open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked SC Nerf: Fighter&Bomber Drone Bay only is not the solution.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari
Deep Space Nomads Corp
Posted - 2011.07.17 20:47:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Henrica Gaufridus
Originally by: Jaari Val'Dara
Edited by: Jaari Val''Dara on 17/07/2011 19:11:26
The biggest problem with sc's is that there are huge blobs of these. I don't think they are OP, we just need to make them way rarer, they need to be a flagship for a fleet, not a fleet of flagships. So I say introduce new resources consumed when producing capitals and up, let's say jump drives for such huge ships require some rare "unobtanium" substance, it should be controlled and it's spawn rates determined by how many capitals and supercapitals are currently in game or being produced.

In my opinion, every supercapital should need at least 10 capital support and every capital should need at least 10 subcapital support. So if you want to field 10 supercapitals, there needs to be 100 capitals and 1000 subcapitals on the field also. The exact amount is up for discussion, but I choose 10 because its a nice round number.


P.S. They should also be way harder to move, it's insane that the biggest ship is easiest to transport across the galaxy.


The problem with that would be that it essentially just makes it more difficult for a smaller alliance to build up a number of SC. Since large alliances will already have and maintain a number of them, it won't hurt them nearly as much as it hurts a smaller alliance. Finding a way to limit their production sounds nice, but ultimately it hurts the little guy, as the larger alliances will still control the resources required, even an "unobtainium" source, ultimately. The trick is to nerf the ships themselves, not their production.


The best option would be to have that "unobtanium" in wormholes, that way big alliances can't control all of that space.
And about hurting little guy - sooner or later those supercaps are going down and the alliances would need the "unobtanium" to produce new batch. And it's not like the "little guy" isn't already hurt, beaten, hung and crucified.

Equinox II
APEX ARDENT COALITION
Posted - 2011.07.17 20:57:00 - [32]
 

Just remove the damn things. Bring back dread shoot outs.



Devious Relation
Posted - 2011.07.17 21:51:00 - [33]
 

ok lets be realistic about this, any changes to a ship will be consider'd a nurf..... and will get a bad reception by the community.

What we need are specialist ships for taking down these beasts. A totaly new ship primerily with handing them as thier soul role and purpose.

Now whilst i was typing i thought, what about making a ship which has a new laser, which deals a ton of damage, but it needs say 2 or 3 ships remotely giving it something, Kj of energy or what ever to fire its weapon, and then only then is the wreapon useable. Totally madhat idea, but something like that may offer a solution to supers, whilst at the same time not totaly mess them up.

Speaker4 theDead
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.17 21:55:00 - [34]
 

Another good reason....
Instead of buffing Dreads, to make them dangerous in numbers to SC's, they'll totally ruin a ship that 1000's of people worked very hard to get....


XIRUSPHERE
Gallente
Deadly Intent.
Posted - 2011.07.17 22:06:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Speaker4 theDead
Another good reason....
Instead of buffing Dreads, to make them dangerous in numbers to SC's, they'll totally ruin a ship that 1000's of people worked very hard to get....




The only hard about them lay on the industrial side and having the sov and stability to cook them for so long. Isk wise they are very easy to obtain, your average bear half assing in highsec could afford a pilot and a ship in a few months. If you expand to low, null, or WH and pick up the pace it gets kind of silly.

Telvani
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
Posted - 2011.07.17 22:25:00 - [36]
 

It is important that when SCs are nerfed the capital ships are not affected, blanket nerfs that cover dreads and carriers are not what this game needs

Supercarriers need a reduction in mobility, reduction in survivability (increase log off timer / less eHP), reduced effectiveness in low sec (where they are exponentially harder to tackle) if titans can't use DD in lowsec, SC should not be able to use FB.

