Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Tiericide

Avatar
The more supers there are the more that wil die when they do rebalance and they will die in very hilarious ways
Avatar
While I may agree that supers are horrible.... I fail to see how Fixing them last is "putting the cart before the horse" Why? Because it affects YOU more than frigates do? All ships need to be redone, most were horribly unused, whereas Supers do see at least some use. The Status Quo for supers while a malignancy is not the most pressing issue just because you didn't get to kill one.If their usage has fallen off as you say, then their imbalance is of less effect than it was, and that status can be maintained until a time when something may be done about them. And in that mean time, CCP may focus on something that has an effect on a broader base.Let me put it to you this way... If there are 5000 supers, lets say as many as 15,000 pilots capable of flying said supers, but there are what? 50,000 ALL of which can fly frigates? Which fixes have more far reaching effects?
Avatar
I agree that all ships need to be looked at, but super proliferation is allowing some alliances (mine included) to determine the (perceived) outcome of a sov war long before it starts. I like the capital tackle module idea, and I would go so far to say that supers need to be able to be tackled by normal subcaps. Possibly (this number is arbitrary) a built in 15 points of warp core stability? I think those two changes alone will see a lot more dead supers; though possibly even less super usage.
Avatar
This is a terrible article and the editor who gave it the green light should probably get a reprimand. CCP is doing the right thing by starting at the bottom, where there are the largest number of bad/useless ships and where changes will positively impact the largest number of players.
Avatar
Putting it simply, you're wrong.Changing smaller ships first is absolutely the correct way to go. Tiericide is a grand experiment, with the potential to completely change how ships are used in eve. With the changes coming in to T1 cruisers, they suddenly will make for quite nasty roaming gangs again. Giving pilots the option to fly 40M isk, insurable, hulls over 200M isk T2 hulls will go a long way to reviving roaming fleets and random battles.Trying to fix supers first will mostly affect null sec sov war, which frankly is and will be a numbers game for as long as sov stays the same. Changing the ship composition of that numbers game won't magically fix the joys of sov grind.Giving us cheap, pvp viable, cruisers and battlecruisers will give us something to do *other* than sov warfare.
Avatar
I really do hope that small gang warfare will be more popularized by cheaper ships in the low sp bracket. Having a lower entry barrier to viable ships is definitely a step in the right direction.
Avatar
Its called a super for a reason you know a anti super ship kinda takes the super away out of super ship now be a good reporter and find something else to whine about
Avatar
Super capital ships are not an issue as and off themselves. They are an issue at the moment because of their dominance in structure grinding ability, and that's an issue because of the sov system. If the entire sov system wasn't based around burning millions of EHP multiple times then the super's massive dps would no longer be a big issue.My suggestion for marginalising them is to make them into anti capital ships, and restore dreds to their place as structure grind kings. Buffing dred dps and nerfing super's dps vs structures encourages alliances to bring large capital fleets, which then become prey to supers, which should then become prey to sub caps, against which they can't defend themselves. For this to happen sub caps do need to have a better way of holding down supers, nerfing super damage to hictors would do the job well. There may need to be a new mechanic introduced to allow subcaps to weaken supercap's tank, or else a general nerf is in order but I believe this is the way forward.Of course structure grinding should only be one of multiple ways to take sov. Sure it can be the fastest, or most predictable and plannable strategy, but there have to be other options as well, which is where the sov rebalance comes in.
Avatar
I have a fix for your super problem without having to change the super at all and simultaneously insuring more supercaps die. Two new modules are introduced into the game the first is a Dreadnought class warp and jump inhibitor. It is placed on a dreadnought instead of the siege module. When engaged the dreadnought stops and becomes a brick tank but cannot utilize any weaponry. The second is an area bubble similar to a hic but instead is placed on a titan, it takes the place of a doomsday and creates a massive area bubble (100+ km). while active the titan cannot move and at the end of its cycle (15 minutes) the titan is out of capacitor.
Avatar
You completely miss the problem with super capitals - it's not that they grind structures really well (they do), its that they dominate any capital on the field given sufficient numbers. No one is going to field dreads if they know they'll get dropped on by 100 slavering supers as soon as they enter siege. Nor should they.
Avatar
If think it's kind of pointless to touch supers before the industrial and sov warfare overhaul happens. But this is how I can imagine changing the supers roles in the game.-maintenance cost (something like 1bill on supercarriers 3bil on titans per month)This way doesn't matter how many supers are in the game if an alliance can't keep up with the high maintenance cost. Unpaid supers should be useless (something like they can't fit moduls maybe only jump portal generator). It would also give the game a huge isk sink.-decreased production costIf the maintenance cost is the real limiting factor it should be easier to replace them with the proper industrial backbone. This way alliances would field them more against bigger numbers.-supers should be corp/alliance assets instead of personal assetsWhere everybody can fly them but only with granted roles or with authorization. Of course the personal supers wich are already in the game could stay the same way as they are. The owner should be able to use them to haul ships or bridging with titans but if they want to use them in combat roles they should pay the maintenance cost too.-docking on the modular POSSupers shouldn't disappear at logoffski. Never. But they should be able to dock on a pos. If someone is taking down that pos they could destroy the supers on it too. With this super's numbers would drop more drastically :DThis is a personal view feel free to trash it to do ground :D
Avatar
No offense... but the ability of your Alliance/Coalition to determine the outcome of a sov war long before it starts has much, much, much more to do with Broken Sov Mechanics than Supers. Super's exacerbate the main issue: Sov Conquering Mechanics are 100% centered around the alarm clock shooting of huge EHP structures. There are no strategic targets for guerrilla warfare, there are no tools that a smallish force can use to hinder / accelerate the process. Every Sov Level target is a huge structure, vulnerable at a specific time, and the winner of the Sov battle is completely based on your ability to stop a large fleet from destroying that structure.A Sov Revamp would benefit far more than adding a Capital tackle mod, although it would require a boatload more work!
Avatar
i think the premise here is all wrong. when building a game, a car, a whatever, you start with the end in mind. your market so to speak. who is it for? what will it do for them? a family that needs space for car seats and kids? a bachelor that wants to impress girls? then you build a product for that lifestyle.i think ccp is moving in the right direction here with small ships first. i think they've asked and answered the right question. tiericide is for their target customer. the newbie that pays. the old timers that want more pvp. more parity, more viable ships, more variety.i don't really see how fixing a mere ~4-5k ships of one type, that are already unused proportionally speaking, really does that for the majority of eve players.
Avatar
Giving supers the ability to tackle other supers would make things even more of a numbers game, and screw over the one with less of them completely. Sure, more would die but such a module would force supers to commit to fights until the other sides supers would be gone (destroyed or somehow escaping).A better solution would be to make HIC's more survivable against fighter bombers or whatever is killing them.
Avatar
This. This article resembles me of that CSM member (Seleene?) which said interesting stuff like "16, 16-17 to go through an Aeon. Not a lot." about titans while there seemed to be a consensus that EVE players are too rich. Pretty strange point of view...I've the impression that most highsec and wspace dwellers probably give a shit about capital proliferation, a lot of lowsec people, too, while there are hundred thousands of players (actually all but capital alts, trade alts etc.) who will fly the new hulls at some point.Additionally, I'll bet that a change to sov mechanics will need a further iteration of capital ships. So why waste any work on them before sov is changed? Let them gather dust for now and then do it right later.
Avatar
Also I'd argue since they are clearly using a new methodology to balance ships it's probably better that it be done with the cheaper, most similar and least used ships before doing it to the ones that could totally break the game if you get it wrong.An over powered frigate isn't going to cause alliances to die over night, an unbalanced super can.
Avatar
Why is this being a terrible article the editor's problem? Editors do spellchecking and some rudimentary fact checking, while this is clearly an opinion piece. Do you feel that this is not, in fact, Mr. Barnsy's opinion?I agree that CCP is doing the right thing, though.
Avatar
This is all wrong.1. Maintenence costs dont make sense, nor do they do anything other than make people rat more (a faucet) which will just be cancelled by the sink, completely pointless. 2. supercap production is already too high according to most people3. holy shit NO.4. They can't just have the ships not disappear when they log off, and last i heard the logoffski problem was pretty well fixed with the new aggression mechanics
Avatar
This is, by far, the most disappointing article i've seen on TM. 1st, as others have pointed out, starting rebalances from the bottom affects a far greater portion of the eve populace than vice versa. Ccp is here to improve eve for everyone, not just for you.2nd, this caters to newer players? In general I might agree but you act as though only new players fly smaller ships. Super cap blobs and carrier ratting aren't the only way to play dude.3rd, the biggest problem with supercap proliferation now is that supercaps HAVE proliferated. There was a very well written article on TM recently that explained how supercap production has dropped of severely. Great! However that has zero effect on existing supercaps and thete's no easy way to fix that. You're pretty naive to think that nerfing supers or making them easy to tackle will lead to more losses. No matter how hard you nerf them, no matter how easy you make them to catch they will always be multi-billion isk ships that took a huge effort to buil and are (now) difficult to replace. A big nerf would have the opposite of the desired effect right now. 50 supers isn't safe anymore? Ok, so we'll use 100 supers minimum at a time instead. This would further skew the sov balance towards whoever has the most.4th, merlin proliferation in fw? Please don't comment on subjects you clearly know nothing about. Merlins became fun and useful due to asb's and really had little to do with the rebalance. Slashers on the other hand are now one of the most common sights due to the rebalance. You should try it sometime, you might actually learn something aboit the game you write about.
Avatar
That's not true at all for technology. Funcionality always come first. No matter how much you need a small car with 20 golden seats no company in the world will build it for you. What CCP is doing now is fixing long date acumullated unballance issues that were cripling the game evolution. Of course they will get to nullsec and capital ships eventually. I belive that to fix the part that affects the most players first and is indeed the right way to go. Consider this: all capital pilots can fly T1 ships, how many T1 pilots can fly capital ships?
Avatar
I see a bit of what you're saying, but you've failed to notice one thing: CCP heavily nerfs things and later will buff them until they are acceptable. The same happened to hybrids, and it will happen to capitals. The simple fact is that there are more frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships in use than there are capitals. So it makes sense that they'd focus on those first, rather than catering to the upper tier right away. This makes sense even from a business standpoint, because new players that are coming in aren't going to see those capitals until they've been established as an Eve regular. What they are going to see is these small ships which are hugely imbalanced as of current. They need incoming players to feel that the game is fun in order to further expand their business.
Avatar
I agree. I would much rather have CCP work their way up to fixing supers. By the time they've tweaked BCs, BSs and carriers they'll have a much better idea of what works and what doesn't. If they had started on supers they almost certainly would have fucked it up.
Avatar
Frankly, CCP spent a good year focused on supercap balancing. Is it not time they focused on the little things? Supers affect a very small proportion of EVE and frankly supercap balancing in my opinion is the best it's ever been. It's time CCP focused on the non-sov warfare areas of EVE combat.The supercap tackle mod, while perhaps initially tantalizing, is actually a terrible idea. If you had a supercap tackle mod on other supers, you would essentially give the larger super fleet invulnerable tackle platforms. As a result, supercaps would NEVER escape a loss situation and thus, NOBODY would use supers unless they had absolute, unquestionable supercap superiority. The effects to supercap combat would be fatal.
Avatar
Remove the immobility aspect of Siege Mode. Make it even harder for dreads to hit moving targets but a lot easier to hit huge targets(so they hurt supers more and everything below less).There, fixed dreads, supers, and target painters in one fell swoop.
Avatar
Tiericide is a fantastic initiative that is long overdue. Starting from the bottom and working up is just common sense. ( Not to mention that Titans and Supers have already been " Balanced " 3 or 4 times in the last 3 years and are considered worse as a result ).The Super ( and cap ships overall ) problem has it's root cause in industry. The pathetic lack of iteration on CCP's part, the horrible null and low sec industry mechanics, the list is near endless. The problem genuinely has nothing to do with compression, it has to do with lack of development. How is it possible to use high sec ore to build a ship that can only be built in sovereign null ? The same can be asked of caps in general. Why is so much high sec T1 ore required for ships that can only be flown in LS and Null ?Nerfing compression will only make a bad situation worse and furthermore it's a pathetic and sleazy cop-out on CCP's part to just be lazy instead of fixing the root cause of the problem.W space is the model they need to look at for solutions. In order to build T3's you have to be fully invested in running sites, harvesting materials, invention, reacting. Supers, as their name implies, should require alot more effort than just adding mins bought off the market in hs and dumped in a csaa. Spawn a new ore in the belts, and super spawn it in gravs that replaces trit and pye on all cap bpo's and voila, solution. No more whining about hs afk miners, mega buff to null sec industry, problem solved.What to do with the overwhelming number currently in existence ? My vote would be delete and refund the mins to people's hangers and start fresh. But i think we all know how that would go over.
Avatar
While i know it will probably never happen, and would split the player base. I'd hop on board a eve 2.0 server that started over from scratch. They could enact any balancing they wanted prior to prevent some of the issues from occurring again, and we could find new ones. Supers are an issue to people that still care about null sec. Alot of people have written it off as not worth the effort and are looking for things to do elsewhere. Its much easier and almost as entertaining to live vicariously though eve news sites than live in nullAt once point I heard talk of lowering the skill requirement of dreads to racial BS4. If they did that along with lowering the mineral requirements for dreads, people might bother to field them in numbers great enough to whelp into super fleets. Of course they would have to fix Citidal torps (I always liked the idea of each torp having a warp drive, and after a second align, instantly doing damage!)
Avatar
To be fair, there are some basic facts that are wrong. For example, stating that fighter-bombers can "easily alpha" hictors and dictors, which is just flat-out not true.
Avatar
So the main idea is: PL is the only ally that should be allowed to fly supers. Nice one.
Avatar
Answer to super caps.... Citadel Bomb launcher attached to nag's and phoenix's there is your answer. Base it off of sig radius where its only effective on capitals and semi effective on battleships and super effective on super caps.
Avatar
I kind of half agree. Working from the bottom up is a good design decision, especially since they're rebalancing everything so thoroughly, but I also agree that more supers need to die, and even a small alleviation against them would be to the game's benefit until CCP gets around to them sometime in the next decade.
Avatar
I didn't have time in the article to go through the need to balance the increased tackle risk with increased rewards for the supers, making them essential for sov or something of the like.An anti-cap ship is just an idea among many.
Avatar
Why did you start playing EVE? For the small frigate, or because of talk of massive space battles involving huge ships? If null sec stagnates (which is starting to happen) then EVE stagnates. CCP cannot address one player group without addressing another, something the CSM's latest document clearly explains.
Avatar
Not a terrible idea! It would actually make dreads scary for supercaps (and useful).
Avatar
They would be, if you could get 1 or 2 thousand capitals in one system.Getting that many in one system would have a ton of issues, for instance getting that number of pilots in subcaps is damn rare.
Avatar
You're missing the point, and still not acknowledging the unintended consequences of making supers easier to kill that people are pointing out to you. Making supers easier to kill will make supers easier to kill (duh), but it does not mean more will die, that is simplistic. Changes don't happen in a vacuum. When something becomes easier to kill, it is more risky to use it, so it will be used less often, and with more discretion. The increased risk would have to be offset by increased usefulness and/or decreased difficulty/cost of replacing them.As the same time, just as changes don't happen in a vacuum, ships aren't used in a vacuum either (pun not intended). What are supers used for? Sov warfare. What's been on the block for a major overhaul for a couple of years now? Sov warfare. It would make much sense to not expend resources on supers until the mechanics of sov warfare and how supers will fit into them are better understood. Meanwhile, there are dozens of hulls already in the game that hundreds of thousands of players can fly, but are either unused or only see limited gimmick use, that are getting tweaked. This will open many new opportunities to more people for creative combat on a daily basis, to say nothing of industrial and economic play. Really, how often do you get to fly your super or titan?In the end, more variety, flexibility and viability in easy to get into hulls will attract and retain way more players, while (arguably) broken sov mechanics and purpose built ships will at worst side-line a couple thousand accounts until things change or improve.
Avatar
A somewhat simpler angle to take on supers is this.Supers are and will remain for the foreseeable future far too expensive and difficult to replace to bring out for "goodfites". People bring supers to make a point. That point is "leave this space". You field trillions of ISK worth of supers and titans because you know the other party can do nothing about it except throw their (smaller) super fleet into the meat grinder to lose it all and hope to, at best, exchange 1 for 1.Thus, making supers easier to kill doesn't do anything, except make a less well super endowed party less likely to bring them to a fight at all.
Avatar
Woah when people who do not own either a titan or a super talk about them it makes me wanna cry. Because they have no fucking clue.. We pay subs for accounts we rarely ever use just for the "joy" of grinding structures or bridging fleets these days and there are people talking about supers being overpowered? Are you nuts? You realize that supers/titans can not affect subcaps in any meaningful way. And if your alliance or coalition is already losing the subcap fight you wont go and throw in supers to turn it around because you will likely lose them. Supers get only called on if the enemy decides to escalate because the subcap fight is even or they are losing. And at that point you drop the hammer to either restore balance or turn the tide in your favor. The age of supers is already long over. We now have 100b ships (titans) collecting dust. Do they need a rebalanced? SURE but not before CCP made up their mind what they want supers and Titans to be because right now CCP has no clue.
Avatar
Tell me more about your vast experience with flying supercarriers.
Avatar
Supercaps would be made much better if tackling them was easier.I'd like to see them used in a similar way to the Persian Immortals or Napoleon's Guards: committed to battles only when desperate, with the expectation of taking serious casualties. Supers should only find it easy to leave the field when their enemies are dead or fled.
Avatar
" (the the proliferation of Merlins in faction warfare" ok that's on the editor for sure.
Avatar
Remote ecm burst? Another cool story.
Avatar
This article is indeed shit. Bunch of crap presented as facts (HICs/DICs gettingalphaed by fighter-bombers is just bullshit). smaller ships getting rebalanced first is not so much catering to the noobs, but trying to renew interest in ships that have been previously superceded by the higher tier ships. Tiericide is good, m'kay?
Avatar
supers don't die, which is what leads to rediculous things like fleets full of just supers. Give supers the ability to fit a focused point. Supers being able to hold supers.
Avatar
Going along with what you're saying; by starting with smaller ships, CCP (hopefully) is renewing interest in using smaller ships in fleets where they will be less effected by supercapitals... and hopefully the focus will be more on roaming gangs instead of sov bashing.
Avatar
What exactly do you mean by this? Ccp hasn't followed some sort of formula for this rebalance as you seem to imply. Fozzie has tweaked stats on some ships, completely reworked others, invented new roles, and added new hull. "What works" so far has been just about anything to make each and every hull both balanced and useable.
Avatar
Isn't this what Titans are supposed to be used for, to kill Supers. Oh wait, they can't, since they don't get used much anymore either!
Avatar
Tell me more about how Dreadnaught class vessels are useless. :allears:
Avatar
Only lasts a few seconds.
Avatar
