrote:Totally nerfing the EHP would be disastrous. I sure hope so. The howls from the forces of ~elite pvp~ are going to be music to my ears.
|
Lord Ryan
Derailleurs
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:52:00 -
[48] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.
Pimp!
Op might have a point somewhere in there. You spend years getting the skills/ISK for a Super. Just imgaine graduating from med school to find out you are being replaced with a 2-1B |
Lord Ryan
Derailleurs
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:53:00 -
[49] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The Mittani wrote:death2allsupercaps Burn them all. This is subcap space now.
Now that would be cool, 27 days short of being subcap pimp! |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:54:00 -
[50] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg. What a hilarious post. I'm in no way a PL fanboy pubby, but the only alliance that I'd call elite in this game are PL.
NCdot is a joke, it is bloated with all the stanrdard sov 0.0 noobs from alliances like atlas and IT alliance, do you really believe that you are better than any other alliance in this game?
Since you left Fountain almost a year ago NCdot went down the shitter and lost ~ two thirds of their best PVPers. That was the last time you ever engaged anyone outnumbered, the rest was a napfest with Evoke in Providence and the happenings of the past couple of months (hey look you replaced what you hated the most, the NC). |
|
ThisIsntMyMain
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 18:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:The supers "nerf" is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a "nerf", but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
ITT whiny 12 year old kid believes unsubstantiated internet rumours and moans about stuff that hasn't been announced yet |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
This is not the first time Super Carriers have gone through a nerf.
Nothing is final or even in testing yet.
Actually the last time CCP played with super carriers. There was a ton of input from the players and everyone loved the way they are now. So CCP and the players thought they were good to go.
One year later and now they are broken.
NOT
Are they over powered now ? Maybe.
The point is CCP agreed they need to be looked at and several things have been proposed. What we end up with in the end has yet to be seen.
|
Crunchmeister
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:09:00 -
[53] - Quote
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:[I sure hope so. The howls from the forces of ~elite pvp~ are going to be music to my ears.
Those who will bemoan the super nerf are the ones that use them as a crutch to make up for a lack of any true strategic and tactical skills. Doesn't take too much of an imagination to know who's quaking in their boots right now at the thought of potentially losing the advantage of their super blob. But I don't want supers to be useless either. Just make them so they're no longer the "I Win" button. That will reduce their use, and as a byproduct, reduce the lag caused by them.
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:...the happenings of the past couple of months (hey look you replaced what you hated the most, the NC). That's actually the most unfortunate part of the collapse of the NC. The vacuum was quickly filled by the Anti-Blue Anti-Blob Coalition that ended up having the biggest NAPfest in Eve history and are part of the perpetrators of the worse super blobbing ever seen. Despite having been on the receiving end of lots of NCDOT ass-kickings, I used to have some real respect for them because they would fight outnumbered and often win because of superior tactics. Now, not so much.
|
Steph Wing
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
Guys guys, my unbalanced and overpowered ship should remain unbalanced and overpowered. After all, I spent years saving and training skills to get in one, and I can't let all that spaceship time go to waste. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
Damn it, the forum ate my post.
Well, you'll get teh TL,DR version then.
What should be done:
1/ limit them to fighter-bombers. Supercarriers are cap killers, so they should be worthless against subcap. So not even fighters, as they kill battleships and BC relatively well.
2/ Allow them to dock, so the pilots will have the possibility to take his carrier if he wants to play an oversized logistic or another ship.
3/ remove their high-slots. SC are too one-size-do-it-all, and their spider tanking when in blob is obcene. And I hate seeing a supercap cloack.
4/ Give the remote AoE ECM role to another ship. Like the black ops, for example.
5/ Make them impossible to remote. A proper Nyx has more than 17 millions EHP (without gang mods, slave set and so on), and 5.4k active tank. Don't get me started on the Aeon. 17M EHP is like a hundred T2-fit Tier 3 BS. They don't need remote tanking to be extremely hard to kill.
|
Trainwreck McGee
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:27:00 -
[56] - Quote
Nerf is simple
Just make it so i can fly a frig into a narrow passage way with a target at the end of it that blows the thing up. And make it so my corp can shoot something trailing me and say
"You're all clear kid, now let's blow this thing and go home"
See nerf is easy. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.12 19:40:00 -
[57] - Quote
That meme is starting to get a bit stale, you know... |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 20:27:00 -
[58] - Quote
As for supercarriers, I don't think nerfing them will actually have intended effect. It just means people will bring even more of them rather than less. They don't need nerfing, they need a more effective counter.
Nerfing ships because an alliance is too pathetic to build them or too scared to use them is not a path we should be going down.
This guy understands.
An who ever said BSs where not effective anymore in 0.0 is quite litteraly the biggest nub iv heard of to date & has absolutely no idea of what goes on at all, my guess is hes more than likely either an indy pilot or been hanging in empire for "forever"
o7
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 20:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:As for supercarriers, I don't think nerfing them will actually have intended effect. It just means people will bring even more of them rather than less. They don't need nerfing, they need a more effective counter.
Nerfing ships because an alliance is too pathetic to build them or too scared to use them is not a path we should be going down.
You do realize CCP has already stated they are 'reworking' supercapitals and 'taking a look' at Black Ops ships, so what makes you think they do not plan to both nerf supercapitals to some degree AND introduce more effective counters to them?
And more importantly, why are you still complaining through hypothetical arguments that have no actual validity at all until we see them on SiSi or a dev blog?
