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...

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Comment of the week: Nerfs

So far, while several CSM members have been grumbling into their coffee in my general direction, only Two step has been courageous enough to respond directly to my post yesterday.  Unfortunately, his response is rather... well... you read it:
Uh, supers already got nerfed. From what I hear, they are being used a lot less in nullsec (the big fight yesterday was the first major super loss in a *long* time).

I think the minutes didn't capture our desire for tech to be nerfed properly. It came up several times, and as you can see, CCP did manage to get to it well before the winter...

My response:
Sigh. Very slowly, then: the problem with supers isn't whether they get used or whether they don't get used. The problem with them is that they're freakin' impossible to blow up unless you have "16 or 17 Titans." Hint: that is a problem.

More succinctly: the problem with supers is that they get produced in large numbers but die in tiny numbers. And since only a small fraction of the EVE player base can afford the freakin' things, those players amass great personal fleets of them. This needs to get fixed, and the CSM needs to help CCP find the fix.

In a game that needs more conflict drivers, describing alchemy as a "nerf" for tech is rather ridiculous. It's worse than a nerf: it's the equivalent of a NASCAR yellow flag, making tech moons not really worth fighting for. In the meantime, everyone keeps driving but nobody passes. The incredible bank of these things just keeps going to the same dudes.

Again, very slowly: Tech at 100k per unit is the exact price tech was at prior to OTEC... you know, when tech was just ridiculously overpriced and over-needed instead of hilariously, ludicrously, incredibly overpriced and over-needed. Guess what: a Hulk is still 70% tech, even with alchemy.

Why the CSM can't see these things is a mystery to me.

I also find it difficult to believe that the CSM's need to see tech nerfed wasn't captured in 165 pages and only the gods know how many back-and-forth updates.

Thanks for responding, Two step, and thank you even more for having the courage to beard the lion in its den so to speak, but damn man: a stronger response.  Please.  Put it on your blog if you want to, but these are major issues that need to be responded to.  Now.

As for the rest of the CSM, same same.  You more important members have blogs.  Use them!  We're supposed to be having a town hall.  Have one!  Where is this famous "increased communication" that we were promised?  So far, you guys can't even equal CSM6's record in this regard, and CSM6's record was sad.

EDIT (16/Aug/2012): I missed it, but the CSM is having a Town Hall.   Which I can't make, because I already have a commitment for this Saturday.  Sigh.  More than three days warning would be nice.

EDIT (16/Aug/2012): Four days warning, not three.  Sorry about that.  Still, it's not the two weeks warning CSM6 provided, nor the month's warning (along with a schedule of upcoming meetings) that CSM5 provided.


  1. Supers are a flawed concept, but CCP is beyond the point of no return.

    You put those CSM duders inline there Jester. :D

  2. Be neat to see if the average player is space rich and where that came from.

    Alliance income supports ship replacment programs. If i did not need to pay for battle cruiser losses i would be a lot closer to affording a supercap I could risk. Just keeping in t1 combat battle cruisers is a struggle for me.

  3. It really makes you wonder when was the last time any of the CSM members had to actually PVE to pay for a PVP loss. After reading the minutes one really does get the feeling that these "players elected to represent the players" have no understanding of, and just a bit of contempt for anyone who does not have a large alliance showering them with isk.

    1. What in the WORLD are you talking about? Probably 95% of my isk in the game has come from mission running, the other 5% is my drug manufacturing hobby. So yeah, this idea that the CSM is all a bunch of spacerich a**holes just isn't true.

      My opinions on supercaps are limited by the first-hand experience I have with them. I've spoken extensively about how they influence capital usage in low sec, and how I'd love to see less supers around keeping normal capitals docked. On the other hand, I'm not about to step out and advocate for banning / nerfing all the supers and piss on someone else's game play because it cramps my style.