At this point eve will see an end of triage and pantheon carrier use (except in a baiting role) shortly once SC numbers are high enough. The fact this ship with no coordination or organisation can defeat a larger fleet of normal carriers using specialist fits, planning and expertly flown just because it cost a little bit more is a joke (yes it is a little bit, stop kidding yourselves that 20bn is a prohibitive amount of ISK in a modern eve)

Lets stop pvp becoming:

cyno in, launch FBs, kill stuff

or

cyno in, 'oh **** we goofed', ctrl+z

Claymore Rhade
Posted - 2011.07.17 22:31:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Irrationality
Edited by: Irrationality on 17/07/2011 16:57:00
According to this file: Click CCP have a Supercarrier Nerf in mind now. Of course it is not set in stone yet, but chances are high that they just push it through if there is not the right amount of protest.

For those TL:DR: They plan to change the Drone Bay on SCs to only allow Fighters and Fighterbombers, no Utility or normal Combat Drones.

THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH SUPERCARRIERS.

The blob with more SCs will still dominate the field because they are still immune to non-capitals and own all normal capitals with ease (Hi Dreads).

The pure spidertanking capability of an 80man SC blob is enough to tank pretty much every subcap fleet forever.

The whole change and necessary resources spend on pushing this through are wasted.

So please CCP, start brainstorming again and come up with a different fix. And while we're at it. No Supercap should be able to despawn if its pointed by a HIC.


This nerf actually makes a huge difference people dont even know.

First it makes cruisers and frig a lot more viable against them. Fighter Bombers and Fighters have problems against them. It used to be o look small things... drops lots of sentries or the billions of unlimited drones we have.

Second you can know effectively disable SC. No bombers and no fighters means its a useless hunk of metal sitting in space. If you manage to kill most of thier stuff to the point there like logoffski and you cant kill it you still managed to do 20m isk x FB and 13m isk x F in dmg to that pilot. It simply doesnt show up on the killboard which should be used a tool not as a statue to worship.

Third it forces people to bring smaller ships. If you can only field fb and fighters you have to bring things that can wtf own and pwn small ships like dictors and hictors. Sometimes you hotdrop a force large enough to actually kill you by accident (aka tarping a tarp) and if you dont have some sacrificial carriers with you to field the drones to kill the bubbles or hictors your screwed. Ergo it puts more risk into hot dropping.

Fourth... Hotdropping... 5 sc pilots are bored and hot drop 15 cruiser gate camp.. nothing dies. The fighter and bomber arent nearly as pwn against cruiser and teh cruisers just run away. (should happen now but people tend to panic and forget what to do).

Telvani
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
Posted - 2011.07.17 23:06:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Claymore Rhade
Originally by: Irrationality
Edited by: Irrationality on 17/07/2011 16:57:00
According to this file: Click CCP have a Supercarrier Nerf in mind now. Of course it is not set in stone yet, but chances are high that they just push it through if there is not the right amount of protest.

For those TL:DR: They plan to change the Drone Bay on SCs to only allow Fighters and Fighterbombers, no Utility or normal Combat Drones.

THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH SUPERCARRIERS.

The blob with more SCs will still dominate the field because they are still immune to non-capitals and own all normal capitals with ease (Hi Dreads).

The pure spidertanking capability of an 80man SC blob is enough to tank pretty much every subcap fleet forever.

The whole change and necessary resources spend on pushing this through are wasted.

So please CCP, start brainstorming again and come up with a different fix. And while we're at it. No Supercap should be able to despawn if its pointed by a HIC.


This nerf actually makes a huge difference people dont even know.

First it makes cruisers and frig a lot more viable against them. Fighter Bombers and Fighters have problems against them. It used to be o look small things... drops lots of sentries or the billions of unlimited drones we have.

Second you can know effectively disable SC. No bombers and no fighters means its a useless hunk of metal sitting in space. If you manage to kill most of thier stuff to the point there like logoffski and you cant kill it you still managed to do 20m isk x FB and 13m isk x F in dmg to that pilot. It simply doesnt show up on the killboard which should be used a tool not as a statue to worship.

Third it forces people to bring smaller ships. If you can only field fb and fighters you have to bring things that can wtf own and pwn small ships like dictors and hictors. Sometimes you hotdrop a force large enough to actually kill you by accident (aka tarping a tarp) and if you dont have some sacrificial carriers with you to field the drones to kill the bubbles or hictors your screwed. Ergo it puts more risk into hot dropping.

Fourth... Hotdropping... 5 sc pilots are bored and hot drop 15 cruiser gate camp.. nothing dies. The fighter and bomber arent nearly as pwn against cruiser and teh cruisers just run away. (should happen now but people tend to panic and forget what to do).


How does this solve the issue? before we count RR do you want to think how many zealots it takes to bring down an SC before it disappears? For an aeon its about 200 zealots, for 1 aeon, to kill just 3 of them out of a whole fleet it'd take 600 zealots!

This change doesn't let smaller ships counter them, the issue is with SCs just disappearing once they decide its time to go. Once we get a HIC on them they shouldn't move anywhere, that way 100 zealots and a few HICs will actually pose a threat to SCs. Plenty of smaller ships fleets are already able to beat SCs groups, the issue is the DPS to kill one is almost impossible to achieve with small ships

Reduce their DPS so they don't make capitals useless, titans are for alphaing carriers, not SCs!, reduce their ability to GTFO (either reduced tank or altered log off mechanics) and no FB in lowsec.

Johannes Alexodia
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.18 02:53:00 - [39]
 

Allow Kestrels to fire torpedoes and cruise missiles again. Problem solved. =P. possibly add Bandwidth reduction modules to the game. shield siphoning modules or cancellation modules like we have for cap. Put minefields into the game. We have wormhole effects so why not create deployable/destroyable equipment by the players to create various effects in like a 200km area or some other range. Say a ship bubble that reduces Remote Rep, and go up to system effecting POS Modules to have incursion like effects usable to the defenders advantage.

Dunno. I still like letting the kestrel fire torpedoes again.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.07.18 03:15:00 - [40]
 

Supercapital construction arrays are getting moved outside of POS shields. Might help.

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.07.18 03:16:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Headerman on 18/07/2011 03:16:25
OK here we go:

Originally by: oprime
Edited by: oprime on 17/07/2011 20:51:22
Just tossing my 2 cents. I believe this is a good start but doesn't fix the main problems. These are my ideas on this matter.

1. Reduce Super capital range to a max of 6AU


This will not solve the 'Supercap problem'

Originally by: oprime
2. Make it so that Supers MUST BE STORED IN CAPITAL SHIP HANGER ARRAYS. This is because supers shouldn't ever disappear after the pilot logs off. That means that owners of super capitals will have to continue paying for the maintenance of their ships through pos fuel fee's. In the long run most owners will get rid of them if their corp/alliance isn't willing to pay for this.


This will not solve the supercap problem. Also, does this also apply to titans?

Originally by: oprime
**It creates points of conflict that can be exploited for good fights too. So an alliance with supers will have to constantly keep watch over these towers. Obviously the pilot can still just stay logged in 24/7 with a cloak if he doesn't want to spend the isk. But why buy a super if you aren't willing to take the costs associated with it.**


This will see a return to days akin to POS sov warfare, where every moon has a POS on it. Yay! Lets go and shoot 80+ POSs!

Originally by: oprime
3. Change the way that fighter bomber attacks work. Currently they have a turret animation but the system treats them like missiles. Because of this fighter bombers still deal devastating damage to sub caps. If they acted like any other type of drone then all a sub cap has to do to negate their dps is by simply not moving. Under high lag this is usually all sub caps can do.


Currently, FBs have terrible tracking, and can't really hit sub caps much at all. They already are anti cap weapons.

Originally by: oprime
4. Remove the ability for supers to use neuts or any type of remote repping. The only type of ewar a super should be able to use is their remote ECM burst. EWAR and remote repping should instead be handled by a super capitals support fleet.


This will not fix the SC problem.

**This should force Supers into nothing more then a Anti-capital Role**

Originally by: oprime
5. Not related to supers but instead to anti-super. Buff dreadnought EHP 2 fold. If it takes 4 dooms days to kill a dread (while in siege). I think more people would be willing to fly them to attack something besides anchored structures.


Already been proposed. This would solve the SC problem.

Indy Rider
Amarr
Firebird Squadron
Terra-Incognita
Posted - 2011.07.18 04:02:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Headerman


Originally by: oprime
5. Not related to supers but instead to anti-super. Buff dreadnought EHP 2 fold. If it takes 4 dooms days to kill a dread (while in siege). I think more people would be willing to fly them to attack something besides anchored structures.


