|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 10:52:00 -
[1]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 19/12/2010 10:52:57 Proposed changes
: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot : Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot : Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate : Reduce scan resolution : Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers : Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3 : Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000% : 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers
With these changes a supercarrier or even group of them would be much harder pressed to counter hictors, interdictors, and subcap fleets in general.
The reduction of DPS would finally allow titans to out dps them but keep a supercarriers DPS high enough to fulfill their role as an anti capital ship.
The nos/nuet removal hinders their ability to nullify hictors and to a lesser extent interdictors which are countered more by the scan res reduction.
None of these changes would stop a supercarrier from killing capitals, only subcaps. You would be required to bring support to strip tacklers or defend against a conventional fleet.
edit: Oh and I am a long time Wyvern pilot. This isn't about me hating Supercarriers. It's pretty plain to see they are presently overpowered.
|
EdFromHumanResources
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 21:27:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.
No.
I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital.
Cost in itself isn't a factor to balance around - State Ravens cost more than titans, does that mean they should get ewar immunity too? What if I officer-fit a rifter?
(I actually agree that the e-war immunity should stay, just not for the reason you give.)
Then you're dumb for officer fitting a rifter. These should not be vulnerable to ewar
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:20:00 -
[3]
The 3000% is meant to be extreme. its complete discouragement from using neuts much like using points is discouraged by a massive bonus to activation cost during triage.
Reduction in tank wont reduce its effectiveness vs subcaps and will only hurt its given role. This is akin to an EHP bonus and does literally nothing but hurt the ship needlessly. A supercap at 10% hp is just as dead as a supercap at 1% hp. Not giving it that extra 9% is pointless. A reduction in the slots typically used to give cap recharge wont hurt its given role but will hurt its ability to be a highly mobile anti subcap fleet tool.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Piercing Silence nerf to bots> no thanks
I think you wandered into the wrong thread bro.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 06:42:00 -
[5]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.
Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:03:00 -
[6]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 07:03:41
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.
Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.
Sorry, but the idea of fighters shooting goto/bombs has been around well before your proposal. Anyhow, proceed with your super capital ultra nerf.
By the way, will fighters bombers be allowed to be assigned while these super carriers hug POS shields?
Sure there was, but during the prospective changes thread my thread as linked, not previous ones.
And nope sorry, I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does. But that doesn't change the fact it's needed.
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does.
So that is what this is about ehh? An alliance that has been using their supercarrier taking giant dukies all over your sandbox and you think its time for a nerf.
I just was simply correcting you and you burst into tears of rage over an alliance I was in before I quit the game.
Anyways, I am all for cutting back on capital ship projection. Especially super capitals. More sub caps, less super caps. Just so you know I do like some aspects of your idea. The problem is there is so many nerf in it that super caps will be back to POS hugging and the only time they will see combat is when they are dropped on an opposing force when it is going to a slaughter.
Remove the ability to field any non-fighter/bomber drones from super caps. If they want to Leroy around without a proper support fleet to keep the superstitious from being tacked then that is their problem. Can we at least agree on that?
We can definitely agree on that but I don't think CCP will simply remove all other drones from supercarriers. Simply giving them a small drone only bay forces them to pick and choose what they want to be able to counter and even then they cant simply spit drones endlessly.
As for your tears comment, this isnt about us fighting them. NCdot has clearly relied on its supercaps and still is. That's their primary worth right now. It makes sense that someone who is in the alliance would dislike a nerf to their bread winner.
These nerfs listed wouldnt ruin supercaps. They would remove a supercaps ability to be a highly mobile **** mobile that can counter anything in the game with only 30-40 ships. The only thing that counters 40 supecarriers is more supercaps. That's broken.
The amount of hictors required to tackle that many even if you bring more supercarriers than them is astronomical because of how quickly 40 supercarriers can melt/nuet down anything able to tackle them. That's broken. I dont think even 50 of them would be enough. You may get 3-6 supercarriers before they had time to react and get out but the simple mathematics of it are incredibly in the SC's favor of surviving.
That's assuming they have zero support. Which seems to be happening more and more. If 40 supercarriers have 200 support, then yes, they should be able to curbstomp damn near anything except more support and supercaps.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
How do you feel about a change where not all super caps are able to make it to a fight, even if they are online?
Also, I hate to break it to you, I'm not in NCDOT.
