Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
RogueHunteer
Perkone Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 04:16:00 -
[121] - Quote
Problems are you need to be in large groups to use them and need support in order to want to field them... Give them a reason to enter the field not to just shot other capitals at this point. Supers should have their own race remote burst in E-WAR. They may be the biggest in the game but it's time we remove the fear of using them in none blog form. By cutting the cost of replacing them. At this point I think build cost for all supers and titans should be cut in half. More to lose and more to build. Also the hit points on supers and titans need to be cut in half. More used in combat and fear of replacing them because of the cost is just dumb.
Aeon - Remote burst "Neut" to only 60% cap on any ship in range. Wyvern - Remote burst "ECM" already in the game. Only change is it only effect your ship once every 10 mins. Nyx - Remote burst "Warp Jam" for 30 secs no point needed. Only effect your ship once every 10 mins Hel - Remote burst "Webs" for 30 secs your ship loses 40% of it's speed.
What makes this set up nice it wont matter if you get blog by supers. Some modular only effect your ships to a point and time. |
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 04:47:19 -
[122] - Quote
My question is how does all of this fit into sov 5.0? (I know nothing about supers, so I can't speak to them at all.)
I am a huge proponent of small numbers of caps as force multipliers. I think they offer a very cool variety of fights in wormholes, and they allow smaller fleets to fight larger ones.
The problem, as previously stated, is large numbers of caps at once. Therefore, to me it is not about balancing capitals, as the spot they are in is not untenable. The problem is creating this new sov system to discourage groups of 50 capitals flying around at once. How do we have a system where the best method of play is putting a couple triage carriers at 10 different nodes instead of piling them all into one node as 50 slowcats? I know I am biased but I think if you could encourage that type of playstyle with the mechanics a lot of these pilots who think capitals are useless would go away. I have a hard time feeling carriers and dreads are useless when I see how they are used. |
Anthar Thebess
983
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 08:01:28 -
[123] - Quote
Capitals are good force multiplier in subcaps fights. Dreads can blap battleships off the field ( currently unused because of the slowcats) Triaged carriers can change battlefield within few minutes. In both cases we are just talking about handful capitals deployed on field.
Issue is with massive use of carriers that are totally broken.
I will be telling this over and over again. Simply because there is almost no possibility to kill a slowcat fleet in this game. Not because this is not possible on paper - in theory this is quite simple - but because SERVERS ARE UNABLE TO COMPUTE scale of fight needed to do it.
This is totally broken, and just need to go.
Supers , i don't have bloody idea what to do with them. Again when used alone they are perfect in their role , but when it comes to mass use of motherships we have the same issues that we see in slowcat fleet.
No one drops swarm of titans without any support as they are easy targets, but remote capital reps without need of triage , kill every thing.
Just one idea for sansha motherships, i always loved idea that sansha mothersip have bit longer range than other supers. While changing other supers make leave it alone, but increase jump drive range to 7 ly. This way we will see ratting capitals dropped by revenants from time to time, and some revenant kills also - as potential support ships will be out of range.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:08:45 -
[124] - Quote
What i find it illogical is for a 9km ship to be defenseless and powerless against a 200m boat, no matter the fit. This should change.
Capitals are super-sized ships. Make super-size modules for each type and let them fit those.
Or start with a basic structure and armor and let them fit a much bigger number of any modules. A dread is an attack-oriented ship 5 times bigger than a battleship - let it have 5 times more high slots and twice the slots for medium and low. A carrier should be more logistic-oriented, so let it have twice the high slots and 5 times the low/medium slots.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
138
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 09:14:08 -
[125] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:The problem with carriers as they are is they are very overpowered... Seriously? Carriers are OP? You were told this throughout the whole Halloween war and it's only now that you are able to grasp it. Damn, that's fast.
Manfred Sideous wrote:...they are very overpowered being able to fill multiple roles simultaneously. This premise is wrong. During the same Halloween war, I witnessed so called "wrecking ball" formation. First, you deploy Archons in "defense" mode, hold the grid and **** in local. If some threat appears (like dreads), you 1) jump in motherships which are in "logistics" mode; 2) switch Archons to "attack" mode; 3) wreak havoc; 4) **** in local. That setup, in spite of using modes, could only be defeated if we dogpile more supers and titans. It was demonstrated in B-R5.
Thus, the idea of modes is irrelevant. Furthermore, modes are the gimmick for T3 ships. For ordinary ships, modes are realized via fitting. You feel like carriers take too many roles at the same time? Cut fitting slots, problem solved. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
330
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 12:00:33 -
[126] - Quote
The whole modes idea is quite interesting. I'm not sure if there should be so many ships able to swap between operating modes, but for capitals it might prove worth it. After all, "modes" means the ship will be able to be good at one thing at a time, forcing players to plan more. I see it particularly useful for carriers and supercarriers, and maybe titans too. Not so sure about dreadnoughts (they have siege mode after all).
I also think there could be more capital variety. Perhaps more T2 versions, or completely new ships for new roles. What about a capital construction ship, especialized on deploying structures of any size? Given those are going to be quite revamped too, it could be nice to have it. Think about it as a deployment/deconstruction-focused industrial capital ship. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
914
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:11:45 -
[127] - Quote
Modes are not going to fix the problems with Carriers, if you can easily transition between them. You need to seriously nerf the Carriers' remote repair ability when they are out of Triage. Put more of the bonus onto the Triage modules and less on the base hull.
For Supercarriers, the electronic warfare immunity was a stupid idea and needs to go. That is the biggest thing.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah
480
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:54:18 -
[128] - Quote
Super-capitals along with the Roqual should get station service slots. A limited number and restricted by type, but they should totally get station service slots.
I think a Roqual with refining capabilities and production capabilities would definitely give it some love.
Titans and Roquals already have some services like clone vats. This would just be an expansion on this idea. So instead of the normal high-slot item that the Roqual gets, instead it and the other super-caps would get a high-slot item that makes the thing stationary, gives it a reinforce/entosis link mechanic makes the station services available.
They effectively become mobile cities. Give them bonuses to certain station services like structures have. But this idea really excites me and I think it could give the supers some love, especially the Roqual. |
Jori Ituin
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 19:47:12 -
[129] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Super-capitals along with the Roqual should get station service slots. A limited number and restricted by type, but they should totally get station service slots.
I think a Roqual with refining capabilities and production capabilities would definitely give it some love.
Titans and Roquals already have some services like clone vats. This would just be an expansion on this idea. So instead of the normal high-slot item that the Roqual gets, instead it and the other super-caps would get a high-slot item that makes the thing stationary, gives it a reinforce/entosis link mechanic makes the station services available.
They effectively become mobile cities. Give them bonuses to certain station services like structures have. But this idea really excites me and I think it could give the supers some love, especially the Roqual.
Edit: Oh, addendum, pilots in supers shouldn't show up in locator agents when station services are turned on.
Ever since I started reading the Lost Fleet series of books by Jack Campbell, I've thought that the Rorqual should have a limited capability to manufacture ammunition, cap boosters and drones... |
Jori Ituin
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 19:54:07 -
[130] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix. Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.
Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays. |
|
Jori Ituin
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 20:07:54 -
[131] - Quote
One change I'd like to see made to supercarriers, which has no bearing on their role or combat effectiveness is local drones orbiting/ flying about the ship. These would be a graphical change only and could be client based, so that they have no effect on the server, there should probably be an option to turn them on or off as I'd assume that you'd probably want them turned off in a large fleet fight. |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 20:17:09 -
[132] - Quote
What if we changed logistics fundamentally?
Half the logi get capacitor transmitters. This can help with local reps as well as support a rep chain. Changes which push ships more to this might actually count in favor of offensive blobbing because it's the quickest way to burn down a target.
If shield logi had instead the function of increasing the resists on a target rather than giving reps, this could coincide with increasing the effect of local reps. So would any module that would decrease the sig of a target. None of these changes does much about blobbing, especially cap blobbing.
Perhaps if shield transporters exchanged shield for shield, instead of cap for shield, damage done to one target is simply shared through the fleet. This would oblige a fleet to have some local reps acting as donors. Rather than have logi just give each other cap, they rely on the rest of the fleet giving them shield and armor, thus decreasing the range of rep fleets and increasing their susceptibility to bombs. Perhaps it would be simpler and accomplish the same thing by simply removing the range bonus on remote capacitor transmitters. Falloff could be added to mitigate this somewhat.
Definitely we need some penalties for CCC and other engineering rigs. Perhaps we need some dedicated logistics rigs that carry worthwhile penalties. All the rigs need stacking penalties, and those that currently don't need to be brought in line with those that do.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1316
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 20:23:09 -
[133] - Quote
Jori Ituin wrote:Galphii wrote:Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix. Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.
Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays.
Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters.
Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless.
And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes. |
Jori Ituin
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 21:06:21 -
[134] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Jori Ituin wrote:Galphii wrote:Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix. Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.
Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays. Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters. Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless. And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes.
Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue.
|
Rinai Vero
Moira. Villore Accords
545
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:34:58 -
[135] - Quote
I've never flown a capital ship. Most of my EVE time has been spent in Low Sec engaged in FW. When Phoebe changes were implemented caps became more viable in the Low Sec world, so I started training them.
Honestly, I think it is probably for the best that Caps start to be used less in 0.0 Sov fighting, but that's an opinion from someone who's had nothing to do with 0.0 sov so far.
My advice is to wait to see what kind of fights are developing once Entosis Sov goes into effect. I'm seeing lots of discussion in this thread based on how unbalanced the *current* Cap meta is and how *current* battles are being negatively impacted. Throw all that thinking away, because Entosis Sov *will* render it moot.
I speculate that Caps will have plenty of utility if people think about using them dynamically to support the kinds of engagements Entosis Sov will be generating. Having battles spread out over entire constellations in and of itself will be huge. Many of the complaints about Caps / Supercaps that are referenced here depend on exactly the kind of massive concentrated battles that Entosis Sov will be making *much* more rare.
Imagine instead of only logging in cap / supercap fleets for that one massive escalation, that cap fleets are instead deployed as needed to support an entire constellation or region wide offensive consisting of numerous subcap fleets out completing sov objectives. You might only need to deploy a single carrier at a clutch moment in one fight, while still keeping your dreds on standby incase an entirely different fleet gets hotdropped by the enemy. Maybe that hotdrop happens at the same time that the first carrier gets counterdropped. Did you keep enough caps on standby to support both engagements?
These are the kinds of things that will be happening, and they have the potential to be awesome even with the cap meta as it is. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
303
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:38:42 -
[136] - Quote
Jori Ituin wrote:Anhenka wrote:Jori Ituin wrote:Galphii wrote:Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix. Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.
Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays. Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters. Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless. And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes. Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue. That was mostly to keep supers in line with the changes for carriers, yes. In a later post I suggested the bonus for deploying additional drones could be modified to only apply to fighters (and fighter bombers), and so only 5 regular drones could be deployed from capitals. This would remove the need for supers to be unable to launch regular drones, so they could actually carry a bunch of lights if they wanted a little point defence, being limited to 5 at a time.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
916
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:38:12 -
[137] - Quote
Jori Ituin wrote:Anhenka wrote:Jori Ituin wrote:Galphii wrote:Just going to throw a few ideas into the mix. Reduce fighter m3 to 50, and fighter/bombers to 100m3. Give carriers a 1000m3 drone bay, and supercarriers a 2000m3 bay. This reduces the ridiculous amount of regular drones they can carry and forces important decisions about their complement.
