Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes, it should be that way.

If they have the highest number of the most powership ships in the game, why should they not be at an advantage? There are better ways to balance supercarriers if it's felt that major fights will become NOTHING but capital fleet fights. How about making them even more expensive? If you want to field 50 of them, you risk losing so much ISK you may not be able to recover!

Nerfing them so they are barely better than a handful of subcaps is not the right answer IMO, too much homogenization.

That will only inconvenience small alliances, the big ones would still barely notice the loss of a super.

How would making supers more expensive do anything but further entrench the current mass supercap fleets? If you cannot beat them with anything but a bigger supercap fleet, and it is impossible to scrape up a bigger supercap fleet, then where the hell is the balance?

You're in an NPC corp, so you've obviously never seen a supercap fleet in use. I've fought through several wars against overwhelming supercap numbers. The ways to fight them are either:

1) Log off

2) Shoot structures in bombers

3) Unsub and go play a game that is actually fun.

That's about it.


If you guys don't want a 'big blue dounut' under the CFC, then why on earth are you arguing that not only should N3 be able to establish one, but that it should be literally impossible to attack?


And since cost is not a form of balance in any way, shape or form, especially when you're dealing with entities that pull in over half a trillion every month, how do you propose to balance supers? Especially if you're giving them back drones and thus removing any chance anyone has of actually attacking them

All of which punish the small alliances and do nothing whatsoever to the coalitions.

For some reason people in this thread want to reward the guys who FAIL. Why is there this pathetic movement of rewarding those that fail?

If the goons manage to dominate everyone with supers, or otherwise, because they were able to become the most powerful, why should they then get penalized and have ships nerfed in their disadvantage? I mean that is pathetic. Its literally rewarding the pathetic.

And I momentarily am too fighting for the underdogs. And if we loose it was because they were better and getting more pilots and due to better management. Dont get me wrong, I will fight to my last ship to win for my alliance/coalition. But I will not enjoy playing if I know I have been given an unfair advantage just because I am the underdog. Its pathetic.

And those saying that super capitals and capitals should not exist, seriously, go **** around in high sec. That is where you belong.

Supers:
1. Get drones back = no.
2. If the bay is not large enough to allow for a full flight of fighter bombers and a full flight of fighters (as reserves) = ok.

Quick thought: They should perhaps consider introducing a Cap Ship sized Neutralizer or Nosferatu?


Nerfing the power projection, range and speed of redeployment of the large collections of Supercap blobs is the only solution to making null sec more partisan and accessable to new independant alliances.

Whilst the loudest voices are the established null sec coalitions, there will be few heard whom demand this change, but, hey, there is always NPC null. Just dont plan on owning any sov.

I think you maay have misunderstood this game a bit. Its an industry game. Everything the corp and alliance does is to grow its industrial capabilities. That's what you see clashing together in a fleet battle, two industrial giants, the attacker is usually convinced he is bigger than the defender. The battle itself is no more than a visual display of which industrial giant has the largest output.

The solution to this "super problem" is to actually make it more fun to industrialize for the purpose of building supers. This game is about industry, making the stuff then taking over systems to make more stuff and then you make more stuff. If you don't get yourself blown up by wasting resources on subcap fights you can spend resources making an even bigger industrial engine, and eventually have such an industrial engine that you can support building supers. Once you have an industrial engine large enough to build many supers every month, the main task is to not get them blown up, and to keep increasing the speed of your super production. Unless a neighbor industrial giant attacks vital parts of your industrial might you don't throw resources into it. If you can you buy peace by however diplomatic means at your disposal, until your industrial might is large enough to win outright in a war (not when you can almost win, but when you can win as surely as a car against a bug).
When you then have enough industrial might to out-produce your neighbors, you engage them and just take over their territory in a monotonous series of events as if you are making a super. Its basically an RTS where you have a very complicated resource aspect of the game.

OT: Yes, the supers of course have to be as good as their resource investments imply. They cost a lot, they should be worth it. Otherwise new alliances that build supers will be at a major disadvantage, getting little in return for their investment. While existing alliances have so much supers that even though they are nerfed, they cost so much that no new alliance can reach up to the existing alliance.
In other words, it must be clearer how alliances (new and small) can travel the road to become an alliance that can threaten existing alliances. ISIS derivative perhaps.

And how your design of building the game around people who are able to outblob everyone with supers is any different?


Confirming that modern warfare is all about spamming just a single design of combat vechicle until opposition can't take anymore, and not about interaction and teamwork of radically different units.

And for the record, EVE isn't RL and shouldn't be. Game must be balanced across all of its content, while RL is often about vertical scaling that is s*** when apllied to sandbox balance. Think of traditional MMOs with their lvl 100 characters and topped gear being in every way batter than lvl 50 character of the same class with gear that is available at that level. That is basically what you are suggesting, and I think I know the game for you, it is often advertised on EVE forums for some reason...

You think you know what you're talking about, when in reality you don't.

You mentioned goons, but you fail to realize that the goons hate supercaps because they're poorly balanced and not fun to play with. The only counter to supercaps is having more supercaps, without that counter sov warfare is just helicopter dicking structure timers with super carriers and dreads.

In fact, most of the large blocs hate the necessity that is keeping a super cap fleet. I know that goons hate them, and I've heard similar sentiments from N3 and PL. If the coalitions that actually have massed supercaps are telling me that the game would be better without them, why would the opinion of someone who doesn't even have one (I am assuming you don't have one) hold any weight? I'm thinking the answer is that you want to have one, but in your planning you decided that it wasn't the solopwn machine that you want it to be so you're asking for buffs without actually understanding the balance argument. At least that's what I'm assuming, because that's almost always the situation when someone comes asking for super cap buffs.

And just to qualify my background, I do not have a supercapital ship. I have flown in the CFC (SMA specifically), and I participated in the fountain war as a subcap line member. If you don't think my opinion lines up with the goons, who you think you're representing, you're mistaken.

I put a massive investment into training for heavy missiles as well as putting a lot of investment into drakes and tengu's. Why did CCP nerf them for balance when I put so much time and effort into them.

This is how valid your balance argument is. More specifically, it's (lacking in intellectual quality).