Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Proliferation game

So, what's wrong with super-capital ships?  Let's put them into perspective.

A typical PvP battleship -- a Tempest, say, or an Apocalypse -- costs the pilot about 200 million ISK fully fit, loaded, and ready for combat.  A really pimp pirate faction battleship -- a Vindicator, for instance -- costs between two and three billion ISK.  That's between 10 and 15 times as expensive as the cheaper ship.  Let's suppose our pimped-out pirate faction battleship had the following advantages over its cheaper cousin:
  • its buffer tank is 15 times stronger; and,
  • it does eight times more DPS; and,
  • it has the area of effect e-war attack of a Scorpion; and,
  • it is immune to e-war itself; and,
  • it has an interdiction nullifier capability similar to a strategic cruiser.
Would you say that ship is a little bit over-powered?  I suspect you might.  ;-)

And yet this is the difference between a Thanatos costing about 1.5 billion ISK and a Nyx costing about 22 billion ISK -- 15 times more.  Put rather blatantly, if Vindicators worked like this, then that Vindicator would do 6000 DPS, would have 1.8 million EHP, would be immune to e-war and webs, would have an area of effect jamming attack, and would be immune to most forms of tackle.  And it would still cost two to three billion ISK.

Sign me up for one of those Vindicators, please.

But apparently a super-carrier that costs 15 times more than a carrier and can do all of those things is perfectly OK.

"Super carriers cost a lot of ISK", we're told, and sure, that's true.  "Since they're so expensive, they should be better than other types of ships," we're also told, and that part is BS.  The value proposition of a super carrier is ridiculously, ludicrously high.  It is so far over-powered compared to other types of ships in the game that it may as well be a ship in another game entirely.  Likewise, this kind of comparison renders laughable CCP's recent attempts to nerf super carriers.  The tanks of armor super carriers were reduced some 15% and its non-fighter/fighter-bomber drones were removed.(1)  When compared to its other advantages, I think it's pretty clear that these were weak nerfs at best, feeble and impotent ones at worst.  Put into perspective, our Vindicator has 1.8 million EHP instead of 2.1 million EHP and loses its ability to shoot light drones.  Color me unimpressed.

In order to truly balance super carriers and bring them in-line with the game's other ships, CCP is going to have to take drastic action.  Anyone think they will?

To put Titans into perspective, let's assume for a minute that our Vindicator cost 10 billion instead of 2.5 billion.  In this case, we'd have a Vindicator that, in addition to all of the advantages above, could also:
  • use gang links like a Command Ship; and,
  • would give every ship in its gang an additional massive gang bonus; and,
  • could jump people around the region like a Black Ops battleship, except it could do this for any type of ship and at much longer range; and,
  • could generate jump clones for people; and,
  • would do ten times more DPS than a standard battleship instead of eight times more; and,
  • would track targets between two and three times better than a standard battleship; and,
  • would be able to insta-volley one enemy non-faction battleship of its choice every ten minutes; but,
  • would have to give up the Scorpion-like e-war attack (awwww).
Anybody think such a Vindi would be over-powered, even if it cost 10 billion ISK?  I suspect you do.  But again, Titans are obviously perfectly OK too, aren't they?  Yes, that was sarcasm.

Now granted, with 4300 or so super-caps in the game right now, if CCP started taking drastic action to correct these blatant deficiencies, there would be quite a lot of player rage.  And that rage would just as obviously come almost exclusively from the most loyal, long-term EVE players.

But the more time CCP lets go by on this issue before they take action, the worse it's going to get.  As I said yesterday, there's going to be 5500 super-caps this year.  7000 or so the year after that.

Anyone think the problem's going to be easier to solve then?


(1) With the recent addition of dead-space Invuls, the shield supers were essentially buffed, so we'll ignore them for the purposes of this conversation.

48 comments:

  1. Your 2.5b Vindi, can also now not dock, is only able to warp half the distance of a mega. Is only able to use guns (its primary weapon) loses the drone bay entirely and requires extra training to use weapons your mega couldn't in a different role.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what your point is as it'd still be OP?

      Delete
  2. You know I liked reading thing blog because you calmly took an objective eye to topics. The tone of you pieces on supers makes me feel like they came and stole your doll and you're getting pissy in a corner about it. There are a valid points about super being over powered but you lose my respect if this is the way you want to present you arguments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30GD25un0XQ

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have several problems with this argument Jester.
    1) You compare apples and oranges. Carriers are mainly logistic ships, while super carriers are heavy hitters. It’s like comparing the tank and DPS output of the Oneiros vs. the Proteus and scream “overpowered” against the Proteus because it tanks like a beast and deals horrendous DPS vs. the Oneiros, even if it costs 5 times more.
    2) You seem to think that it makes sense to compare a Megathron with a Vindicator as an illustration on the differences between a Thanatos and a Nyx, while attributing super capital only capabilities like ECM bursts and EWAR immunity to the Vindicator without scaling them down.
    3) To reinforce your argument further you also attribute titan only attributes like doomsday, clone vat bay, command links, titan gang bonuses, jump portal etc. to your Vindicator – without scaling these attributes down with the cost. The example was bad enough with the SC only attributes attached to a battleship, with the titan attributes attached as well it is – excuse me – laughable.
    4) You say that a Nyx has an interdiction nullifying capability similar to a strategic cruiser. Last time I checked, super carriers stay put when bubbled.
    5) You repeat the lie that a Titan tracks better than a battleship. In fact you go a step further from your previous post on the matter. Now – according to you – Titans track 2-3 times better than battleship. This has no basis whatsoever in fact.
    It seems to me that what you are really campaigning for is the complete removal of all super capital ships from EVE online. After all - who in their right mind would pay 22 billion isk for a Nyx with a Tank and DPS output marginally bigger than a Thanatos, and with no super-cap only attributes. Because THAT is the result when we take your Megathron – Vindicator example and scale it back up.
    So let’s say we do that. Every Titan and Super carrier removed, skill points reimbursed. I checked EVE board just now. EVE Board holds just a fraction on EVE characters, but even there, over 3000 characters have more than 100 million skill points. What alternative are you prepared to give them? Just stop training?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's almost impossible to compare like-for-like in this situation because there AREN'T like-for-like comparisons (other than DPS and tank). Still, with that said, I do make changes such as the Vindicator only being able to doomsday non-faction BSs, for instance.

      Similarly, I do NOT say that a Titan tracks better than a battleship. What I DO say is that the 10b ISK Vindicator tracks 2-3x better than the standard battleship. The comparison here is obviously between a Titan and a dread, not a Titan and a battleship.

      The problem here is IN ONLY ONE SHIP CLASS, by paying 15x more, you're getting a ship that's 15x better. You don't get a 15x better battleship by pimping a Vindi. You don't get a 15x better cruiser by pimping a Cynabal. 3x better? Sure. 15x better? No. That's the difference.

      As for an upper limit on skill points? Stopping training? That seems to be every single other MMO out there, unless I'm missing something. It's not inherently a bad thing.

      Delete
    2. EVE Online is not your average MMO Jester. You of all people should know that. Which other MMO has 10 year old players beeing the main content creators of the biggest features in the game? With no alternative to continue evolving, they will just stop playing en masse. And that will be the end of EVE Online as we know it. I have read a lot of bitching against supercaps lately, usually set forth by players who dont fly them, and not even 2 months since they got nerfed last time. I have yet to read a SINGLE proposal about alternatives.

      Delete
    3. What do you suggest? Raise the limit from V to X in most skills? Since each new level requires about 6 times the SP of the previous level you'd take some time to max sub-caps skills. Somehow, though, this seems a bad solution to me.

      Delete
    4. I think actually a lot of the research CCP did showed that the majority of people who play the game for over 3 years are very reluctant to leave the game. At the other end of the spectrum a lot of new players try the game. Somewhere, in the middile, something goes wrong (as jester has said in his posts about the 'mid game') and people don't stick the game out.

      I see nothing wrong with hitting a skill point maximum - especially if you've been playing the game for 5+ years. Otherwise, how will new players ever be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with an old player?

      Anyway = my point is that I don't think upsetting supercap owners is nescessarily that big of a deal.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Research show that people that have been playing for more than 3 years tend to stay. However, that is in an environement where you have continous new goals available to you. Take away the sense of progression, and I guarantee you that the vets will leave this game on droves.

      Delete
  4. Couldn't possibly agree more. The scaling of supercaps is so ludicrously unbalanced that one wonders if they let an overzealous third-grader set the parameters. Newer players are forced either to 1) earn their own "I win" button to make null warfare even more boring; or 2) discover, like the computer from "War Games," that the only winning move is not to play, and remain in high sec (or wormholes). That's winning game design right there.