I'm sorry for this but:
Complainers gonna complain? ...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 20:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:Dirk Tungsten wrote:Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg. What a hilarious post. I'm in no way a PL fanboy pubby, but the only alliance that I'd call elite in this game are PL. NCdot is a joke, it is bloated with all the stanrdard sov 0.0 noobs from alliances like atlas and IT alliance, do you really believe that you are better than any other alliance in this game? Since you left Fountain almost a year ago NCdot went down the shitter and lost ~ two thirds of their best PVPers. That was the last time you ever engaged anyone outnumbered, the rest was a napfest with Evoke in Providence and the happenings of the past couple of months (hey look you replaced what you hated the most, the NC).
At what point did I either way say NC. where elite. said elite alliances you special case of chicken flu. You are presuming to much hunny bun.
Your possibly "SPECIAL", but what I know for sure is you obvious don't know jack about NC. atm. MB we killed your super or titan an you thought you would cry on here, im listening an ROFL@U please bring more tears. |
|
ThunkMonkey
High Flyers RED.OverLord
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 20:37:00 -
[61] - Quote
ThunkMonkey wrote:Simetraz wrote:ThunkMonkey wrote:So the question is how long before DRF wins EVE and everyone else in 0.0 gives up or quits.
The combination of CCP giving the North 95% of the tech moons, DRF running bots 24/7 and CCP turning a blind eye. DRF has unlimited isk and field's supper caps like everyone else fields Battle ships.
No, not mad just wondering when or if EVE will be fixed.
The players decide what happens in 0.0 If the players in 0.0 get tired of the DRF, they can ban together and remove them. If not, well then I guess DRF win or won depending on your point of view. The players no longer decide what happens in 0.0 ! Have you ever seen what happens in a system with 100 plus Mother ships? hell have you ever seen what happens w/ 50 Mother ships...............the node crashes, and the fight is over before it begins.
|
Cozmik R5
Dock 94
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 21:35:00 -
[62] - Quote
Supers should be removed from the game. Period. Have people fly real ships for a change. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. |
Trolls Troll
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 22:33:00 -
[63] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:death2allsupercaps
QQ moar, the Russians still gonna roll right over the top of you. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
30
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 22:34:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes (battle reports)
|
Noot Khorhar
1st Mining and Industrial Logistics Foundation
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 22:59:00 -
[65] - Quote
well you can be lucky , you get your nerf told in advance . the ninjas got their specialisation in using orcas as a flying base in hisec just nerfed without warnings..
|
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.13 23:48:00 -
[66] - Quote
Boost supercarriers Nerf Hurricane!
Love the fact that those who are moaning about blobs and overpowered supercaps got these kills - it is almost as if they want to disprove their own arguments.
<3 |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 00:02:00 -
[67] - Quote
I personally believe that the only things that supercarriers need is an EHP reduction, those things have ridiculously high amount of hitpoints. Titans I understand due to their much higher skill requirements and costs, but Supercarriers outshine Titans easily.
Other than that they seems fine to to me. I mean after are they are SUPER CAPITALS. Of course these multi-billion isk ships should be able to easily destroy poor man sub caps. I don't get why people whine so much when their puny sub caps can't defeat these hulking beats.
Now before you go raging and flaming me, I believe there should be a specific ship or equipment made to counter Super caps. Like in real life you have anti capital ship missiles. With it comes a new time of ship. These ships are made to specifically counter supercaps, but have no defense against Subcaps. The ship and missiles would be very expensive, but worth their weight in gold in supercapital fights. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 00:03:00 -
[68] - Quote
Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.
Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.
Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.
You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.
Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.
CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?
I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.
...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 00:23:00 -
[69] - Quote
Mendolus wrote:Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.
Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.
Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.
You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.
Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.
CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?
I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.
Problem with this argument is that applies equally to all fights of any scale. The side that brings more "better" ships will win, no matter what those "better" ships are. This could be, as in your argument, supercarriers; but it would apply equally to battleships vs industrials or cruisers vs frigates. Human nature is that people will team up and use the best equipment available. If you nerf the ships you are still left with the numbers game. Balance should come through the rock, paper, scissors route.
What is needed is a role factor to balance ship usage rather than just looking at ship dps and ehp and nerfing away.
Supercarriers depend on drones of many types to do their damage. This is effective because there isn't a good ship to bring to counter a drone swarm. If there was, people would bring them. Maybe a ship should be tailored to this role? Or, maybe a module which gives a short range ECM burst to get drones off you? I don't have a detailed solution in mind, but I feel any solution should encourage variety of fleet composition rather than just nerfing stuff.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 00:38:00 -
[70] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:Mendolus wrote:Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.
Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.
Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.
You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.
Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.
CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?
I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.
Problem with this argument is that applies equally to all fights of any scale. The side that brings more "better" ships will win, no matter what those "better" ships are. This could be, as in your argument, supercarriers; but it would apply equally to battleships vs industrials or cruisers vs frigates. Human nature is that people will team up and use the best equipment available. If you nerf the ships you are still left with the numbers game. Balance should come through the rock, paper, scissors route. What is needed is a role factor to balance ship usage rather than just looking at ship dps and ehp and nerfing away. Supercarriers depend on drones of many types to do their damage. This is effective because there isn't a good ship to bring to counter a drone swarm. If there was, people would bring them. Maybe a ship should be tailored to this role? Or, maybe a module which gives a short range ECM burst to get drones off you? I don't have a detailed solution in mind, but I feel any solution should encourage variety of fleet composition rather than just nerfing stuff.
