These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Supers "nerf" WRONG

First post
Author
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2011-09-16 20:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowsword
Lord Wiggin wrote:


And seriously, if you can kill one with 150 canes, just how damn overpowered are they????



Dunno, but one player needing 150 other players to get killed sound pretty damn OP to me.

But even that fall short of the actual situation. Because if you have 100 SC within remote range of each other, then you can bring as many hurricanes as the node will permit, you won't kill a single one of them. A thousand hurricanes wouldn't kill one SC.


Besides, once one alliance get enough money, it is pretty easy to bring 100 SC on the field. What alliance would manage to assemble 15000 hurricanes pilots? No one can. No one can even get to a quarter of that. And because no one can, the "combat power/pilots mobilized" ratio of supercarriers need to be cut down. Drastically.

That, or making their useless unless they are only a small fraction of their fleet composition. For example by making them unables to target anything if they're not wing or fleet leaders, with at least 20 support ships present in system for each supercap.
Ferrenc
Hephaestus LLC
#82 - 2011-09-16 21:54:19 UTC
Headerman wrote:


But also, i would have no problem at all if a reduction in EHP was countered by a reduction in cost to build. No problem with that at all.




they have those they're called carriers
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#83 - 2011-09-16 22:17:58 UTC
Ferrenc wrote:
Headerman wrote:


But also, i would have no problem at all if a reduction in EHP was countered by a reduction in cost to build. No problem with that at all.




they have those they're called carriers


There's certainly room for super capitals to be reduced to have maybe 2-3x the EHP of a carrier.

Right now you can get +25MIL EHP easily with a Nyx, slaves, and boosting while its sister ship the Thanatos can only squeeze out 1-2MIL.

...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie.

Voi Lutois
Fwaming Dwagons
#84 - 2011-09-16 22:27:29 UTC
i hope ccp really **** them up Pirate
Hratli Smirks
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2011-09-16 22:47:29 UTC
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.



ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships

how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2011-09-16 22:52:13 UTC
Did I mention "death2allsupercaps"?

death2allsupercaps

~hi~

Hratli Smirks
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2011-09-16 22:59:20 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Did I mention "death2allsupercaps"?

death2allsupercaps




hey mittens lets put another hundred guys in supercarriers so we can be elite as **** too
Count Austheim
Redemption Denied
#88 - 2011-09-16 23:02:24 UTC
Capital ships cost alot of isk.

If this ships a´rockin, then im strangling someone....

http://count-austheim.blogspot.com

leich
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#89 - 2011-09-16 23:11:21 UTC
The whole Dread, Black ops, Super is a question of Scale.

A small Buff to dreads coupled with a small reduction is supers strength(EHP, Only Being able to use Fighters) Would balance the game.

Gentle Tweaking of this over time would lead to more balance.

what is likley to happen based on pervious form is a massive over nerf of supers followed by an insane buff on dreads.

Apart from a little more jump range and a slightly better fuel bay black ops really dont need a boost or nerf for that matter.

I just hope CCP Goes in lots of small steps rather and jumping in with both feet and ending up in more of a mess than we already have.

the other idea i would love is for CCP to give us some more ships skills ect. ive heard the Idea of a second kind black ops that can warp cloaked but doesnt have a jump drive Using another BS hull.

Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2011-09-16 23:15:19 UTC
leich wrote:
The whole Dread, Black ops, Super is a question of Scale.

A small Buff to dreads coupled with a small reduction is supers strength(EHP, Only Being able to use Fighters) Would balance the game.

Gentle Tweaking of this over time would lead to more balance.

what is likley to happen based on pervious form is a massive over nerf of supers followed by an insane buff on dreads.

Apart from a little more jump range and a slightly better fuel bay black ops really dont need a boost or nerf for that matter.

I just hope CCP Goes in lots of small steps rather and jumping in with both feet and ending up in more of a mess than we already have.

the other idea i would love is for CCP to give us some more ships skills ect. ive heard the Idea of a second kind black ops that can warp cloaked but doesnt have a jump drive Using another BS hull.