You means some arbitrary negative they would get for having a certain amount of supercaps in the system? I think it would only hurt the game and be abused even more than the current mechanics.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:27:00 -
[9]
So you want to give an advantage to people who play Eve rarely and punish those who play frequently.
That sounds like a terrible idea.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:59:00 -
[10]
I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:20:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
Hang out with different friends that are not narrow minded and not blinded by political agendas? v0v
Anyways, ill let you get back to nerfing super carriers back to POS ornaments.
Actually I meant they couldnt gather any message out of that but "Lets punish people for playing frequently".
Maybe your poorly worded block of words can be re worded to be more legible?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 01:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 04:43:00 -
[13]
Originally by: FDIC Agent Flame me if you wan't but I do like the idea of the more they jump around, the less likely they will be blobbing on your face like mentioned earlier. These changes do very little to keep them from dropping 50+ on a fleet of 50 normal capitals.
Add more nerfs to your proposal so they are only really useful for hugging a pos tower.
This is what we call an obvious troll. But thanks for the bump dude.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 11:02:00 -
[14]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 11:57:00 -
[15]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
All your proposal does is encourage them to only be fielded when it will be an ultra blob on someones face. Come on man, you should know better than with your half ass idea here.
No it ensures they will be deployed with support of a subcapital fleet. If for IT that means an ultra blob then so be it. That isn't how it is for all alliances though
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:08:00 -
[16]
Well at least you countered my proposal with well thought out examples of how these changes would do what you say.
Oh wait, you didn't.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:19:00 -
[17]
Quote: Scan resolution penalty? All this does it make it take longer and longer to lock capital ships. A useless nerf.
It takes my wyvern about 8 seconds to lock a capital ship. This would could raise that to maybe 10 while at the same time making it take over a minute to lock a dictor. Making them that much harder to tackle and kill unless they just idle on grid for a long time before bubbling for some reason.
Quote: The fighter bomber nerf, why? If you learned to read patch notes you would know they are being changed so they are no where near as affective against sub capitals. So again, all this does is nerf their ability to fight capital ships.
If you read patch notes you would know this change is in fact, already in the game. This change as stated in the OP is so capitals arent instagibbed quite so fast by fighter bombers. Right now dreads are virtually worthless because of the outrageous dps of FB.
Quote: Capacitor recharge? Are you hoping they bring triage carriers/guardians with them to cap each other up to jump out? If it is not a tactical good choice to fit neuts, then they will just fit remote cap transfers. So again, your cap nerf is just bypassed, therefor, a pointless nerf. But if it makes you feel like your nerf has more nerfness to it, then keep it I guess.
This does a number of things. Makes them cap out easier if you are neuting them, reduces their ability to maintain sustainable spider tanks, and finally makes them less mobile without support carriers giving them cap. Again encouraging the SC fleet to instead become a capital fleet with support carriers and dreads to accompany them.
Quote: The -1 fitting slot. First of all this will just make the Hel even more worthless. Another thing with all the carriers fitting remote cap transfer, again, your hope of them not fitting a cap recharger to get away is just bypassed.
This hurts cap recharge and utility further. That's the point. It won't hurt their EHP just their ability to maintain spider tanks, survive nueting and reduce their mobility. As for the hel...it's already worthless as you said. You cant retract worth from a worthless time. That goes against the very essence of the word worthless.
Quote: Also forcing them to pick between fighters and fighter bombers, why? They are incredibly easy to kill. And with support on the field they will make short work of them now that super carriers are not very effective against support. So again, a pointless nerf that just nerfs their effectiveness against other capitals, not support like you are claiming they are for.
Because 20 SC's fielding 20 fighters each melt hictors so fast you need 80 or more just to tackle the 20 SC's for a few minutes. If you want to keep them tackled for the half an hour it would take to kill that many in low lag conditions you need hundreds.
Quote: But, in the end, you have made up your mind you are the super carrier expert, and any discussion on your suggests as can be seen from previous posters, is meet with bitter rage. So arguing with you is pointless, just like most of your proposal. Just don't forget to reply to this with some meme or something of the equivalent so you feel like you have won some debate or something. For the sake of the super carrier pilots, I strongly suggest you have this moved to F&I section where it belongs instead of trying to force feed this to us. It is not 100% fail so it deserves to be discussed over there.