Screw it. Burn it all to the ground, salt the earth, and start over. Death to all supercaps! |
|
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 00:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
Mendolus wrote:Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.
Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.
Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.
You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.
Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.
CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?
I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.
So you'd prefer 1500 BS and 1000 support staring at each other thru a frozen screen?
If people think an SC nerf is going to change anything, it won't. The only thing that will change is the number of people packed into systems looking at black screens. Goons want the nerf because they prefer the cheap blob, they don't want to hang out expensive assets to lose forever. And since they have so many "well meaning CSM's" I'm sure SC's will get bent over is true myopic CCP fashion. The fix should always have been the Dread buff, if 10-15 Dreads can wipe an SC in a few minutes, and not be trapped in one spot for 10 mins, it becomes a whole new ballgame.
And seriously, if you can kill one with 150 canes, just how damn overpowered are they????
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
89
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 01:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:The supers "nerf" is what is in question here.
Not saying supers shouldnt have a "nerf", but if what in question is true then ccp have got the balance of thing totally wrong and are condemning supers to be as useless as dreds currently are.
Positive to supers "nerf"> Being limited to fighters & fighter bombers is a well thought out an acceptable. Will mean that evolving tactics & strategys will be implemented around supers.
Major Cons to supers "nerf"> Supers should not have HP or Damage ammount taken away. A minimal ammount could be acceptable, but anything major is just a disaster waiting to happen. You prepare a character over years to be a maxed out super pilot & pay a shed load of isk for the super & everything involved with owning them. You pay for its capabilitys & its survivability. Then to have a hugely unreasonable,not well thought through outrageous nurf to be implimented is factually not the right thing to be done, narrow minded & a far oversight. If the nurfs are true then it could hit player participation greatly an faith in ccp knowing what there customers want.
Dreds of course have long awaited a buff to abilitys. If its true then dreds having more HP, damage & the 5mins siege cycle is a huge step forward & positive outlook for the future of dreds.
In conclusion what I,like so many people are concerned about is if the nurfs are true, why make your weak arm stronger ( DREDS ) & cut off your already strong arm ( SUPERS ) There has to be a balance there for player satisfaction & ensureing a positive future for gameplay. The "nerf" in question however is only going to yet again make a single class of ship relatively useless.
I agree with everything you said here.
But also, i would have no problem at all if a reduction in EHP was countered by a reduction in cost to build. No problem with that at all. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 01:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
Lord Wiggin wrote: And seriously, if you can kill one with 150 canes, just how damn overpowered are they????
Oh, so I need a fleet of ~15,000 hurricanes to take out a DRF fleet of 100x super capitals before they take my fleet out?
I'll get right on that.
Hey, if someone wants to get 1500x live pilots together to form a battleship fleet so be it, but you should not be able to toss a couple hundred super capitals into a single solar system and have near to nothing that can possibly counter you except another fleet of super capitals.
Period.
You guys are missing the scalar issue by a long mile here.
And honestly, I do not really care. Enjoy debating the inevitable changes that will come to super capitals in a few months whether you agree with them or not. ...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 01:17:00 -
[74] - Quote
Dreads are already pretty ballanced with respect to subcapital ships already. If you buff them, then the next thing to do is buff the battleships, then after that the battlecusiers, and so on down the line, it will never end. Better to nerf the supers, than play powercreep online. |
Jita Alt666
197
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 01:53:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP need to go back to the drawing board and start playing paper scissors rock |
Tuggboat
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 02:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
If... the Super "adjustment" were delayed, would goons be licking Commie boots by Spring? Could the goons retreat like Napoleon and WWII Germans. Would real balance and real happiness in a utopian Communist Universe be finally attained? Would Goon drop CSM as useless? Could real democracy proceed from the unlikely hands of our new Russian Czars?
Resub NOW to find out. |
HoboJoe720
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 18:38:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes ( battle reports)
i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59Zsg
Basically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one.
However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 19:13:00 -
[78] - Quote
HoboJoe720 wrote:i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59ZsgBasically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one. However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics.
CCP disagrees with you.
...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Jaari Val'Dara
United Warriors
48
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 19:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
1. Make them unable to stay in POS force field. 2. Create new POS structure anchorable outside force field, it would work as sort of dock for supers, but they would still be vulnerable to attack. Just protected from someone boarding it while no one is looking. 3. Make them never disappear, ever. When you build it, it stays in space until it dies.
That way it would be major pain to pilot the SC's, they would become alliance assets, since it would require several people to watch over them. |
baltec1
38
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 20:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
HoboJoe720 wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Mendolus wrote:The only problem with super capitals is that there is no true counter to them based solely on game mechanics other than having super capitals of your own. Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes ( battle reports) i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59ZsgBasically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one. However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics.
Normally by the time a super starts to hurt too many canes have been lost. A fleet of 50 supers is damn near impossible to stop for the biggest power blocks, small alliances dont stand any chance. |
|
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 20:15:00 -
[81] - Quote
Lord Wiggin wrote:
And seriously, if you can kill one with 150 canes, just how damn overpowered are they????
Dunno, but one player needing 150 other players to get killed sound pretty damn OP to me.
But even that fall short of the actual situation. Because if you have 100 SC within remote range of each other, then you can bring as many hurricanes as the node will permit, you won't kill a single one of them. A thousand hurricanes wouldn't kill one SC.