You're wrong. CCP needs to nerf those MFers TO THE GROUND
CATPAIN KIRK
State War Academy
Caldari State
#91 - 2011-09-16 23:52:12 UTC
Count Austheim wrote:
Capital ships cost alot of isk.



How much for a constitution class?
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2011-09-17 00:13:18 UTC
Hratli Smirks wrote:


ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships

how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there


It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships.
Cheer up, it's just a game.




Just a shame you aren't very good at it*





*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#93 - 2011-09-17 00:27:16 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
Hratli Smirks wrote:


ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships

how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there


It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships.
Cheer up, it's just a game.




Just a shame you aren't very good at it*





*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.


Yeah after all, when you only need to bring 30,000 guys in canes to beat those 200 in supers, then how could that possibly be unbalanced in any way?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#94 - 2011-09-17 00:27:45 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone


Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#95 - 2011-09-17 00:28:55 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
Hratli Smirks wrote:


ah yes the more 'elite' alliances are able to hold their own against superior numbers by fielding a superior number of blatantly overpowered ships

how can you tell they are "elite"? well they got two hundred supercaps on the field that is is some sun tzu **** right there


It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships.
Cheer up, it's just a game.




Just a shame you aren't very good at it*





*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.


There are two different argument's in this thread, which one are you referring to?

There is the argument that people will automatically try to win a numerical advantage over others no matter what the game mechanics allow or do not allow.

And then there is the argument that the game mechanic should be diverse, and anything that necessitates you meet one force with a like force, i.e. Falcons for Falcons, Super Capitals for Super Capitals, is not conducive to that diversity whatsoever.

CCP nerfed nano and Falcons for this very reason, to bring them more in line with a diverse variety of combat mechanics that were all viable, to the point that neither was ubiquitous anymore, but merely another tool at one's disposal, much like every other.

The former argument is of course true, those with a numerical or tangible advantage gained through hard work and effort are always in the right in the sense that they put in more time and effort to win.

The latter argument is of course false, the game should not be a matter of "Well, they brought a hundred super capitals, too bad we do not have a hundred ourselves or we might be able to play the game we are paying for!"

It should be more like "Well they brought a hundred super capitals, but we can use skill and initiative to bring out 50x [Heavy Assault Bombers] and pop 10-15 of their super capitals and drive them off with the cost of their losses alone."

Right now when there are a hundred super capitals, the only answer, is another hundred, at least for practical purposes.

Why should we have no choice, no diversity?

Someone mentioned, well you can kill a supercap with 150x Hurricanes!
... okay, so what happens when there are 2x supercaps on a grid, and you won't kill even a single one of them with your 150x hurricanes because they'll all be dead long before the primary is in any danger.

It is a problem of scale, and CCP will attempt to fix it, that is all.

...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#96 - 2011-09-17 00:50:50 UTC
Bel Amar wrote:
Sonva Lat wrote:
*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone


Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"


More to the point, if a significant Titan fleet is absolutely required to even consider playing the 0.0 sov game in the first place, then you're simply setting the barrier to entry to 50% of the EVE map insanely high.

Titans and motherships should be as efficient against subcaps as Battleships are vs Frigates or as Dreadnaughts are against Cruisers: not very. It's quite reasonable for Titans to be a counter to capital ships; it's not reasonable that they are a counter to HAC gangs.

Nerf Titan turret tracking to be only somewhat better (say 25-33% better) than that of a seiged Dread, and give the Doomsday device an explosion radius of 3000m/explosion velocity of 70 m/s, so that it's just about possible for a highly tanked subcap to survive it, and Titans would still be extremely effective vs capital ships but vulnerable to subcaps, just as a fleet-fitted battleship is vulnerable to frigates.

Similarly, reduce the explosion radius/velocity of FB torps.

And finally, remove the rig slots from supercaps. They're only ever used to increase EHP, so there's no actual ship customization involved, and excessive EHP is the other most ridiculously unbalanced thing about supercaps, even without making it 70% worse. They're also expensive enough as it is without essentially requiring the pilot to spend an extra 1.5B on EHP rigs.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jita Alt666
#97 - 2011-09-17 01:10:36 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:


It is clear that you are upset that better alliances than yours have the capacity to produce and field superior ships.
Cheer up, it's just a game.


Just a shame you aren't very good at it*


*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone - some people work to gain that advantage while other cry it is unfair. Human nature.


#1: The same options are not on the table for everyone.
#2: CSM 6 is dominated by 0.0 alliances from every part of the Eve political spectrum. All agree SC's are ridiculously out of balance. This is not a specific alliance issue.
#3: Your argument is essentially the same as the argument in support of the old remote doomsday through a cyno.
#4: Your reduction of your own argument to personal insults under the guise of an obvious alt is most unbecoming.
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2011-09-17 01:41:19 UTC
Bel Amar wrote:
Sonva Lat wrote:
*which is what this all boils down to. The same options are on the table for everyone


Actually, that's not true. The counter to supers is supers, and supers require sov to manufacture. Lose your sov and you lose your ability to compete and more importantly, the ability to ever make a comeback. So once the equilibrium is lost, it is forever lost, and no longer are "the same options on the table for everyone"


Ah, now we get to the crux of it.

What you are saying is, that if people band together and make friends they can dominate those who are unable to forge alliances?

Why do the people will all the sov stick together? Why aren't they all fighting each other?

Enlightened self interest - working together because their good depends on the greater good.



That Mittens person is always saying how great he is at politics, and yet he calls for a reduction to the effectiveness of hostile forces because he is unable to build a space empire.


I get it though, it isn't fair that smaller less powerful groups have to dance to the tune played by superpowers who have massive military advantage. Superpowers who can ride roughshot over those unable to fight back and impose their worldview.
In this analogy the CSM is the United Nations, the Russian alliances are the USA, and the goons are burning flags.
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#99 - 2011-09-17 02:35:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mendolus
No matter how many times you say it Sonva, it doesn't make it 100% true no more than anything we are saying.

There is a kernel of truth to both sides, but the fact of the matter is, super capitals in their present form do not mesh with the way CCP intended for them to be used, period.

CCP has already stated this, end of story.

You can argue your fairly extreme viewpoints that 100% of all points of debate about changes needed to combat in EVE are based solely on the haves versus have nots all you want, but that doesn't make it anymore true than people saying super capitals themselves are the sole reason for the imbalance itself.

CCP would not have to take any action at all if people were not exploiting super capitals to a level of use that CCP felt it had to intervene on as they did not intend for them to play the role they presently do in the game.

i.e. doesn't matter how you spin the player element of the story, the fact remains CCP already stated they view the player use of super capitals in EVE to be contrary to the use they intended for these ships when they revamped them.

/thread.

Give it up already, no one is telling you that you are outright wrong, they are merely saying you are missing the point of why changes are necessary, regardless of the motivations of players asking for those changes, nor players making full use of supercaps in their present form to gain a clear advantage over others, which is at present, a legitimate use of super capitals, by virtue of the present game mechanic, which will change, regardless of what you personally think about the people that use or do not use them, nor those who argue against or for them, or anything related to social dynamics and conflict at all.

...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie.

Large Collidable Object
morons.
#100 - 2011-09-17 03:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Basically, I don't care as I don't fly an SC and I largely agree that an SC blob lagging a system to death with its drones is not in eves best interest, but nerfing titans any more?

I'm fine with nerfing Moms for their built in lag-bomb, but titans?

You can DD any ship every ten minutes but capital turrets killing off a hac gang? I'd call that pretty fail hac pilots then...
And yeah - I think 20 titans should be able kill a 20 man hac gang in case the hacs decide to engage...

Just remove titan bridges - any 5 man lowsec corp has a bored titan pilot nowadays - kills small gang pvp.

As for numbers - it's pretty obvious why mittens is promoting numbers > everything.

Whilst I personally like goons, I hate the 'blob > all' mechanics already in place.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)