      Highsec the supers are a non-issue, which leaves the primary proliferation problem as a 0.0 issue. It's only appropriate to let the CSM members that live in 0.0 and understand the fleet makeup out there to testify to how supers are or aren't dooming the game through their existence. It would be irresponsible of me to run around saying nerf all the titans and nerf all the supers cause I heard some stuff about them being bad, especially when they're one of the few things that super longterm EVE vets have access to that us newer folk do not.

      This is not to pass the buck on anyone else, I'm all ears on this issue, and anyone's free to convince me that supers are still destroying EVE in their current form. I just dont subscribe to the idea that players having lots of isk or stuff is inherently bad, its all in how that wealth can be applied.

      TL,DR: I'm space poor and really don't care if you're space rich. What bothers me is when you can wipe it around in my face without any chance of defence. I'd prefer a tactical solution (like a lowsec limited-use cynojammer) than just arbitrarily nerfing incomes or destroying a fleet role that is valuable to someone else in another area of the game.

    2. You say super proliferation is a 0.0 problem while simultaneously saying (correctly) that they limit cap usage in low-sec. So I hate to break it to you, but it ain't just a 0.0 issue. You're involved.

      I'm curious: how would you feel about limiting supers to 0.0 only? It's a kludge, but it seems to solve a few problems, notably their legendary mobility.

    3. That wouldn't keep them from coming from the other side of the galaxy in 0.0

      The issue is that you can't engage supers, or even use capitals, when you know your opponent has the ability to drop supers almost instantly. This was an issue that was blatantly obvious during the nulli/PL conflict, where nulli essentially could not deploy capitals because PL could instantly escalate to a level that Nulli couldn't respond.

      At current levels, it also means that the disparity between large and small alliances can only grow. Large numbers of supers give you the upper hand on the battlefield ANYWHERE in new eden, so you're effectively undefeatable. Someone with a smaller super fleet can't engage because they know they will lose, and as a result the already richer, more powerful entity can only get more so without any threats to its dominion.

      And Hans, don't you think there's a conflict of interest regarding the super issue, when all the 0.0 CSM members have their own (likely multiple) supers? If you, the other CSM members not involved in 0.0, don't speak out for those of us that don't have hundreds of billions available to us, then who will?

    4. Isn't the problem that the people you are talking about are alliance warfare experts and talk about supers in that context?

      If all that matters in 0.0 are sov alliances, fuck it do away with NPC space. Frankly I find the whole 'I can't talk about what I don't play' line from CSM members a cop out.

      Isn't it part of your role to challenge received wisdom? Otherwise CSM members are just going to push for what's good for their style of play, not the overall experience.

      Isn't EVE a single shard? Can't the CSM start taking that into account?

      I will say it's rather telling it's taken a blog post to draw CSM members out.

    5. You know Hans, I do want to specifically apologize to you for that. I threw that out there without getting specific. I do know that you mission and like the rest of the militia are space poor. I was thinking more of the traditional top 7 when I said "any of the CSM" and yes I know that the whole "top 7" is really not even a thing anymore but I'm still not used to thinking of the CSM in non-alternate terms yet. I like that it's not that way anymore, just an old mental habit of mine.

      So yea, I was not clear in that sorry.

      Now I agree with you on suppers (for the most part) and I don't expect you to be spearheading that anyway. We got FW issues that need addressing first (so stop reading this and get back to work:) but I am concerned that there is a disconnection with many of the other CSM members to how wealth is flowing through the game. Mainly that others have to worry about their isk flow. Now like you I also agree it's the application of player wealth that is a problem, but I've read and heard too many CSM members mention "too musk isk" in game, when in fact the problem is too much concentrated isk in game.

    6. You're not breaking anything to me Jester, of course they affect low sec (I've lost both Nidhoggurs and a Naglfar to super blobs), which is exactly why I've shared my opinion on them at the summit and why I've said that they were *primarily* a problem affecting 0.0, not *solely* a 0.0 problem. Two Step is right though - they are being deployed less, even Pandemic Legion has been loath to deploy in low sec after the Faction Warfare pilots ganked their Titan. They're probably to afraid to be humiliated by the militia again, which was the point of that operation to begin with.