Besides, once one alliance get enough money, it is pretty easy to bring 100 SC on the field. What alliance would manage to assemble 15000 hurricanes pilots? No one can. No one can even get to a quarter of that. And because no one can, the "combat power/pilots mobilized" ratio of supercarriers need to be cut down. Drastically.
That, or making their useless unless they are only a small fraction of their fleet composition. For example by making them unables to target anything if they're not wing or fleet leaders, with at least 20 support ships present in system for each supercap. |
Ferrenc
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 21:54:00 -
[82] - Quote
Headerman wrote:
But also, i would have no problem at all if a reduction in EHP was countered by a reduction in cost to build. No problem with that at all.
they have those they're called carriers |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 22:17:00 -
[83] - Quote
Ferrenc wrote:Headerman wrote:
But also, i would have no problem at all if a reduction in EHP was countered by a reduction in cost to build. No problem with that at all.
they have those they're called carriers
There's certainly room for super capitals to be reduced to have maybe 2-3x the EHP of a carrier.
Right now you can get +25MIL EHP easily with a Nyx, slaves, and boosting while its sister ship the Thanatos can only squeeze out 1-2MIL. ...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Voi Lutois
Dream shooters Army Of Darkness.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 22:27:00 -
[84] - Quote
i hope ccp really **** them up |
Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 22:47:00 -
[85] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:Not true, smaller more organised & elite alliances are able to hold there own against mass blobs due to supers being part of the fleet comp & being used well in the fleet comp etc. With HP & damage reduced grossly smaller entities will have to band together to go up against mass blobs such as Goons etc.
Wich in foresight will mean that there will be more players in certain engadgements meaning a hell of alot more lagg.
ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships
how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
571
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 22:52:00 -
[86] - Quote
Did I mention "death2allsupercaps"?
death2allsupercaps |
Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 22:59:00 -
[87] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Did I mention "death2allsupercaps"?
death2allsupercaps
hey mittens lets put another hundred guys in supercarriers so we can be elite as **** too |
Count Austheim
Raven's Flight
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 23:02:00 -
[88] - Quote
Capital ships cost alot of isk. If this ships a-¦rockin, then im strangling someone....
http://count-austheim.blogspot.com/ |
leich
Sad Panda'z Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 23:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
The whole Dread, Black ops, Super is a question of Scale.
A small Buff to dreads coupled with a small reduction is supers strength(EHP, Only Being able to use Fighters) Would balance the game.
Gentle Tweaking of this over time would lead to more balance.
what is likley to happen based on pervious form is a massive over nerf of supers followed by an insane buff on dreads.
Apart from a little more jump range and a slightly better fuel bay black ops really dont need a boost or nerf for that matter.
I just hope CCP Goes in lots of small steps rather and jumping in with both feet and ending up in more of a mess than we already have.
the other idea i would love is for CCP to give us some more ships skills ect. ive heard the Idea of a second kind black ops that can warp cloaked but doesnt have a jump drive Using another BS hull.
|
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 23:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
leich wrote:The whole Dread, Black ops, Super is a question of Scale.
A small Buff to dreads coupled with a small reduction is supers strength(EHP, Only Being able to use Fighters) Would balance the game.
Gentle Tweaking of this over time would lead to more balance.
what is likley to happen based on pervious form is a massive over nerf of supers followed by an insane buff on dreads.
Apart from a little more jump range and a slightly better fuel bay black ops really dont need a boost or nerf for that matter.
I just hope CCP Goes in lots of small steps rather and jumping in with both feet and ending up in more of a mess than we already have.
the other idea i would love is for CCP to give us some more ships skills ect. ive heard the Idea of a second kind black ops that can warp cloaked but doesnt have a jump drive Using another BS hull.
You're wrong. CCP needs to nerf those MFers TO THE GROUND
|
|
CATPAIN KIRK
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.16 23:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
Count Austheim wrote:Capital ships cost alot of isk.
How much for a constitution class? |
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:13:00 -
[92] - Quote
Hratli Smirks wrote:
ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships
how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there
It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships. Cheer up, it's just a game.
Just a shame you aren't very good at it*
*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
286
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:27:00 -
[93] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:Hratli Smirks wrote:
ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships
how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there
It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships. Cheer up, it's just a game. Just a shame you aren't very good at it* *which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.
Yeah after all, when you only need to bring 30,000 guys in canes to beat those 200 in supers, then how could that possibly be unbalanced in any way? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bel Amar
Sudden Buggery
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:27:00 -
[94] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone
Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:28:00 -
[95] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:Hratli Smirks wrote:
ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships
how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there
It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships. Cheer up, it's just a game. Just a shame you aren't very good at it* *which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.
There are two different argument's in this thread, which one are you referring to?
There is the argument that people will automatically try to win a numerical advantage over others no matter what the game mechanics allow or do not allow.
And then there is the argument that the game mechanic should be diverse, and anything that necessitates you meet one force with a like force, i.e. Falcons for Falcons, Super Capitals for Super Capitals, is not conducive to that diversity whatsoever.
CCP nerfed nano and Falcons for this very reason, to bring them more in line with a diverse variety of combat mechanics that were all viable, to the point that neither was ubiquitous anymore, but merely another tool at one's disposal, much like every other.
The former argument is of course true, those with a numerical or tangible advantage gained through hard work and effort are always in the right in the sense that they put in more time and effort to win.
The latter argument is of course false, the game should not be a matter of "Well, they brought a hundred super capitals, too bad we do not have a hundred ourselves or we might be able to play the game we are paying for!"