Given your statements in this thread I am going to go out on a limb and say you dont use a supercarrier. Either that or you simply don't use it or you would know the nerf vs subcaps is already in. I do, I have for some years. Several supercarrier pilots have already responded and endorsed this thread. So obviously your assumptions are off. But again, you're welcome to your opinion even if it's wrong
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 21/12/2010 13:54:04
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources desperate argument
You of all people are hardly a super carrier expert. lol
You position is unwavering and you refuse to discuss the suggestions. You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"
So again, your proposal is over the top. Too much of a nerf and you will make these turn into pos decorations or even worse, nothing but sanctume mission ships. Also it is funny how you argue for the nerf because you don't like how a specific alliance is using them. So it's, "Nerf how they use them, not how I use them" proposal.
Anyways, enjoy the free bumps to your thread.
So after having all that shot down with reasonable arguments this is the best you can do? Guess I am not surprised. See you in Fountain if you guys show up again ^_^
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 22:08:00 -
[19]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 21/12/2010 22:08:41
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.
It is not my goal to nerf conventional caps, and this could easily be avoided. Looking at the numbers a bit more closely, titans have a sig radius of 15-16km, supercarriers 10-12km, carriers about 3km and dreadnoughts less than 2km. Setting explosion radius to 15km would give carriers an 80% tank and dreadnoughts almost 90% against these weapons, before considering resistances etc. These missiles would be a form of torps and would not gain any bonuses to explosion radius from rigs, skills or implants.
With this restriction in place, it's just a matter of deciding on an appropriate peak DPS per bomber and making sure that they don't end up displacing dreadnoughts from their anti-POS role. This could be done by giving the torps a peak range of 20-25km - insufficient to reach a large control tower through the shields. Smaller control towers and other structures would be protected by their lower sig radius.
This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.
Alright so you bring a valid point. But these would still be a serious problem for sieged dreads. It may be possible in the future but in todays climate dreads are almost useless as is. Let's get out of the woods we are in presently before throwing more into the mix eh?
Originally by: Windjammer
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:56:00 -
[20]
Originally by: StanFromRiskManagement Actually you bring forth a few very valid points. I think a range negative instead of an activation bonus would be better. It wouldn't outright bar their ability to use the module but would hinder them using it against tacklers.
I also think you are right about the dread fleets of old. I will work on responding to this more lafter after I eat :)
Whoops, wrong account
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 03:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:30:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then youÆll understand itÆs more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,àà..stretching the truth?
I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say itÆs from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your groupÆs main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.
So in your mind you think a long time supercap pilot would troll the eve world to get supercarriers nerfed for what benefit?
Also it's not just MY source. I am just the only one raising my voice about it. Your knee jerk reaction however is noted. You forgot to mention we only fly t1 rifters and that there are no goons or one of a dozen other worn out memes.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:12:00 -
[23]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16 Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one. We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes. We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu. We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable. We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.
To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.
Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.
And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.
but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you?
I completely agree they are overwhelming to both capitals and subcapitals beyond what they should be. That's why my original post actually includes a 30% FB DPS nerf as opposed to your 25%. I also don't think carriers or motherships should be viable towards subcaps at all. That steals the thunder of subcapital fleets in my eyes and makes the game a little less fun.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:10:55
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16 Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one. We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes. We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu. We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable. We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
AND your group loves to screw with people. You have not addressed that assertion nor have you given any reason to believe you have special knowledge other than we should trust you. As a member of a group of people who love to spread disinformation we should trust you. Your assertion that the Supercarriers will be nerfed may be correct. As nerf happy as CCP is and with Zulu parked where he is it could well happen. However, your suggestion that the EVE community simply take your word for your alleged inside information is ludicrous. To state it as a matter of fact is absurd. To expect us to accept it as fact in support of your plan to nerf Supercarriers your way is unbelievable.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
Regardless of whatever else your group does or has done, it is composed of many who love to troll. Look up your groups history. ItÆs on the web for those who havenÆt had firsthand experience.
What youÆre saying is some of the CSM members are in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement? Further that your group regularly communicates with them regarding insider information?
-Windjammer
Actually I never claimed the CSM said it. You said that. Assumed that. As for knowing Goons history I am fairly well sure I know it more intimately than you. So if you think this is just a simple troll you don't think supercarriers would be more balanced from these proposed nerfs?
Actually I really can't tell at this point if you honestly don't think supercarriers are a large problem in current form or if you're simply trolling.
