I am not complaining about supers, first of all, I love supers. I had a Nyx once, and I loved it (PL loved it too….*tears*). It felt good having one. However, what I am saying is there is nothing bad about supers being in the game other than they do not die enough. EVE is a sandbox. Every style of play is open for the… playing. The issue is there is no real answer to Supercapitals without being forced to play that style of game (i.e. bring more supers). In capital and sub-capital fights there is general balance in terms of being able to engage effectively without the exact same type of ship; and while numbers help, that does not guarantee one will win (until the ratios get ridiculous). The following changes will allow for supers to remain effective in the scheme of the game while not being so… super.

I know I am not alone when I say: I want to see EVE burn. There needs to be conflict—from large bloc wars down to isolated wars from non-bloc allies. However, large groups can be everywhere at once it seems, and they bring toys with them to defend SOV. The changes I proposed in part one and two dealt with making SOV easier to mess with (especially with the timer changes, let alone the HP changes). Now for the fun stuff—making supers more willing to blow up.

EVE thrives on conflict. There are many goals of these changes, but one is to allow for groups to mess with expanded empires more effectively. It is important to note that no change made will make 500 versus 50 of any type of ship “fun” for either side. There are already large blobs of supers/dreads/carriers and the proposals below will not change that. However, when coupled with all the sov stuff it will make it significantly more difficult for groups to control large sections of null sec. They don’t have to physically own the SOV to control it with supers. You can’t force project, though, if you have 8 different fronts being attacked. You may be able to clean it up a few times, but after constant harassment you must downsize or burn out your logistic teams. It creates more content for everyone—it does not punish one group over another. Even if these changes take a while to become effective, the little nipping away that will be done by many groups will take its toll.

Super population control is a big issue to a lot of people, however making them hard to get does nothing to kill the ones already out there. So this is EVE. Give everyone some and watch them burn. I am proposing completely changing the thinking behind supers. They are no longer going to be “elite” ships like they were when first released. They have been out a while now, we are accustomed to them, let us use them!

I Can Haz Supercarrier Changes?

There are several changes that need to be made to change supercarriers for the better. The build time needs to be cut in half, and the build requirements need to be cut significantly as well. This will allow more of them to be made, at cheaper prices. The ideal price for a supercarrier should be under 10 billion ISK. This is affordable enough to allow vastly more people to get in them from all different types of groups, and with the faster build time there will be even more competitive prices. Additionally, supercarriers should be allowed to dock in stations, and the Amarr Outpost should be allowed to build supercarriers. Those changes coupled with the price/time reduction will lead to more usefulness and affordability for the smaller guys without getting a character stuck in the process. They would also be able to be traded on the market, thus eliminating the need for 3rd party deals and cause a further increase in competition.

Additionally, they should be given a token 100 m3 drone bay to help deal with the smaller ships. It would not be allowed to have stuff from both bays out at the same time. Going along with those changes the EWAR immunity should be removed and the overall hit points should be reduced in line with the price reduction. If a rifter can tackle a supercarrier, then the supercarrier should have some defensive against that.

To help with logistical uses, the ship maintenance bay should be raised to 3 million M3, and the fleet hanger bumped up to 60,000 M3. This will greatly help small-medium group logistics and deployments and help harassment abilities with SBU’s and such.

Overall these few changes will cause more of these ships to be flown, more risks to be taken with them, and will help to get the stagnate population of supers on a build/die rotation. IT will also vastly increase the ability of small-medium groups to use supers without taking such a big ISK hit if they get blobbed. However, I speculate that with the proposed reduction on SOV HP dropping a couple supers on a problem may not leave the big groups with extended SOV enough time to actually get there.

Titanic Changes

Titans are the biggest ships in the game, and a huge tactical benefit… if you can afford it. Titan’s build time needs to be lowered by half, and the build requirements adjusted to bring the target price around 15 billion. The EWAR immunity should stay the same, as should its inability to dock. However, it should receive a slight EHP reduction in-line with its new cost. I say slight because it should also not be able to be Remote Repped while it is aggressed to or by another player. The Doomsday Device needs to also be able to be fired wherever the ship can go. The above changes will bring it to an affordable but still expensive level to small and medium groups who could do a great many more harassment runs with the availability of a titan bridge, and with the logistics capabilities of the Titan itself. The decreased cost would also cause more people to risk them, which will lead to more deaths of Titans (and that is always a good thing).

Of course the groups that already have hundreds of them will still have hundreds of them. However…who cares? They have the ISK to buy them at 100 Bil each so of course they can buy them if they are cheaper. It is not the larger groups that are suffering currently…at all. Stop thinking about them…seriously…

Carrier and Dread Changes

I have several ideas on how to change and adapt Carrier and Dreads to compliment the super changes. It does involve making them more affordable (both in the 600 – 800 mil range). However, as this article was on super changes I will leave that for another time.

In Summary

These changes should bring supers to a level where they get used a lot more than they do now, which is the problem. By giving those that have then a reason to use them (cheaper on the wallet), and those that don’t have them the hope of getting one, more supers will die and it will become common in battles and not rare. This will help the economy, the gameplay, and break down the barriers for anyone who is interested in SOV.

What these supercapital changes do is provide options for using them and losing them that currently do not exist. A 200 man BS fleet, or carrier fleet, dread fleet, supercarrier, or titan fleet is still scary—and there is nothing that can be done to directly combat the blob except make the game mechanics such that you don’t need the blob.

A big principle for me is that as EVE increases in popularity there will only be bigger and bigger groups. The gameplay balance needs to be adjusted for this new dawn of EVE so that EVE itself is not overrun by massive groups. They will be here, and those in them may have fun, and they will have large battles with each other. A group can have a couple regions of SOV, however, all 3 parts of my series taken together means it will be a lot more difficult to control large amounts of spread out space and that will lead to downsizing. It will create a more active, alive, and diverse null sec experience. This will in turn benefit every area of EVE from high-sec to WH.

I do not know of, nor have I seen, any good ways to stop a blob without a blob. That is what led to me proposing changes that completely ignore the blobs to bring other styles of play up to where they need to be. CCP has made changes the last 2 years trying to “fix supers”, and “Fix moons”…all amid players begging for a chance to compete against the blob. This is EVE; I would rather fight it out with the right tools instead of have CCP change everything. It is time to actually want and propose changes that could give a crap about what the blob will do with them. It is time to burn EVE.

– JustSharkbait


  1. poorsarejealious


    September 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm Reply
  2. CarlGustav

    NO and no ….

    Supers are the nuclear weapons of our age.

    we don’t want EVERYONE to have one do we?

    Supers should be expensive

    Supers should bring that mutch punch to the table that if someone drop supers they get a huge bonus. (my sugestion is SC gets a improved clonebay and a own ship contract system so that your fleet can get back fast to the thick of it. and the Titans could get a shield that they can encase the fleet like a pos shield that forces everyone to focus on the titan thus shielding his fleet from harm.)
    Supers dammage projection and speed to travel need to be cut down some.
    Supers dps should increase… Yes increase.

    keep cost as it is Supers are meant as Corp/Alliance assets not for someone own leasure.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:23 pm Reply
    1. So basically you want the current super powers to always dominate. Because there is no way to catch up as it is now.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:04 am Reply
  3. Andre Vauban

    Supers are fine. The problem is force projection in that Supers can be anywhere in Eve in under 10 minutes and show up in fights that the pilots don’t care about for no other reason because they can.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:27 pm Reply
    1. cfc is shit

      another coolaid drinker… It takes the people online and the right place, a correct cyno chain, the fuel, etc… It isnt as easy as you tards think

      September 9, 2013 at 10:40 pm Reply
    2. benfromid

      If anything, force projection needs to be buffed.

      September 9, 2013 at 10:48 pm Reply
    3. This is true. But that problem is still their regardless of what is done to the supers. Even if the jump ranges and such were changed, they would still be used to force project.

      September 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm Reply
  4. briancnelson

    If you make them too cheap, it just means the folks who already blob with them will have more. You need to create a rock paper scissors approach, not just have more of them for everyone. If there’s something small coalitions can use to pop them that isn’t a supercap, but has its own deficiencies, thats what they should focus on.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:31 pm Reply
    1. wow

      it is a called a dread you fucking bear

      September 9, 2013 at 10:41 pm Reply
      1. briancnelson

        And as long as we are assigning names, you are a shitheel.

        Of course it is, the point was that his strategy doesn’t work and there was an alternative.

        September 9, 2013 at 10:45 pm Reply
    2. But that is the problem is is not? Anything that is done to counter supers at the small gang level can just be abused in mass numbers.

      So why not change the big ships to be more accessible.

      September 9, 2013 at 11:53 pm Reply
      1. briancnelson

        Why? so more people can have pretty pixels? The relative power of the various alliances won’t change, you’ll just see more supercaps blown up. So what? Why is that a goal? It doesn’t really improve gameplay any more than the constantly shifting meta of new fleet types does. It just makes everyone shuffle their skill training to the next FOTM, which is sort of a lame excuse for content and interesting gameplay.

        The game actually works ok at the moment. People with supers in large numbers are being effectively held off by large subcap blobs and dreads, yet the presence of the supers in large numbers also makes the other groups alter their gameplay. Look at CFC using siege fleets to grind sov as an example. Now you want to just stick everyone in a giant blob of pretty capships. Why? I just don’t see the point of this entire article.

        September 10, 2013 at 12:04 am Reply
        1. Well. It was meant as an alternative view on current proposals. And it does not work OK right now. Smaller groups have no chance in SOV play of any level because even 5 supers dropped on them can be overwhelming.

          I am simply making suggestions that could make supers more prevalent so the big supers blobs are not as powerful. They still will be powerful, not trying to change that. Just trying to give a little more content and action.

          What is the alternative? Leave them alone and pretty soon even they will get bored. These changes at the very least will bring content for everyone involved.

          September 10, 2013 at 12:11 am Reply
          1. briancnelson

            Smaller groups will still have no chance at Sov with this proposal. Your modest supercap group will simply be outblobbed by the large coalition’s dread and supercap blob.

            You could do everything in this proposal and nothing would change except small alliances would lose more super caps. Except there will now be so many of them that that will have about as much impact as killing a midlevel faction ratting battleship does now.

            No content will be suddenly created for those who want sov and aren’t a bloc level coalition however. None. You can’t fix that problem, if indeed it is a problem, with cheap supercaps.

            Doing nothing is generally preferable to doing something stupid. The need to “do something” or the imagined requirement to “do something” that is poorly thought out just so that things are different ignores whether the idea will actually make anything better.

            This idea fails that test. Period. You have no rational argument for it other than “wow superz for everyone! 1111one!!!111.

            September 10, 2013 at 12:16 am
  5. Jita Pilot 666

    Are you insane?

    September 9, 2013 at 10:31 pm Reply
    1. GSection

      I was going to do a response to the article but I think you just covered it for me.

      September 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm Reply
    2. yep.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:03 am Reply
  6. F4CE

    Goblin if your going to post at least find the ballz to put your name on the article

    September 9, 2013 at 10:35 pm Reply
  7. tash

    Final nail in the eve coffin dick

    September 9, 2013 at 10:36 pm Reply
  8. just saying, good try though

    expect standard response of negative. why? because many people, especially the current owners of said items, don’t like change. besides you are not the first person to suggest these changes.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:37 pm Reply
  9. SaTaN

    Was going to write a worthwhile reply then continued reading.

    “not be able to be Remote Repped while it is aggressed to or by another player”

    Nice troll

    Riv do you read this stuff before you post it?

    September 9, 2013 at 10:37 pm Reply
    1. I think he does. He even helped me edit it. Very nice guy that Riv.

      i thought that change may be too much.