It should be more like "Well they brought a hundred super capitals, but we can use skill and initiative to bring out 50x [Heavy Assault Bombers] and pop 10-15 of their super capitals and drive them off with the cost of their losses alone."
Right now when there are a hundred super capitals, the only answer, is another hundred, at least for practical purposes.
Why should we have no choice, no diversity?
Someone mentioned, well you can kill a supercap with 150x Hurricanes! ... okay, so what happens when there are 2x supercaps on a grid, and you won't kill even a single one of them with your 150x hurricanes because they'll all be dead long before the primary is in any danger.
It is a problem of scale, and CCP will attempt to fix it, that is all.
...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
286
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 00:50:00 -
[96] - Quote
Bel Amar wrote:Sonva Lat wrote:*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"
More to the point, if a significant Titan fleet is absolutely required to even consider playing the 0.0 sov game in the first place, then you're simply setting the barrier to entry to 50% of the EVE map insanely high.
Titans and motherships should be as efficient against subcaps as Battleships are vs Frigates or as Dreadnaughts are against Cruisers: not very. It's quite reasonable for Titans to be a counter to capital ships; it's not reasonable that they are a counter to HAC gangs.
Nerf Titan turret tracking to be only somewhat better (say 25-33% better) than that of a seiged Dread, and give the Doomsday device an explosion radius of 3000m/explosion velocity of 70 m/s, so that it's just about possible for a highly tanked subcap to survive it, and Titans would still be extremely effective vs capital ships but vulnerable to subcaps, just as a fleet-fitted battleship is vulnerable to frigates.
Similarly, reduce the explosion radius/velocity of FB torps.
And finally, remove the rig slots from supercaps. They're only ever used to increase EHP, so there's no actual ship customization involved, and excessive EHP is the other most ridiculously unbalanced thing about supercaps, even without making it 70% worse. They're also expensive enough as it is without essentially requiring the pilot to spend an extra 1.5B on EHP rigs. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Jita Alt666
280
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 01:10:00 -
[97] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:
It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships. Cheer up, it's just a game.
Just a shame you aren't very good at it*
*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.
#1: The same options are not on the table for everyone. #2: CSM 6 is dominated by 0.0 alliances from every part of the Eve political spectrum. All agree SC's are ridiculously out of balance. This is not a specific alliance issue. #3: Your argument is essentially the same as the argument in support of the old remote doomsday through a cyno. #4: Your reduction of your own argument to personal insults under the guise of an obvious alt is most unbecoming. |
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 01:41:00 -
[98] - Quote
Bel Amar wrote:Sonva Lat wrote:*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"
Ah, now we get to the crux of it.
What you are saying is, that if people band together and make friends they can dominate those who are unable to forge alliances?
Why do the people will all the sov stick together? Why aren't they all fighting each other?
Enlightened self interest - working together because their good depends on the greater good.
That Mittens person is always saying how great he is at politics, and yet he calls for a reduction to the effectiveness of hostile forces because he is unable to build a space empire.
I get it though, it isn't fair that smaller less powerful groups have to dance to the tune played by superpowers who have massive military advantage. Superpowers who can ride roughshot over those unable to fight back and impose their worldview. In this analogy the CSM is the United Nations, the Russian alliances are the USA, and the goons are burning flags. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 02:35:00 -
[99] - Quote
No matter how many times you say it Sonva, it doesn't make it 100% true no more than anything we are saying.
There is a kernel of truth to both sides, but the fact of the matter is, super capitals in their present form do not mesh with the way CCP intended for them to be used, period.
CCP has already stated this, end of story.
You can argue your fairly extreme viewpoints that 100% of all points of debate about changes needed to combat in EVE are based solely on the haves versus have nots all you want, but that doesn't make it anymore true than people saying super capitals themselves are the sole reason for the imbalance itself.
CCP would not have to take any action at all if people were not exploiting super capitals to a level of use that CCP felt it had to intervene on as they did not intend for them to play the role they presently do in the game.
i.e. doesn't matter how you spin the player element of the story, the fact remains CCP already stated they view the player use of super capitals in EVE to be contrary to the use they intended for these ships when they revamped them.
/thread.
Give it up already, no one is telling you that you are outright wrong, they are merely saying you are missing the point of why changes are necessary, regardless of the motivations of players asking for those changes, nor players making full use of supercaps in their present form to gain a clear advantage over others, which is at present, a legitimate use of super capitals, by virtue of the present game mechanic, which will change, regardless of what you personally think about the people that use or do not use them, nor those who argue against or for them, or anything related to social dynamics and conflict at all. ...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
257
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:13:00 -
[100] - Quote
Basically, I don't care as I don't fly an SC and I largely agree that an SC blob lagging a system to death with its drones is not in eves best interest, but nerfing titans any more?
I'm fine with nerfing Moms for their built in lag-bomb, but titans?
You can DD any ship every ten minutes but capital turrets killing off a hac gang? I'd call that pretty fail hac pilots then... And yeah - I think 20 titans should be able kill a 20 man hac gang in case the hacs decide to engage...
Just remove titan bridges - any 5 man lowsec corp has a bored titan pilot nowadays - kills small gang pvp.
As for numbers - it's pretty obvious why mittens is promoting numbers > everything.