Already been proposed. This would solve the SC problem.


Yes, a small buff to Dreads would be good, but then the exact existing problem happens again, but with Dreads instead.

How do we beat those guys with their two Dreads? I know! Lets bring 3 Dreads!

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.07.18 04:09:00 - [43]
 

Make it so that Fighter bombers can only shoot 'x' times. Afterwards they must return to the supercarrier to reload, a process which takes 'x' minutes. Kind of like WWII torpedo bombers.

Thomas Orca
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.18 04:46:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: XIRUSPHERE
...as well as the core functionality of cynos and how these ships jump in.

Hah! Cyno Bandwidth. Only a certain amount of mass can be jumped to a cyno before the cyno collapses and a new one needs to be opened, while cyno cycle time remains untouched. Same for titan bridging. And if you want to make it even worse, add a jump delay depending on ship mass for jumps and bridges, too, so it'll need more time for travelling and more coordination to get all ships in at once.

Time to run and hide. Laughing


So, instead of just bridging and cynoing the fleet, you have to bridge in a cyno fleet, then cyno in the supercap fleet? also known as doesn't fix anything?

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.07.18 05:26:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Indy Rider
Originally by: Headerman


Originally by: oprime
5. Not related to supers but instead to anti-super. Buff dreadnought EHP 2 fold. If it takes 4 dooms days to kill a dread (while in siege). I think more people would be willing to fly them to attack something besides anchored structures.


Already been proposed. This would solve the SC problem.


Yes, a small buff to Dreads would be good, but then the exact existing problem happens again, but with Dreads instead.

How do we beat those guys with their two Dreads? I know! Lets bring 3 Dreads!


A few BSs can do it easily. Tracking for capital turrets is already terribad, keeping it just as bad makes them pretty vulnerable to BSs and what-not

Minmatar Assassin
Utopian Research I.E.L.
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2011.07.18 05:41:00 - [46]
 


The ship which cost 20 bil. must be superious. Need pay nice money to have it, - char for ship, pos for ship, pos fuel. All who says for nerf just can't afford it. Simple. Wanna, but can't, so talks about nerf.

Like 'nerf dramiel' topics, - created by people who don't have skills to fly dramiels.

Also need not to nerf supercapitals, but boost dreads and SC problems will be solved.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:04:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 18/07/2011 06:08:13

Personally, I rather like the idea of the "no drones nerf" along with the development of a ship class (T3 frigate, or preferably a destroyer hull) that is specifically designed to hold and kill fighters and fighter bombers quickly.

Alternatively a weapons system that only fits those smaller hulls that is specifically designed to deal massive damage to Super Capitol class ships only.

Yes, the trench run and other battles showing the small agile vessels to be the best bet against the overly large classes of ships are a classic for very good reason.

Devious Relation
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:07:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Personally, I rather like the idea of no drone allowed along with the development of a ship class (T3 frigate, or preferably a destroyer hull) that is specifically designed to hold and kill fighters and fighter bombers.

Alternatively a weapons system that only fits those smaller hulls that is specifically designed to deal massive damage to Super Capitol class ships only.

Yes, the trench run and other battles showing the small agile vessels to be the best bet against the overly large classes of ships are a classic for very good reason.


Any frigate designed with this role in mine will be the superior friggate and dominate all ofther frigate hulls. Nice idea but not feesable

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:13:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Minmatar Assassin

The ship which cost 20 bil. must be superious. Need pay nice money to have it, - char for ship, pos for ship, pos fuel. All who says for nerf just can't afford it. Simple. Wanna, but can't, so talks about nerf.

Like 'nerf dramiel' topics, - created by people who don't have skills to fly dramiels.

Also need not to nerf supercapitals, but boost dreads and SC problems will be solved.

Balance should be on a per pilot base, not per ISK. It is nice that if you spend same ammount of money on BS as you do on supercaps you can counter them, but where do you get the thousands of BS pilots from you would need to counter a normal sized supercap fleet? Bigger shouldnt be automatically better if you want to keep eve healthy, and right now the only counter to supercaps is either more supercaps or outnumbering them horribly (10:1 at least). That isnt balanced.


And people stay the **** away from dreads. Dreads are balanced, dont go ****ing away with a balanced ship (well unless you manage to change it such that it is only better against supers, but tbh making for example stats of siege module to give another 100% damage bonus agains supercaps seems wrong).

Nerf supers.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:13:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Devious Relation
Originally by: Ranger 1
Personally, I rather like the idea of no drone allowed along with the development of a ship class (T3 frigate, or preferably a destroyer hull) that is specifically designed to hold and kill fighters and fighter bombers.

Alternatively a weapons system that only fits those smaller hulls that is specifically designed to deal massive damage to Super Capitol class ships only.

Yes, the trench run and other battles showing the small agile vessels to be the best bet against the overly large classes of ships are a classic for very good reason.


Any frigate designed with this role in mine will be the superior friggate and dominate all ofther frigate hulls. Nice idea but not feesable


That would all depend on how this job was accomplished. Note the word "specifically". If it sucked in other frigate roles, it is entirely feasible.

That being said, I would prefer my alternate idea. It would probably be easier to implement as well. In fact, whatever weapon system was created for them could very well require a specialized hull to mount them.

Somewhat like a heavy bomber based on a modified destroyer hull, whose bombs only really do full damage to Super Cap sized vessels and are easy meat vs anything else.

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:23:00 - [51]
 

I've always thought that Supercaps should be restricted to what Fleet positions they can hold.

Titans can ONLY hold FC and WC positions. SCs can ONLY hold FC, WC, and SC spots. Sure, you can have lots of little fleets of super caps - but they won't all be on the same watchlist making remote repping something of a pain.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:31:00 - [52]
 

The spidertank/huge HP pool is the main problem with supercarriers. Also in the past supercarriers had an advantage in extremely laggy situations, they only had to get their Fighter-Bombers out of their hangar, then these things could shoot things on their own.

Still the spidertank, not the DPS are the main problem. The DPS still are not that high, but combined with the spider-rep capabilities they are mostly immune against anything but a bigger blob of supercarriers/titans.

Yet suggesting that spidertanks should be nerfed is guaranteed to attract flames. I don't care. Twisted Evil

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.07.18 06:35:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Kirkland Langue
I've always thought that Supercaps should be restricted to what Fleet positions they can hold.

Titans can ONLY hold FC and WC positions. SCs can ONLY hold FC, WC, and SC spots. Sure, you can have lots of little fleets of super caps - but they won't all be on the same watchlist making remote repping something of a pain.


Cool, then lets use TS to call out for reps.

Ahernar
Posted - 2011.07.18 10:37:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Ahernar on 18/07/2011 11:04:13
Edited by: Ahernar on 18/07/2011 10:56:43
One ideea i've had is that supers can jump only 2 times /day (jumpin jumpout then cooldown some hours but i think no less than 12 and better 24 ,like clonejumping ). That will limit their mobility and start a lot of strategic thinking in sov warfare .Also is more realistic resembling with RL fleet deployments.
LE
That also means that the regular caps are becoming much more usefull.
The non magical mechanism for implementing it should be via a "supercapital jumpdrive capacitor" which have enough juice for 2 jumps , is non externally influentable and takes 12-24 hours to top off from 0.

A brief analisis from a super pilot in comments
http://eve-fail.blogspot.com/2011/06/rioting.html#comments

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.07.18 14:35:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: MeBiatch
Originally by: ctttttttt
Originally by: MeBiatch
Counter to SuperCaptial class ships!Very HappyShockedLaughingYARRRR!!IdeaArrow


cool so it would be tech II dread blobs instead of super carriers. always liked guns better any how.



note look at the sensor strength of the juggernauts (eq to a bs) so they can be countered by ecm's... which will make sub cap fleets a MUST if you want to duke it out with caps and super caps...



Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.07.18 16:06:00 - [56]
 

I am pretty sure they say in that file that they are going to balance smaller things first like EW frigs

fukier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Flatline.
Posted - 2011.07.18 16:42:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: fukier on 18/07/2011 16:42:43
Originally by: Kalle Demos
I am pretty sure they say in that file that they are going to balance smaller things first like EW frigs


not true

soundwave said that after the dram nerf and logi boost ccp tallest is looking at a sc nerf then hybrid/gallente/caldari gun boat boost... after that i would guess ew frigs and assault frig 4th bonus...

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.07.18 17:08:00 - [58]
 

adding area of effect explosions for cap ships that only put out a sonic wave that hurt super-caps (perhaps with just an ecm effect on all other objects) could be a useful effect.

It would make carriers and dreads into sort of "super-bombers" (suicide perhaps) and make a fleet of normal caps a very scary proposition for a blob of sc's .

The devil would be in the details of the amount of damage but if they were willing to iterate and adjust the damage each month for a year (up to 12 times in a year.. thats the way to tweak balance I'd think as long as it was incremental and moderately predictable in direction). Maybe enough damage to take out 1/5th of a sc hit points... 5 blowing up at once could destroy a whole mob of sc that refused to unblob ? ..maybe its 10... idk...maybe the damage wave has a delay after destruction to allow a chance for non tackled sc's to retreat via cyno if they are not tackled? (hence having carriers and dreads hold the field even if they didn't destroy the retreating ships)

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.07.18 17:13:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Claymore Rhade

The blob with more SCs will still dominate the field because they are still immune to non-capitals and own all normal capitals with ease (Hi Dreads).

The pure spidertanking capability of an 80man SC blob is enough to tank pretty much every subcap fleet forever.



This nerf actually makes a huge difference people dont even know.

First it makes cruisers and frig a lot more viable against them. Fighter Bombers and Fighters have problems against them. It used to be o look small things... drops lots of sentries or the billions of unlimited drones we have.

Second you can know effectively disable SC. No bombers and no fighters means its a useless hunk of metal sitting in space. If you manage to kill most of thier stuff to the point there like logoffski and you cant kill it you still managed to do 20m isk x FB and 13m isk x F in dmg to that pilot. It simply doesnt show up on the killboard which should be used a tool not as a statue to worship.

Third it forces people to bring smaller ships. If you can only field fb and fighters you have to bring things that can wtf own and pwn small ships like dictors and hictors. Sometimes you hotdrop a force large enough to actually kill you by accident (aka tarping a tarp) and if you dont have some sacrificial carriers with you to field the drones to kill the bubbles or hictors your screwed. Ergo it puts more risk into hot dropping.

Fourth... Hotdropping... 5 sc pilots are bored and hot drop 15 cruiser gate camp.. nothing dies. The fighter and bomber arent nearly as pwn against cruiser and teh cruisers just run away. (should happen now but people tend to panic and forget what to do).


very interesting.

That does sound very workable... a successful bombing run would also knock out the drone bombers , right?

That sounds like the change could very well be an elegant and immediately workable solution.

Hopefully though, they do not do the exact same to normal carriers...perhaps though splitting their bay's into fighter and sub fighter groups with normal carriers still retaining a 1000-1200 m3 normal drone capacity or something.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.07.18 17:23:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Minmatar Assassin

The ship which cost 20 bil. must be superious. Need pay nice money to have it, - char for ship, pos for ship, pos fuel. All who says for nerf just can't afford it. Simple. Wanna, but can't, so talks about nerf.

Like 'nerf dramiel' topics, - created by people who don't have skills to fly dramiels.

Also need not to nerf supercapitals, but boost dreads and SC problems will be solved.


The point is to make the game less ISK to win . Less... the amount of isk spent should have drastically dimishing returns to allow, as it always has, for newer players to the game to have a material effect on combat.

A player a few months in should be worth 1/3 rd or 1/2 what a many year player is on the field... 80% of one if matched in identical ships. It's always been that way (up to about a year ago)

ISK to win , if not checked at some level of return, is just as imbalancing as $ to win.. but they've always worked that out because their motivations were to attract more players , not get more $ from each existing player.

(yes, they'll need some isk sinks.. and NPC vanity items are as good as any but only if they are not marketed in a way that changes behaviour of those not interested... I always liked the idea of care-bear drones (with the exact utility of normal t2s) ...some people like special visual stuff like that .


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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