      Inspiring comments everyday.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:02 am Reply
  10. Realist

    tldr; guy loses his nyx to PL, wishes he could afford a replacement.

    Basically, tears.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:46 pm Reply
    1. Basically not. I don’t care i lost it. Its a game, i will just get another one when i save up.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:12 am Reply
  11. Grath

    “Titans are the biggest ships in the game, and a huge tactical benefit…
    if you can afford it. Titan’s build time needs to be lowered by half,
    and the build requirements adjusted to bring the target price around 15
    billion.” ” I say slight because it should also not be able to be Remote Repped while it is aggressed to or by another player”

    your an idiot… STFU… go lay down…. dont every try to wtire this about things u dont have and then cry about how u dont have the isk to buy one ur self… until u own a titan dont try and propose changes to them. just cause you died to one does not mean you are an expert on titans.

    have a good day faggot

    September 9, 2013 at 10:47 pm Reply
    1. I never claimed to be an expert on titans. I’m just suggesting a different opinion then what others have suggested.

      I don’t have to have had a titan to talk about it.

      The RR thing is debatable, granted. I only suggested it because i wanted to be trolled, duh.

      Actually, the logic was that currently you can pile tons of supers and titans on field and even with the proposed changes they could rep each other for a long time and make it so they do have to get blobbed to kill.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:00 am Reply
      1. Billbo

        The EVE community can only handle one Greedy Goblin. “The same matter cannot occupy the same space”


        September 10, 2013 at 12:47 am Reply
        1. How nice. I get pictures and everything on my article.

          I feel so special. It makes me….want to write more!!!!!!!!

          September 10, 2013 at 12:56 am Reply
          1. Johan du Preez

            WoW what are you 12 ? Thanks your shit article and your childish comments, cheers evenews24 I can only handle that much articles by kids and retards …

            Just WoW …..

            September 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm
  12. PL SPY

    last i checked this was a news service not EVE-O forums.. go cry about your nyx some where else

    September 9, 2013 at 10:48 pm Reply
  13. DirectorBot

    Hey this tard once raged quit his alliance (TMA) The Methodical Alliance, because he wanted us to be like NC. and when everyone bashed him he left the alliance which died and now is renting again from N3 doing structure grinds and shit for them. Also, he pretty much paid rent to NC. via plex 15b isk a month, spent atleast a couple thousand bucks doing so taking college loans to pay… So STFU Sharky!

    September 9, 2013 at 10:58 pm Reply
  14. Slowcat > Super FTW

    shut up Dragon Phoenix. You are just mad we killed your Nyx with only carriers. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=19519561

    September 9, 2013 at 11:21 pm Reply
  15. NC. Grunt

    Lol you do this then we at NC. will have triple the supers.

    September 9, 2013 at 11:50 pm Reply
    1. Is that a bad thing?

      September 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm Reply
  16. TEST noob

    cry me a river noob cant afford super ? Get another loan and buy one…

    September 9, 2013 at 11:57 pm Reply
  17. Captain Obvious

    Just no.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:12 am Reply
    1. nice. the internet needs more cats.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:18 am Reply
  18. Turelus

    Lowering the value so more people can afford them and allowing them to dock would surely just make Dreadnoughts even more worthless, demoting them to only being worth using in POS bashes.
    These changes also do nothing to help the little alliances you speak of because for every one super they get the larger alliances will get another three. While you will have supers to fight with you’ll still face the fact other people have more, better cyno networks and the income to support their use.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:21 am Reply
    1. Good serious comment. They are just ideas. I would rather have more supers then fewer though, and the big super alliances already have a bunch so of course they will get more. That is not the focus. The focus is on everyone else getting them.

      If they are so expensive that only the big guys can afford to replace them then no one will ever get a chance. These changes will shake things up and provide more diverse content. It will be good with everyone.

      Given my changes though, dreads will still be very powerful and with the lowering of Super EHP the 50 dread fleets is something to still be wary of, just like.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:25 am Reply
  19. EVE Player

    One day I’m going to write an article in EVE about how nice babies are and why every parent should protect their child. Just so I can see all the replies telling me what an idiot I am and how wrong I am. :)

    The EVE community… gotta love it.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:32 am Reply
    1. The internet is the most brutal place to throw around ideas, and cat pictures. I find it hilarious and enjoy it. I shall write more articles to collect further nerd-rage.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:34 am Reply
  20. There are multiple ways to address an issue. These ideas are simple some ideas I have. The entire SOV system can be rewritten so there would be no more need for supers to attack sov. However, they can’t just be taken out of the game as people have invested time in training for them, and ISK in buying them.

    It is not healthy to remove a game element, so just shake things up a bit.

    So if SOV is completely changed as many have proposed then the super issue is not addressed. Those who have them still do, and those who don’t still don’t. The supers will collect more dust then they do now, and that is not fun for the owners.

    At the very least, the big blocks will be able to use their supers against each other more often since the cost is lower.

    If for example, Goons and Ncdot go at it with supers b/c they are cheaper, then the eve economy benefits, thus making it healthier. Right now its is a stalemate because super capitals are not dying enough to make it a healthy section of the market.

    No one is using them in large battles either because of their costs. So if the cost and time to build is the bottle neck in the economics then fix it and let the rest work it out.

    This article also goes along with my take on SOV changes seen here:


    September 10, 2013 at 12:43 am Reply
  21. Billbo

    Holy assburgers

    September 10, 2013 at 12:44 am Reply
  22. Small gang 4eva

    The problem is not the ships them selves, it is the groups of 100+ people who have them joining the same corp/alliance/coalition.

    All of the problems we see outlined in these discussions are based around 1 thing, large groups of people banding together to have the biggest blue list.

    Changing the ship won’t change anything, groups will just go find the next OP concept to blob the other guy with.