Whilst I personally like goons, I hate the 'blob > all' mechanics already in place. morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
|
Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:36:00 -
[101] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:[quote=Bel Amar] That Mittens person is always saying how great he is at politics, and yet he calls for a reduction to the effectiveness of hostile forces because he is unable to build a space empire.
but he did
when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0
enjoy the nerfs!
(booyah) |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
257
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:44:00 -
[102] - Quote
Hratli Smirks wrote:
but he did
when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0
enjoy the nerfs!
(booyah)
What about Atlas., Morsus Mihi or Prick Squad (the latter being mostly ex R.A.E.G. and ME after all...)? morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:45:00 -
[103] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Hratli Smirks wrote:
but he did
when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0
enjoy the nerfs!
(booyah)
What about Atlas., Morsus Mihi or Prick Squad (the latter being mostly ex R.A.E.G. and ME after all...).
what about them? |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
257
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:50:00 -
[104] - Quote
Nothing really, just wanted to make sure they're erased from the sov map, but CBA to log in just for that... morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
Trolls Troll
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:52:00 -
[105] - Quote
op is right.
Dreads should be buffed, supers should be fighters/bombers only. (with a small drone bay ofc).
OR
a new type of dread should come out, ie to match the supers, make it bigger, or even a smaller type "bomber unit". Let it fit a doomsday type weapon but only shootable at capitals.
I don't think its fair to make a ship worse for one group just to appease another. Make something to combat the supers, and "tweak" them, but don't nerf them. |
Fighter26
Orion's Fist RED.Legion
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 03:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Think it all depends how severe the nerf is. Removing SCaps ability to field regular drones and giving destroyers 150% damage to fighters/fighterbombers sounds like enough. After all, the dessies are worth nearly nothing, can be piloted by a few week old pilot very well, and can be thrown at waves of fb's... that cost ten times as much as the dessies. Why not devalue the supercarriers by giving the little guy the ABILITY to remove their fangs, not just nerfing outright. Oh yes and change the logoff 15 minute rule and self destruct rules if under attack. That sounds like enough to balance a ship and not make it useless. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 05:51:00 -
[107] - Quote
Count Austheim wrote:Capital ships cost alot of isk.
Isk isn't a balancing factor anymore when a alliance can make hundreds of billions each month, and the expensive ships have a extremely low loss rate. |
Skunk Gracklaw
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 09:22:00 -
[108] - Quote
Fighter26 wrote:Think it all depends how severe the nerf is. Removing SCaps ability to field regular drones and giving destroyers 150% damage to fighters/fighterbombers sounds like enough. After all, the dessies are worth nearly nothing, can be piloted by a few week old pilot very well, and can be thrown at waves of fb's... that cost ten times as much as the dessies. Why not devalue the supercarriers by giving the little guy the ABILITY to remove their fangs, not just nerfing outright. Oh yes and change the logoff 15 minute rule and self destruct rules if under attack. That sounds like enough to balance a ship and not make it useless. Not even close. Supers are going to get nerfed so hard you'll be embarrassed to be seen in one.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 09:58:00 -
[109] - Quote
If I had my choice, I'd just remove their invulnerability to EW, but their hp buff that Seleene did years ago was over the top and excessive. The jump from level 1 carrier to level 3 is just ridiculous in terms of firepower and tanking changes. It sets a bad precedent and has led to fewer capitals being introduced. The supercarrier buff was to prevent insta popping from titans. So just lower the damage of the titan and the hp of the supercarrier to fix the problem. (Though the Titan does require a different skill than the Dreadnought while the Carrier and Supercarrier use the same skill that could be the problem too).
I'd either do that directly giving them high sensor res to resist a lone blackbird etc, or I'd create a new EW Dreadnought that has capital EW that affects them.
|
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 11:52:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mendolus wrote:No matter how many times you say it Sonva, it doesn't make it 100% true no more than anything we are saying.
There is a kernel of truth to both sides, but the fact of the matter is, super capitals in their present form do not mesh with the way CCP intended for them to be used, period.
CCP has already stated this, end of story.
You can argue your fairly extreme viewpoints that 100% of all points of debate about changes needed to combat in EVE are based solely on the haves versus have nots all you want, but that doesn't make it anymore true than people saying super capitals themselves are the sole reason for the imbalance itself.
CCP would not have to take any action at all if people were not exploiting super capitals to a level of use that CCP felt it had to intervene on as they did not intend for them to play the role they presently do in the game.
i.e. doesn't matter how you spin the player element of the story, the fact remains CCP already stated they view the player use of super capitals in EVE to be contrary to the use they intended for these ships when they revamped them.
/thread.
Give it up already, no one is telling you that you are outright wrong, they are merely saying you are missing the point of why changes are necessary, regardless of the motivations of players asking for those changes, nor players making full use of supercaps in their present form to gain a clear advantage over others, which is at present, a legitimate use of super capitals, by virtue of the present game mechanic, which will change, regardless of what you personally think about the people that use or do not use them, nor those who argue against or for them, or anything related to social dynamics and conflict at all.
I'm not saying the state of affairs is as it should be.
The solution to the problem is the introduction of effective counters, rather than "hopeful" nerfing. You see, nerfing the ships will in no way change the numbers or wealth of those who currently field them. It will only be a matter of time before the next thing they use will need to be nerfed to make things "fair" again.
The reason that you see huge supercap blobs is that there is no reason not to use them. Nerfing them without the introduction of effective counters will not change that.