Hmm, the last time I checked supercarriers can only put fighters and fighter bombers in their drone bays. Well you couldn't scale one down and not the other, or the super-carrier could hold thousands of fighters. Not that it matters since as usual the fact that two carriers can refit off the other to put drones into the drone bay from the 10k m3 corp hangar array means that attempts to scale down the number of non fighter drones by modifying drone bay size are useless. And now that carrier fleets tend to only go one or two jumps max for an op, you don't even need to keep most of your space full of spare topes. Sorry, my point was that Galphil has identified an issue, namely '...ridiculous amounts of regular drones they carry...' that affects carriers only. I believe that supercarriers' current drone bay sizes and their limitations [with out checking I seem to recall 10x fighters and 10x fighter bombers with room for a couple of extras] are not an issue.
Just make it so that Carriers cannot carry subcapital drones. Problem solved.
Compensate with a bonus to smartbomb cycle time or damage (for racial damage type only).
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1318
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:42:20 -
[138] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Just make it so that Carriers cannot carry subcapital drones. Problem solved.
Compensate with a bonus to smartbomb cycle time or damage (for racial damage type only). Ah, the ever popular "Burn it to the ground and let nobody sort it out" option.
Thankfully, I'm 100% sure CCP won't listen to them. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
406
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:43:57 -
[139] - Quote
Half of you people don't have any idea of how terrible fighters are. They die in an instant to any fleet and they are barely usable against subcaps. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
895
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 01:57:43 -
[140] - Quote
Just make sentry drones BS ONLY. It will solve so many issues. Taking them away from carriers would put carries in a good spot. There is no actual use for sentry drones on carriers. There are several abuses (such as deliberate premeditated player induced soul crushing lag - the kind where you are dead 20 minutes before you load grid) that removing sentries from carrier drone bays would elliminate.
This would also bring the ishtar back in line with the other HACs. It's current role as a risk averse PAC (*USSY ASSAULT CRUISER) would go away. No more drop and run for the ladies!
|
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 03:10:12 -
[141] - Quote
Ok, I have some basic ideas for what I could see as decent overhauls for each (combat) capital class. Dreads and titans in particular would receive particular attention to how XL weapons would be changed.
XL weapons get their damage brought up 500%, and titans get their damage bonuses removed. All titans instead receive range bonuses to their weapon systems.
Siege and triage modules are removed from the game, and instead dreadnaughts and carriers get different modes. -Dread Siege Mode affects instead tank and range, akin to how bastion works, and carriers get triage mode (hull bonuses on dreads as well as possibly a small dmg bonus on siege mode to bring it up to current dps lvls would be appropriate). In addition to this, they both gain an Attack mode bonus which increases a weapon sig reduction bonus for dreads and drone speed for carriers, as well as a 25% tracking increase for both. It does not have a rep bonus, though.
-Supercarriers and titans gain 'Citadel Mode' which extends their shield hp into a large starbase-style bubble around them, and become immobile. Members who are in fleet when this gets turned on do not get launched out by the shield, and those who aren't do get forcibly ejected, leading me to believe some physics may need to be tweaked to make this a reality.
All capital transfer arrays get their range extended by 250%. The current range bonuses get dropped, and the levelled bonuses for racial carriers and supercarriers becomes this: -Archon and Aeon get a 5% bonus to the EM damage of drones per level
-Chimera and Wyvern get a 5% bonus to Kinetic damage of drones per level
-Thanatos and Nyx get their damage bonus changed to thermal, and gain a 7.5% bonus to local armor repair amount per level.
-Hel and Nidhoggur get a 5% bonus to Explosive damage of drones per level, and both gain a 7.5% bonus to local shield repair per level. The Nidhoggur gets a low moved to a mid slot, and both ships lose their remote repair bonuses.