You surely can't believe that because some goons trolled that everything any goon says is a troll. That's straight Pavlovian conditioning right there.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:19:00 -
[26]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:20:24
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
YooHoo!!!
You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!
So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???
Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??
Do please provide proof of where I raged at the idea of removing non fighter/fighter bombers drones from the ship entirely. Just did a scan of the thread and I can't find me saying any such thing. I actually encouraged the removal of their ability to field as many non FB's. It's part of my original proposition.
I see one spot where I pointed out that removing FB alone and retaining everything else would remove this ships role versus capitals, which it would. Making it a very expensive carrier that does pretty much everything the same as a carrier. But I never try to discourage someone from suggesting you take away normal drones.
But yes I think that supercarriers should be more at risk without support present and thus make support more viable/vital on the battlefield.
I also took the liberty to make your post a little easier to read. Removed the signing of the post since your name is clearly evident on the left hand column.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?
Hai!
Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.
Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
It is castration to be sure their intended role(Which is anti capital work) remains intact and unintended roles(against sub capitals) does not?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:14:00 -
[28]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 10:17:06
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
No darlin, it does not. You make them player owned station modules that cost more than the tower itself.
Please rethink your idea, discuss it, and then bring it back in assembly hall.
Perhaps a reason supported by some mechanics/data supporting your wild claims?
Originally by: Windjammer Yeah. That'll work. Exactly what you needed to say to get him to stop.
As for you, you are a forum alt that has done nothing productive on the forums since 07 but try to troll any thread with the word nerf in it unless it involved nerfing suicide ganking in some way.
You came into the thread with some very obvious trolls but was humored for a while, you still have brought nothing beyond "U r goon u troll" and certainly haven't added to the discussion at all regarding supercaps and their use or misuse. I will likely keep responding to you because I appreciate the bumps but I won't be trying to argue with you anymore because you're using circular logic that is as flawed as it is annoying.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:34:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Vuk Lau TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
I could get behind this if the method of tackling remained the same(Bubbles and hictors only). Vulnerability to Ewar would permit subcaps to jam, sensor damp(hahaha, I hope people don't seriously use this module), jam, or target paint(not sure why this would be needed but whatever) the supercaps. Jamming alone would make it much harder for supercarriers to counter hictors and dictors attempting to tackle them. It would also give subcaps a role versus supercaps.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Windjammer
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.
Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:34:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Furb Killer Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.
Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
Relevance, fur killer, is found in my disproving the OPÆs allegation made in post 32 of this thread regarding his access to information nobody else has. The OP partially bases his request for support of his particular nerf by stating a nerf is coming and suggesting it will be a lot worse nerf than his suggestions if we donÆt accept his suggestions and try to move them through the CSM process to CCP. ItÆs nothing less than an attempt to panic people into accepting an overboard nerf of Supercapitals which will benefit the play style and membership his group uses. This is a one dimensional perspective and is hardly good for EVE as a whole.
This is what he wrote, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?ö
The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ôtrust meö. Hope this helps you.
-Windjammer
If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:42:00 -
[32]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 11:47:12
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.
Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
This is your best response? More avoidance of the questions regarding your credibility? Claims that IÆm trying to drag the thread into politics when what IÆm doing is questioning your credibility with some very direct questions? Questions you will not answer for fear of treading upon yourself?
-Windjammer
What part of makes you think that I want this one random empire dweller believe me when you are here just to argue pointlessly? You have brought literally nothing to this thread and continue to. But as always I appreciate the bumps.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:01:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donÆt support your proposal. IÆd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.
I find it interesting that youÆve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?
You wonÆt reveal your sources because they donÆt exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youÆre such an honest guy?
-Windjammer
So with this post you admit you're here just to argue and troll. Thanks for this.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:17:00 -
[34]
Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:24:00 -
[35]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 12:24:39
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.
I'm sorry Eddie,
I simply do not agree with what you want to do to the super carriers.
I left it at that and you kept replying with, "Why?! Why?! Why?!" You even used your alt yourself and messed it up exposing the alt as yours.
So can you please let us say we don't like it, give the reasons why, and if you don't agree, leave it there?
Anyhoo, again, I strongly advise you take this to Ideas and Discussion forum where it can be worked on. A lot of good things happen there so please don't be afraid.