    To fix the problem you need to break up the big alliance/coalitions and make smaller groups prevalent.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:44 am Reply
    1. Why? There is no need to break up the big alliances as it is a type of game play and this is a sandbox. Just remove some of their ability to project their power over all of EVE.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:51 am Reply
  23. Devore

    “Additionally, they should be given a token 100 m3 drone bay to help deal with the smaller ships.”

    “Token”? Any drone bay space means the capital ship has an effectively infinite amount of drones they can carry. That’s why it was taken away to begin with.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:46 am Reply
    1. its 100 m3? it can’t hold infinite amount of drones.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:49 am Reply
      1. Dirk MacGirk

        100m3 is small. Fleet hangar is big so resupply is easy. But a Super carrier with 100 bandwidth could deploy 20 lights or 10 mediums. I wouldn’t exactly call that OP

        September 10, 2013 at 1:41 am Reply
  24. Decent write up

    Regardless of my view of the non issues brought up in this article, speaking as someone who has always hated EN24 I must admit that the site seems to be improving in writing quality overall as of late..

    September 10, 2013 at 1:32 am Reply
  25. Dirk MacGirk

    All the capital used to cost, in build terms, around what you suggest. It used to cost me 10 billion isk worth of mins to build a Nyx that I would sell for $13-15 billion. Then they got rid of drone alloys and low-end mineral prices spiked. Now a Nyx is 17 billion cost due solely to the changes CCP made to the economy.
    If you want the counter to super caps, bring a shit load of dreads. Pretty easy to get into, value is not terrible although 50% more than they used to be. They will get vaporized by a doomsday, but they are a counter if you have the numbers.
    In the end, I can’t agree with the OP as written. Too many moving parts and more supers isn’t the answer. Whether they die more often or not, its not the answer. I’m not convinced we want to move in the direction of massive cap fights becoming the new norm. I’m not even convinced CCP believes it wants supers at all. They can’t really make up their mind about them.

    September 10, 2013 at 1:37 am Reply
    1. It does seem like CCP can’t make up their mind. That is why i am presenting different views. If they like nothing I proposed but it leads to better ideas then its worth it. The article is just my view on what I perceive as a problem.

      The problem with removing supers is they would lose all those toons and income. Even if the SP was refunded and ships given back as minerals, or whatever they did, I am sure more then a few people would be upset.

      However, if they simple re-purpose super caps similar to what i am proposing they will just be another capital ship to choose from– like choosing a different tier Battle ship. Sure people will be upset about the changes, but they not lose their ships.

      There are many things that could be done, and this article was just my thoughts on it.

      September 10, 2013 at 1:48 am Reply
      1. Dirk MacGirk

        I hear ya. If it promotes the conversation, that’s the main reason any of us write these things. Nobody is going to be right, but hopefully the conversation leads to something that creates a positive outcome.

        September 10, 2013 at 1:59 am Reply
      2. Dikreathz

        proposing something constructive is great but what you did is say allow for a starwars online dynamic everyone at MAX LV go wild…. (hate you) whereas kamikaze nuke bombs of 30 bil to annihilate large fleets could be just s constructive… my point none of this fits and would be game breaking! get into war- gaming stat mechanics are fun to learn and will help provide massive insights

        September 10, 2013 at 8:49 am Reply
    2. Supers should be buffed

      You don’t even need a shit load of dreads, we have killed supers with 3 dreads 2 bhaalgorns and assorted tackle BS, and the nyx had 3 dreads that we also killed. So supers aren’t the problem

      September 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm Reply
  26. Captain Cool in Umthinkables

    Ok so this is an idea….

    Stop the chain after you jump a captial!!! you should not be able to jump it again for a certain amount of time; from lile 30mins to 12 hours idk. Reasons: Alliances will have to strategically place groups of supers strategically to cover certain space. Furthermore, they would have to keep them in the same system in order to have the same universal range. Imagine supers as armies on a risk board.

    I just feel they should be as slow and as useful as a treb. Deployed in the right area..

    PS Buy boosters people ffs what dont you understand about the i win button im selling :p

    September 10, 2013 at 1:45 am Reply
    1. ol captain crackpush

      Actually another thing.. You could scale the time by the size of the ship. So supers get a 1 hour delay, titans have a 2 hour, dreads cud have 30 mins idk.

      Cud be fun idl. Flame on!

      September 10, 2013 at 1:53 am Reply
    2. I think this is a solid idea, it definately needs some work on the exact mechanics. I personally think it should be more of a regional binding, so within a region they can move freely, but they will not be able to traverse the entire universe to reach a fight on going. Introduce a new type of cyno required for supers to cross a regional boundary, and allow them only to hit said cyno type once in a time period.

      I also think that supers should be able to fight back better against smaller class ships but at the cost of their own flexability. I’d like to see supers lose their access to capital remote reps and energy transfers. Removing this role from them and meaning they must bring smaller, easyer to kill carriers with their fleets to provide the logistics puts a chink in the super cap fleets armor.

      September 10, 2013 at 2:22 am Reply
    3. whatever

      Arbitary timers suck.
      Caps and Supers have a built-in jump prevention machanics – capacitor regeneration time. But as it stands, you can easily refit to regen mods, than back to full tank and keep jumping. Nerf that – problem solved.

      September 10, 2013 at 7:14 am Reply
      1. No

        Session change per module change?

        OP, that change sucks for anyone trying to move anything and making deep nullsec perfectly unlivable for anyone who isn’t associated with the big blue holding the shallow nullsec space that borders you.

        September 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm Reply
    4. ...

      Hi Lyonic

      September 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reply
    5. ass face

      no… just no… die in a fire and after that just no… thank you

      September 11, 2013 at 1:58 am Reply
  27. illyria

    the return of the sentry ratting nyx…

    September 10, 2013 at 1:48 am Reply
    1. No? It can only hold 100m3. And it would be a separate bay, so it would only be allowed to launch 5.

