Ships & Modules

If JFs are supercaps, give them a supercap nerf.
Remove their drone bays and make them unable to fire their DD on subcap ships.

Seriously, I too would be excited to see support fleets escort supercaps and freighters on longs and dangerous trips. It could be fun... the 2-3 first times ?
Then it would just be a PITA for the rest of your evelife. Not every corp / alliance can field said support fleet everytime they need to travel. Even those that do have better uses for their PVP pilot's time. And as stated before, with current game mechanics, the support fleet could not do much to prevent JFs to be alpha by a large enough blob.

JFs may be OP but nerfing them could make daily logistic a nightmare, keeping even more alliances away from null.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.



How indeed, I defer to your vastly superior knowledge, my alliance is currently cowering in lowsec awaiting the impending Supercapital nerf.

http://i.imgur.com/sFV4q.jpg

Please tell me how you would bump this Anshar off this station.



No, none of those ships is streets ahead of it's next lower tier, with the possible exception of the Dramiel. You do remember how a Dramiel couldn't track my Avatar at 20km?



Just because something won't be fun doesn't mean it should not be addressed.

look we're clearly not using words to mean their actual meaning given we are classifying jump freighters as supercapitals

with something big, duh

The problems (and I use the term loosely) with JFs are not that JFs are OP, it's a combination of bad game mechanics and, most of all, buggy game mechanics that prevent more of these from dying.

JFs ply their role with plausible realism. Nerfing those properties to make up for deficiencies elsewhere will not solve anything.

aargh the stupid forums ate my post

i'll redo later

crappost

I want a suppercap. Sounds tasty.

ok in essence, you've completely missed the point. your argument relies on appealing to random design principles you favor, but without a good explanation of why those are good design principles and why your solution would improve the game

the essence of logistics is space work. it's moving things from point a to point b, in an incredibly boring way. one of EVE's greatest flaws has been the amount of space work 0.0 requires, and the sole good thing about Dominion was they recognized that and started cutting away space work (tower fueling was replaced by spending money).

logistics is not optional: ccp has designed EVE in such a way that 0.0 simply requires massive amounts of material to be brought in from highsec. it's not a situation where it's optional. So, it's merely a question of how easy to interdict it should be. That's not a question of relative balance like for ship PvP (a point you clearly miss when you discuss market manipulation and corporate theft), where the important thing is making sure no one strategy predominates over all others. The reason for that is simple: if the correct answer in all cases is X for what is supposed to be a rock/paper/scissors sort of game, it's boring. you bring X, I bring x, whichever one of us brought more X wins. In contrast, logistic interdiction isn't a rock/paper/scissors sort of thing: its merely a question of how hard it should be. does it get through, or not. Now, you're able to interdict logistics right now: you can bubble and camp the destination 0.0 system. But that's hard, and you don't want to do it. Your solution is that the logistics people should have to do considerably more space-work (and much worse space-work: merely sitting in place to ensure nothing interesting happens). in essence, you want the game made worse, but in a way that happens to benefit you. escorting freighters is horrible gameplay. if you wanted to design logistics interdiction that is easier you need a system that isn't ****, and you system is ****. it requires horrible unpleasant gameplay. moreover, logistics are as hard to interdict as they are because due to CCP's design they are so vital, and therefore should not be easily interdictable. i get that as a non-spacholding alliance you want the game tilted your way, but you're not actually offering any good design reasons why that should be the case. it's essentially a "i want the candy give me the candy WAAAAAAAAAA" argument.

there is no good reason to design EVE in such a way to require more space work: it is a bad design, it doesn't make the game better in any way. jump freighters are a good balance right now: if you are alert and do everything perfectly, you survive. if you slip up in any way and get caught, you're dead: they're a high-wire act. making them easily killable simply starves 0.0 of any real gameplay: it will mean you simply must operate close to empire and probably just out of torrinos or another highsec/0.0 link. it's bad gameplay, and your sole argument for it is that "i want it give me it". you offer no reasons why the game is improved in your model, merely that you think you should get your way and that it should be much harder to move materials to 0.0

it's a bad argument, it has no good gameplay effects, and it's the height of "balance the game by giving me what i want". why supercaps needed to be nerfed was obvious and can be made in "this is how the game is improved by the nerf" ways, and has been repeatedly. you've offered no reasons to explain in similar terms why the game is better with your model. it's a lazy, whiny argument based on no good arguments of how it would actually improve the game

also when you ignore my post to quote the summary please at least avoid making points that I directly addressed and explained why they were wrong in the long post