You mean when I responded with an alt on accident and immediately admitted it was my alt? If you haven't noticed all my alts have the same naming scheme and thus are bad for alt posting on forums anonymously.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:46:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:50:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
Because I'm a lol t1 goonie nerfsploiter and so my only reason to play this game is to ruin it for everyone INCLUDING YOU
Ah well, the logs should be out soon and they can see the exact things said with everyone else. But :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 20:25:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Regina Wylde As discussed on twitter...
Make super carriers actual carriers.
- increase ship maintenance array from 2.5M m3 to 10M - bring back the clone bay - remove +3 fighter / bomber per level and set it back to 1 (dropping their dps dramatically, but still able to defend themselves) Borrowing Ed's idea a bit...have a separate fighter bay and drone bay. 600m3 drone bay, enough fighter space to hold 1 full set of bombers and fighters. - keep their current HP and ECM burst - increase their jump range to that of carriers
I believe this would help to re-balance super caps. Super carriers would be more logistical support, but still able to defend themselves on the field...but they wouldn't be the main damage dealers anymore. Let Titans and Dreads fill that role again.
They would be able to help pilots re-ship during an op and if someone gets podded they can jump clone back to the carrier. This might make them less of a front line ship, but that is the point.
I envision the future of large fleet battles to be (in order of damage) Titan, Dread, Super Carrier, Carrier, Battleship, HAC, BC etc...
peace o/
I will edit more into this response later as I have time tonight I just wanted to say do you remember how utterly worthless clone bays are/were?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:15:00 -
[39]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 23/12/2010 02:15:17 Skimming the thread I see a number of non NC powerbloc posters supporting this and only 3 non NC not supporting it. Also the thread has been a lot more of our powerbloc than anyone else because ive been spattering this all over our various forums, jabbers, voice comms, etc to get as much input as possible. The thread's like 2 days old. I am sure it will spread. So far the only people with problems with it haven't really been able to articulate what about it they think is bad. With the exception of Marlona who did a pretty good job and voiced actual concerns I have thought over.
edit: Thanks for PNQY Btw London.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:55:00 -
[40]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 23/12/2010 02:57:47
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources With the exception of Marlona who did a pretty good job and voiced actual concerns I have thought over.
Really? Because it looks like you did a good job of scaring her out of the thread on her last idea/comment. It was a bit long and I didn't follow what she was on about but never the less, my point still stands.
Just try and be a bit more neutral politically when it comes to AH, can you do that?
His last point was awful. But at least he tried to actually point out where he thought the flaws in the concept was. Unlike you ^_^
Originally by: Ephemeron This sounds right to me. The supercarrier is too powerful against sub-caps, mostly cause of fighters, regular drones, and heavy neuts.
Regular carriers also have most of that power against sub caps, but least regular carriers can be tackled and killed by medium gang of sub caps.
That's exactly what I came to as well. I think making them jammable would also help but I wouldnt like to see their ewar immunity completely removed. Things such as scramblers and webs should still not work on them.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 19:27:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Hollow Confrontation There is no solution to my mind, they were added and implemented badly, were nerfed then buffed and nerfed again.
Sov is fkd, super caps are fkd, this proposal is fkd.
No, because I'm fking sick of every one and his wife crying nerf, and because your goons I suspect an underlying reason for the change based on selfish reasons not the good of the game as your offensive in Fountain and moves into Delve against IT cap systems suggests.
Just calling it how I see it.
For me remove all super caps from the game and make titans gigantic mobile space stations hard to kill with limited offensive capability, as for sov I honestly can't see a good solution that would work.
Actually if you know anything of IT's supercap fleet you would know it's quite Titan Heavy. They have something along the lines of a dozen times our amount of titans. So if we wanted to have our best chance of getting into delve we would want Supercarriers to be as strong as possible not nerfing them if this was part of some ulterior motive.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 07:19:00 -
[42]
Except that a 20 man SC blob is 400 fighter bombers at a time. The odds of killing many even with half EHP is very slim unless you bomb them. Since we are routinely seeing 40 man SC gangs you would be seeing clouds of 800 FB at a time. Again, not going to make a big dent into that before they slaughter your fleet.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:00:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Someone suggested a state similar to siege when fighter bombers are deployed, with a little tweak that could be a pretty good way of dealing with the problem at hand:
FB's Out: * Loss of all invulnerabilities. * Unable to receive any remote assistance. * -50% sensor strength (drops to Carrier level).