Since one of the key goals of tiericide is making the game more enjoyable for newcomers and streamlining progression of players overall, why the hell would you start at the top? Seems backwards as hell. Also since you do not even know fully what their plans are for the higher tiers, and some work is still in progress, isn't this article 'putting the cart before the horse?'
Avatar
Regardless of your stance on supers, this is a pretty nothing article. Almost nothing of note in it, and its kind of boring and repetitive, we've heard it all before.
Avatar
You are completely wrong on the issue of Supercapitals [Edit: actually, the article is taking a non-idealized but pragmatic stance]. Supercapital pricing and attributes place them completely beyond the sole consideration of subcapital skill point, slot assignment, and stat progression. These are, until structures are revisited, completely separate issues.Supercapital tanking attributes and bonuses are assigned nearly arbitrarily; Titans and Motherships, much like the Dreads and Carriers before them whose tanking stats have changed by a factor of +10x since their initial inception, were continual targets for waves of emergency-level balance and mechanic fixes. Nothing about their history suggests their piloting mechanics or roles in combat were given serious consideration and theorycraft before launch. The one notion pilots can generally agree upon with regards to the evolution of Supers in EvE is that their creators either completely missed the mark on defining their role or simply kept adding hitpoints and damage stats / bonuses until CCP marketing decided they were sexy enough to keep pilots subscribed for the years necessary to fly them.Whoever decided to throw ships into the game with upwards of three-thousand times the EHP of a sensibly-tanked battleship (30m / 100k) while giving them less than thirty times a sensibly-fitted battleship's damage throughput (16k / 600) is an idiot (these numbers attempt only to grapple order of magnitude). A theoretical solo Titan vs Titan fight lasts more than a hundred times longer (3k / 30) than a similar subcap duel. Wonderful -- let's throw more time-eating punching bags into this already-slow sov game, shall we?Where it may once have been possible to consider Titans anti-subcapital-swarm death devices, the experiences and lessons of multiple Great Wars have guided their developers to push them into the roles of structure grinders and capital deterrents--roles so hideously boring and (when compared to subcapital, Dread, and Carrier slugfests) straightforward that their Crayola-quality balancing doesn't affect warfare as adversely as it once did. This current state of affairs does not address the underlying nonsense Supercapital attribute numbers.Supercapital balancing needs to occur not alongside subcapital reworks, but rather with the mechanic tied more intimately with supers: sovereignty. Regardless of alliance affiliation, Nullsec residents would likely tend to agree that the hitpoints of SBUs, POSses, iHubs, TCUs, and Stations are completely random. There is no progression as you see in subcapitals: a new pilot's theoretical damage throughput and tanking values start small and progress in a remarkably predictable manner with relevant skill points.There is currently no similar progression in sov warfare. The hitpoints and defensibility of structures are jumbled when compared to the typical path of war: shooting valuable starbases, dropping SBUs, shooting iHubs, and closing with shooting TCUs and stations. To fix sov warfare, a progression needs to be established: valuable POSses and customized homes-in-space, as the opening chapter in sov warfare, need to become the small-yet-inconsequential objectives important enough only to attract the focused attention of small parties. TCUs and iHubs need to be mildly-defensible, mildly-tanked objectives for non-strategic alliance ops. If a system attracts enough attention to generate a TCU or Station timer, their hitpoints and defensive abilities need to reflect their importance.As a tangent, making the entry level of sov warfare (system upgrades, valuable moons) progressive and thus attainable by small parties permits groups like HUN or Pizza to bring their harassment of, in this example, TEST to a whole new level. Suddenly, invincible coalitions need to actually give a fuck when pirates are in their space shooting the structure equivalents of frigates/cruisers and their angry owners. Little guys poking big guys in meaningful yet balanced ways.Titan and Supercarrier damage and hitpoints absolutely need to be considered in such a structure rebalance. Ideally, Titans and Supercarriers should themselves become objects defining the midpoint of health and defensability (damage output) between low-end and middle-range structures. Such a rework requires solid, tier-free mathematics in subcapital and Dread/Carrier progression -- and enough confidence in your mathematics to tell Super pilots why their health and damage is suddenly completely different. You cannot simply 'fix' Supers then subcaps then structures. The entire spectrum from frigates to Stations needs to be a continuum.
Avatar
The difference is right now the outnumbered can and have saved ships by clearing tackle. With this new change any ship you put on field would become certain losses against an enemy with superior supercap numbers.
Avatar
The biggest problem atm are not supers. The biggest problem are blobs. Supers used to counter blobs, now when they are nerfed it is Blob online. Imo Supers should get a bit of a boost (tracking wise) and i do agree that there would be a need of a more efficient way of tackling of supers.
Avatar
James315 finds the time to explain himself and back up his points. What editorial word-count limits were placed on you so you couldn't address these fundamental issues?
Avatar
As pointed out a few times by so many angry people, doing anything to supers isnt going to change anythinguntil you change the way SOV works and what roles each ship should have in that regard. No alliance orcoalition will just throw supers on the field and have them spanked to death because theres too manyof them. They'll all wait knowing there will be a SOV revamp at some point and then see what use the ships willhave, anythign else would be plain stupid. Really the only way CCP could change the way theyre increasingin numbers is to melt them at a set date(Galactic winds sweep through EVE blah blah. all jumpdrives goballistic and self destruct.) and then introduce the revamped SOV and capitals.As for revamping smaller ships first, it has to be done, CCP will have to find out how they want fleet compositionto be, where there will be clear breaks between fleet types etc. Then once they have a use for all ships , PVE orPVP, they can look into how the biggunz fit with that and where they want to go with them.Well my 2cents anyways
Avatar
"functionality is almost pointless in many cases..."How can that be true for technology? How can you even project something that doesn't function? Yes, you can build a car with 20 golden seats, but can you make it as fast as a ferrari? It's solid gold we're talking about here.The technology that allowed the flight to the moon was an iteration on existing technology not some extravagant sheik wish on a flying carpet. The world does not (because it can not) work like that. That type of technology will never be on demand longer than the time it takes for you to awake simply because it's fiction, it's unreal, not possible. In other words, it can't function.
Avatar
No, you completely miss the "problem". Dreads are quite potent SC-killers. What's stopping you from utilizing them is that you have to commit them and take losses against an overwhelming force on a gamble to inflict more damage. That does not match the aversive mentality of most players today, but it's also where many medium-scale actors stand out - because they have an opposing, infliction oriented, mentality steeped in cost-effect that so many other actors lack.Look at it like this: 1 SC cost as much as 10 Dreads. 100 Dreads cost as much as 10 SC. If you have 100 Dreads; even if your opponent have 100 SC; you only need to kill 11/100 to inflict more than you are afflicted.Most actors are just aversive to such risks and used to an environment that does not encourage it. They are used to flying ships that involve little risk, in ways that involve little risk.With the disparity in cost, SC should never have to commit in the same manner - we would just stop flying them as there would be other more cost-effective (provided you have the human resources for it) alternatives. In fact, many actors already do. The general public is just not aware of it yet.
Avatar
I forgot to add this: The root of the problem is that CCP themselves remain in some drug-induced land of pink cotton candy when it comes to cost-effect. This can be seen in their "tiercide and techside" of the smaller ships. Fozzie argued that a 30% performance advantage would still be appealing for a 1000% cost increase, based on the fact that it's an advantage. That is true, as long as other factors remain levelled.What he didn't consider, which is quite evident by trends in recent years, is that EVE have other resources. You can't balance ships with only one resource in mind, when there are multiple resources. You need to consider them all. A 30% performance advantage can be bridged by a 30% numerical superiority and then performance is levelled while cost-effect lie in massive disparity. The EVE community have figured this out years ago.So while there will still be groups flying Tech II after the redesign, same as they do now, they will not fly it anymore against other odds than they do now. It's not like people don't fly Tech II anymore, they just don't fly it against as many different actors. The end result is that a small Tech II gang will restrict it's target pool and not roam against more daunting odds. That too, is already happening. Almost everyone (even "elite PvP small gang roaming groups") are gravitating toward the bottom line of cost-effective Tech I ships with risk aversity and limited target pools (see bushido, good fights and space honour).We are adapting to CCP's 30% perspective by not interacting outside of our peers.The magic 30% appear when we interact with people who are similar to ourselves (and we construct unwritten laws or agreement to motivate and justify that position; that's what the Space Bushido is).If my opponent have a 1000% numerical advantage, it's pointless spending 1000% financial resources to bridge 3% of that gap. It's much better to just bottom out, hope for the larger group to invest ships you can inflict financial damage on or find someone with similar numbers.The root of almost anything wrong with ships these days is the financial balance (faucet, sink etc.), and the demands of the environment we put them in (LR scale better than SR so it gain popularity with numerical growth; it's Logic, damage scale with numbers, reach do not) - it's the performance of ships in a specific situation, not the performance in general. That also mean that CCP have come to design the game (and the ships) with specific situations in mind, which goes against a sandbox ideal: that assume multiple means to balanced goals.
Avatar
Is this to suggest that CCP should cater to veterans who for the most part, spend more time but less money on the game over the newer players who can rarely plex and have to spend cash as a business model gone wrong? If you think about what you've said, and need to make changes from the ground up... then focusing on smaller ships is of course ideal since quite frankly, there's more of them. Time/Money management has to come from the greatest impact to the game as a whole, and quite simply, there's not many supers in highsec.But there are thousands of smaller hulls floating around, regardless of security.Just because a super is that much bigger and more expensive, doesn't necessarily mean it's more important.
Avatar
Three for three - i'm on a faggotry rush.Just one tiny thing more i omitted: This can obviously be done in the opposite way, by matching the price of ships to the performance of ships (a 30% better ship, cost 30% more). What you need to consider then is the root again (faucet, sink). A ship that cost virtually nothing should have virtually no performance. The issue with the root is that we have plugged the sink. We have quite alot of ships with fair performance yet little to no associated cost.If we are to have an ISK-sink, ships would obviously need to cost ISK and losses be felt.ps. Get a forum, comment fields suck ;).
Avatar
Only problem is that ccp will keep on making these "tweaks" for years if people just eat it raw as actual expansions
Avatar
fuck you ... supers are ok ....
Avatar
And the smaller ships are used by everyone afaik.
Avatar
the smaller ships are not the trimming, supers are not the engine.just because you want super kills doesn't mean ccp is doing things wrong.
Avatar
i started playing for fighters to replace my bf2 experience. quite 2 times before i settled on frigs and small gang warfare in FW a few years ago. so i disagree. there are so many users that don't ever need to be in large fleet battles, and new users need a good experience to stay hooked into eve logn enough to get into large fleet null stuff if they want to.hate it all you want but CCP had to start somewhere, and i clearly think they started at the right end.
Avatar
"The attacking side has to sacrifice endless numbers of tacklers (no surprise that any super has a hull full of dictors and hictors) to keep their target tackled. Since fighter bombers can easily alpha the ships in question, it's supremely easy for them to escape."Stopped reading right there. Might want to spend more time playing the game and less time writing bad articles about it.
Avatar
As a moderator I agree with this POV. supers will get their turn under the spotlight. I'd rather be shitting around in cheapass cruisers not giving a fuck about what I lose and having fun. Make clones cheaper and no one will give a fuck about supers.
Avatar
How do you orbit outside of a 39.2k meta-14 neut's range with a 36k point?Let's go further and assume you aren't a complete idiot and realize that focus pointing massed remote ECM is essentially futile, and actually meant "bubble, orbit out of [x] range".This brings us to a second major issue in super tackling:Bubbles must enclose the center of a ship for it to be warp/jump disrupted. Module range (smartbomb, neut) is based on the distance to the hitbox of the ship. It is not possible for a light dictor to bubble outside the (meta-14) smartbomb range of a titan. It is very not possible for anything to bubble outside of (meta-14) neut range. In practice, when you are not dealing with one super but an irregularly shaped blob of supers even remaining in the incredibly narrow few km orbital band a bunch of shit fit T1 neut and smartbomb supers would leave you is effectively impossible.
Avatar
this is nonsense, and you're scrambling for new arguments now that other commenters have taken apart the reasons you gave for prioritizing supercap balance in the article. the huge supercapital ship battles shown in EVE trailers are a draw for many new players, but few players ever get into supercap fleets. many comments have already stated that the state of supercapital balance has no effect on most EVE players. by rebalancing subcapital ships, CCP has a chance to make the game more fun for the majority of paying subscribers, whereassupercapital balance may improve enjoyment of the game for a very small minority.it's true to some extent that nullsec life has stagnated, but this is a result of economic imbalance, not ship problems. the risk-reward for the pure nullsec player is absolutely terrible, and the money to be made in nullsec certainly doesn't offset the costs of maintaining sov. players can make more money with far less risk in empire, W-sec, and losec, and many nullsec alliance members maintain hisec alts solely to generate income. holding sov is an e-peen booster but there are no nullsec regions worth fighting over for resources; the only people fighting in nullsec are doing it for the sake of fighting. this is why you see few supercap losses and relatively few subcap losses compared to the game's major wars: no one is willing to commit hugely valuable assets to fighting over comparatively worthless territory.you'd see more supercap losses if anyone in nullsec were fighting a serious war instead of the slappy-fight skirmishes we see now. the rewards for taking sov are so close to nil (in fact the horrible grind of taking and holding large amounts of sov can easily demoralize an alliance) that there's no reason whatsoever to risk the game's most valuable ships.there are a lot of ways CCP could make it desirable to risk your alliance for ownership of a specific region. the region-specific cytoserocin booster ingredients represented smart thinking and they were a start in the right direction, but they're not even close to what's needed.
Avatar
u fkn retard..the reason supers dont die often is because people are afraid to used them.make them easier to tackle and they will be used even less.
Avatar
just thinking in real life terms concerning nations and military: 1. those who have more wealth will amass more super-weapons and have a more powerful army that can control the field. i.e. what chance did Iraq or Afghanistan really have against the combined western forces? Its not a matter of fair or imbalancing... so in eve, those who can get super caps will do so and expand their military might. 2. The problem with Super-weapons (or any weapon for that matter) in real life is that they get out dated... perhaps this should be so in eve if the game is to persist for 20+ years (here's to the future friends!!) Such a system might involve having to get upgrade kits when 'new technology' enhances a ship i.e. Nyx Mk II. Or out right having to scrap heap ('send to the space museum') the old super cap and get a brand spanking new one. This may force alliances (and blocks) to have a periodic outlay. TBH this seems faaaarrrrr to intricate but its the only real reason why super-powers in real life can't simply stock up on powerful weapons, because those weapons eventually become out-dated.

BACKGROUND

A significant part of any management program is based on knowing all the variables that can affect the desired outcome. For example, if a company were to want to design a fast car, they could focus on engine power, handling, aerodynamics, and weight. There are also a number of secondary factors that, although they might have an effect on the end result, are always going to be on the back burner because they'll never have the same impact as primary factors will. If the analogy with cars is continued, it would be like designers looking at designing bucket seats before they've considered the other factors previously mentioned. 

Game balancing is very similar. The idea behind balancing is that no given item selectable by the gamer will give him an unfair advantage over others. In today's complicated gaming environments, this becomes a difficult area as a single change can have rippling effects into other areas. Some games are more affected by this than others. In Real Time Strategy games, imbalances are immediately exploited as much as possible. Developers must then look at the most problematic area, change that variable, and then make further tweaks. What they don't do (especially the experienced developers) is make changes to less important variables first and later make changes to the larger variable.

CCP

Starting last year, CCP made the announcement that they would be revamping and rebalancing ships from the ground up. This is no small task, the number of ships in the game is rather huge and the potential ramifications could have significant impacts on both the in-game economy and sov warfare (and ultimately player subscription). CCP is to be applauded for this initiative: fleets being comprised of the same ships gets old very quickly, even moreso if you're one of the unfortunate ones to play this game for nine years or more. To boot, they added four battlecruisers (which are now some of the most used in the game), and more recently announced four new destroyers.

Unfortunately, CCP has decided to focus on smaller ships for their balancing and work their way up the ladder. It's clear to anyone that they're trying to cater to newer players. CCP also wants players to remain in small hulls for longer (once racial destroyer and battlecruiser skills are introduced). This is fine to cater to newer players (no point losing their first battleship because they have none of the appropriate support skills), but not for those more interested in the larger scale. While CCP have improved balancing (the the proliferation of Merlins in faction warfare and the apparent uselessness of the new Amarr destroyer show that they still haven't got it), they're putting the cart before the horse.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Supers. It is clear to anyone involved in both null and low sec that supers have serious balance issues to address. Their presence can be felt even when they aren't in the system, because whoever has more supers controls the field. In many cases they make the dreadnaught class irrelevant since they do more damage and are more mobile, they can project power over vast distances. The main issue with supers, however, is that no one wants to use them, and that when people get the balls to actually field them in combat, they're nearly impossible to tackle. The attacking side has to sacrifice endless numbers of tacklers (no surprise that any super has a hull full of dictors and hictors) to keep their target tackled. Since fighter bombers can easily alpha the ships in question, it's supremely easy for them to escape.

When he was still around, CCP Diagoras stated that over 2000 supers were built in 2011, and only around 350 were lost. At that time, there were a little over 4200 supers in Tranquility. While construction rates have dropped off, loss rates remain low, so Eve may well pass 5000 supers by year's end.

While the CSM 6 enjoyed significant success in their push to have supers nerfed into oblivion, little has been heard from the current CSM. More recently, Aleskeyev Karrde has made it clear that the current CSM have tried to promote curbing supercapital proliferation by way of nerfing mineral compression. The reasoning was that two things need to be done to tackle super numbers: fewer need to be built, and more need to die. Some have argued that CCP has done a good job at the first point, but the second remains unaddressed. For supers to die more, they need to either be used more frequently or be more prone to getting and staying tackled, preferably both. Several recent engagements with dozens of supers on each side have ended in few or no deaths, illustrating just how difficult that is.

MY POINT

CCP are doing things the wrong way around. The ships with the highest potential for imbalance in the game, and the largest current imbalance, are supers. While it is good that lower-tier ships are being addressed, EVE does not need a new destroyers that have few uses in current game mechanics (ganks, faction warfare) and little impact on the overall economy. Would CCP's time not have been better addressed designing an anti-super ship? Or do something to make them die more? Even a capital tackle mod that would enable supers to tackle other supers  (a very simply idea suggested to me by Mynnna) would likely fix the issue.

My main worry is that based on the current rate of ship balancing CCP will only get to the point where they will be able to balance supers in over a year's time. That's time for many hundreds of new supers to come into existence (with that number of subscriptions tied to those ships semi-permanently...) by the end of 2013. CCP will have a huge issue on their hands, as they would risk losing a number of subscriptions if they overnerf the ships involved (likely) or significantly affecting the balance of null sov and low-sec (more likely).

CCP need to move quickly, or they'll have a (super)pest issue that will be un-manageable! 

 

[name_1]
Member of Nulli Secunda. Have been playing Eve for close to four years, already hit by bittervet syndrome. I've played a number of games over the years and generally dab in every game that's fun.