Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

Considering the specifics of the nerf aren't in stone yet.... you could voice your opinion in a less whiny more constructive way.

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, 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.

Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers

like a stealth bomber on steroids

make it happen

Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.

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.

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.

/facepalm

solution