      September 10, 2013 at 1:50 am Reply
      1. chzy

        dude…what you are suggesting is to convert a supercapital into an Ishtar, you are dumb and should feel bad

        September 10, 2013 at 5:01 am Reply
        1. No? i have no idea where you would even see that.

          September 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm Reply
          1. ass face



            a day ago

            No? It can only hold 100m3. And it would be a separate bay, so it would only be allowed to launch 5.

            how about right there? even a carrier can launch 10 sentries… stop commenting and go back to your hole..

            September 11, 2013 at 1:57 am
  28. make me lol

    uninstall eve ASAP fuckhead

    September 10, 2013 at 2:20 am Reply
    1. No?

      September 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm Reply
  29. SG Goonslap

    It’s not that they don’t die fast enough it’s that there are way too many of them. Realistically there would not be enough materials, infrastructure, or economy to finance, manufacture and maintain fleets upon fleets of these unimaginably giagantic montrosities of starship engineering. Seriously stop and think about this in terms of real world equivelents. Captiols and Supercapitols should be few if not rare in comparison to other (smaller) vessel classes. So if we have large alliances floating hundreds of these things around at any given time something is wrong with the game mechanic if they are that easy to produce and replace. Not only should they be few or rare but losing one should be a catastrophic blow to even the largest empire. Most people would agree it’s just gotten rediculous, I mean ffs supercaps have become the standard now, and that;’s no BS.

    September 10, 2013 at 2:56 am Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      The economics of the game work in both directions. Supers are up in price 30-40% from where they once were, yet we find a way to keep building more, even in the absence of the drone alloys that provided such a high amount of minerals. The rarity of these ships is driven by the income levels of the game, the isk faucets versus sinks. The day of them being rare is over.

      September 10, 2013 at 3:12 am Reply
      1. whatever

        No. You can easily make this ships rare. Just need to introduce maintenance costs, and make them severe. What if a Titan upkeep costs were 1 bil per day?

        September 10, 2013 at 7:06 am Reply
        1. Interesting notion. 1 bil probably is a bit much… but perhaps combining this idea with docking super captials. The dock (whatever it is) will have to be maintained by an alliance and the costs that go into maintaining it will be relative to the number of super capitals docked. You could also limit the number of super caps capable of docking.

          September 10, 2013 at 7:41 am Reply
          1. All that would do though is for the large coalitions and blobs to remain together for economic reasons.

            Which is why they are together now.

            September 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm
          2. yeah I absolutely agree with you! It’s just that I don’t see that as a ‘bad thing’. My argument being that Eve is a great simulator of how people have developed empires, but i’ll just use communities for this purpose. I believe that blobs are an inevitability. But, they will be taken out. Strong leaders usually hold together communities, but once they’re gone, and future leaders cannot meet the cut, then the communities, the empires, begin to decay.

            Eve Online’s Communities’ reasons for engaging in war have developed over the years. Some were just for the sake of battle, other’s for land grab reasons. But as these groups themselves become more developed, they begin engaging in war for more strategic reasons than just “we need war”. I believe these larger Eve communities have reached a stage that they cannot at whim decide to wage war on another, because war would be costly and risk more than they wish to. They have things to lose and must decide is it worth losing all that I’ve built.

            Now say a large, younger community develops and starts rampaging throughout New Eden at whim. They can, because they have nothing. But as soon as they acquire something… they have something to lose and will no longer be so willing to risk. It’s the way we are. This is the metagame.

            If one wants war, then there has got to be something that pushes the metagame. From the devs point of view, it can be in the form of economical drivers, because they have the ability to directly affect this. Or you can leave it in the hands of the communities and leaders in Eve to shake up things politically. The Fountain war and the things led up to it are great examples of these drivers. Prior to the war, conflict between Test and FA, destabilised relations, and other political drivers were in play that drove the conflict further. Then, the Odyssey patch came in ruffled up the economic stability of the communities throughout New Eden… and we saw the Fountain war.

            These kind of drivers should be the focus of development. By weakening and cheapening Supers you will up their frequency of death only because they are easier to replace.

            So my thoughts on a solution. I treat this as akin to smartphones with their location settings… you don’t want to be spied on, but the benefits you get from it are too good to pass up lol. So you make this change to the Super Captials: Super Carriers and Titans.

            1: make the Super Carriers larger!! This is for cosmetic reasons and I just had to throw this in as the first (and most important lol) point. But it has ramifications for this proposed solution.

            2: make it so that they do not disappear from space upon log off (unless your account is not subscribed… cuz that would be crap if you aren’t playing and are subject to this content driver). Meaning they have to be stored someway, somehow… and safely.

            3: Options should then be given to the storing of these mighty and now vulnerable vessels. One option already exists. You park them in a POS. Let the players deal with all the security issues, etc. The other option is a Super Station:
            a. Expensive (note I did not say extremely) to Build,
            b. Limited Docking points for Supers (because it be silly to store 300+ massive ships that can cause the tide to rise in a single station – per point 1)
            c. A maintenance cost for running the station, that also increases relative to the amount of Supers docked in it. You can add other benefits to the station that make it more attractive i.e. make it a Cyno Jamming ‘gate’. You can off and on Cyno jamming at will with the station (it’s just a quick thought I had, i’ll leave it to others better than me to flesh this out)

            This solution should put economic stress on those who have a huge amount of super capitals. The more super capitals you have, they higher your costs are going to be. Or the higher your anxiety is going to be if your community Ops for the POS storage system. I expect that the majority will settle for the Super Station as most opt to keep the location setting on smartphone.

            Further, should a community be unable to provide a secure storage system (be it POS or Super Station) for their members, then these members may be disgruntle enough to join other communities who can provide them with security, safety and all those things that make Americ… I mean Blocs great :p

            September 11, 2013 at 2:48 am
  30. Makalu

    15 billion titan? Can i get 10 please?

    September 10, 2013 at 2:56 am Reply
    1. whoa whoa whoa, That is obviously too cheep. You can’t go lower then 15 billion.

      I man can you imagine 10 billion isk titans? would be just as bad as cheep supers running around everywhere……

      September 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm Reply
      1. ass face

        dude are you high? if titans were 15 billion i would buy as many titans as i have carriers and just alpha strike every capital i came across.. i currently have about 300 bil in liquid isk… please lower titans to 15 bil so i can throw them around like candy… and watch everyone in eve cry when 500 other people like me do it as well.. this would just infalte the number of super in this game and not help anything.. think about it 10 guys with 5 toons a piece can run around with 50 titans on their own supporting an entire fleet like nothing and u come jumping in ur super fleet and those 10 guys will take 10 supers off the field every 10 min and that does not include the 300k DPS they will be doing with their guns while waiting on the cycle..

        your idea is shit

        September 11, 2013 at 2:03 am Reply
      2. ass face

        and btw maka was asking for 10 titans at 15 bil… retard

        September 11, 2013 at 2:15 am Reply
  31. Dirk MacGirk

    No matter what changes CCP makes to any ship or any mechanic, the non-blob will always be at a disadvantage against the blob. Its not an issue of a million Chinese with pitchforks against 50,000 with machine guns. As long as they can use the same ships you can, and have access to the same income streams, blob wins unless their skill level is so terribad that is mitigates their size advantage. Maybe not every battle since skill will play a role, but in wars and battles of attrition, the blob, if applied consistently will almost always win out. At least until you find a way for quality to somehow overcome quantity.
    Also by making ships more accessible in terms of price or build time or whatever, any benefits that help those who don’t currently use a certain ship or tactic out of fear of bigger groups who do, will only benefit the current users as well.

    September 10, 2013 at 3:05 am Reply
  32. Fermaguel

    so basically, “make the ships better, able to counter more, and cheaper, so that if you cant fly one, they wont even want you in a nullsec alliance”

    September 10, 2013 at 5:19 am Reply
  33. chzypai

    The whole idea of this is just stupid, the idea of supers and titans is so when they are destroyed, the owner of said titan/super has just lost potentially 30-110b, thus creating a money sink in game, thus requiring the economy to work harder to replace said loss, so you get an increase in demand for minerals and as such the price of minerals goes up, its how the ingame economy is working.
    Now we already have cheap supers, they’re called carriers, they can dock, be traded and can shoot pos’s, something a super cannot do, they’re also relatively cheap 1.5-2b each (can also be tackled by rifter’s and can fight them off).
    Cheap Titans are called dreadnoughts, when fitted correctly they can dish out around 15k dps, more than a fully skilled nyx (assuming said nyx pilot hasn’t fitted 5 DCU’s) they’re known greatly for their ability to do things like tank doomsdays (when fitted correctly) and kill supers with relatively low cost for when PL gets mad that a bunch of RPing lowsec carebears dropped 50 on their smartbombing titans in amamake.
    You already have your cheap supers and titans, you just need to look harder to find them, making them cheaper ruins the experience of taking somebodies happiness away.

    September 10, 2013 at 5:24 am Reply
  34. meeeeeee

    rubish, ridiculous, …. what other words to use …

    September 10, 2013 at 7:01 am Reply
  35. daraq

    hahaha poor people complaining about super cost! people that don’t fly supers, should stop trying to “fix” them…

    September 10, 2013 at 7:12 am Reply
    1. Just Checkin'

      I don’t own one (I’m too poor to buy one) but I would like to see the titans getting buffed.
      I mean, come on! Its the most expensive ship in the game when it comes both in SP and ISK, so why should it be nerfed again and again???

      September 10, 2013 at 9:11 am Reply
  36. some german guy


    September 10, 2013 at 7:35 am Reply
    1. another german guy

      hmm, i was going to say the same.

      must be a german thing.

      September 10, 2013 at 11:17 am Reply
      1. some german guy

        indeed . us germans – we love penis , ask ev0ke

        September 10, 2013 at 11:26 am Reply
  37. As I was reading this I noticed the EN24, “we need more writers, join us” ad. Gently put to the author, I don’t think these solutions are very good. It’s like crying out anarchy for anarchy’s sake. Doing these changes won’t bring value to the game.

    September 10, 2013 at 7:44 am Reply
  38. moron


    Stop posting please

    September 10, 2013 at 8:18 am Reply
    1. no?

      September 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm Reply
  39. Dikreathz

    i ussually try be more constructive but this troll just hurts my feelings, changing super prices to the same as my faction BS ???? GO AWAY and die you hippie scum… add new ships maybe but don’t destroy the ships that are actually working …

    September 10, 2013 at 8:37 am Reply
  40. sour

    hey asshat i got a better idea: how about u get one super for free everytime u dock with ur pod in a station??! idiot…

    September 10, 2013 at 8:40 am Reply
    1. WHAT?!?!?

      Just one time would do for me =D

      September 10, 2013 at 10:41 am Reply
  41. shit

    Haha, this moron just got his app rejected on NC. recruitment forums.


    What an idiot. Guess this ‘article’ didn’t help.

    September 10, 2013 at 8:43 am Reply
    1. They don’t care about an article. Its my opinion, that’s all it is.

      I’m still going to get a super and then a titan eventually and have them logged off being cool. I was just suggesting some radical changes that could make things fun (in my opinion), and get more capital and super battles.

      I love capital and super battles. However, the internet cannot let people have their opinion without tearing them down. So i know what would happen when i posted it.

      It obviously did not stop me, because i don’t care.

      September 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm Reply
  42. Akrasjel Lanate

    “Additionally, supercarriers should be allowed to dock in stations, and
    the Amarr Outpost should be allowed to build supercarriers.”

    September 10, 2013 at 9:50 am Reply
  43. Holyshit

    Holy shit. Clueless. Supers need to be MORE expensive and longer to make! The reason there are so many is that they are easy to make for large alliances! The reason they don’t die is because no one will commit them!

    Jesus Christ

    September 10, 2013 at 10:49 am Reply
    1. And how do you propose to get them to be committed?

      If you make them harder to get that will only further the problem.

      Economically, however, it is a one way street. They get built, and they sit.

      That is not healthy for that section of the economy.

      September 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm Reply
      1. chzy

        You get them committed by giving them a reason to log in. How does one give another a reason to log on? Make Makalu FC them

        September 11, 2013 at 3:08 am Reply
  44. Draco Spirit

    Erm.. no

    September 10, 2013 at 11:29 am Reply
  45. Amused

    Wow, a lot of people sure don’t want their supers devalued it seems. Tears tears everywhere…

    September 10, 2013 at 11:58 am Reply
    1. Noisrevbus

      I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t have a Super myself. You hit the nail on the head when said “devalued” though, because that is the argument at hand. We don’t need anything else to be “devalued” there is already too little value in ships in space. Devalued ships is what feed Blobs because more ships all of a sudden no longer equate into more risk. Instead, more ships arbitrarily equate into less risk so the powerbase will gravitate toward that.

      If you want Blobs to be less powerful, endorse Subcaps that are more powerful than cheaper Subcaps. If you want Supers to be less plentiful, endorse subcaps that are more powerful than cheaper Subcaps, to void excess resources trickling into reserve Supers.

      It’s astounding that more people don’t get that simple 1+1.

      September 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm Reply
      1. But it will not change anything. The whole entire blob principal does not care what ship it is in. CFC, for example, is rich. They can roll around in hundreds of subcaps, capitals, supers. Whatever change you make subcap-wise will just be adopted by the bob.

        For example. NCdot beat Goons blob when titans had their tracking, or supers had their drones. 50 titans beat hundreds of subcaps.

        However, they got nerfed. Now, the problem was that yes…..those ships could beat a blob and that meant they could beat ANYTHING.

        Back to square one. Anything you make that can beat a blob can be used by the blob. Now CFC has a massive super fleet and Ncdot cannot field supers against them with impunity.

        You have to break up the blob, and i just have not seen any good ideas on how to do that specific thing. All ideas lead back to the same problem. If it can beat a blob, it can be used to blob.

        September 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm Reply
        1. Noisrevbus

          If we keep using the CFC as an example, it’s true that they have grown rich. At least it’s true on a surface level: they have grown rich from sitting ontop of the income throne. When you look underneath that though is when it gets interesting. How did they get there? Are ingame resources what maintain their position? That is what I mean by “powerbase”.

          They may have access to expensive ships, but that access is not unlimited and it’s not expensive ships that either got them into their current position or which will maintain them in that position.

          The CFC today may be a different beast than the GS of old, but their powerbase remain the same. If there is something in particular you should give Mittens credit for, then it is refining that powerbase which they have innately or brought with them to the game: the cost-effective utilization of player numbers. Before Mittens that ideal was not as strategically overt. Then again, alot in the game have changed to aid that ideal as well. I risk going out on a tangent here, so let’s tread back…

          The “Goons in Dreads will doom the throne of PL and NCdot” is as such an interesting trend, because the bile swings both ways and it’s untested ground. On one hand Dreads are fully insurable and they are far cheaper than Supers so it’s definately rooted in the cost-effect playbook. At the same time, it’s pushing the envelope of what can be considered “free”. Losing a fleet of Dreads is still, in this day and age of plenty, possibly a significant loss of resources. It’s not as risky as Supers but it remains to be seen if it will be played as a risky game or a low-risk game.

          That’s the stalemate today, risky Supers vs. low-risk Subcaps, and how the use of Dreads will affect that balance will be interesting to see, as they can not entirely be described as low-risk.

          That’s also how this article fit into this clash of ideals, since any discourse on making Supers less risky is also firmly a stand for low-risk gameplay. That’s also when you come at odds with me – it’s not when you discuss Supers but when you argue for a game without tangible loss. My biggest gripe with present-day EVE is that you hardly ever lose anything or hurt anyone when it comes to making ships explode. It’s become pointless, because the entire premise of a hardcore sandbox is to devise ways to affect other players – being able to do that ingame, with ingame resources is consequently a premise for the game to be healthy.

          It doesn’t matter if it’s a big fleet of Battleships or a small gang of Frigates, the low-risk nature of those gangs are ultimately unhealthy because in and of themselves they do not affect the landscape of the sandbox. No resources are created, destroyed or change hands, or at least a wildly insufficent amount when compared and balanced to the greater venue of the game.

          Makes sense?

          September 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm Reply
          1. I enjoyed reading this very much. Thanks, and its the kind of comments that make getting massively trolled worthwhile. lol.

            Personally, I like the idea of big expensive “end game” ships that are a massive expense when lost.

            The problem i have is that, for example, if someone is NOT in NCdot or PL or BL or CFC, then it would appear they do not have a chance against them ever.

            However, it took both PL, NC., and BL years to accumulate what they have, same thing with CFC.

            People get so hung up on doom and gloom with blobs they forget about risk v reward.

            I do think their are problems with sov (posted on forums my serious ideas about that), however, I think people forget that if a proposal such as the one I wrote here were real it would not be as glorious as it sounds on the surface.

            It all leads back to the kind of stuff CCP has to deal with. They can’t fix a blob without creating another one.

            EVE remains one of the most brutal games out their in terms of working your way up from the bottom. But once you get to the top the Risk vs Reward becomes amazing.

            YEARS worth of work have been put into CFC, NC., PL, BL, etc, and its all paying off for them. However, nothing lasts forever and making changes based on something perceived wrong today may not make a better tomorrow.

            September 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm
          2. Noisrevbus

            With some recent exception, I would say that the majority of the recruits streaming into groups like PL, NC. and BL are disenfranchized small-gang players who take their toys with them. That’s the secret sauce to the Super accumulation – as a powerbase within those groups – and nothing else.