      As for limiting supercaps to 0.0 only, I'd be thrilled if this were the case. There would than be a natural progression - highsec which has no capitals at all, lowsec where you can build and operate conventional capital ships, and 0.0 where you can build and operate supercapitals. It's silly that you aren't allowed to build supers in lowsec, but its perfectly acceptable to operate them.

      If the nullsec alliances need low sec for transport purposes, I'm perfectly amendable to them being able to cyno around low sec, but not actually deploy fighter-bombers or activate modules, something along those lines. It's not that different than being able to move Titans but not activate doomsdays in low sec.

    7. Hell with that, I'd say keep them out entirely. You build your super in 0.0 and you move it through 0.0 systems exclusively. Buying a super on the other side of the galaxy? Great. Hope you have one HELL of a cyno chain.

    8. I'm glad we both agree that's the way it should work.

      Implementing a change like this isn't going to happen without resistance of course, there's no point in sugarcoating it. We named names in the minutes for a reason.

      The good news is that even if I can't outnumber those on the council that own supers and disagree, thankfully I have as direct a line to CCP as they do so the developers at least have a good understanding of how supers affect "the rest of us".

      About the only thing I won't do though is go to that place where I resent older players for owning these ships or for defending their right to use them, when I haven't walked in their shoes or seen what good they bring or don't bring to the game and community.

      And sure, some will call it a cop out. But that's what exactly what being a "single shard" rep means to me personally, being willing to carefully consider how a change affects those that live outside your playstyle. I can disagree with someone like Elise Randolph and acknowledge his stake in the debate without refusing to continue engaging him in constructive dialogue.

      One important lesson my CSM experience has taught me though - if you stop engaging anyone that you think is biased in some way, you quickly find yourself with no one to talk to. I respect the fact that you at least acknowledge your own pair of lenses through a handy disclaimer at the top of your blog and admit that it's a rather sad affliction you are trying to escape. Not many are so self-aware.

    9. The header text informs nearly every single one of my posts. A lot of people forget that.

  4. The super elite club - that is the minority that owns the majority of Supers is irrelevant to the majority that can't get into the gang.
    I get that you perceive a serious problem, I understand the background and realise that there is little to threaten this lil cardre - but what's the rush? why you need to burst this bubble now? Are you tired of waiting for the tools to tackle them?
    Why are't you keeping stum, biding your time, scouring the patch notes for anything that you can use to ride this?
    I'm not a betting man but you can still win on a hobby horse against high-horses and nightmares if you chose the right track.

    1. I'm not sure I understand this comment. Can you clarify?

    2. He says "wait and hope CCP gives us something to fix it without meaning to"

    3. Essentially yes, what Planetary Genocide said.
      Except it not so much of a hope as an inevitability and fortune favours the prepared mind. What's the rush? prepare for the break and exploit it.

  5. So, wait. The response to a post pointing out that the CSM is clearly out of step with the player base got a response from a CSM member arguing over what amounts to trivia?

    Could you have asked for a better illustration of your point?

  6. Lets say production of the OTEC cartel is 400 technetium moons. To even up their production of platinum technite, you would need to set up 2000 dual-reaction large POSes. Reality is that alchemy-based production of platinum technite can increase the output by perhaps 10%, 15% tops. Now that would be some private entrepreneurs trying to make some cash, not a organized single unit.

    What will happen and is happening right now is that guys producing plat tech off alchemy will adapt to the price dictatorship, and the value of input materials will just go up according to the dictated price of output. Thats all whats going to happen. It is basic economics ... wheres the nerf?

    1. To be fair, I believe alchemy was changed from a 20:1 ratio of alchemy:tech moons to a 10:1 ratio.

      That said, I believe the rest of your points are valid. I'd add one more: it's clear that someone out there is trying to manipulate the price of cobalt (the alchemy precursor to tech) and is only being partially successful so far.