This is a chance for CCP to give other ships meaningful roles which counter the effective strengths of supercapitals. Ships to kill drones, ships to debuff ECM protection, glass cannons ... the list of options for consideration is huge. You make people feel engaged by letting them compete on an uneven footing - rather than just bringing everything to the same level. Balance should be about variety and inclusion. Moisture farmers need deathstars to destroy, it is the law of space battles. |
|
Zey Nadar
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 13:28:00 -
[111] - Quote
If there is something explicitly better than everything else, players will flock to it. Thats a fact. If supers would still be best after the nerf, nothing would change. If there was a counter to them, then at least some people would flock to the counter. Hopefully finding dynamic balance at some point.
As long as there is no counter, the problem will continue developing on a hyperbole. |
Joplin
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:17:00 -
[112] - Quote
Supers r not the problem as such,huge blobs of them with rr capability etc is the problem |
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 19:48:00 -
[113] - Quote
Either:
Introduce a Monthly Maintenance Fee of a billion ISK per super cap, which if not paid prevents the super from jumping;
Or:
Death2AllSuperCaps
|
pussnheels
Vintage heavy industries
71
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 20:01:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP hasn't done anything yet and there is the superwhine already; who says they are going to nerf supercarriers ...??
Only problem there is and that has been mentioned a by just about everyone in here tht there is no counter to supercarriers
There has been many suggestions on how to deal with this problem - making dreads better -removing the invulnerability against ewar -removing all drones except fighjter/ firghterbombers etc etc
Sad true is when ccp eventually implements something to counter this problem ,the superwhines of many supercap pilots fill these forums and bore us to death
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Bel Amar
Sudden Buggery
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 00:53:00 -
[115] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:Ah, now we get to the crux of it.
What you are saying is, that if people band together and make friends they can dominate those who are unable to forge alliances?
Actually, no. What I am saying is that the argument you put forward to argue against a nerf is incorrect at it's core. The same options aren't on the table for everyone, and as time goes by, that problem is only getting larger
You can respond to that by quoting different justifications and putting words in my mouth, but your original argument is still flawed.
Irrelevant of how good or bad any given person, corp or alliance is at any aspect of the game, once the balance is thrown out, it's gone forever with no way to restore it. The next Alexander the Great could start playing tomorrow and band every high sec bear, low sec pirate and evicted nullsec resident in to the largest alliance EVE has ever known. But if he can't make supers, and the coalition controlling nullsec won't sell them to him, he will never be able to compete.
I don't mind that it's possible for someone to "win" nullsec (though I'd prefer if it wasn't), but that winning shouldn't exclude further competition. At the moment, it's not even possible for guerrilla warfare "rebels" to harass a winner, let alone form a serious force capable of contending the winners space.
Owning all of nullsec should be like pushing a boulder uphill. You can do it, but if you slip up, or someone harasses you enough, it all crashes to the ground. At the moment though thanks to supers it's more like a snowball rolling down a hill, the further it rolls, the faster it rolls, and the harder it is to stop
|
Bel Amar
Sudden Buggery
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.18 01:06:00 -
[116] - Quote
Sonva Lat wrote:The solution to the problem is the introduction of effective counters, rather than "hopeful" nerfing. You see, nerfing the ships will in no way change the numbers or wealth of those who currently field them. It will only be a matter of time before the next thing they use will need to be nerfed to make things "fair" again.
That argument is also flawed. Saying that the numbers or wealth of those who field supers won't change is true, but it's true whether a nerf or a distinct counter is introduced. You can't use that argument to favour either option, as it applies to both.
And again, counter or nerf, things will remain unbalanced. No one will ever achieve perfect balance. But that's not what this is about. There is a difference between unbalanced and uncounterable. Drakes are unbalanced, but they can be countered, so in spite of them being a FOTM that everyone flies, they're an annoyance rather than a critical flaw in the game. Supers are unbalanced and uncounterable and the ability to build them depends on already having them. So they're a FOTM that is a critical flaw in the game.
Personally, I could care less how a counter is introduced. Nerf them or introduce a dedicated counter, as long as the result is the ability to form fleets that can stand and fight against supers, it's a good result
|
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
20
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 10:28:00 -
[117] - Quote
The only other thing Id personally add to my original statement would be that supers if they are going to have reduced HP let it be that the specific races are balanced out, such as the Aeon having less Hitpoints as it has an insane Tank. The Nyx & Wyvern having slightly less tank to what they currently have, also giving the Nyx a slightly bigger drone bay and keep to an extent the added damage bonus to drones over other races as is custom with gallante. Finally give the Hel a buff to Hitpoints to make it less of a liability an make it an affective an worth while ship to train for. |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
39
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 10:31:00 -
[118] - Quote
Imo the introduction of supers were a mistake anyway. Nerf them to oblivion, the weaker the better! |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
319
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 10:56:00 -
[119] - Quote
In addition to limiting them to fighters/fighter-bombers, they should also be required to use a third type of cyno.
This new cyno should take 2-3 minutes or more to warm up before any jumping can be done, thereby eliminating hot-drops and requiring a fleet to protect the cyno to be able to bring in the big guns. How to make it balanced when attacking a system defended by hundreds of SC is an exercise left up to CCP and the reader. 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Spectre80
The Knights Templar Cascade Imminent
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 10:59:00 -
[120] - Quote
oh look, its NCdot member (part of DRF superblob club) scared yet? i think you are.
KILL ALL SUPERS! |
|
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
20
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 11:05:00 -
[121] - Quote
OP is right, of course, because he used the word "factually" in a paragraph full of opinions, which - of course - are well known facts.