All capital ships with ship maintenance arrays that can carry ships allow for pilots to dock in them as they would a station, albeit still having to follow the same space restrictions. This would, for example, allow 5000 capsules to dock up into a titan's ship maint array. I think it would also be fair to allow that if the ship was destroyed, the ships within it didn't get destroyed as well as they are active. There is quite a bit of room for debate on this, and I'd be happy either way.
[*] Carriers and dreadnaughts (but not supers) would be allowed in hisec. Capital sized RR and weapons would be disallowed from activation, including fighters. Sentries and heavies, however, would be allowed on carriers. |
Shaklu
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 04:20:16 -
[142] - Quote
Modes would be sweet if they had animation. I can imagine some pretty fun stuff with the Aeon. |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1318
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 05:05:40 -
[143] - Quote
Shaklu wrote:Modes would be sweet if they had animation. I can imagine some pretty fun stuff with the Aeon.
The only animation I want to see on the Aeon is a fusion dance that results in a complete Aeon.
Or Voltron. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 08:54:44 -
[144] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Shaklu wrote:Modes would be sweet if they had animation. I can imagine some pretty fun stuff with the Aeon. The only animation I want to see on the Aeon is a fusion dance that results in a complete Aeon. Or Voltron. I thought it was funny how when they did the apoc remodel they were saying that it finally had been 'finished' after 10 years.
Did they forget the Aeon was a thing? |
Shaklu
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 09:58:49 -
[145] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Shaklu wrote:Modes would be sweet if they had animation. I can imagine some pretty fun stuff with the Aeon. The only animation I want to see on the Aeon is a fusion dance that results in a complete Aeon. Or Voltron. Would't that just make it look like a huge floating suppository?
A.. Super Suppository? |
Olivias Lahoe
Black Market Imperium
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 12:13:30 -
[146] - Quote
Capital ships in high sec is a wonderful idea because that would include Rorquals.
Your not exactly gonna say all capital warships but no industrial ones, right?
Hehe. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 16:39:41 -
[147] - Quote
Olivias Lahoe wrote:Capital ships in high sec is a wonderful idea because that would include Rorquals.
Your not exactly gonna say all capital warships but no industrial ones, right?
Hehe. Idk I don't do heavy industry much, so I don't know the balance elements involved in the rorq. If there are some combat-related reasons why it'd be a bad idea I suppose those might need to be looked at if it was given the green light to go into hisec. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 22:09:29 -
[148] - Quote
An important aspect to consider when revising all capitals is that supercarriers and dreadnaughts currently have the same role - anti-capital and anti-structure. The difference is one is extremely vulnerable while performing this role an the other is almost invulnerable. If this tiericide initiative is to balance them out, one of these ships needs to switch roles. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned a mobile station role for supercarriers, effectively reverting them back to the old 'mothership' role (but a lot better, I would assume). That's certainly one way of dealing with the problem, and I love the idea of a supercapital becoming a mobile station, which makes sense in the upcoming dynamic, mobility-based sov.
As to the thought that fighters currently suck against subcaps, well, that's kind of the point. Reduce or remove the ability for carriers to use regular drones and they will need escorts - just like capital ships should.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
688
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 23:08:31 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hey All,
Awesome discussion so far. We're keeping a close eye on this thread (and others like it).
Moar Words Please. CCP Larrikin be lurrkin
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 23:22:18 -
[150] - Quote
What I don't like:
- Supers/Titans have become a single player investment rather than a corporate/allied force multiplier. I don't know what to do about it, as there is no way to remove them from the game and make everyone start over, but I still don't like it.
- I don't like that the (2nd) most powerful class of ships the game (carriers/dreads) can be immobilized by a single, lucky pilot with a warp disruptor. Granted, a Carrier -vs- frigate one on one should not be the norm, but still, why can't a capital ship have some sort of e-war/scram resistance built into the hull? For that matter, why aren't there multi-sized warp disruptors/scramblers? I also don't like that there is not a specific disruption module to stop JUMPING by my capital ship. I can warp or I can jump. Two different things, but apparently susceptible to the same disruption.
