These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Bittervet's Perspective on Nullsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#41 - 2012-12-23 09:51:46 UTC
mama guru wrote:
Supers needs to get nerfed into Tier 2 Capitals in terms of price and ability. Thats it, there is no realistic alternative solution to supercap proliferation that doesnt involve a massive price hike in the form of either material cost or buildtime/accessability.



Supers might be a problem but they are also a lense. People want to be on the field longer than 12 seconds, they get in a Super. Every nerf, buff, expansion, patch has evaded the one constant in EVE. Nothing tanks below super capitals. For reasons unexplained, CCP have refused to make Defense a valid play style. We adapted and simply refuse to fight battles we deem not worth the loss or loss of no strategic value. They can have it two ways. Fights that don't always end in a kill mail or no fights. They choose no fights.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#42 - 2012-12-23 10:26:51 UTC
Ehh...

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
mama guru
Yazatas.
#43 - 2012-12-23 10:32:05 UTC  |  Edited by: mama guru
Ocih wrote:
mama guru wrote:
Supers needs to get nerfed into Tier 2 Capitals in terms of price and ability. Thats it, there is no realistic alternative solution to supercap proliferation that doesnt involve a massive price hike in the form of either material cost or buildtime/accessability.



Supers might be a problem but they are also a lense. People want to be on the field longer than 12 seconds, they get in a Super. Every nerf, buff, expansion, patch has evaded the one constant in EVE. Nothing tanks below super capitals. For reasons unexplained, CCP have refused to make Defense a valid play style. We adapted and simply refuse to fight battles we deem not worth the loss or loss of no strategic value. They can have it two ways. Fights that don't always end in a kill mail or no fights. They choose no fights.


Supers rarely get fielded because they are to expensive to risk in small numbers and when they do get fielded it's usually when you have the confidence of numbers on your side. Defense is a perfectly viable playstyle, I have survived being primriaried in 500 man fleet fights. I wont say it's easy or common it all depends on how many logis/triage carriers you have on field. The problem is not that we don't have the means, its how you make it happen. Being alpha striked is a part of mass pvp, if you don't like it stick to small gangs.

Supers also helped with that problem by nullifying subcaps on field untill the tracking nerfs.. Sov grinding is still a painful process without supers and dreads however.

Most problems in nullsec can be traced to supers in one way or another. Sov mechanics, capitals being useless without supers on call and mineral prices being the most prominent.

EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-12-23 10:36:31 UTC
I dont think supers are the problem , what i do think is their ability to move from region to another like a lightning , that promotes coalitions and coalitions promote blobs .

Maybe restrict their use on a 3 region radios from their "home" and they cant go further than that .
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#45 - 2012-12-23 10:49:20 UTC
mama guru wrote:
Ocih wrote:
mama guru wrote:
Supers needs to get nerfed into Tier 2 Capitals in terms of price and ability. Thats it, there is no realistic alternative solution to supercap proliferation that doesnt involve a massive price hike in the form of either material cost or buildtime/accessability.



Supers might be a problem but they are also a lense. People want to be on the field longer than 12 seconds, they get in a Super. Every nerf, buff, expansion, patch has evaded the one constant in EVE. Nothing tanks below super capitals. For reasons unexplained, CCP have refused to make Defense a valid play style. We adapted and simply refuse to fight battles we deem not worth the loss or loss of no strategic value. They can have it two ways. Fights that don't always end in a kill mail or no fights. They choose no fights.


Supers rarely get fielded because they are to expensive to risk in small numbers and when they do get fielded it's usually when you have the confidence of numbers on your side. Defense is a perfectly viable playstyle, I have survived being primriaried in 500 man fleet fights. I wont say it's easy or common it all depends on how many logis/triage carriers you have on field. The problem is not that we don't have the means, its how you make it happen. Being alpha striked is a part of mass pvp, if you don't like it stick to small gangs.

Supers also helped with that problem by nullifying subcaps on field untill the tracking nerfs.. Sov grinding is still a painful process without supers and dreads however.

Most problems in nullsec can be traced to supers in one way or another. Sov mechanics, capitals being useless without supers on call and mineral prices being the most prominent.


You will notice I said, they might be a problem but... and I also pointed out why they are. They have blob tank and unique to the game in that way. There is no magic bullet, no one problem that can be eliminated and EVE will be fixed. They can get rid of Supers, sure that's the easy fix. Then people will go back to blobbing with dreads. There still won't be a viable way to defend against Alpha and there will still be the option to not participate. As you pointed out. If you think 80% of EVE not participating is par for the course, this thread ends for you. That's the way EVE is now.
ISD Praetoxx
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-12-23 12:08:00 UTC
Thread cleaned.

Please keep posts constructive and on-topic folks.
- ISD Praetoxx

ISD Praetoxx Lieutenant Community Communication Liasons (CCLs) Interstellar Service Department
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2012-12-23 12:11:05 UTC
ISD Praetoxx wrote:
Thread cleaned.

Please keep posts constructive and on-topic folks.
- ISD Praetoxx


That reminds me..
I REALLY do not like Ponies.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Anndy
The Evocati
#48 - 2012-12-23 20:27:40 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
I dont think supers are the problem , what i do think is their ability to move from region to another like a lightning , that promotes coalitions and coalitions promote blobs .

Maybe restrict their use on a 3 region radios from their "home" and they cant go further than that .


being able to cross the galaxy within minutes is a huge problem that needs to be fixed but also the issue with supers is that they promote blobs(to defend or kill supers) which in turn promotes coalitions to ensure you have the numbers required to out blob everyone else which brings us to exactly where we are now, massive blobs that are not worth even trying to fight against

supers were supposed to be rare but CCP underestimated the players ability to produce them while at the same time CCP kept adding more and more isk to the game which only helped to produce more supers

in the end i honestly think supers were a massive mistake, it should of stopped with carriers/dreads but its something that really cant be undone without starting a massive **** storm
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#49 - 2012-12-23 20:36:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Supers are a non-issue now.

General power projection for jump drives and titan bridges is still a big issue, but not the actual place of supers in the chain of combat escalation, which people in this thread still seem to be harping about 8-10 months too late.

The problem with nerfing power projection right now is that it is currently the only way people manage to get fights in a galaxy where there really is no reason to fight anyone else. Therefore, a power projection nerf needs to coincide with the addition of features that increase localized gameplay so people don't want to go halfway across the galaxy to drop on someone because they have their own close to home content.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-12-23 20:43:57 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Supers are a non-issue now.

General power projection for jump drives and titan bridges is still a big issue, but not the actual place of supers in the chain of combat escalation, which people in this thread still seem to be harping about 8-10 months too late.

The problem with nerfing power projection right now is that it is currently the only way people manage to get fights in a galaxy where there really is no reason to fight anyone else. Therefore, a power projection nerf needs to coincide with the addition of features that increase localized gameplay so people don't want to go halfway across the galaxy to drop on someone because they have their own close to home content.


Perhaps if we remove projection of power the size of territories would be reduced and maybe more people would move in remove the needs for NIPs and just having gudfites anyway.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2012-12-23 20:58:57 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Supers are a non-issue now.

General power projection for jump drives and titan bridges is still a big issue, but not the actual place of supers in the chain of combat escalation, which people in this thread still seem to be harping about 8-10 months too late.

The problem with nerfing power projection right now is that it is currently the only way people manage to get fights in a galaxy where there really is no reason to fight anyone else. Therefore, a power projection nerf needs to coincide with the addition of features that increase localized gameplay so people don't want to go halfway across the galaxy to drop on someone because they have their own close to home content.


Perhaps if we remove projection of power the size of territories would be reduced and maybe more people would move in remove the needs for NIPs and just having gudfites anyway.


There is still the problem of alliance revenue often being tied to holding vast amounts of space, either to hold far flung moons or holding enough to rent out while still having enough for your own alliance to use.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#52 - 2012-12-23 21:01:18 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Perhaps if we remove projection of power the size of territories would be reduced and maybe more people would move in remove the needs for NIPs and just having gudfites anyway.


First point is that NIPs are a good thing for content, not bad. NIPs allow you to engage your neighbors in low end conflict with less fear that it will lead to terrible structure bashing, so they actually increase content by allowing controlled conflict.

As to your main point, I will not disagree that it is a possibility. However, it could also not work that way, leaving an already content starved nullsec even hungrier. The point about needing power projection is that there are so few actual wars worth having that you need the range capability to find a good one. If you only have the ability to attack one region over, then you'll likely have a few hyperpowerful alliances with massive dead-zones in between them, as they can't project power to fight someone worthy, they just demolish anyone brave enough to situate beside them in a desperate need for any kind of group content.

Again, you very well could be right, but you also very well could be wrong. I think there are better ways to approaching the issue with much better odds of positive outcomes.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-12-23 21:36:39 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


First point is that NIPs are a good thing for content, not bad. NIPs allow you to engage your neighbors in low end conflict with less fear that it will lead to terrible structure bashing, so they actually increase content by allowing controlled conflict.

