Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 05:40:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed THEY DON'T NEED BUFFS!!!! THEY NEED TO BE USED IN THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED.
Quote: - They die so easily its not even funny.
They are not solo pwnmobiles they are support ships. you wouldn't take a Oneiros or a Falcon on a solo roam would you? Supper caps are support ships made to assist off grid more then on grid of a conventional capital fleet. They support with either bonuses like the titan or with massive swarms of fighters like the mother ships.
think of it this way. would you want to put wheels on a aircraft carrier and have it drive on land and directly support tanks and troops where it would be a huge lumbering target? Or, maybe would you keep it 5 miles off the coast and hundreds of miles out from the war zone delivering death from afar? If your answer is death from afar please, then why would you want to do this with a mother ship then?
The biggest effect Titans can have on a large fleet engagements are not the Doomsday's, its the fleet bonuses it can supply to the fleet, and the logistic support of the titan bridge.
how often do you see titan death mails with gang links attached, or mother ships with clone vat bays? NEVER!
It would be absolutely scary to find a null sec alliance that understands how to use a super capital, and uses their super caps the way CCP intended.
Yes guys, battle bestowers to the front lines, moms to the back.
I always spend 15-40 bil on a ship so that it can pos park. Get a fricking clue dude, all ships have a huge issue with hp and blobbing, moms just get the ass end of it. So you can either petition here for CCP to revamp their entire failure of a combat and 0.0 system immediately, or you can ask for a mom/titan revamp... I think the latter is more reasonable baby step.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Dave Meltdown
Capital Construction Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:42:00 -
[212]
|
Erik Steambottle
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 10:12:00 -
[213]
|
Market Ruler
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 18:18:00 -
[214]
bumped b/c i care
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 21:03:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 17/07/2009 21:07:09 Motherships don't make sense as frontline ships, they're more of a giant logistics / long range support ship (fighters).
This is not, however, an entertaining way to play.
I'd be all for buffing supercaps if there weren't so many titans in the game. As it is, titans need to be easy to kill, because they're no longer a rarity. When you can have a dozen titans on one side, it won't be an 'epic battle to kill one', you'll just have more titans warp in and nuke everything off the field to save the tackled titan, unless the titan goes down quickly.
Edit: Unless the proposed titan change came as well.
Personally, I'd make the doomsday a single target 100k damage with a ROF of a minute or so. This way, the titan can melt through battleships, but has to stay on the field and fight rather than nuking the field and warping out.
Or a titan class siege module, capital turrets that can track battleships and the ability to be RR'd (unlike a dread in siege), basically making the titan fight like an improved dreadnought designed to kill battleships. Though 6 capital turrets and a doomsday would work nicely against capitals, too...
Thinking it's role in battle compared to a dread would be similar to a mothership compared to a carrier. |
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 08:49:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Bobbeh on 22/07/2009 08:49:53 Bumped because i love my wyvern and she doesnt feel the love!
I dont disagree carriers are logistics tools as much as support for dreads if and when regular fleets come rolling in. But since Ms's cant dock they suffer greatly as a tool to haul ships around with seeing as you have to have pilots on both sides to load and unload. Where with a carrier you can just dump em into your hangar and contract or trade them back ( or deliver if you have an office and they are corpmates). Also The Mother ship has no more bonus to repping than carriers, so its no more effective to rep with one. As well they also limited by the fact that they melt like butter on a stove when they get into a cap fight so why bring one at all.
I guess what im getting at is they have very little purpose and use in the game as it stands unless you wanna lose it. This is cause their survivability is soo low that its sad. All we are asking is to give MS's a purpose that is different than a carrier something they excel at other than drones. Finally for titans i would love to see battle titans with guns fitted and a siege mod warping in with the carriers and dreads and motherships to cap fights like a mixed fleet of caps. Instead of look a fleet of dreads spotted with carriers, who are really just dread pilots who are in training.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 12:17:00 -
[217]
Still no rewrite from Vuk though, maybe he is waiting until the meeting at fanfest? Or maybe with the upcoming winter expansion changing sovereignty there is a little sentiment that CCP have made up their minds internally already and trying to push any changes by players is a waste of energy?
|
Varden Gage
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 14:46:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Varden Gage on 22/07/2009 14:52:04
Originally by: Butter Dog I don't believe a large area-of-effect weapon which effectively disables hundreds of pilots at the click of a button can *ever* be considered balanced, or needed. Or fun. In short, I don't agree it should be an anti-support ship with an area of effect weapon.