Combined with a reduction of bay capacities so they can't carry a life-time supply of drones, using them would become a lot more "interesting".
You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:26:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?
Yep, which is why I said "similar to".
Essentially a state change like that given to regular capitals, but in reverse.
Honestly I really don't think anymore root mechanics are what this game needs. The game needs to be more fluid not less.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 07:42:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Intar Medris Why is everytime someone doesn't like getting their ass kicked by something in this game they want it nerfed. I hate warp scrams every hardcore pvper in the game has one, but you don't hear me crying to have em nerfed. Get some guts, and bring more DPS if you want to take one down.
If you took a moment to read the thread you would see its not just a whine thread. But I am sure the honourable EntroPraetorian Aegis fields many supercaps and thus is aware of their power in large numbers and how game breaking it can become |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 06:01:00 -
[46]
What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel? Also only the wyvern can seriously tank its EHP and put up a massive passive tank at the same time. Expect all other(non ******ed) supercap to be pure passive tanks
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:04:00 -
[47]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 27/12/2010 11:05:37
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?
Did you miss the thing about the active tank he mentioned? Not that anyone uses that, but thats probably where the missing EHP went.
Anyway, it doesnt really matter all that much, his point was the sig radius comparison I believe, and a dread dying in half the time a SC would live isnt too bad for the anti-supercap bomber scenario.
The fact no supercap in their right mind active tanks was my point. The numbers are based on a hypothetical situation that happens extremely rarely. Like if I ran numbers on encountering a deadspace tanked T1 rifter that was buffer tanked.
edit: I like the idea of small anti capital ships. However at this point we dont need more stuff to discourage normal capitals.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 14:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I've had a look at some of the numbers...
Want to bet that CCP also looked at those numbers and thought all was good?
Does not take into account that SC can receive RR while DPS'ing whereas the Dread cannot. Does not take into account that active SC's outnumber active Dreads by 2:1.
There may be thousands of Dreads in mothballs around Eve, but as long as SC are able to do their job better plus have all the versatility of Carriers there is no reason for people to even consider them.
This right here is the heart of my OP. My main is days away from a nearly perfect nag but ill likely never buy him one because we literally never field dreads. We field SC's p much every day.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:24:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Regina Wylde I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:00:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Regina Wylde
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Regina Wylde I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.
You probably did, I am at work and skimming most posts lol. But this fix is still sound...and it would give more people a reason to fly bombers, which appeals to my interest in getting everyone in eve to fly bombers lol. :D
Going to respond as I did last time. I really don't think Eve needs more root mechanics. The game needs to be more fluid not less.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 21:16:00 -
[51]
By messing with sig you also drastically reduce the damage they take from FB. Down to what BS levels were pre FB nerf.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:36:00 -
[52]
Originally by: leich This is the most rediculas idea i have ever read.
Super caps are under powered not over powered.
a Super cap fleet is a mix of anti BS blob and anti cap. Your sugestions take this away. and would make them useless against BS.
Look at this obvious troll here |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 02:33:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner Oh my goodness...
Almost 200 replies and only 35 votes for this idea.
I think it is safe to say this idea is bad.
Don't feel bad honey, you tried your best and that is what matters.
So, stop bringing this back to the top and it is time to flush this ok?
- <3 Toffee Stunner
Well this would be true if they were unique responses. However they aren't.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 04:45:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Jessica Autumn Well, havn't u all noticed they already got nerf DPS to sub caps is been cut by 30%, If u don't like how the Super Carriers are now then don't go hunting them, for 11-14 Billion isk, Id want something that can take on anything out there, Hence the SUPER CAPITAL, crying that there to OP has been going on since Dominion.
Actually they were nerfed against subcaps by far more than 30% but I think thats just the first step in what should happen.
As for the DICE troll you're in a pretty special place to talk about being butthurt. If you honestly view being unable to simply field one type of ship to counter p much anything in the game as "dumbing down" of Eve maybe you should relook into what the concept of dumbing down means.
You should also look into your apoc fits.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 04:16:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Dunhill 1 Like everything else things have ben buffed or nurfed. Another option please
So you want an option to bring them into line that isnt a nerf or buff? Do explain how you plan to accomplish that.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:37:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Shinma Apollo Supercarriers need to be rebalanced, but your proposed changes are largely terrible, since they mostly incorporate straw men and single-scenario circumstances without looking at the broader spectrum of supercap use.
More to the point, it's engaging in a silly buff/nerf cycle rather than creating more tools and allowing player innovation, rather than sheer numbers and dumb luck/server performance dictate engagements. I agree on the supercarrier HP nerf, or at the very least making a shield equivilant to slaves (and having gang stat bonuses not reset meaning 10-45% of your shields disappearing every trucking jump), but supercaps are a huge time/isk investment, and a similar time/isk investment should be demanded to down one of these behemoths.
As for the whining about supercaps being able to shake tacklers too easily, at least in 0.0, I blame this on substandard tacklers, not 'wtfpwnmobile' supercaps. I've been on several supercap kills that one dictor has been sufficient to keep a supercap tackled.
A couple of much more practical solutions include: - All dreads get an extra utility highslot, and create a module for it akin to hictor superpoint (scripted), usable only in siege. This will allow regular cap fleets to have some combat capability against supercapital fleets that come looking for ganks, but still force a commitment. Hictors and dictors can be used for primary tackle, and dreads for the follow-through. You'll see a number of neut dreads as a result as well, but this will also help the supercap destruction you so desire.
- Bring back AOE doomsday in some form: this is both a huge supercap nerf (Bye bye bombers/fighters!) and a much needed change to see a bit more variety in fleets than the current rediculously logistics dominated doctrines. 1 per system per hour would be a lovely, lovely inclusion with it to prevent unrealistic castling for the defender, but I'll settle for 20-30k damage. If you'd like a much lazier way to prevent multi-doomsdays scenarios, just add to every doomsday a huge energy neutralization side-effect to all hit ships. Gives a much more catastrophic-failure-doomsday like element to it. Personally, I'm ok with 4 titans instajibbing all the logis/support/recons from the fleet, especially given that with the improvements in server performance, in most scenarios you should have no problems dodging more than a single dd. (finally, I'm willing to wager that at 30k damage, you'd need about 50 titans to drop a nidhoggur blob, which with 50 titans you could adequately do in an easier fashion than said hypothetical mechanic)
- Capital Class ewar ships: this is just a side bit, but it does offer a very tried-and-true solution to the current problem of capital RR blobs. In fact, make them the new motherships for the Guristas/Angels/Serpentis/Blood Raider incursions for the **** of it(notsureifserious). A bit of variation in the toolkit would do wonders to help break the dilemma in capital warfare.
- Smartbombs/heavy bombers: getting a few + range and damage smartbombing ships would offer a lot of in-fleet support counters to fighter bombers, and add the lots of lulz when accidentally instajib every dictor you have. Also, the pirates in rancer would cry for joy at these, think of those wide-eyed pirates in rancer!
In sum, these are just a few more viable solutions that are not solely dedicated to rendering an entire shipclass down to complete **** again.
I stopped reading this after you said they needed an HP nerf and buff in consecutive sentences.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:33:00 -
[57]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 16/01/2011 09:35:19
Originally by: Marlona Sky Some ideas I have seen that I think would be good without over nerfing the supper carriers is:
- Remove the remote armor/shield/energy bonuses - Have the drone bay only allow fighters and fighter bombers - Change the +3 to drone amount to +1 - Have a +200% bonus to drone control units (so its bonus is +3 to drones deployed
That way they are far less effective to sub-capitals and if they want to use neuts, smart bombs, cloaks and ecm burst, they sacrifice damage.
This actually isn't a bad plan. They would still retain their role completely while their utility would be stripped. But their DPS would eclipse a titan. That's the only small flaw I see. How would we make titans semi relevant without making them overpowered?
This would allow a Revenant(Sansha Mothership) for example to do over 20 thousand DPS alone. Might need to tone FB damage down a bit if you did this to stop MS from becoming the only thing required in a cap fight.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:53:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Consider this information cited. You're welcome back to thread anytime you're ready to move past the :tinfoil: nonsense.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 01:52:00 -
[59]
I am sorry that the dev's stating it's a something of great concern to them doesnt translate into the same thing it does for people who have followed the CSm and dev conversations for half a decade. As for needing permission, it sure looks like you did :)
Nice wall of text to shout down a straw man though.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 09:35:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I am sorry that the dev's stating it's a something of great concern to them doesnt translate into the same thing it does for people who have followed the CSm and dev conversations for half a decade. As for needing permission, it sure looks like you did :)
Nice wall of text to shout down a straw man though.