    2. 1 technetium moon = 200 platinum technite

      1 reaction = 20 platinum technite

      10 reactions = 5 POS if you build them just for that.

      About that manipulation: Try to calculate your profit percentage on reacting cobalt into platinum technite. You will see for yourself that the price of cobalt is hugely under "fair profit" values and will grow up (or, what I dont expect, plat tech can go down in value).

  7. Jester you're being somewhat disingenuous.

    'The problem with them is that they're freakin' impossible to blow up unless you have "16 or 17 Titans."'

    That's not quite true. The original discussion was that 50 Super-carriers is an I-WIN button, as they're impossible to kill due to RR. The suggestion is that 16-17 Titans should be able to break through that level RR and still kill the super-carriers.

    For anybody contemplating getting involved in a fight with 50 supercarriers - 16 or 17 Titans shouldn't be a problem.

    Having said that I agree that there's a problem in the game, but I think the numbers as much a symptom than than problem itself. How do new alliances "grow-up" and disturb the status-quo?

    Supers have the problem that you can't build them without sov, and you now can't gain sov without supers. This makes it incredibly hard for somebody to build up a sov-owning alliance without first working with an existing one.

    Add to this that current game design means that those with money now can use that money more easily to control the resources to make more money - eg the rich are getting richer. That said, even if you change that, there's still the issue of "old-money".

    1. I know it seems this way, but I'm not being disingenuous, not really. Say you see and tackle only one Aeon. Super-caps are so concentrated in the hands of a few right now that 50 super-caps are likely to appear the moment you have that Aeon tackled to save it.

      That's the major problem with super-caps.

    2. Counterpoint: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/21/battle-report-fatal-ascension-wyvern-loss/

    3. THIS!
      that and hot drops on anything that moves. Been in roam in frigate gangs with only 15 t1 frigs and get hot droped over and over. It is just silly.
      (they don't actually catch many but still....hot dropiing should take more... saving a carrier should take more.

    4. The major problem is that super-cap owners have friends? Or that super-cap owners can cyno/jump/bridge into systems really quickly?

      What is the major problem? You've not made this clear.

    5. Both of those are major problems. Supers can be used without limit as to their numbers and are nearly impossible to kill without more supers. That's a major problem. Supers can cross the entire galaxy in a matter of minutes. That's a second problem.

      Anon1022, I was two jumps away when that Wyvern died. He self destructed in 90% shields when FA had 100+ in system, more than 2/3 of Syndicate could put on the field. They probably could have saved it at any time. That isn't evidence, that was just stupidity on FA's part.

  8. Townhall was announced almost a week in advance. World doesn't revolve around you Jester, keep up with the rest of us.

    Also, the CSM made our desire for tech to be balanced. Maybe you should read the minutes more closely than looking for quotes you can take out of context to prop up your readership. Lot of good stuff in there.

    Still waiting for you to answer Seleene, Arydanika, and myself about appearing on a podcast to see if you can say any of this stuff with a straight face.

    1. The Townhall may have been decided a week ago, but it was announced Tuesday evening. Check the timestamps on the EVE-O posts.

      I read the minutes, twice. Specifically, I've read both the section starting on page 46 and the section starting on page 85. Perhaps the minutes are very poor in this regard, but immediately after the CSM's strongest statement about tech is made (middle of page 47), CCP Unifex appears to immediately derail the conversation. Soundwave says they're putting this off, and I was surprised that there's nothing in the minutes demanding that it be set as a higher priority. CSM6 was pushing on this for a year.

      I haven't seen an EVE mail or an e-mail about a podcast?

    2. Twitter, comments on your blog posts, and the podcasts themselves. But I'll EVE mail you some scheduling details as you request.

    3. I, too, am cursed with a memory that functions. Last time Ripard posted a thread griping about the townhall he admitted he didnt even listen to the second half of it. Don't assume he's willing to be thorough and fully listen to a podcast before he whines about it.

