These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ThunkMonkey
Spartan Industries
#61 - 2011-09-13 20:37:58 UTC
ThunkMonkey wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
ThunkMonkey wrote:
So the question is how long before DRF wins EVE and everyone else in 0.0 gives up or quits.

The combination of CCP giving the North 95% of the tech moons, DRF running bots 24/7 and CCP turning a blind eye. DRF has unlimited isk and field's supper caps like everyone else fields Battle ships.

No, not mad just wondering when or if EVE will be fixed.


The players decide what happens in 0.0

If the players in 0.0 get tired of the DRF, they can ban together and remove them.
If not, well then I guess DRF win or won depending on your point of view.







The players no longer decide what happens in 0.0 !

Have you ever seen what happens in a system with 100 plus Mother ships?
hell have you ever seen what happens w/ 50 Mother ships...............the node crashes, and the fight is over before it begins.


Cozmik R5
Caldari Innovations and Research
Hardly Competent
#62 - 2011-09-13 21:35:03 UTC
Supers should be removed from the game. Period. Have people fly real ships for a change.

Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

Trolls Troll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2011-09-13 22:33:22 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
death2allsupercaps



QQ moar, the Russians still gonna roll right over the top of you.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#64 - 2011-09-13 22:34:19 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.
Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes (battle reports)
Noot Khorhar
1st Mining and Industrial Logistics Foundation
#65 - 2011-09-13 22:59:39 UTC
well you can be lucky , you get your nerf told in advance . the ninjas got their specialisation in using orcas as a flying base in hisec just nerfed without warnings..
Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2011-09-13 23:48:03 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes (battle reports)



Boost supercarriers
Nerf Hurricane!

Love the fact that those who are moaning about blobs and overpowered supercaps got these kills - it is almost as if they want to disprove their own arguments.

<3
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#67 - 2011-09-14 00:02:53 UTC
I personally believe that the only things that supercarriers need is an EHP reduction, those things have ridiculously high amount of hitpoints. Titans I understand due to their much higher skill requirements and costs, but Supercarriers outshine Titans easily.

Other than that they seems fine to to me. I mean after are they are SUPER CAPITALS. Of course these multi-billion isk ships should be able to easily destroy poor man sub caps. I don't get why people whine so much when their puny sub caps can't defeat these hulking beats.

Now before you go raging and flaming me, I believe there should be a specific ship or equipment made to counter Super caps. Like in real life you have anti capital ship missiles. With it comes a new time of ship. These ships are made to specifically counter supercaps, but have no defense against Subcaps. The ship and missiles would be very expensive, but worth their weight in gold in supercapital fights.
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#68 - 2011-09-14 00:03:01 UTC
Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.

Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.

Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.

You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.

Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.

CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?

I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.

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

Sonva Lat
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2011-09-14 00:23:45 UTC
Mendolus wrote:
Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.

Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.

Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.

You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.

Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.

CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?

I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.


Problem with this argument is that applies equally to all fights of any scale.
The side that brings more "better" ships will win, no matter what those "better" ships are.
This could be, as in your argument, supercarriers; but it would apply equally to battleships vs industrials or cruisers vs frigates.
Human nature is that people will team up and use the best equipment available. If you nerf the ships you are still left with the numbers game. Balance should come through the rock, paper, scissors route.

What is needed is a role factor to balance ship usage rather than just looking at ship dps and ehp and nerfing away.

Supercarriers depend on drones of many types to do their damage. This is effective because there isn't a good ship to bring to counter a drone swarm. If there was, people would bring them. Maybe a ship should be tailored to this role? Or, maybe a module which gives a short range ECM burst to get drones off you? I don't have a detailed solution in mind, but I feel any solution should encourage variety of fleet composition rather than just nerfing stuff.
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2011-09-14 00:38:26 UTC
Sonva Lat wrote:
Mendolus wrote:
Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.

Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.

Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.

You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.

Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.

CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?

I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.


Problem with this argument is that applies equally to all fights of any scale.
The side that brings more "better" ships will win, no matter what those "better" ships are.
This could be, as in your argument, supercarriers; but it would apply equally to battleships vs industrials or cruisers vs frigates.
Human nature is that people will team up and use the best equipment available. If you nerf the ships you are still left with the numbers game. Balance should come through the rock, paper, scissors route.

What is needed is a role factor to balance ship usage rather than just looking at ship dps and ehp and nerfing away.

Supercarriers depend on drones of many types to do their damage. This is effective because there isn't a good ship to bring to counter a drone swarm. If there was, people would bring them. Maybe a ship should be tailored to this role? Or, maybe a module which gives a short range ECM burst to get drones off you? I don't have a detailed solution in mind, but I feel any solution should encourage variety of fleet composition rather than just nerfing stuff.


Screw it. Burn it all to the ground, salt the earth, and start over. Death to all supercaps!

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Lord Wiggin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2011-09-14 00:46:16 UTC
Mendolus wrote:
Guys there is a difference between exceptions and averages.

Just like Falcons before them, super capitals are too ubiquitous in the grand scheme of things, else CCP would not be considering changing their role bonuses or attributes to bring them more in line with their intended roles and frequency of use.

Just as Falcons were a mainstay in small to medium gang combat for a very long period of time, super capitals have now become a must-have for large scale sovereignty wars, this is not the way CCP intended for them to be used.

You should not just slap 100x supers in a system and automatically win unless someone else brings 200x supers in the same way few people wanted small gang combat to hinge so greatly on how many Falcons each side brought nor for nano to be the mainstay in almost all conventional combat to decide whether or not you could or could not compete with others who were nano themselves.

Please notice my use of the words, almost, few, and etc. and make note of the fact that I am not talking in absolutes, nor am I saying that there is no way whatsoever in any way shape or fashion to counter a super capital in today's EVE, all I am saying is, there is a problem when most large scale combat over sovereign space hinges on who has how many super capitals, that's all.

CCP evidently agrees or they would not be looking into it for the winter expansion, no?

I may think CCP flubs it up more often than not lately, but I trust them to call the shots when they feel a certain area of combat has become exploited well beyond the use they intended for it when it was designed and released.



So you'd prefer 1500 BS and 1000 support staring at each other thru a frozen screen?

If people think an SC nerf is going to change anything, it won't. The only thing that will change is the number of people packed into systems looking at black screens.
Goons want the nerf because they prefer the cheap blob, they don't want to hang out expensive assets to lose forever. And since they have so many "well meaning CSM's" I'm sure SC's will get bent over is true myopic CCP fashion.
The fix should always have been the Dread buff, if 10-15 Dreads can wipe an SC in a few minutes, and not be trapped in one spot for 10 mins, it becomes a whole new ballgame.

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

Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2011-09-14 01:00:44 UTC
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
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.


I agree with everything you said here.

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.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#73 - 2011-09-14 01:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mendolus
Lord Wiggin wrote:

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


Oh, so I need a fleet of ~15,000 hurricanes to take out a DRF fleet of 100x super capitals before they take my fleet out?

I'll get right on that.


Hey, if someone wants to get 1500x live pilots together to form a battleship fleet so be it, but you should not be able to toss a couple hundred super capitals into a single solar system and have near to nothing that can possibly counter you except another fleet of super capitals.

Period.

You guys are missing the scalar issue by a long mile here.

And honestly, I do not really care. Enjoy debating the inevitable changes that will come to super capitals in a few months whether you agree with them or not.

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

Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#74 - 2011-09-14 01:17:26 UTC
Dreads are already pretty ballanced with respect to subcapital ships already. If you buff them, then the next thing to do is buff the battleships, then after that the battlecusiers, and so on down the line, it will never end. Better to nerf the supers, than play powercreep online.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Jita Alt666
#75 - 2011-09-14 01:53:02 UTC
CCP need to go back to the drawing board and start playing paper scissors rock
Tuggboat
Oneida Inc.
#76 - 2011-09-14 02:14:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuggboat
If... the Super "adjustment" were delayed, would goons be licking Commie boots by Spring? Could the goons retreat like Napoleon and WWII Germans. Would real balance and real happiness in a utopian Communist Universe be finally attained? Would Goon drop CSM as useless? Could real democracy proceed from the unlikely hands of our new Russian Czars?

Resub NOW to find out.
HoboJoe720
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#77 - 2011-09-16 18:38:40 UTC
Tau Cabalander 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.
Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes (battle reports)



i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59Zsg

Basically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one.

However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics.
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#78 - 2011-09-16 19:13:27 UTC
HoboJoe720 wrote:

i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59Zsg

Basically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one.

However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics.


CCP disagrees with you.

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

Jaari Val'Dara
Grim Sleepers
#79 - 2011-09-16 19:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaari Val'Dara
1. Make them unable to stay in POS force field.
2. Create new POS structure anchorable outside force field, it would work as sort of dock for supers, but they would still be vulnerable to attack. Just protected from someone boarding it while no one is looking.
3. Make them never disappear, ever. When you build it, it stays in space until it dies.

That way it would be major pain to pilot the SC's, they would become alliance assets, since it would require several people to watch over them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#80 - 2011-09-16 20:06:12 UTC
HoboJoe720 wrote:
Tau Cabalander 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.
Welpfleet? a Hel and a Wyvern killed with Hurricanes (battle reports)



i agree their is definitely a counter to supers once you have watched the video you should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZcA5g59Zsg

Basically this thread is full of people that don't like supers simply because they cant afford them/have been killed by them. and no I don't have one.

However if CCP are going to counter them, they need to boost dreads to better combat supers. you cant bring out a subcap ship that can kill supers. it will ruin the game mechanics.


Normally by the time a super starts to hurt too many canes have been lost. A fleet of 50 supers is damn near impossible to stop for the biggest power blocks, small alliances dont stand any chance.