    I wonder if the only fix that borders on fairness at this point is to slowly ramp up the build cost of supercaps over a year or so until the point that it actually reflects their abilities. Current pilots keep their current ships until they go boom - more likely since Crucible - but newer ships will become more expensive and thus fleets will become more well-rounded.

    Alternatively, I would have happily supported your CSM candidacy had you adopted the platform of "All supercaps will self-destruct and anyone who has ever flown one will be catapulted into the sun." I mildly prefer the latter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that would work very well - because it would inflate the value of existing supercaps into an asset bubble. When the 22bn ISK Nyx owner sells it in a years time for 80bn isk, what on earth will he then spend 80bn isk on?! Unless something new and hugely resource consuming is introduced into the game (?stations) I can't see it happening.

      Delete
    2. While nonideal certainly, I don't see why this problem remotely outweighs the problem it's helping to solve. Plenty of players sit on enormous isk piles. How is this different in a way that hurts the game more than it helps?

      Delete
  5. I think the discussion of isk is a distraction because even if the price of supercaps was dramatically increased, large alliances would still be able to afford them. Heck, if prices increased further it would probably feed the blob as smaller alliances would not be able to afford them. The real issue, it would seem, is that CCP has lost the need for fleet diversification. Having never served, I am cautious in using a Navy metaphor, but it might be worth asking why the Navy doesn’t simply just build Carriers and Battleships? The Navy has a wide array of vessels at their service because specific missions require specific tools. In the real world, diversity increases your capabilities, in EVE, the opposite seems true. The problem with supercapitals isn’t how many multiples greater their EHP is, it is that they do everything too well. They are a tool for every job, an answer for every question. Fixing Supercaps requires a vision of EVE where the smaller ships are not merely stepping stones while pilots skill and isk up for larger ships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more with this - Eve shouldn't become a 'gotta catch em all' spaceship collection game, with frigates at the common end and supercaps at the rare 'sought after' end. There should be some mechanism whereby supercaps are immensley vulnerable to smaller ships in certain circumstances. They should feel like a privaledge to fly - but also a huge burden. After all, 22bn isk is a vast amount of capital to have tied up into a single ship. Of course I expect that is why CCP loves them - because the destruction of a single ship, even if it is just 0.75 per day, is still a way of eliminating 22bn isk from the economy so it can be readded elsewhere in wormholes and incursions.

      Delete
    2. The ISK doesn't disappear when a ship is blown up. The guy who built the ship got it when the ship was bought.

      Delete
  6. Unfortunately capital ships and in particular super-caps seem to have become the 'end game' of choice. Having come from a WoW background I've always seen the similarity between super-cap attainment and the end game raiding of WoW. The meta obsession is identical.

    I have always favoured the naval analogy where large vessels are very powerful but also extremely vulnerable without support fleets. To give a historical example; The largest battleship ever built in real life, the IJN Yamato, was destroyed in 1945 by several small waves of naval bombers. It was a painful end to battleship era.

    Eve needs to push super-capitals in this direction I think. The danger is that the volume of super-caps will only increase due to their obvious desirability and affordability. What happens then? A super-super cap? It reaches a point where there has to be some sort of check put in place to limit the 1900s dreadnaught mentality.

    Personally I've always felt that supercaps should somehow achieve virtually all their stats from a type of advanced gang link. By this I mean a lone supercap could be brought down by as few as 10-15 stealth bombers on a roam. But if that supercap was in a fleet of 5-15 ships, of mixed classes, it would gain a massive stat multiplier through gang links - making it very hard to crack without a more substantial fleet.

    Just like a lone aircraft carrier is unthinkably vulnerable. But with its submarines, frigates, oil tankers, destroyers, minesweepers etc. it becomes a devastating platform.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does take a long time to train for the supers. Do you think that no longer matters at all?

      Suppose with people farming characters and selling them maybe its not too hard for SP.

      Delete
    2. Honestly it is very hard to draw historical analogies -- while the Yamato died to a handful of airplanes in WWII, there is no doubt that in WWI battleships were endgame. In fact, eve's idea of a single frigate type ship taking on a single battleship in mortal combat would have been largely laughable until the modern missile era.

      There is nothing wrong with supercapitals in eve being the endgame. Rather the problem comes about from the amount of isk in the game. It is simply a question of percentage of ships -- too many capital ships renders the game top heavy. Now the easy way to handle this is instead of nerfing ships -- decrease the amount of isk available to everybody by introducing new isk sinks. The most obvious of this is maintenance costs. There has never been a ship made that has not needed maintenance. The bigger the ship the more costly it is to crew and maintain. If somebody wants to have a supercapital then ccp should hit them up with huge maintenance fees, which if unpaid ultimately cause the ship to fall apart and be rendered useless.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with anonymous reply #2. Hideously expensive super-ships will either (a) never see battle or (b) become I-win when they take the field.

      Much better for them to be "reasonably" affordable and also expendable.

      Delete
  7. I'm with Jester on this. On the power scale, Titans and Super-caps are off the scale in term of power for isk.
    Typically, a higher class gets a generous bonus in tank, dps and utility, but a 10 fold increase just breaks everything.

    Most worrying though, is the speed at which super capitals are made. At this rate, EVE will be only about super capitals in a few years. Every veteran will own one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A long series of smaller nerfs would be better, IMHO. Start off with obvious ones like removing EWAR immunity from all ships and modules.

    Then reduce the tracking & increase the sig res of XL weapons (a factor of three or four in each case should be sufficient). Implement a sliding "crit window" instead of using the "20 on 1d20 is always a critical hit" style calculation - this is broken since it effectively triples titan DPS against small targets. Give titans a role bonus of 100% to damage (take away their titan skill bonus of 100% damage per level), and give them two more high slots to mount weapons in.

    Then invert the role of the siege module: it would give the dreadnought faster tracking/smaller explosion radius, ROF, etc, at the cost of immobility. No EWAR immunity, but the module could boost various statistics of a dreadnought to provide resistance to EWAR. Then dreads get the pleasure of shooting frigates out of the sky, because they've made the commitment to stay on field for long enough that enemy reinforcements can arrive.

    Then boost tracking disruptors & target damps to the point that they're actually useful.

    Somewhere along the line, boost the resources required to build supers (a factor of ten sounds about right), increase building times (again, a factor of ten).

    And finally, reduce fuel bays, cargo bays and corporate hangars to bring titan bridges in line with black ops bridges: cargo ships will be required if you're going to bridge a substantial fleet out and back (noting that carriers and super carriers could fill in for cargo ships).

    It would be nice if titans would have to choose between, say, using gang links or fielding a massive tank or having high tracking. Remove the +1 warfare link bonus per level, so titans have to use command processors to mount any warfare links (they can keep the 99% CPU requirement).

    The same things could be done to super carriers without breaking them: move fighter/bomber control bonus to an advanced drone control unit, remove the +1 warfare link bonus but keep the 99% warfare CPU bonus. Thus a super carrier pilot will have to make a decision between fielding a swarm of fighter/bombers, or providing logistics to the fleet.

    These small changes should be enough to remove the absolute domination of these ships on the battlefield. Over time, keep dialling back on power, dialling up on resources required to build, and perhaps add in a fixed cost per day to simply turn the engine on.

    Then there's the difference in fuel required to jump a BO BS vs a freighter vs a carrier, vs a super carrier or titan. Logistics is too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Funny, i wouldn't mind all that "uber-stats" and 15x-fold increase in the power meter if one could HOLD and KILL the goddamn things at the same rate one can do with a regular BS when dealing with a "mixed" fleet.

    Today, in order to kill caps and supercaps, one needs to bring more of the same.

    There are no "jump jamming arrays" to "trap" entire enemy super-caps fleets in your system using cunning strategy, there are no anti-super weaponry that can be mounted in less expensive ships.

    The whole paper-scissors-rock balance is broken when going super....thats the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. I'd rather see new types capital ships, modules, capabilities and mechanics designed to create a dynamic rock-paper-scissors type capital battlefiled fit for an epic game like EVE, than trying to dial the game back to Pre Red Moon Rising by removing supercaps entirely.

      Delete
    2. It is the combination. ECM Immunity, extreme tanks, hard to tackle, scales in larger groups. Take away just a few of those extremes away, and the whole concept becomes far less imbalanced. You do not tweak its states here and there, you need to introduce real weaknesses into them.

      Or indeed introduce such vindicators, and jump portal orcas and all those other neat stuff on cheap platforms.

      Delete
  10. I still like the idea of them being more vulnerable to large fleets of small ships. This would haev the added benefit of making them mroe reliant on escort ships as one would figure they would be ... (also, buff destroyers!).

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd like to say that the more supercaps are in the game, the more it should cost to build a new one, on an exponential curve.

    With the number there are right now, it should be stupidly, absurdly super-expensive -- prohibitively so, until the number of supercaps is greatly reduced through deaths.

    Unfortunately, while this reduces the number of supercaps, it also could mean that the alliance with the supercaps becomes locked-in as the only alliance that can actually afford to field them, since they scale so damn well.

    It really is a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Titans/Supercarriers don't need to be "slightly nerfed", they need to be redesigned completely.

    Why? Because their original design goal has changed and currently they are broken.

    Originally they were meant to be extremely expensive and alliance-only asset. Look at the first Titans built, at the time when flying BS was "elite pvp". However as in all games, natural inflation came to EVE and current prices of supers do not reflect their original design. Now some alliances field titans as ship of the line fleets.

    What CCP should have done, is to increase price of every newly built super - e.g. first titan costs 10bil ISK in materials, second one 10*1.1, third one 10*1.1*1.1 etc.

    I don't really have any proposals how to solve the situation now. Eliminating supers and reimbursing costs/skillpoints is stupid. CCP needs to think very hard and redesign whole sov and super situation at the same time. In best case scenario, we will have completely new and original endgame.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IF pepole bring tracking titans, those titans should be kept in tracking fit, while beeing primary. now, thye switch to armour tank before their pitifull shilds are gone, essentaly giving a supercap pilot the best of 2 worlds. Tracking AND tank. Supers should only be able to refit at a pos. inside the shields.

    this would help. cuse then you can actualy bring inn 200 dreads and score some kills.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I just love the nerf the super rhetoric from all the non super pilots here. What should I do with the literally 3 years of training that I spent to pilotfish ship. I guarantee that if you want to kill the game, keep talking about needing super caps, because anyone who has one probably also has at least 3-5 non super accounts that they play because their super pilot is stuck in their ship. So yea go ahead keep talking about needing them and watch 15k + loyal subscribers leave the game and the economy go to shit.

    Think about how long it takes to save up for a super when is the last time you spent 20 or 80 billion for a single ship. I know I am in between Aeons at the moment, and saving for a new one is a staggering proposition. Alliances just don't give them away, and they are pretty risky to buy with all the scammers as they can't be contracted. So yea stop thinking that it's easy to obtain one because it's not.

    Zandramus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll have to explain to me how nerfing 4300 ships loses 15,000+ subs, particularly since I know for a fact that there are LOTS of people with multiple supers.

      You'll also have to explain to me why nerfing supers wouldn't encourage thousands and thousands of people to resub, since at least that many have quit in disgust over Supercaps Online.

      Delete
    2. Should we be surprised that people who own an unbalanced, 'I win' button don't want it to be nerfed? That doesn't mean the game, as a whole, doesn't need it.

      Delete
    3. I think we can take your argument a step forward and say "would losing these 15,000 people nescessarily be a bad thing?" Since unilaterally they are players who have been in the game 3+ years and tend to epitomise the "nullsec am holier than thou" attitude.

      Delete
    4. You haven't addressed the issue, you know?

      Do you think super-caps are balanced, as they are now?

      Delete
    5. It is an empirical question as to how many people will either quit or resubscribe as the result of any changes. We will just have to wait and see. One thing that theory can tell us is that given the sheer amount of time and iterations that have gone into rebalancing supercaps it is doubtful that any single change will restore people's faith in CCP to make a balanced game.

      Delete
    6. "So yea go ahead keep talking about needing them and watch 15k + loyal subscribers leave the game and the economy go to shit."

      EVE needs a lot more than 15k+ subscribers to survive long term.

      If ever larger super carrier blobs become the norm, then ever fewer new players will go to null, and CCP will have to focus more on the needs of high sec PVEers, and eventually the game will change.

      Or EVE will fold, and those 15k+ users won't have the toy that they became good at over the last 7+ years.

      Threats work both ways.

      Delete
  15. And all you need to hold and kill a super is a dictor takes about 3 weeks of training to train for it.

    Zandramus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And some way to keep that dictor alive long enough to kill the super, more if there is more than one. Also dictor's in low-sec must be fit with an infinite point (requiring a heavy dictor) and have to maintain traversal from any and all tracking titans while maintaining point. As will all things in EvE there is not "you just need _________" answer. So what do you propose to topple a fleet of 100+ tracking titans, super-carriers and dreadnaught/carrier support without your own feet of the same?

      Delete
  16. I think the best solution is to make it even easier to destroy super-caps by introducing a new-ship class designed to do so (basically a special bomber that is to supercaps what the current stealth bombers are to BS) relatively cheaply.

    Just do the math so that it becomes easier to ISK-efficiently tackle and destroy supercaps.

    This has the advantage of feeling less like an outright nerf to supercaps, while in practice being just that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enter Tech 3 Battleships (too much?)

      I also like the idea of additional isk sinks to stem the tide a super-cap production. Combine that with the concept of destructible stations and in my mind the station should be able to have stationary defenses speficially designed for pwning Supers similar to DD's, can't target non capital ships and has a long cooldown timer. Obviously that concept needs some work, but you get the general idea.

      Delete
  17. Supers die rather easily now that they can't log off, get them tackled and get in the batphone. I watched 5 BDEAL supers self destruct in front of us a few weeks ago, because they were tackled and could not escape or log. We would have killed the ourselves once our capitals arrived, just wait and see how many die this year now that they can't logoffski. I understand you feel they are overpowered, but I don't think they are with the amount of time it takes to train for one and the investment of isk it takes to purchase one.

    As to how 4300 super accounts = 15 k subs it is that most of the people I know that have a super have 4-5 other accounts to support that super. Someone trusting enough to have a super and trust someone else for a gtfo. Cyno will be someone without a super in short order.

    It's easy for someone who hasn't flown one to think they are the i win button but they truly are not, having had a character stuck in one for a few years they are an incredible amount of work and planning to be able to field one.

    I have no qualms against losing a super in battle, what fun is a ship that you can't fly in battle, what I have an issue with is losing one to someone with way less time training for the ship they are in versus what I spent training to fly the damn thing.

    My solution would be to iterate some more capital ships that are good at killing supers. Spend a year training for a ship that wtfbbq's a super, I got no issues with that.

    Zandramus

    ReplyDelete
  18. According to Jester, EVE has lost at least 15000 players that have quitted “in disgust over supercaps online”. Personally I don’t think that is true, but it doesn’t really matter. What matter is, that EVE is 10 years old. The “solution” proposed by the haters – namely the removal or nerfing beyond all recognition of super capital ships – will ensure that it never gets to be 20. Why? Because the veterans are Eve’s main content creators for the games signature features. We all know that without epic fleet battles and sovereignty conflict involving tens and thousands of players, EVE would just be like any other MMO, and to be perfectly honest, probably a mediocre one. Epic tales of epic fleet battles needs epic ships and epic losses. Losing your damned Abbadon doesn’t really cut it.
    So no, you just can’t dial the game back to pre-RMR, take away the super caps and think for a minute that the game won’t lose the very same people that drive null sec conflict. Telling an EVE player to just stop training is NOT the solution. To coin a CCP catchphrase; EVE is forever. That means that the game needs to evolve with its players. Forcefully implementing a new version of “the good old days” is a fallacy and a recipe for disaster.
    So, no. The supercaps don’t need a nerf. They are fine as they are. But EVE needs new ships, new mechanics, new modules to expand and enhance the capital battlefield. Capital interdictors. Capital torpedo bombers. Capital electronic warfare ships. Introduce add-ons for outposts to create constellation defensive hubs which enhance the combat capabilities of the defense fleets. Introduce motherships that act as deployable and dockable constellation offensive hubs (only self-defense weaponry) which enhance the combat capabilities of the attack fleets. Introduce capital minefields (which don’t affect sub caps), minelayers and minesweepers. Introduce mobile capital cynojamming ships. We need new capabilities that can keep people training to 300 million skill points.
    In short, move the game forwards, look to tomorrow, don’t yearn for yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure I didn't specify a number, other than saying it was at least a four digit number, and certainly exceed the number of people who would unsub because their super was nerfed.

      Delete
  19. Then I misunderstood. But it isnt really important. We both know that these numbers remain speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The biggest issue with supers today is not how much overpowered a single Titan vs Dreadnaught is, or Super-Carrier vs Carrier. These are simple hurdles that are overcome in EvE on a regular basis. The biggest hurdle today is the power of a fleet of super's en-mass. The few major alliances that hold massive fleets of supers have worked very hard to get to the position that they are in, but the current SOV mechanics enable these alliances to place these fleets at the locations they need when they need to be there. Groups like PL and NC. have the reputation they do because they worked very hard to strategically gain a very impressive tactical advantage that has given them the ability to not only field what may be the most powerful combined fleet in EvE but to also give them real-time intel on every major super cap fleet in EvE (not that its infallible). While I applaud accomplishments like this, the E-WAR invulnerability that these ships have makes them almost impervious to nearly any opposing force without the need to an on-field support fleet.

    TBH I do feel that most of the anti-super complaints are by people too incompetent to compete on this level so instead of stepping up to the challenge they cry 'nerf'. That said, having fought against supers The most frustrating part is the E-War invulnerability, especially in low-sec where bubbles and bombs are not allowed. I understand that a frig should not be able to tackle a titan alone but complete invulnerability is absurd. Instead I propose a E-War mitigation ability. Give Supers a combination or very high signature strength and warp strength so that they are both hard to tackle and jam, but not impossible. Also make them only 25-50% susceptible to tracking disruptors and sensor damps. This way a coordinated fleet CAN combat a fleet of supers and a mixed and diverse group of ships will be necessary to protect from this new danger. This combined with ways for small fleets to harass SOV structures will require big alliances to actually defend they're space with 'men on the ground' so to speak. This way the advantage that people have worked so hard to build is not totally lost but there is still room for people to challenge and maybe become the new 'king of the hill'.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Vindicator is such a bad example it is laughable. Its like comparing an Rifter with a Freki since both a frigates. The truth is abaddon is a workhorse while an Vindicator is a PvE and shiny toy used by those ignoring isk efficiency completely.

    Lets compare the abaddon with an Archon, the logical "next step" in ship ability.

    The Archon:
    7x the cost with insurance
    It has 1x the damage
    It has 12x the EHP
    It has >18x the local tank, incomparable rr power
    It is strategically the fastest ship in the universe
    It allows for tactical refiting, ship swaps unlike anything else

    Revelation:
    7x the cost
    4x the dps
    15x the ehp
    8x the local tank
    ewar immunity
    Jump drives

    ---
    Now compare revelation with nyx:
    15x the cost
    2.5x the damage
    15x the ehp
    blah blah utility of supers

    Now compare nyx that with an avatar:
    3x the cost
    1.2x the damage
    1.5x the ehp
    blah blah tracking
    ---
    If you ask me, in terms of power scaling, the jump from carrier to s.carrier is less then that from battleships to carrier. It is only siege/triage dynamics that prevents them from being totally op. The carrier may not do 6000dps, it still has million+ of ehp, and can easily rep 6000 dps without breaking a sweat. As such, I don't think dps/ehp/link mods is what is the problem of supers.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Supers were never meant to be bought by individuals, so they should be an alliance asset. I wouldn't mind them being even more overpowered if it meant they became truly rare tide turners, opening mouths of everyone in the fleet the moment they join the battle.

    1. Seriously nerf mobility. Only a single long jump per day, all the other jumps that day should have reduced jump range. So alliances should consider carefully where to deploy their supers, once they jump that day for the first time they should be effectively trapped in that region. The first jump of the day should have same jump range as it currently is (perhaps a slight buff), the every next jump should have range of black ops ship.
    2. Create a limit on how many supers there can be, possibly by introducing new material required for manufacturing which grows rarer with every active super.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The argument that ANYTHING in EvE is too expensive or SP intensive for the lone player is absurd. Cost and SP has never been a hurdle before why should it be now? There is no problem with people owning they're own supers, don't like it?, get your own.

      The big discrepancy I find is why does a tracking fit titan track so much better than a tracking fit dread? Also, why can't I tracking disrupt/web/scram/damp that annoying titan?

      Delete
  23. Just give supers a warp core strength of say 20-30. This will prevent the long frig from tackling a super in low sec but still make it dangerous to hot drop a rifter fleet.

    Even better (though I'm not sure they could implement this) would be to slowly increase core strength based on time tackled. To explain: a single frig could tackle a mom for 5 minutes, after that if there isn't a new point (or 2) on it, the mom is able to jump.

    This would help mitigate a couple ships indefinitely pinning a super with no real chance of killing it.

    Still, I don't have a problem with any ship tackling a super just like it were a normal cap. You are supposed to have a support fleet, make them kill your tackle.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.