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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |