open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Supercarrier Nerf Incoming! -Now confirmed
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.06.13 19:29:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/06/2011 19:29:29
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Nerf Supers

OR

Buff Dreads

OR

Assign some sort of limitation to constructing and fielding supers. Money and time won't stop them from being built. Instead attach the number your alliance can field to the aggregate industrial index/size of your empire. You have 10 systems with an average industrial index of 3? Your alliance can field 15. You can own 30 but only 15 at any time can log on. Something like that.


I postulate that EVE Online's Dreadnoughts are the only balanced Capital ships in the game. It's not that dreads need buffing, it's that everything else needs to be toned way, way down.

If OP's nerfs are real, those are very good changes indeed.

Alxea Eve
Posted - 2011.06.13 23:58:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Mr Peanut420
Have hope people of New Eden, with the end of the NC comes the end of the game breaking overpowered Supercarrier. CCP will nerf them as soon as the NC is destroyed (which was their goal with the anom nerf also, I mean, really, destroying legitimate income while leaving botting income, comeon).

The Supercarrier is far out of step with the very fine EVE doctrine of diminishing marginal returns. This is where as things get more expensive, the increased value gets less and less. This is not true of supercarriers. In properly bonused form a supercarrier has more effective hit points than the combined total EHP of a full fleet (255) of equally well bonused abaddons. But the abaddons cost 4 times more than the supercarrier. With unrestricted remote repping a good size force of supercarriers can survive literally any assault from a subcap/regular cap fleet that the node can support. This means nothing from empire can ever challenge existing supercapital fleets, no matter what happens.

Supercarriers are the primary tool of SOV warfare, so nothing out of empire can ever challenge a large supercarrier force for SOV. This means the dominate force in 0.0 can impose a complete monopoly on Supercapital construction. So nothing out of empire will ever be able to build a supercapital force to challenge existing ones. This is the kind of elite risk free PVP that drives paying players away and it will not continue after CCP gets what they want (NC gone).

Here are the changes that will go into effect:

Fighter bombers will no longer be able to engage SOV structures, dreads will have a role again, and supercarriers will become a counter rather than an invasion tool in their own right.

Fighter bombers will require an active siege module for deployment, no more shoot and scoot, no more remote rep.

Fighter bombers effectiveness against subcaps will be diminished by a further 50%, making it necessary and beneficial for supercarriers to switch out to normal fighters in order to engage subcaps.

Total effective hitpoints will be reduced by 20%, they will still be very hard to kill, but somewhat more vulnerable when combined with the other drawbacks.

They will still be very powerful and useful ships, but they will no longer be the only ship that matters.



This nerf is made up, fake! Rolling Eyes Move along move along. Rolling Eyes

Alfie Reeve
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:08:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf


Assign some sort of limitation to constructing and fielding supers. Money and time won't stop them from being built. Instead attach the number your alliance can field to the aggregate industrial index/size of your empire. You have 10 systems with an average industrial index of 3? Your alliance can field 15. You can own 30 but only 15 at any time can log on. Something like that.


Almost funny in the context of lack of thought. It would be fair to assume the larger entities of EvE could and would hold larger Sovereign space if the 'chose' to. Introduce a measure like this and I would almost guarantee that they would do this rather than hamstring their fleets, dispose of their S/ caps or bleed capsuleers who were unable to login dur to some built in mechanic (and we all know game mechanics are flawless and always work as intended). Or You would simply breed a new kind of alliance with informal relationships and blue lists that cant be monitored to achieve the exact same status as already exists.

Dont post without a grown up in future.

0rlin
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:25:00 - [34]
 

What an arrogant p.o.s. troll this is. CCP would go out of there way to see the NC dead. lol
Anything in a massive fleet, used properly and piloted by someone with half a brain will be over powering to a fleet of care-bears that have big toys but lacking the above. No nerf I repeat NO NERF will solve that issue. Please someone take away his troll permit.

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:37:00 - [35]
 

The problem isn't with the ships themselves but rather the numbers that are being brought to the table. As with all things in Eve we're in an ever escalating arms race with Supers resulting in some Alliances bringing Fleets of Super Carriers and Titans as large as other Alliances bring numbers of Battleships. I don't believe this is healthy for the game in the long run.

One way of balancing this would be to make Cyno fuel be based upon the mass of a ship rather than a set number of units per cycle. The larger the ship, the more fuel required to Cyno it in resulting in large numbers of Supers needing a cargo hold larger than your average frigate. As things stand right now you need only to sneak in a cloaked Covert Ops Frigate and drop fleets of 100 plus Supers. That's not a great deal of risk involved for the rewards such large fleets bring.

This would keep a healthy and viable Super Capital market whilst reducing the number of Super Capitals being deployed in a single engagement and reducing lag caused by unleashing hordes of drones.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.06.14 16:48:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Alfie Reeve

Almost funny in the context of lack of thought. It would be fair to assume the larger entities of EvE could and would hold larger Sovereign space if the 'chose' to. Introduce a measure like this and I would almost guarantee that they would do this rather than hamstring their fleets, dispose of their S/ caps or bleed capsuleers who were unable to login dur to some built in mechanic (and we all know game mechanics are flawless and always work as intended). Or You would simply breed a new kind of alliance with informal relationships and blue lists that cant be monitored to achieve the exact same status as already exists.

Dont post without a grown up in future.


Cute. I'm completely okay with nerfing them into the ground too. Which is what will probably happen.Twisted Evil

Hugh Mungous
Posted - 2011.07.14 02:14:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Hugh Mungous on 14/07/2011 02:14:48
Originally by: Astor Daeoli
Instead of nerfingsuper carriers, why not boost regular carriers and dreads?

How do you like the sound of carriers and dreads with twice the EHPs and twice the DPS?

Siege and triage timers down to 1 minute?

Ccp can always compensate for this boost by doubling the mineral cost needed to make carriers and dreads.

While this change would still see super carriers ludicrously strong in comparison to regular carriers and dreads, at least the boosted ships would narrow the ludicrously large gap, and eve's elite "I win button" owning vets would still keep their uber ships untouched.


Because regular carriers and dreads cannot be boosted in ways that will increase their effectiveness against subcapitals. Subs and normal caps are already well balance with each other. We need to fix the problem, not just send it down the line. Nerf Supercarriers, not to the ground, intelligently like OP

Xandralkus
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.14 07:27:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Xandralkus on 14/07/2011 07:40:46
Better yet, let's (properly) nerf the fighters and fighter-bombers.

Should fighter-bombers remain a source of huge DPS? Yes - that's rather straightforward. These capitals need the capability to engage other capitals, so removing the heavy DPS does not make sense, from a pure gameplay perspective.

Fighters, right now, have DPS analogous to that of a frigate. With all skills trained to V, they begin to approach T2 frigates. Considering their tracking speed, this seems fairly appropriate.

However, the EHP of fighter-bombers (and fighters too) is astronomical. The Cyclops has more EHP than most cruisers, and even some battlecruisers. Yet it flies over 1,500 m/s - faster than most frigates in afterburner. Not to mention, the ship has a signature radius smaller than that of a Merlin frigate.

Nerf fighter bomber EHP to between that of a frigate and cruiser - and bring the speed down a bit, maybe to ~1000 m/s. It's more than enough that they can't be hit with a neut and brought out of afterburner. Fighters should be the ones moving at 1500 m/s, with slightly sub-frigate EHP. Give them an adequate speed tank.

Increase fighter bomber signature radius as well - it's quite obvious that there are some very, very esoteric reactors powering those weapons, and they should be thermally and electromagnetically target-painting themselves as a result. Signature radius should be analogous to that of a cruiser at the very least, maybe halfway between a cruiser and battlecruiser. Fighters should have a signature radius absolutely no lower than that of a frigate.

Let's make the primary defense against fighters and fighter bombers to simply gun them down. Either with player ships, or drones, or other fighters. Point-defense screening destroyers and assault launcher Caracals with precision missiles would become viable tools for de-fanging the giant supercarriers.

Also, I hear carriers have remote rep bonuses? WTF? Implement Capital Logistics Ships - and not to mention, Super-Dreadnoughts might bring a bit of balance to the war.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.07.14 07:34:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Xandralkus

Also, I hear carriers have remote rep bonuses? WTF? Implement Capital Logistics Ships

carriers ARE capital logistics ships.

Originally by: Xandralkus
and not to mention, Super-Dreadnoughts might bring a bit of balance to the war.

making regular dreads more useless for smaller alliances as they are now.

Sidulious
Posted - 2011.07.14 07:38:00 - [40]
 

heres an idead why dont we stop posting stupid absolutely ******ed ideas and post a reasonable one?

why dont you just nerf the dps a super carrier can do by 50%

so the nyx doing 10k now does 5k

the average carrier at lvl 5 fighter does 1k

that IS MORE THAN REASONABLE

I would also settle for not being able to hit sov structures and such very reasonable switch to fighters for that crap bamb you'd have a helluva balance right there!!!

Xandralkus
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.14 09:07:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Xandralkus on 14/07/2011 09:16:17
Edited by: Xandralkus on 14/07/2011 09:13:12
Originally by: Robert Caldera
carriers ARE capital logistics ships.


Heavy remote-repair and heavy DPS (should be) seperate jobs for seperate starship chassis. Cruiser logistics ships don't fly around steamrolling other ships. They are seperate game mechanics for a reason, and they should stay that way.

Making a player-usable starship with very high EHP, extremely high DPS, and with further enhancements to remote repair for assisting allies...it creates the theoretical 'perfect ship' - one with vastly increased tactical utility over other ships, proportionate to its cost. It creates a very strong incentive to spam as many of these super-ships as is theoretically possible.

We are in this situation of "blob like all ****" because heavy DPS carriers and capital logistics ships are the same ship.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.07.14 09:29:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/07/2011 09:30:25
Originally by: Xandralkus

Heavy remote-repair and heavy DPS (should be) seperate jobs for seperate starship chassis.

I dont think carrier are an issue, and they arent that hard to train for or obtain them, why dont you get some of them? Enemy bigger than you?? Thats the problem, not ship type.

Originally by: Xandralkus
Cruiser logistics ships don't fly around steamrolling other ships.

you will always be steamrolled with something if you face a bigger enemy fleet, so no reason to nerf stuff because of that.

Originally by: Xandralkus
They are seperate game mechanics for a reason, and they should stay that way.

in the same way I could tell you carriers incorporate logistic and DPS for a reason. Dont they?

Originally by: Xandralkus
Making a player-usable starship with very high EHP, extremely high DPS, and with further enhancements to remote repair for assisting allies...

if I mind remind you today we have year 2011, not 2008 when carriers were worth something; today peope are steamrolled by titans and supercarriers.

Originally by: Xandralkus
it creates the theoretical 'perfect ship' - one with vastly increased tactical utility over other ships, proportionate to its cost. It creates a very strong incentive to spam as many of these super-ships as is theoretically possible.

there will always be top tier ships worth spamming them all over the place.

Originally by: Xandralkus
We are in this situation of "blob like all ****" because heavy DPS carriers and capital logistics ships are the same ship.

I guess you're living in a parallel universe or something. Carrier blobs are easily ****d by some supers + bubblers. You usually dont field carriers without support because they are an easy target otherwise.

Muad 'dib
Caldari
The Imperial Fedaykin
Posted - 2011.07.14 10:21:00 - [43]
 

tier 2 dreads.

Extra gun, better tank perhaps role tweak or special bonus.

TIER 2 NOT TECH 2 (preemptive L2read)

Hugh Mungous
Posted - 2011.07.14 15:54:00 - [44]
 

No one is complaining about carriers being overpowered, so I don't know how you got there.

And no, there will be no tier 2 dread at this time. If they are so much better as to make a difference against supercaps, they will likely be out of balance vs subcaps. Just nerf the problem rather than making the problem bigger. Implementing one or more items of the original post will help a lot, especially getting rid of fighter bombers attacking sov structures. That is the dreads domain.

Mr Peanut420
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.07.15 17:23:00 - [45]
 

Wait for it...wait for it...

Supercap rebalance confirmed!

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.07.15 17:53:00 - [46]
 

So ****-posts on EveNEWS are now indications of something other than being ****-posts? When the hell did that happen?

Besides, the interview says nada about what will be done just that something will be done, big whoop.
Everyone with half a brain has known that for over a year with rampant speculation as to what the change might be.

Personally think it will be a mild nerf and tweaked after the fact:
- SC's lose immunity and about 25% of their EHP.
- Drones get a dedicated bay so vanilla drones cannot be spit out ad infinitum.
- DD cooldown increased to 15-20 mins.

There is your sub-cap dominance over supers. Doesn't take much really.

Wyatt 3arp
Posted - 2011.07.15 19:28:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Wyatt 3arp on 15/07/2011 19:32:44
Edited by: Wyatt 3arp on 15/07/2011 19:31:14
I'm fine with any nerf to supercarriers. Just allow us to dock as a compensation. Paying one subscription just to fly a single ship 4ever should have some benefit (the awesomeness that they provide today).


Xavier Shrike
Posted - 2011.07.15 20:28:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Xavier Shrike on 15/07/2011 20:29:44
Edited by: Xavier Shrike on 15/07/2011 20:28:23
Originally by: Tinu Moorhsum

My personal preference, however, would be to give the dreadnaught a "mini" DD as an anti-capital weapon so they would have have a role as a possible multiple-ship counter to supers.

T-


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1536442
in my pot i propose an minidoomsday for dreads

Hawk Firestorm
Posted - 2011.07.15 20:50:00 - [49]
 

If they want to really fix supercaps.

They should be able to dock same as any other ship, there's simply no reason for them not to be able too, no ship should be a prison ship or for that matter be unable to self navigate to systems aka Jumpdrive.

Irn Bruce
Posted - 2011.07.15 21:58:00 - [50]
 

Perhaps a bit off the wall here, but how about removing fighter bombers altogether, and giving supercarriers the ability to launch actual ships instead? These would be the same ships players can fly, but not player controlled. They could be fit up as normal, and the SC would have a special bay to house them.

There would also be a special module (or maybe a rig?) that would need to be fitted to the ship in question to enable it to be SC launchable. Perhaps it could be an AI pilot, or a life support system for non pod pilot crew. In any case, since it would take up a slot, the ships would be slightly less powerful than actual player ships. Depending on the size of the module (S/M/L) it would require a different amount of bandwidth to control.

An overhaul of the drone system would be required to make this workable (but then that's overdue anyway). The ships could be given optimal ranges to engage at, types of target to prioritise, whether they should orbit or keep at range, whether to use ewar or not, what to do if they're being neuted etc etc. If sure this type of thing could all be governed by some variant on the sleeper AI.

What this would look like in game would be supercarriers that were just as hard to kill as they are now, but their power is in their flexibility stemming from the fact that they are capable of fielding a small subcap gang. A SC would potentially be just as powerful as it is now, but would require much more micromanagement on the part of the pilot, who would essentially become an FC. It would no longer be a case of target, launch bombers, click engage target, watch target die, but instead, the pilot would have to tailor his "gang" to combat the target in question, and command them to correctly combat that target. They could be combated using the same tactics currently used to combat conventional subcapital fleets, as they would be no different in their capabilities.

Yes, it would still be very difficult to kill enemy supercaps (which it should be given their cost and inability to dock), but it would be easier to escape them, and taking out a wing of Abaddons launched by a supercap is going to hurt him a lot more than killing a few fighter bombers.

25 fighter bombers has 187,500 alpha and 12,500 DPS on a Nyx. This comes in 25 fast, small, hard to lock packages, at a grand total of around 375 million ISK. to equal the DPS using conventional Battleships would require around 10 BS (which seems like a reasonable limit). These will be slower, have well documented weaknesses, and most importantly are accepted as being a balanced part of the game. They would also cost closer to 2 billion isk when fit properly. This would seem more in keeping with the cost of the supercap itself, and may be a deterrent to using the supers as raw DPS dealers when the DPS is so costly.

Perhaps this would lead to supercapitals being used more as a way of quickly moving something approximating a conventional fleet to the frontline, or behind enemy lines, in a way which is less visible that 200 pilots in local. Perhaps their individual capabilities would need nerfed even further if they were to be used as some kind of "commando carrier" for conventional fleets. Or perhaps it would just tunr into blobs of 100 supers jumping in, launching 25 stealth bombers each and being exactly the same as they are now.

Thoughts?

Hugh Mungous
Posted - 2011.07.15 22:15:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Hugh Mungous on 15/07/2011 22:14:55
So...100 supercarriers get to launch 1000 abaddons that don't need pilots. That way they can also apply 100% of their current fightbomber dps to subcaps as well. I see no problem with this. Rolling Eyes

Irn Bruce
Posted - 2011.07.15 23:07:00 - [52]
 

OK, I see your point. Then maybe give them a max of 5 BS, 7 cruiser/BC, 10 frig/dessies? I do still think the fact they're no longer frigates that do crazy DPS balances it a bit. I didn't really think through the specific balancing issues of it, but I still like the idea in principle. Turning the SC into ship carriers rather than drone carriers, adding flexibility, but with much higher operational costs.

Hugh Mungous
Posted - 2011.08.24 03:09:00 - [53]
 

The time is now to make the changes in the OP, quick before everyone quits

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.24 09:19:00 - [54]
 

20% less hitpoints is not enough...

TharOkha
Posted - 2011.08.24 11:29:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: TharOkha on 24/08/2011 12:13:14
I dont see problem with SC themselfs. They are expensive ships, they deserve massive ehp and huge dronebay. The only problem i see is Fighterbombers. They have EHP like BC, agility and speed like frigate and dealing tredemous damage like dread and also they has no problem hit sub capital ships. Also they have small signature and fighting them are nearly impossible. Just nerf Fighter Bombers, reduce their EHP drasticaly and buff their signature radius and i call it a day.

Also every ship in eve has it purpose. Dreads and Titans are great aggainist stationary, or slow movable big objects, but they cannot hit friggates. logistics are great at fleet support, carriers are capital logistics etc etc. And now Supercarriers: They are ECM, Logistic, and DPS ship. Hell, even shuttle cannot escape them. They can be deploeyd aggainist, POSes, capitals, subcapitals and even aggainist interceptors (shtload of deploeyd warriors).

And that is the problem of SCs, there can be fleet of SCs only and have no problem to hotdrop super blob of supercarriers aggainist 5 man fleet of drakes. Try this with "Dreadnought only" fleet.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.24 12:26:00 - [56]
 

The super carriers cost a fortune and should have lots of EHP - But a million hitpoints before skills and modules is way more than necesary. Even 500k would be enough for a super carrier to take a beating and give enough time to RR carriers and support to assist it. Even 500k would look very impressive with carr

Some people having super carriers seems to worry more about their investment than the gameplay - believeing that their supercapitals should be invincible just because they paid 10-15b isk for it and fit the best hardeners available...

Pinky

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.24 14:36:00 - [57]
 

What was the super death-toll in the first "Super War" (DRF vs NC)?

I am willing to bet that it was considerably less than the monthly increase in super population. PL recently had a chest beating thread when they allegedly hit the 100 dead SCs mark (since they were introduced in 2007)
Compare that with the average monthly SC increases in excess of 100 in 2010 .. they are simply not dying.

No nerf is ever going to be enough to bring them back in line due to the sheer numbers of the damn things.
Price has obviously not been an issue whatsoever so the only recourse is to either make them utterly gimp or insanely specialised with a narrow niche.

WaiKin Beldar
Tormentum Insomniae
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.08.24 17:47:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: WaiKin Beldar on 24/08/2011 17:55:12

I see no point on complaining about this nerf. On the contrary, I see CCP trying to modulate or counterbalance the awesome power SCs have brought to big Alliances. Which, at the end, is good, because it shows an effort on supervising and controlling an already extremely complicated situation regarding power in eve. Lets say you try something for maintaining a certain degree of control avoiding the "Win-button" for anyone at all costs.

The "Nerfbat" problem has existed since the beginning of this game due mainly for trying to re-balance a highly-dynamic environment. If anyone looks beyond the tree will see a forest with a far more complex reality in EVE in 2011 than in 2004. Economy has evolved for making large amounts of pilots earn Billions of ISKs in extreme short amounts of time, if we compare what were living now with what was experienced 4 years ago; Skill Points are no longer a problem for piloting demanding vessels like Titans or SCs when there are swarms of pilots beyond the 100M SPs; Experience: when you have flown thousands of times the same boat is human to aim for higher expectations flying shiny ships (faction, SCs and Titans). How do you really expect those factors will affect the game? And up to what extent? Certainly a complicated task if you notice something is getting out of control unexpectedly

Nobody needs to be a rocket-scientist to see the final outcome when you put time, resources, experience and people in quantities enough for making things like Titans and Scs available for a large part of EVE, in comparison with the quantities managed 3 or 4 years ago. EVE is not the same, neither their pilots because they evolved too.

From time to time and depending how do we fly, combat, die, trade, consume, mine, destroy and produce CCP will have to align the game mechanics somehow for avoiding the inherent imperfection a MMORPG like this brings since its birthday.

The amount of "nerfs" Ive seen and heard since the beginning only shows that this game is alive, and still evolving. Something far more important, to me, than the possibility of unbalancing the game again when the time of applying the "nerf" comes. THAT is something Id really like CCP would work thoroughly before applying any change like those weve suffered in past "nerfbat" editions with unwelcome results.

Mr Peanut420
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:08:00 - [59]
 

It's heartening to hear a reasonable guy from Raiden. (quite heavy with supers). If even they can see which way the game is going then there's hope. Congrats, you focused on the right ships and right allies and won eve. Now we all want to play again. The smallest possible nerf is all I want, and there are lots of good ideas in this thread and elsewhere. Its one thing to win consistantly, but to consistantly win without taking any losses, with a ship almost no one can get? I'm gonna go play something else now.

(But no, I think this will get changed, drf will still dominate, but we can all have fun again)


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only