As to your main point, I will not disagree that it is a possibility. However, it could also not work that way, leaving an already content starved nullsec even hungrier. The point about needing power projection is that there are so few actual wars worth having that you need the range capability to find a good one. If you only have the ability to attack one region over, then you'll likely have a few hyperpowerful alliances with massive dead-zones in between them, as they can't project power to fight someone worthy, they just demolish anyone brave enough to situate beside them in a desperate need for any kind of group content.

Again, you very well could be right, but you also very well could be wrong. I think there are better ways to approaching the issue with much better odds of positive outcomes.


It would be better if players didnt have to create nips in the first place but the gameplay and the number of people living in null made such things redundant. If players have to create artificial wars that have no direct benefit then that indicates something wrong.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-12-23 21:37:53 UTC
Complaining about supercaps now, after they've been nerfed repeatedly over the last couple of years and where they're much closer to balanced now (they still need a significant overhaul, but they're nowhere near the game-breaker they were a little while ago), is rather quaint.

If anything, you're complaining about the symptom of a problem rather than the problem themselves - the post-Dominion sov system is based around the ability to chew through gargantuan hitpoint bricks over and over again and the only way to achieve that in any reasonable amount of time is by fielding a large number of supercaps, or a massive blob of subcaps (or both).

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-12-23 21:41:12 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
It would be better if players didnt have to create nips in the first place but the gameplay and the number of people living in null made such things redundant. If players have to create artificial wars that have no direct benefit then that indicates something wrong.


Absolutely. Welcome to the "holy **** it's time to properly update nullsec for the first time since the game was released" club.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-12-23 21:46:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Varius Xeral wrote:


Absolutely. Welcome to the "holy **** it's time to properly update nullsec for the first time since the game was released" club.


I believe that both projection of power must be reduced while value increased.. Goons owning large areas wouldn't be so bad if it was evenly populated. The only reason they control that territory is for consistency and a few strategic moons.

In all honesty if we made all of null worth great isk then it may be possible for HBC and CFC to control all of it with everyone joining them to have access to the easiest rats and ore turning null into a carebear's dream.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#57 - 2012-12-23 21:54:25 UTC
Goons make good use of much of their space; Deklein at least, as Tribute is a new acquisition. Goons space has long been some of the best used and best places to kill ratters, fight HD gangs, and so on. The entirety of the CFC is generally a good example of space being used and good places to go to actually find people flying in space to shoot, as good as it gets in a game where nullsec space really isn;t worth using in the first place.

Again, you are speaking from a position of ignorance, regurgitating second hand rumors from whatever uninformed circles you turn in. You are example #156,974 of why people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't really be talking.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Anndy
The Evocati
#58 - 2012-12-23 21:56:05 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:


Absolutely. Welcome to the "holy **** it's time to properly update nullsec for the first time since the game was released" club.


I believe that both projection of power must be reduced while value increased.. Goons owning large areas wouldn't be so bad if it was evenly populated. The only reason they control that territory is for consistency and a few strategic moons.

In all honesty if we made all of null worth great isk then it may be possible for HBC and CFC to control all of it with everyone joining them to have access to the easiest rats and ore turning null into a carebear's dream.


yes and i'd bet thats exactly what would happen so the question becomes how to make alliances need less without giving so much they just rapidly expand
Frying Doom
#59 - 2012-12-23 22:08:55 UTC
I think the part of the conversation that is missing is

With lo-sec and Wormholes do we really Need Null or more specifically Sov space

Over the years so much has been put into Null, resources wise, balancing adding, nerfing it that it is now a jumbled mess that needs even more resources to again fix. There is no guarantee that this time they will get it right either.

So why not just get rid of it?

The only real answer I can think of is, "But then those people would have to live near me".

Not really a great reason to keep the resource sucking chest wound Null is.

I am not recommending this course of action but I do feel it should be discussed and not just by the minority that is Null but by the community as a whole, after all it is our subscription fees that fund yet another fix Null drive.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#60 - 2012-12-23 22:22:56 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I think the part of the conversation that is missing is

With lo-sec and Wormholes do we really Need Null or more specifically Sov space

Over the years so much has been put into Null, resources wise, balancing adding, nerfing it that it is now a jumbled mess that needs even more resources to again fix. There is no guarantee that this time they will get it right either.

So why not just get rid of it?

The only real answer I can think of is, "But then those people would have to live near me".

Not really a great reason to keep the resource sucking chest wound Null is.

I am not recommending this course of action but I do feel it should be discussed and not just by the minority that is Null but by the community as a whole, after all it is our subscription fees that fund yet another fix Null drive.


THE space that most of the trailers are about. THE space where most of the news has been genertated. THE space where a sandbox pvp game lets people both sand box AND pvp.

This is the single stupidest post anyone has ever posted in GD, and that's saying something.