These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hratli Smirks
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2011-09-17 03:36:37 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
[quote=Bel Amar]
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.



but he did

when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0

enjoy the nerfs!

(booyah)
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#102 - 2011-09-17 03:44:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Hratli Smirks wrote:



but he did

when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0

enjoy the nerfs!

(booyah)



What about Atlas., Morsus Mihi or Prick Squad (the latter being mostly ex R.A.E.G. and ME after all...)?
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Hratli Smirks
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2011-09-17 03:45:38 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Hratli Smirks wrote:



but he did

when the DRF is done killing -A- he will be leading one of the two remaining power blocs in 0.0

enjoy the nerfs!

(booyah)



What about Atlas., Morsus Mihi or Prick Squad (the latter being mostly ex R.A.E.G. and ME after all...).



what about them?
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#104 - 2011-09-17 03:50:14 UTC
Nothing really, just wanted to make sure they're erased from the sov map, but CBA to log in just for that...
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Trolls Troll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2011-09-17 03:52:12 UTC
op is right.

Dreads should be buffed, supers should be fighters/bombers only. (with a small drone bay ofc).

OR

a new type of dread should come out, ie to match the supers, make it bigger, or even a smaller type "bomber unit". Let it fit a doomsday type weapon but only shootable at capitals.

I don't think its fair to make a ship worse for one group just to appease another. Make something to combat the supers, and "tweak" them, but don't nerf them.
Fighter26
Orion's Fist
#106 - 2011-09-17 03:52:43 UTC
Think it all depends how severe the nerf is. Removing SCaps ability to field regular drones and giving destroyers 150% damage to fighters/fighterbombers sounds like enough. After all, the dessies are worth nearly nothing, can be piloted by a few week old pilot very well, and can be thrown at waves of fb's... that cost ten times as much as the dessies. Why not devalue the supercarriers by giving the little guy the ABILITY to remove their fangs, not just nerfing outright. Oh yes and change the logoff 15 minute rule and self destruct rules if under attack. That sounds like enough to balance a ship and not make it useless.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2011-09-17 05:51:45 UTC
Count Austheim wrote:
Capital ships cost alot of isk.


Isk isn't a balancing factor anymore when a alliance can make hundreds of billions each month, and the expensive ships have a extremely low loss rate.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#108 - 2011-09-17 09:22:33 UTC
Fighter26 wrote:
Think it all depends how severe the nerf is. Removing SCaps ability to field regular drones and giving destroyers 150% damage to fighters/fighterbombers sounds like enough. After all, the dessies are worth nearly nothing, can be piloted by a few week old pilot very well, and can be thrown at waves of fb's... that cost ten times as much as the dessies. Why not devalue the supercarriers by giving the little guy the ABILITY to remove their fangs, not just nerfing outright. Oh yes and change the logoff 15 minute rule and self destruct rules if under attack. That sounds like enough to balance a ship and not make it useless.

Not even close. Supers are going to get nerfed so hard you'll be embarrassed to be seen in one.
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2011-09-17 09:58:36 UTC
If I had my choice, I'd just remove their invulnerability to EW, but their hp buff that Seleene did years ago was over the top and excessive. The jump from level 1 carrier to level 3 is just ridiculous in terms of firepower and tanking changes. It sets a bad precedent and has led to fewer capitals being introduced. The supercarrier buff was to prevent insta popping from titans. So just lower the damage of the titan and the hp of the supercarrier to fix the problem. (Though the Titan does require a different skill than the Dreadnought while the Carrier and Supercarrier use the same skill that could be the problem too).

I'd either do that directly giving them high sensor res to resist a lone blackbird etc, or I'd create a new EW Dreadnought that has capital EW that affects them.
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2011-09-17 11:52:54 UTC
Mendolus wrote:
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.


I'm not saying the state of affairs is as it should be.

The solution to the problem is the introduction of effective counters, rather than "hopeful" nerfing.
You see, nerfing the ships will in no way change the numbers or wealth of those who currently field them. It will only be a matter of time before the next thing they use will need to be nerfed to make things "fair" again.

The reason that you see huge supercap blobs is that there is no reason not to use them. Nerfing them without the introduction of effective counters will not change that.

This is a chance for CCP to give other ships meaningful roles which counter the effective strengths of supercapitals. Ships to kill drones, ships to debuff ECM protection, glass cannons ... the list of options for consideration is huge.
You make people feel engaged by letting them compete on an uneven footing - rather than just bringing everything to the same level.
Balance should be about variety and inclusion. Moisture farmers need deathstars to destroy, it is the law of space battles.
Zey Nadar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2011-09-17 13:28:57 UTC
If there is something explicitly better than everything else, players will flock to it. Thats a fact. If supers would still be best after the nerf, nothing would change. If there was a counter to them, then at least some people would flock to the counter. Hopefully finding dynamic balance at some point.

As long as there is no counter, the problem will continue developing on a hyperbole.
Joplin
Cakes Cookies Cream and Pie
#112 - 2011-09-17 14:17:25 UTC
Supers r not the problem as such,huge blobs of them with rr capability etc is the problem
Princess Jodi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2011-09-17 19:48:20 UTC
Either:

Introduce a Monthly Maintenance Fee of a billion ISK per super cap, which if not paid prevents the super from jumping;

Or:

Death2AllSuperCaps
pussnheels
Viziam
#114 - 2011-09-17 20:01:37 UTC
CCP hasn't done anything yet and there is the superwhine already; who says they are going to nerf supercarriers ...??

Only problem there is and that has been mentioned a by just about everyone in here tht there is no counter to supercarriers

There has been many suggestions on how to deal with this problem
- making dreads better
-removing the invulnerability against ewar
-removing all drones except fighjter/ firghterbombers
etc etc

Sad true is when ccp eventually implements something to counter this problem ,the superwhines of many supercap pilots fill these forums and bore us to death

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#115 - 2011-09-18 00:53:42 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
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?


Actually, no. What I am saying is that the argument you put forward to argue against a nerf is incorrect at it's core. The same options aren't on the table for everyone, and as time goes by, that problem is only getting larger

You can respond to that by quoting different justifications and putting words in my mouth, but your original argument is still flawed.

Irrelevant of how good or bad any given person, corp or alliance is at any aspect of the game, once the balance is thrown out, it's gone forever with no way to restore it. The next Alexander the Great could start playing tomorrow and band every high sec bear, low sec pirate and evicted nullsec resident in to the largest alliance EVE has ever known. But if he can't make supers, and the coalition controlling nullsec won't sell them to him, he will never be able to compete.

I don't mind that it's possible for someone to "win" nullsec (though I'd prefer if it wasn't), but that winning shouldn't exclude further competition. At the moment, it's not even possible for guerrilla warfare "rebels" to harass a winner, let alone form a serious force capable of contending the winners space.

Owning all of nullsec should be like pushing a boulder uphill. You can do it, but if you slip up, or someone harasses you enough, it all crashes to the ground. At the moment though thanks to supers it's more like a snowball rolling down a hill, the further it rolls, the faster it rolls, and the harder it is to stop
Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#116 - 2011-09-18 01:06:38 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
The solution to the problem is the introduction of effective counters, rather than "hopeful" nerfing.
You see, nerfing the ships will in no way change the numbers or wealth of those who currently field them. It will only be a matter of time before the next thing they use will need to be nerfed to make things "fair" again.


That argument is also flawed. Saying that the numbers or wealth of those who field supers won't change is true, but it's true whether a nerf or a distinct counter is introduced. You can't use that argument to favour either option, as it applies to both.

And again, counter or nerf, things will remain unbalanced. No one will ever achieve perfect balance. But that's not what this is about. There is a difference between unbalanced and uncounterable. Drakes are unbalanced, but they can be countered, so in spite of them being a FOTM that everyone flies, they're an annoyance rather than a critical flaw in the game. Supers are unbalanced and uncounterable and the ability to build them depends on already having them. So they're a FOTM that is a critical flaw in the game.

Personally, I could care less how a counter is introduced. Nerf them or introduce a dedicated counter, as long as the result is the ability to form fleets that can stand and fight against supers, it's a good result
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2011-09-29 10:28:45 UTC
The only other thing Id personally add to my original statement would be that supers if they are going to have reduced HP let it be that the specific races are balanced out, such as the Aeon having less Hitpoints as it has an insane Tank. The Nyx & Wyvern having slightly less tank to what they currently have, also giving the Nyx a slightly bigger drone bay and keep to an extent the added damage bonus to drones over other races as is custom with gallante. Finally give the Hel a buff to Hitpoints to make it less of a liability an make it an affective an worth while ship to train for.
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#118 - 2011-09-29 10:31:32 UTC
Imo the introduction of supers were a mistake anyway.
Nerf them to oblivion, the weaker the better!
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#119 - 2011-09-29 10:56:10 UTC
In addition to limiting them to fighters/fighter-bombers, they should also be required to use a third type of cyno.

This new cyno should take 2-3 minutes or more to warm up before any jumping can be done, thereby eliminating hot-drops and requiring a fleet to protect the cyno to be able to bring in the big guns. How to make it balanced when attacking a system defended by hundreds of SC is an exercise left up to CCP and the reader.

Nyan
Spectre80
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#120 - 2011-09-29 10:59:21 UTC
oh look, its NCdot member (part of DRF superblob club) scared yet? i think you are. Twisted

KILL ALL SUPERS!