            Anytime someone with a Super gets bored of being blobbed in the Capital-game similar to getting blobbed in the Subcapital-game he will look for a place where he can utilize his Super in relative safety or more importantly for a long-time PvP:er: a place where he can use his Super to achieve impact (because his immidiate environment has been drained of [worthwhile-] targets by changes to the game). That place is 9/10 either PL or NC., while BL are definately in a position to rack up players similarily now.

            Take some time to dissect their corporate base and you will see it quite clearly. A group like PL formed out of small-scale roaming groups, initially doing small-medium roaming and the vast majority of their corps comming and going since have some history with small-gang roaming gameplay (Snigg, NESW, Oshit/Habit, SAS, GK or Doom, BE etc. respectively), that’s leaving out defunct corps or individual players streaming to- and from such corps.

            They didn’t wake up one day and decided 200-man fleets was the superior experience to 20-man gangs, they simply got tired of getting fucked up the ass by CCP in one way or another, repeatedly, and decided to do something about it for better and worse. Adapt.

            Take a look at other medium-large trifectas of today and you will see similar backgrounds: what happened to russian roaming groups like SoT, MoW and Dside? Well, they congregated into larger groups like Gypsy and later DD. What did they bring with them?

            What happens when existing small-gang groups with Supercapital assets, like Rote or R&K, get bored? Where do they end up?

            That accumulation still goes on, every day there are new people streaming in who have spent the past years doing corporate scale stuff who are now faced with the options of joining a group that use Supers, lock themselves up in a WH with defensive hole-closing exploits or settle down into fighting no-risk Frigate-wars in Lowsec because CCP have taken the game in a direction of themepark gameplay that suggest where players should go and what they should do – rather than encouraging them to maintain their gameplay in the open sandbox.

            The best way to stop the Super accumulation stream to overgrown trifectas like PL and NC. is providing alternatives that do not suggest altering ones gameplay from a sandbox (engaging throughout the whole world) to a themepark (playing only in one select area of the game).

            Like you said, you do that by fixing risk and reward, but through raising both risk and reward,not devaluing it.

            What does that mean? It means we need better rewards in space (ships) over structures, we need better rewards in null over low and high, we need the better ships to be more expensive (so people holding rich space use expensive ships with a higher risk involved, that may dethrone them from that space) and so forth. Once you (re-)establish those things alot of the “blob” issues are going to disappear by themselves.

            It’s what made old EVE less blobby and stale, because people were out in space ratting in expensive ships (because it was worthwhile to risk), being chased by players in expensive ships (because it ensured better survival against odds) and defended by players in expensive ships because you simply couldn’t just catch and kill anything by amassing free ships on a celestial, gate or structure.

            That’s not to say there weren’t big Battleship or Capital fleets out and about in the days of old or that the structure grind didn’t exist – but they were not as (cost-) effective as they are today and they were not the only strategic item of value.

            I can only reiterate, it really is that fucking simple. Everyone but CCP seem to know what is wrong and how easy it is to fix – yet we keep being fed drug addled dreams of new fancy UI stuff and visionary presentations while the game is lead on in a different direction. One of themeparks, with risk and reward that divide the game into them.

            September 10, 2013 at 10:31 pm
  46. Noisrevbus

    Yet another suggestion from a Blobber to reduce the Superblob by way of affecting the Super and not the Blob – claiming Subcap blobs are more balanced because non-CFC entities occassionally throw away a free Subcap fleet out of boredom, and out of any strategic value – because Supers can’t be thrown away at a whim – so does thus not yet fit the low risk gameplay of throwing numbers around?

    It’s getting old.

    September 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm Reply
  47. Ming Tso

    no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

    September 10, 2013 at 1:13 pm Reply
    1. Thank you very much for the wonderfully insightful comment. I now see the entire everything that is wrong in the world and can go forward knowing that you helped me reach this blissful point of enlightenment.


      September 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm Reply
  48. Some people write an article being completely serious to make a point.

    Some people write ridiculous proposals to make a point, or just to read the comments, i have not decided which.

    Either way. It is nice to see everyone discussing this in such a positive and constructive light. I just want to thank everyone for the wonderfully insightful comments. My favorite constructive post so far goes to “poorsarejealious” who wrote “gtfo”.

    It is currently the top comment. Excellent job. You are at the top of your intellectual age and your insight is most encouraging.

    There is hope for humanity.

    September 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm Reply
    1. The Obvious

      Your trolling for the sake of some sort of sad online ego boost is quite entertaining. Please, keep commenting at every turn. I take delight in watching your attempts at intelligence.

      September 10, 2013 at 2:29 pm Reply
      1. Nah. Its not an ego boost, and i certainly don’t need to prove intelligence to people online.

        I’m just trying to get people to look at problems from different angles, and then enjoy the comments that aren’t constructive.

        September 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm Reply
  49. I love feeding Fires

    Yep makes perfect sense for CCP to half the value of the all the supers that are already out there. I am sure that will make so many people so happy.

    September 10, 2013 at 3:09 pm Reply
    1. As apposed to the many poeple suggesting supers get removed completely? That will make far more people “happy”.

      September 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm Reply
      1. a titan pilot

        if these people want to remove supers they can buy them from current
        piltos and then Self Destruct them. until that happens they can sit down
        and fuck off…..

        September 11, 2013 at 2:19 am Reply
  50. -A-

    half the build cost of supers and titans will cause recession effects on whole eve economy, a more viable way is to increase the minerals output and as a consequence the price of them will go down and u could achieve a lower prices for them, but the side effect is that the price of everything else will go down as well

    September 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm Reply
    1. a titan pilot

      if these people want to remove supers they can buy them from current piltos and then Self Destruct them. until that happens they can sit down and fuck off

      September 11, 2013 at 2:19 am Reply

Leave a Reply to Ze Noob Click here to cancel reply.