*sigh*YouÆre admitting to being a straw man now? Actually admitting it. So this whole thread was just a troll. Geez. I knew you were full of it, I just didnÆt think youÆd admit it. Stillàààpretty good troll. Well done.
Regards, Windjammer
Nope, just admitting that your entire posting history in this thread has been arguing a straw man. Not the content, not the suggestions involved, just one thing you twisted to mean what you wanted for 3 pages ^_^ But hey keep on. Loving the bumps.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:59:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Marlona Sky And my idea that you can't recharge cap while your cloaked?
Also by doubling the cycle time of the DD means normal capitals and sub capitals will survive twice as long as they do now. The increased damage does not change if a sub-super capital will die faster, they already die from one hit. What it does mean is super caps will die faster. Less super caps is a win for everyone. But we are starting to get away from the topic of you thread.
I like the idea of proto and improved cloaks gaining a -100% cap regen bonus. Would go a long way to nerfing the behaviour you just stated and other unintended things like afk cloaking. Granted it would have a far lesser effect on subcapitals. It would be crippling to supercaps. A good thing imho.
As for the damage increase it would give entities with titans the abily to alpha a supercap with 7 or 8 titans. Numerous alliances can field 20-40 of them. This would end in people simply not flying supercarriers and instead flying only titans. Not because supercarriers are worthless but because it would be all about whoever could get the most DD's off as fast as possible and nearly nothing else.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 15:24:00 -
[62]
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: james1122 Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.
Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.
hmmm no? admitablly it was an off the cuff idea but what makes it so outragiously wrong then ?
All the above points mentioned are good at nerfing SC's but none of them really seem to address the issue of giving SC's their own unique role as well as giving a purpose back to dreads.
Dreads still have to seige and be stuck in place for 10 minutes in which time they are immune to RR. SC's can wipe dreads out with disgusting efficancy and are also currently better at taking down pos's and sov structures.
My idea makes SCs even more efficant at knocking out sov structures but gives Dreads back a purpose of anti-capitals. At the moment dreads are simply eclipsed by SCs.
Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures. This is seriously the worst idea I have seen in this thread. That includes the guy who spams emotes.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:09:00 -
[63]
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.
Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals. Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige). Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme. What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.
Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.
Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)
If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make supercarriers anti everything.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 04:37:00 -
[64]
Originally by: james1122 Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 18:09:34
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make super carriers anti everything.
Lol your a bit of a d*** really arenÆt you :p
I like your original proposal as well as many of the other changes mentioned by other players, they would go along way towards balancing the ship as a hole.
However none of these ideas seem to address the fact that SCs leave dreads with very little purpose. Was just trying to fire off ideas to give dreads some meaning other than SC fodder.
The inability to be repÆd or move whilst in siege mean they are just to much of a liability compared to SCs and even regular carriers.
What do you suggest as a solution to giving dreads an active purpose in current cap-warfare?
This thread isn't here to suggest a fix to make dreads useful. That would likely be a seperate change *to dreads*.
This thread is here to discuss changes to SC vs subcaps so they cant roflstomp subcap fleets and any tacklers involved.
And ya, im a ****. Why would that bother me? You obviously havent even read the OP of the thread with your last 2 posts.
@Bobbeh your corp mate suggested my original FB idea verbatim, congrats. It's my understanding they werent put into the game in that way because CCP would have had to alter drone mechanics heavily and they dont really know how drones work anymore.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:17:00 -
[65]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/01/2011 07:18:28
Originally by: CHAOS100 Edited by: CHAOS100 on 20/01/2011 07:16:02 Keep everything the same.
But remove EW immunity. Except for regular warp disruptors. Maybe reduce sensor strengths to concentrate the nerf.
Problem solved.
This means they are still useful in smaller numbers and multiplied in large numbers, except they are counter-able by something other than an equal number of supercaps, because people will be able to jam and dampen the hell out of them.
The only ewar that would be even remotely useful to use against them would be ECM. So really youre wanting ECM immunity removed. Because one races overpowered ewar apparently "balances" things.
Hint: It doesn't.
Jamming 30-40 supercaps would take at least 100 dedicated ECM boats if not more using all the proper racial jammers and we all know what drones tend to do against those who are jamming their host. This would just result in a lot of dead ECM boats followed by the rest of the subcaps.
An unjammed titan can alpha an ECM boat every 15-16 seconsd.
|
|
|
|