    4. Fact check alert. Here's the post Anon0932 is talking about. Decide for yourself when I stopped listening and why.


    5. Oh, and podcasts are the one EVE communication that I generally don't follow. Twitter might become a second. The must-respond-now factor combined with the 140-character factor nearly always promotes adversarial back-and-forths with both sides misunderstanding each other that I'm simply not finding productive. I very nearly deleted my account a few weeks ago for that reason.

  9. Really, Jester, methinks you need to take a stress pill.

    Everyone on the CSM (and at CCP) agrees that there is a "tech" problem, and that it's just a special case of the "moon problem". The only debate is on how much development resources are going to be allocated to this and other problems, such as the problem.

    We will know more after the planning meetings for Winter are completed. In the meantime, the alchemy changes were put in because they could be done in the short term (and would have to be done anyway in the long term).

    1. As I stated above, alchemy doesn't do a thing except more firmly stratify who's going to hold tech. At 14 billion/month, maybe someone would be willing to start a fight over a tech moon. At 7 billion/month, not so much.

      What aggravates me about this topic is that CSM7 seems to feel that "kicking the can down the road" is bad for Titans (where key members have a vested interest, natch) but it's apparently perfectly OK for this.

    2. Nobody has ever claimed that Alchemy will solve the tech problem. It is only one of a series of steps that must be taken (and adjusted) in order to take a stab at solving it. It was, however, something that could be done over the summer, so it was.

      The point was to put a soft-cap on tech prices in the short term, so that naughty people would be limited in their ability to distort the market. The exact count of how many tech moons incredibly rich groups A, B and C have is irrelevant, and not the point of the change.

      It should be obvious that "fixing" super caps (or nullsec for that matter) cannot be done except in the context of changes that make it possible for groups that do not have huge blobs (either conventional or supercap) to hold space (or more precisely, to exploit it). Until steps are taken in that direction, it's just a game of whack-a-mole.

      I am limited in what I can say because of NDA, but go re-read the minutes with that fact in mind. I particularly commend to you those sessions that featured your favorite whipping boy, CCP Greyscale.

    3. Now granted, there's an :18months: in the interim, but alchemy was mentioned as a fix 15 months ago. And it's clear that once the trigger was pulled on alchemy, it took about a month to implement, if not less. It's VERY disheartening to hear that despite this topic being hugely on the radar since last May, literally nothing has been done except vague planning.

      I am cursed with a memory that operates. I therefore remember that silly little whiteboard with future null-sec plans... around which apparently nothing has been done. And around which we can expect nothing to continue to be done for at least another year.

      If I WERE ever selected to the CSM, the temptation to throw Greyscale out a high window at our first meeting would be nigh overwhelming.

    4. Talk is cheap.

      If this is really that important to you, you'll run for CSM, get elected, go under the NDA, get a better understanding of the circumstances and constraints, and then show the rest of us just how much of a Dunning-Kruger effect we're laboring under.

      Until then, keep in mind what I said repeatedly at the summit -- "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

    5. Yeah well, I'll point out that there two major reasons I didn't run this year: I was worried about the NDA impact on my blog, and I didn't have a strong compelling reason TO run.

      You guys might have given me the latter.

    6. So ultimately what's more important to you Jester, working to improve the game? Or being able to blog about the failed efforts of those who ARE working to improve the game?

      Do you really think you'll make more of an impression on the developers through angsty blogging than engaging them in direct conversation as a representative?

      And what would the NDA limit? You can blog about anything that's public info, whether you know more to the story or not. It wouldn't restrict you from publishing anything you can already publish today...

    7. http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2012/01/decision.html

      The very questions I was struggling with in January. If I ran and won, though, I'd get 52 more posts a year out of it: "This week in the CSM..." Even if I posted "Nothing much happened this week", you guys could hold me accountable for that.

  10. We gave you 5 days notice on the townhall, not 3. We tweeted, we posted *two* threads, on in general discussion, one in Jita Park.

    You also left out my response to your response...

    I don't use supers, I think I saw my first titan up close maybe 2 years ago. I am relying on the CSM members who are living in nullsec and fighting supers, and if they aren't screaming loudly about a nerf, you should be talking *to* them.

    I'm only blogging about stuff I know things about, and I have stirred up enough trouble with POSes, so I will leave supercap nerfing to someone else.

    1. The thread on the EVE-O forums is dated the 14th. I thought it was later on the 14th, but yeah, it's four days, not three. But it's not a week, and it's not five days.

      And it certainly isn't two weeks, which was CSM6's standard warning of a fireside chat. And it wasn't a meeting schedule posted months in advance, which was CSM5's. You guys can't just get together one night and say "guys, we should have a town hall this weekend."

      There's a damned good reason why I'm not talking to the CSM members that use supers.

    2. I'd love to know that damned good reason.

      If I bought a supercap tomorrow, would you stop talking to me as well?

    3. Because they're clearly and obviously biased, or are unduly influenced by players that are.

  11. The CSM members are like the Mitt Romneys of the world, scared to release their tax returns for what we know we will find

    1. I'm closer to the Ron Paul of the CSM! :-)


    2. I would happily authorize CCP to release stats on my gross income per month, average wallet amount at any given time (its less than 1 billion), and number of supercapitals owned / purchased on all 4 of my accounts (answer: zero). I got nothing to hide.

      Like I said, I'm definitely the poorest CSM member and have no shame in this. But this lack of wealth and lack of supercap ownership is also why I'm not quick to judge those that have both. Like I said, it would be irresponsible of me to advocate something like a stat nerf without ever having flown one in a fleet. The exception would be the low sec usage restrictions, of course, but even there I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that these ships matter to players as much as any other, and not make reckless recommendations that will damage gameplay in other areas of space that are based solely on my own experience with them as a victim.

    3. @Hans - you might consider your position to be admirable, but your fellow, and past, CSM members do not share it. They have no problem with advocating sweeping changes to high sec, WH space, mining ops, and other aspects of the game, in which they have little or no personal experience.

      You were elected to represent the player base, as a whole - not a specific minority group, of poor pilots who don't own/fly supers. Your input on rich wallets and super caps is just as valid, and necessary, as the input from any other member of the CSM - particularly as a counter-balance to those who obviously have a personal bias and cannot look at the issue objectively.

      If you cannot shoulder such a responsibility, then please step down and let one of the CSM alternates take your seat.

      Thank you.

  12. i always got the impression, when i was a n00b that titans were very difficult to maintain...maybe i misunderstood the ccp blather.

    i think super capitals and titans should need maintenance. say, 1/10th the cost of building it? i dunno...i just think that having a huge blob of supercaps/titans would be impossible for any alliance no matter how big.

    1. It's an idea that gets tossed around occasionally, but unfortunately it wouldn't work. A super-cap maintenance cost would be trivial for an alliance that has hundreds of them while being simultaneously crippling for an alliance that has four.

      Evidence: big alliances take and pay sov costs for entire regions even though they have no interest or intent in using most of the systems. They only take them so they'll get an automated warning if a POS is established there.

  13. two step isn't the brightest bulb on the tree. He's a capable blue-collar worker who understands that certain bolts need to be turned on the machine in order to make it work. But he doesn't understand the mechanical engineering or strength of materials that underly the "why" of what makes those bolts important. His understanding of things is rather pedestrian, shallow, and superficial. I guess every CSM needs its useful idiot, and he serves adequately in that role.

    1. True enough.

      And, every CSM needs its utterly useless idiot and Alekseyev Karrde certainly fills that role. Talk about a dim bulb... lol.

    2. Oooh oooh! My turn! I'm going go with......Trebor as my object of ridicule. :) That guy is totally senile and doesnt belong on the CSM, he's way too old to be doing this, I'm sure he's been "grandfathered" in. BURNED!! That felt good. now I see the appeal.

      Who's next? Let's see how many base insults Jester will allow us to post on his blog while calling it "transparent discussion" as long as he's willing to let this drag out without moderating or challenging any of the ridiculous accusations the troll machine is littering this blog with.

    3. This isn't a forum. It's certainly not my job to police a bunch of anonymous commenters. Maybe if you posted your ridicule under your character names...

  14. Is anyone surprised the CSM is a wash this year after they picked the guy who came 7th to be chair and not the guy who came 2nd?

    It's very likely that next year fewer people will vote at all because it's become pretty clear the CSM will be remembered as the guys who brought us 1000s of words and no meaningful communication.

    The bar was raised last year for communication and it's pretty pitiful that the same people can't reach it this year.

    Please don't do any podcasts with CSM Jester as we seem to get more out of them in the comments on this blog than anywhere else.

    Two Step is the only CSM candidate who appears to really give a monkeys. Why, oh why, isn't he chair?

    1. I have to agree with you... Theoretical nitpicking of the rules of the thing or not, this CSM quite deliberately -refused- to choose the person the -people- felt second most appropriate to run the show, and instead chose Seleene. It's been a lame duck procession ever since, and quite frankly I think that even CCP knows it.

      Let's watch nothing productive happen in the CSM till CSM 8.

  15. seriously Jester, these days you're really TOO much paranoid.
    you see things where there's nothing.

    there's things missings and things too developped on the minutes, you know it, you wrote about it, like for the size of the first pannel.
    technium and supercap are less spoke of cause nerfs have been made, and lots of ideas are ready from last year.

    and for technium and alchemy it's cleary said on the blog ; "Our FIRST STEP in fixing the moon mineral [...]"
    they know it's not enough.

  16. I would love to see capitals and super capitals reworked so that they worked best when used together in a combined fleet. They also talked about changing the hot drop mechanic at one point. Among other things that I would like to see are the crops and fields that they spoke of previously.

    Things that have been mentioned:

    * Spool up time for capital/super capital jump drives that scales with distance and/or mass

    * Add mechanics to create a measure and countermeasure dialogue to lighting a cyno. (this might just be accomplished with the first idea thru the use of small hull subcap fleets to kill cyno ships)

    * Add diminishing returns to capital remote repairs, remove remote repair bonuses from super carriers (give them something else), allow triage carriers to rep sieged dreadnoughts.

    * Give Supercarriers and Titans a suite of abilities that can be used during a fight to increase the effectiveness of the ships under their command. Make them similar in function to the doomsday weapons, but they don't have to be damaging attacks either.

    1. "* Spool up time for capital/super capital jump drives that scales with distance and/or mass" This should have been a much higher priority for CCP as it's a nice (seemingly) quick fix for force projection that doesn't just crush supper cap owners yet brings balance for others.

  17. I almost want the game to add another security area to go with High, Low, and Null that slots between Low and Null. If Null wants their big huge NAPtastic Blob-Fest of maintaining the status quo....

    Then I want something that insulates it from the rest of Eve. A 0.0 area of space that doesn't allow jumb bridges, jumb drives are severely hampered, and mechanics that make it all but impossible to control an entire region. A place where smaller alliances can build crap, insulated from being hotdropped to death, and can actually incubate before trying their luck with the sharks. Sure, the big alliances can try to take it over, but they lose all of their force projection. Slot NPC Nullsec in with it and they can stop whining about it. Hell, add a couple static wormholes in solar systems that link to the current null that jump past the entire new area but only allow subcaps. I don't care.

    But if the huge nullsec power blocks want to continue on in the direction they are going that the rest of us think is horrible, then untether them from the parts of 0.0 the rest of us actually want to enjoy.

  18. I think that instead of Nerfing supercaps a better solution would be to create a better subcap counter to supercaps. A ship a bit like the stealth bomber but bigger and geared towards killing supercaps. Granted you would still need multiple of them to kill 1 supercap but it would at least make supercaps more vulnerable.


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