- I don't like that it takes forever and a day to lock a target. See point above, biggest/best ships... why are my sensors so crappy?
- I don't like that my CARRIER is a glorified drone boat. I want it to CARRY stuff, like other ships and be an actual staging area for my fleet rather than (potentially) one of the DPS boats.
- I don't like that Fighters cost as much as cruisers, but are the size of a frigates. I don't like that they are considered drones in the game, but in the lore they are piloted small, fast attack ships. I also don't like that they have infinite ammo/capacitor. I also don't like that they sit in the same bay as my drones.
- I don't like that Dreadnaughts only have 3 hardpoints for turrets/launchers. If CCP wants to keep the DPS the same, do some maths, but come on, give them a few more guns to shoot.
- I don't like that Caldari does not have a Rail-Naught.
- I don't like that Carriers have like 5 roles and Dreads have one.
- I don't like that my Chimera is only about twice as long as my Rokh. Make the scale bigger, like WAY bigger.
What I like about Capitals:
- I like that they have steep build and skill requirements
- I like the look of every carrier, dread, super and titan in the game
- I like that they have a unique style of movement (jumping) that only a few ships in the game use.
- I like that Titans have Uber-Weapons, and Supers/Carriers have a special "drone" that no other ship can use.
- I like that Dreads and Carriers have siege/triage modules that give them a unique/special ability
- I like the idea of Titans being a mobile base
What I think should change:
- I think Titans need to be actual, literal mobile bases. They should have docking services for a limited number of sub-capital ships with a fitting service and repair service. I think they should have a "deploy" siege button along the lines of dreads/Carriers to facilitate this. The pilots docked should have access to a corp/alliance locker to fit/store stuff.
- I think intra-system jumping should be allowed using cynos. I think inter-system jumping should be allowed using stars, planets or stationary cyno beacons (new structures) that are within range. I think there should be only 5% normal fatigue for in-system jumps, but the same jump cool-down timer
- I think Carriers should only be able to fly Fighters, and supercarriers fighters and FBs. I think volume of fighters and FBs should be halved. I think FB's should actually work like bombers: they launch from Super, target lock, launch an actual bomb then return to FB bay ready to be reloaded. I think Fighters should need maintenance (regular repairs from heat/ammo usage) and a maximum flight time associated with their level of maintenance.
In the Sov 5 thought process, capitals are no longer necessary to take/hold sov. So what should their strategic value be? They should act as force multipliers for those using them. Their use should be tied to the movement/strategy of a fleet.
A carrier should bring the ships necessary to win the fight to the field and the logistics necessary to survive for the next fight. They should offer support in the form of Fighters to others bringing DPS, but not be able to apply it themselves (this would mean bring the delegate fighters function back). I think they should be able to launch fighters at the same time as offering logistics, but require high-slot dedication to choose what they do. Carriers in and of themselves should be able to do nothing damage wise to any other ship. Even 100 Carriers should just be able to sit there spider tanking and waiting for the rest of the fleet to show.
Dreadnaughts should be capital killing machines and also electronics beasts that can ewar/dampen/web/whatever the enemy sub-fleet, but be unable to easily apply damage to them. (Think uber non-cloaky recon monsters). Their DPS should apply only to other caps, but their benefit should be felt in "non-capital" engagements.
Supers should be the real AOE ship, via use of FB's and require "painting" of bomb targets via sub-capital support. Similar to Carriers, they should be unable to independently deliver damage.
Titans should be actual mobile bases for the sake of making logistics easier during long "wars." See point above regarding titans. Their Doomsday weapon should require sub-cap "painting" of the target (similar to Supers above). When in their "deployed" mode (allowing docking, etc...) they should be invuln to anything other than dreadnaught fire. When not "deployed" they should act as they currently do now, with the addition of the painting requirement.
Cedric
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |