These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Supers "nerf" WRONG

First post
Author
Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2011-09-12 13:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Tungsten
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.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#2 - 2011-09-12 13:42:19 UTC
Likes received: 0 and thus it shall remain

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#3 - 2011-09-12 13:43:08 UTC
Considering the specifics of the nerf aren't in stone yet.... you could voice your opinion in a less whiny more constructive way.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-09-12 13:44:55 UTC
Confirming that the OP looks like for fool for spelling "nerf" wrong whether it was done deliberately or not.

Since nobody knows exactly what kind of nerf caps are getting, this thread is also rather premature.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#5 - 2011-09-12 13:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mendolus
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.

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

Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-09-12 13:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Tungsten
It is constructive, but also voicing as I have said concerns about the in question " Nerfs" being unnacceptable. Better to voice concerns know rather than when they are implimented in the patch, will get a useless Class of ship otherwise. An "nerfs" supposedly arn't long away anyhoot.

There are ways, as example a low cost cane fleet 200+ the other day almost insta newted out a wyvern & Hel an killed them. Without cap they have no tank. Supers arn't ment to be easy to kill. If you can't be bothered to muster forces an have a thought through plan then you deserve to fail.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7 - 2011-09-12 13:51:41 UTC
Mendolus wrote:
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.


Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers

like a stealth bomber on steroids

make it happen

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION

StillBorn CrackBaby
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-09-12 13:52:53 UTC
Hope they get a huge nerf / nurf
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#9 - 2011-09-12 13:53:21 UTC
Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori

Vicar2008
MCMLXXVI
#10 - 2011-09-12 13:53:31 UTC
Nerf the Nurf Blink
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#11 - 2011-09-12 13:56:30 UTC
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.



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

Xearal
Dead's Prostitutes
Initiative Mercenaries
#12 - 2011-09-12 14:01:41 UTC
Supercapital tears.. best tears..

Does railgun ammunition come in Hollow Point?

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#13 - 2011-09-12 14:02:16 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Mendolus wrote:
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.


Black Ops cloaky battleships with citadel torpedo launchers

like a stealth bomber on steroids

make it happen


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.

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

Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-09-12 14:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Tungsten
With the buff to dreds as good as it is supposedly going to be, & if the nerf to Supers is as severe as it is in question, then why bother having Supers at all if a fleet of dreds is going to do the job better. You want to have a super nerf with hugely reduced effectivness & survivabilty?

More cost efficient to have 100/200+ dred fleets again than Supers. The nerfs in question does not bring equalibrium or balance things out.
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#15 - 2011-09-12 14:07:07 UTC
/facepalm

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

Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-09-12 14:13:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowsword
Dirk Tungsten wrote:

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.



The money and skill argument has been debunked countless times already.

Here we go again...

- Skills: Not an excuse for having nearly invulnerables ships. Or do you want to end up, in a few years, with thousands of veterans wandering around in supers, and new players being told that they're useless canon fodder until they have 50 millions SP?

- Isks: Even less defensible argument. With moon goo giving large amounts of passive income, alliances of renters, and the botting some ******* indulge in, some alliances are making multiples hundreds of billions each month. Isk has become meaningless for them.



Dirk Tungsten wrote:

More cost efficient to have 100/200+ dred fleets again than Supers. The nerfs in question does not bring equalibrium or balance things out.



100 rifters or 10 ruptures are much more efficient than 1 maelstrom. Does that mean that BS are useless?
In a gang, the most important ressource by far is not the price of the ships, but the number of pilots. You can't just say that one single ship is fine if the only viable counter is to use a half-dozen ships, or a dozen. Because if you do that, then what prevent the side with the big ship to bring as many of them that the other side has pilots?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#17 - 2011-09-12 14:17:51 UTC
Xearal wrote:
Supercapital tears.. best tears..


HedonismBot wrote:
Let the games begin!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dirk Tungsten
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-09-12 14:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Tungsten
The money and skill argument has been debunked countless times already.

Here we go again...

- Skills: Not an excuse for having nearly invulnerables ships. Or do you want to end up, in a few years, with thousands of veterans wandering around in supers, and new players being told that they're useless canon fodder until they have 50 millions SP?

- Isks: Even less defensible argument. With moon goo giving large amounts of passive income, alliances of renters, and the botting some ******* indulge in, some alliances are making multiples hundreds of billions each month. Isk has become meaningless for them.




Not true at all, Supers are vulnerable,but not to a bunch of clueless noobs that expect to go into a fight in abit of everything with no structure. How it should be. Shouldnt be able to easily kill a Super. All you need to kill a super is organisation, good fleet comp a thought through plan. Newt a super an its left with a grossly smaller tank. FACT So with hardeners off an massively reduced tank can go hence an kill a super fairly fast.

Newer players have there roles in fleet scouts tackle bomber wing etc and are very useful, an with a little time an thought can focus into effective specialisation within fleets. So older players should by no means be kicked in the balls for sticking with the programme.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#19 - 2011-09-12 14:25:18 UTC
Rodj Blake wrote:
Supercaps should be generally very tough, but extremely vulnerable to noobships that target the exhaust vent.


solution

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Demon Azrakel
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#20 - 2011-09-12 14:30:32 UTC
My biggest issue with Supers now is that their presence nerfs Dreads. At least a dread fleet will not **** a battleship or hac fleet, while a super fleet easily rapes a dread fleet, bs fleet, bc fleet, and a hac fkeet (all at the same time). Supers have made dreads obsolete. Personally, I suggest giving supers jump range greater than carriers (like double), keep damage, and drop hp to pre-dominion. Actually, I would be fine with supers being nerfed to their pre-dominion position.
123Next pageLast page