Now, on the other hand ...
Give us the ability to dock into them, in combination with the self destruct. -> Clear Skies 2
As Clear Skies 2 is a movie, it is of course factually true. That said, factually speaking, i know better than everybody else. Of course.
Where my sarcasm tag ? |
Dirk Tungsten
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 12:46:00 -
[122] - Quote
You all want to know the real reason for Supers & Titans getting a nerf. Its completely biased and will massively decrease player base. Goons with there multiple CSM's GMs are pushing, influencing these nerfs becuase they want to be able to lagg out systems with 2000 man fleets again, the only thing that has so far countered Mass goon blobs has been Supers/Titans. Lagging out systems is neither Pro or fun for any1, it is a mark for how fail Goons are that they are influencing this decision. No1s fualt but there own that they dont have the balls to use there own Supers/Titans.
CCP should step in an make sure biased influences such as these are picked up an dealt with. Leaving it to continue will lose the game a huge chunk of Vets who are ofc the main loyal player base of EVE. |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:53:00 -
[123] - Quote
This thread is shameful, quit bumping it, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Edit: Yes, I realize I bumped it myself, but ffs, could you be more wrong? ...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:54:00 -
[124] - Quote
I'd be angry too if I'd joined an alliance of mouth-foaming keyboard mashers like NC. and then RMT'd myself into a supercap so that I could declare myself an elite PvPer, just in time to be kicked in the balls by a long-overdue rebalance. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
143
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:55:00 -
[125] - Quote
Can we get this thread locked too? Since its full of false accusations and bitterness. Wheres that report button.
Also super serious question to a mod. Why can't you "like" posts in lock threads? |
Guy Grand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:57:00 -
[126] - Quote
I would agree, the GMs and CSMs are biased. Biased towards a horrible mechanic that should have been fixed a while ago.
You are being discriminated against, they are showing discrimination toward your use of a horrible mechanic as a power lever.
As for influences, everyone is influenced by something. I have no doubt that you are just as influenced by your desire to retain said power lever, and in reality have no concern for the state of the game. This of course destroys the assumed ethical superiority of your position.
Leaving your argument with... nothing, no substance, no reason to respond with anything but ridicule, or as you so delightfully put it in another thread, "nonscence". |
Austneal
Fevered Imaginings
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 14:04:00 -
[127] - Quote
No |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 14:14:00 -
[128] - Quote
:Annoyed
Your arguments are horrible and those of six year old child having his toy taken away.
But be my guest, continue to rabble raise with horrible arguments and use your alt to like all your posts.
But please oh please;
Learn to quote!
Slade
|
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 14:16:00 -
[129] - Quote
These threads are only going to get bigger, louder, and more incoherent the closer we get to winter.
~ Winter is coming ~ |
Tijai Betula
Ontogenic Achronycal PLC
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:06:00 -
[130] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.
I like this.
No I really like this - theres potential here ;) |
|
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:09:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tijai Betula wrote:Rodj Blake wrote:Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent. I like this. No I really like this - theres potential here ;)
Would require different style of maneuvering ..aka fps mode. |
|
CCP Zymurgist
C C P C C P Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:47:00 -
[132] - Quote
Moved from General Discussion. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP NA, EVE Online Contact Us at http://support.eveonline.com/pages/petitions/createpetition.aspx |
|
Sarahs Sister
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:49:00 -
[133] - Quote
My only 2 cents is that we do and can chnage SuperC so that they cant target structures and FB cant target anything other than a capital. And a EHP buff to match that of a well fit Aeon.
Dreads should then have a 80% buff to damage and a 50% buff to hp a 10% buff to resists and the obvious 5min siege. Allow dreads to only attack structures in siege and ships out of siege.
my reasons are that the SuperC become anti cap ships rather then territory mechines and can support Dreads that are there to kill structures. SuperC have always and should always be able to use 20+ drones, they do cost not LOADS of ISK but alot of ISK so should still have a very good tank. The log off trick needs to be addressed by that if the ship is shoot within 10min of the char logging off then it will stay logged in for 30min prior and if engaement stops it will log out after comabt timer fo 15min.
The buff to dreads HP and Damage means that they can do alot more damage to a SuperC and last longer with Carrier support (out of siege) and yes you will likley lose 20 dreads in a 50 dread engagement but you will kill 50-60% of the Supers. Obviously this relies on fleets have good communication and well trainned Triage carriers. (this is a good oods engagement 50 dreads is about 50-60 billion 20-40 supersC is about 400-800 billion, that might stop the blobs).
S |
Temuken Radzu
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:23:00 -
[134] - Quote
How about we make it simple, lets just make the SuperCaps unable to spidertank each other, This way it will be much more difficult to maintain a Cap blob. |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 17:12:00 -
[135] - Quote
Temuken Radzu wrote:How about we make it simple, lets just make the Super Capitals unable to spidertank other Capitals, This way we will be able to force the capital back to a support class ship instead of the superpwnagewithnoweakness-class.
Supercaps can speed tank dreads, they barely ever spider tank. They seriously need their base speeds nerfed to ******* hell and back. |
Satav
Latinum Exports
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 18:58:00 -
[136] - Quote
When i saw the the OP was from NC. i stopped reading................... |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 19:46:00 -
[137] - Quote
Satav wrote:When i saw the the OP was from NC. i stopped reading...................
Strange. When I saw the OP was from NC., I started laughing. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |