These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Supercap Reballancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-02-24 13:03:37 UTC  |  Edited by: John Maynard Keynes
What is CCP's vision of Supercaps in the future? If I understand the statement of CCP Soundwave correctly
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=72743&p=2
CCP intends to nerf titans' tracking into oblivion so that Supercaps are only usefull for structure shooting, bridging and against capitals.

Here is the problem:

- Dreads can shoot structure for less money
- Capitals are extremly rarely used in fleet fights against subcaps since dreads can't kill BSs and Triage Carriers can't be remote repped so that no dreads or supercaps are needed to break their tank. There is no point to risk supercaps to kill a couple of carriers. Neither makes it much sense to risk your supercaps to hotdrop some dreads that try to siege something. A fleet of 100 subcaps can easily do it as well.

Consequence:

- Supercaps will simply become useless.
- Many people who have invested a lot of money and skillpoints will be pissed
- Fleet fights will become even bigger and laggy, even with TiDi
- Null space will become even more all about numbers which is simply stupid. With TiDi even the worst Logi wing can safe everyone as long as he knows where the broadcast button is. With TiDi people can reship infinitely since they have enough time to travel back.



A by far better solution for the problem would be to limit the mobility/ power projection of supercapitals. This will make them easier killable and less usefull in conflicts, but still something that can influence the outcome of a battle if they arrive in time (which is something a 60b ship should be able to do).

Or give Dreads a traking bonus (instead of maulus) while in siege so that they can easily kill BS. Supercaps would be then a counter for that.


Another solution would be to simply remove them from the game and reimburse the people who own them.


Proof that supers can be countered with subcaps:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=12588868
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#2 - 2012-02-24 13:15:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Azorria
Triage carriers are useless?!?!?! - Pretty sure RnK would beg to differ, and normal carriers are pretty damm handy as well.

Also F&I is that way -----------> (since y'know supers are a feature and you are discussing an idea about them)

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-02-24 13:20:01 UTC
Supers as an ISK sink was a nice idea.
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-02-24 13:21:31 UTC
Grey Azorria wrote:
Triage carriers are useless?!?!?! - Pretty sure RnK would beg to differ, and normal carriers are pretty damm handy as well.

Also F&I is that way -----------> (since y'know supers are a feature and you are discussing an idea about them)

RnK? We are not talking about small- to medscale fights and supercaps would be useless is such fights as well.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-02-24 13:31:08 UTC
The goal is simply to force superfleets to fly with support and stop them from being effective weapons against subcap fleets. The first round of changes didn't achieve this, so they're going to get changed and changed and changed again until that goal is finally reached. I agree with this goal, but I'm less convinced they'll achieve it with just a tracking nerf to titans or that's the best solution to the issue.

Your mobility solution doesn't address the problems in any way though and won't achieve that goal. It will turn them to more of a defensive tool. It just means, that more often than not you can defend with them backing you up, but you'll have to attack against them without your own to even up the playing field. So it's not a solution and just retains the current problem, while shifting the game toward favoring defensive strategies. Overall I'd say it makes the situation even worse than it already is.

Your removal solution is stupid and not worth serious consideration.

As for the consequenses:

-Supercaps won't become useless, they will just not be very good at killing subcaps.
- Many people will be pissed, but so what? Nerfs happen and your money spent or skillpoints invested don't matter at all in the decision to nerf something. The number of players affected is also very small compared to pretty much every other nerf ever done in the game and the change makes for a better overall game, meaning many more people welcome the changes.
-Lag is no reason to keep gamebreaking ships or features in their current state.
-The pure numbers game doesn't always favor the old entrenched alliances, but the supercap numbers game does. I'd rather play a game where a swarm of newbies can shake up the map over the current game.
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-02-24 13:42:59 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:


-Supercaps won't become useless, they will just not be very good at killing subcaps.

Would you please explain this :D
What will they be usefull for? Structure shooting and bridging? Didn't I say exactly that? :D

Quote:

-The pure numbers game doesn't always favor the old entrenched alliances, but the supercap numbers game does. I'd rather play a game where a swarm of newbies can shake up the map over the current game.

How that? White Noise probably still has a shitload of supercaps and still they are losing to goons due to fail cascade. Raiden on the other hand is rather new in the region but has huge problems to defend themselve against goons without supercaps.
In order to gather a huge number of players you will have to give them something in return. Entrenched alliances can give them sanctums, new alliances can't do that.

Your arguments do not make sense when you look at the empirical facts.
Angel HUN
Baba Yagas
The Initiative.
#7 - 2012-02-24 14:41:07 UTC
While its easy to document when a titan hits a target and blaps it (killmails) you don't see how often they miss (A LOT).

(Credit to Leboe from FHC)
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#8 - 2012-02-24 14:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Most people in EVE use word 'useless' as a bashful euphemism for 'no longer overpowered'.

I, for one, don't see how making supers rely on proper support and screening can be considered as a nerf. It's a boost, as it clearly results in making them much more interesting in terms of gameplay.

Also, sure, they are to be easily killable and vulnerable. That's the whole point. Extra power should always result in extra vulnerability. This principle works just fine for battleships and dreads. The same should be applied to carriers and supers, while atm it's not.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Angel HUN
Baba Yagas
The Initiative.
#9 - 2012-02-24 14:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Angel HUN
You cannot field supers without support... ALREADY...


Fon Revedhort wrote:
Most people in EVE use word 'useless' as a bashful euphemism for 'no longer overpowered'.

I, for one, don't see how making supers rely on proper support and screening can be considered as a nerf. It's a boost, as it clearly results in making them much more interesting in terms of gameplay.

Also, sure, they are to be easily killable and vulnerable. That's the whole point. Extra power should always result in extra vulnerability. This principle works just fine for battleships and dreads. The same should be applied to carriers and supers, while atm it's not.



This is the current state of Super use.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#10 - 2012-02-24 14:53:16 UTC
Btw, when are they removing that pesky EW immunity?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Razzor Death
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-02-24 14:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Razzor Death
Angel HUN wrote:
You cannot field supers without support... ALREADY...




hahahaha like you did against test every time during the Branch campaign.

outstanding
testobjekt
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources
#12 - 2012-02-24 14:58:04 UTC
Whats the role of a titan?

Well if you follow the CCP personality test its the ship Empire Bulider flys (http://www.eveonline.com/sandbox/empire-builder/) which makes it clear that titans are seen more as a strategic tool then a combat vessel.

Noone will argue the usefullness of a titanbridges, which allow you to protect power in a far greater area. Combined with the importance of combat logistics due to tidi, having a titan/a few titans will make every force a lot more effective especially if they are on the offensive (defenders can have jumpbridges).

Then titans offer gigantic gangboosters. A titan 5 Erebus pilot will increase the ehp of his fleets armor tank by 37.5%, a Ragnarok will reduce the sig-radius by 37.5%.

I see ofc that Alliances like Raiden do not need a titan as force mulitpilier, they want it as force provider. But thats not the role this ship has. Sucks to be you.
Xyrcaryn
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-02-24 14:58:46 UTC
John Maynard Keynes wrote:

CCP intends to nerf titans' tracking into oblivion so that Supercaps are only usefull for structure shooting, bridging and against capitals.

isn't that the idea how it should be instead of 'supercaps kill everything'?Roll
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#14 - 2012-02-24 15:03:28 UTC
Having one ship that can blap everything is simply put, anti-EVE.

also useless and not over powered are not the same thing, and you are correct super caps do need a support fleet, the problem is that currently said support fleet it a fleet of more super caps.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Ziester alt
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-02-24 15:03:49 UTC
Angel HUN wrote:
You cannot field supers without support... ALREADY...


You can't kill a fleet of 255 supers. It's impossible because the server will not support squishing enough non-supers into a system to even try.

John Maynard Keynes wrote:
[quote=Destination SkillQueue]. Entrenched alliances can give them sanctums, new alliances can't do that.


Entrenched alliances can also subsidize supercapital acquisition. New alliances don't pop out of empire with 100s of titans.
Tore Vest
#16 - 2012-02-24 15:06:34 UTC
Lol
Learn to play eve....
and..
stop crying..
Every decent pilot knows how to not be hit by a titan Bear

No troll.
Aylat
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-02-24 15:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aylat
In return to nerfing Titans they should make structure immune to sub caps (with the exception of structure in hi sec) and caps should be mostly immune to sub caps.
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#18 - 2012-02-24 15:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Azorria
Tore Vest wrote:
Lol
Learn to play eve....
and..
stop crying..
Every decent pilot knows how to not be hit by a titan Bear

Really? So when a lone Titan was popping a fleet of BCs all orbiting at the maximum transversal allowed by their guns (AB not MWD), what exactly would your advice be ('run away' doesn't count).

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Tore Vest
#19 - 2012-02-24 15:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tore Vest
Grey Azorria wrote:

Really? So when a lone Titan was popping a fleet of BCs all orbiting at the maximum transversal allowed by their guns (AB not MWD), what exactly would your advice be ('run away' doesn't count).

Those who doing that is safe from beeing hit....
But...
There is allways someone that stops....or start to burn directly towards or from the titans...
Getting bumped... whatever
And when blown up to a dread size with tp... they are toast.

Why do you orbit a buch of supers ?
You want to kill them...
When supers kills you back....
Buuhuu.... CCP.... titans are killing uuus.... Lol

Edit: A lone titan killing a fleet of bc..... bullshit

No troll.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#20 - 2012-02-24 15:55:58 UTC
John Maynard Keynes wrote:
A fleet of 100 subcaps can easily do it as well.



That's the theory.

The reality is that there are very few alliances capable of regularly fielding 100+ man fleets. So you want to turn EVE into a game of Superpower A vs Superpower B only? How will small alliances take sov? How will small alliances engage in (relatively) small battles, with capitals/supercapitals proving their worth by bringing a decisive advantage over the guy that brought a couple dreadnaughts only - provided they don't in turn get hot-dropped?

John Maynard Keynes wrote:
Another solution would be to simply remove them from the game and reimburse the people who own them.


Just because you don't have a shiny toy doesn't mean that everyone else should get theirs taken away. Be creative and figure out a way around the system instead of trying to change the system.

While I agree that at some point something will have to be done because we seem to be gaining supercapitals a lot faster than we are losing them and when everyone is flying around in a Nyx or Titan there will not be much point to EVE. Supercaps were meant to be rare but the devs have underestimated the drive of players to have as many of these magic carrots as they can. However just taking them away from everyone doesn't make for a fun game either.
123Next pageLast page