I believe the titan would be more balanced in an anti-capital role, with its logistics capabilities fully intact. And it would still be tactically extremely useful, not to mention fun.
Agree 100 percent.
Mother Ships are in dire need of some enhancements. They aren't even close to being worth the cost in their present form, especially considering all the shortcomings that CCP has saddled them with. At a minimum, they need Tech II fighters and enhanced survivability. Otherwise, why bother at all?
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 19:21:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Varden Gage Edited by: Varden Gage on 22/07/2009 14:52:04
Originally by: Butter Dog I don't believe a large area-of-effect weapon which effectively disables hundreds of pilots at the click of a button can *ever* be considered balanced, or needed. Or fun. In short, I don't agree it should be an anti-support ship with an area of effect weapon.
I believe the titan would be more balanced in an anti-capital role, with its logistics capabilities fully intact. And it would still be tactically extremely useful, not to mention fun.
Agree 100 percent.
Mother Ships are in dire need of some enhancements. They aren't even close to being worth the cost in their present form, especially considering all the shortcomings that CCP has saddled them with. At a minimum, they need Tech II fighters and enhanced survivability. Otherwise, why bother at all?
You quote an item on titans to emphasise support for mothership changes?
Odd I like the T2 fighters part however, though I would not like even more complexity and little crafting steps. Simple more specialised Fighter versions would be nice. Heavy Fighters, Interdiction Fighters, along those lines.
I also liked the idea that got floated around elsewhere on using the Remote ECM burst with scripts, to punch dreads out of siege and such.
|
Insidious
Amarr coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 07:35:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Insidious on 30/07/2009 07:44:32
read the Supercaps thread on the wiki and overall I like it.
Here is what I would like to contribute;
Motherships; Sure give them 3x HP. The ability to fit 8xdmg Large guns 8xdmg Medium Guns 8xdmg Small Guns **** even 8xdmg missiles (prolly either 8xdmg large and/or one other to make 2 modules of diff class weapons, prolly not all 4-5dmg classes. Could unbalance small scale warfare vs motherships @ all 5 dmg classes, but shouldnt for 2-3 dmg classes)
Titans; Discouraging destructive DD away for additions to its function that disables ships/modules aoe stuff(s) sounds really really cool. Something like a massive 250km radius warp bubble that disables engines completely. Or race especific ie caldari dd disables targetting, etc..
** IMPORTANT: Keep the option to have destructive DD @ more cost discourage multiple DD's Less force fed total nerfs the better more smack on the ass nerf but look something nicer.. awwww
Olympians; Uber-Cap Killers dependant on moms. Initially I thought cool dangerous for other caps new form of PVP. COOOL. But then I thought oh god new feature on top of horrid current implementations.
Capital battles should be the crem de la creme of PVP most epic and all that its not right now and discouraging their use by the fear of uber turkey killer will discourage its use and encourage the forms of coalitions of power we're seeing today. Not good. (Yes even with Olympions` dependancey on moms) You gotta give the underdogs a little something.
|
|
Enraged Mado
DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 16:29:00 -
[221]
Postin' cause my mommy feels unloved. -------
|
Kailen Thorn
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 18:33:00 -
[222]
|
Misanth
Reaper Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 14:10:00 -
[223]
Just want to point out that the "t2 fighters" idea for mothership is a pretty ridicilous 'fix'.
* Their damage potential today isn't an issue. The RR, damage etc works fine as it is today. * Fighters in fleet fights is a problem already, when I flew Carrier I recalled my 10 Fighters when the first got shot at. All was dead before they even initiated warp, some 5-10mins later. Sometimes they refuse to come back and you have to scream at them over and over. * Cost efficiency. In situations like above mentioned, you lose 20x15= 300mil for something that delivers nothing. Am pretty sure t2 Fighters would up that cost.. In comparison: a t2 fitted fully insured Carrier with 10 fighters would cost you as much to lose, as one mom-load of Fighters.
No t2 Fighters please. These things would be priority on my list atm; * Survivability. Dreads melt your face while you try to fend off the HIC's. It goes way too fast. * Tad overlapping the Survivability buff; local armor RR modules are way too weak. Repping 9.6k on a regular slaved armor tank mom with what, 600k raw armor HP before fleet bonuses.. every 22.5 sec? that's below 5% total armor repped per minute. Still a necessary module on moms, survival wise you want this if you get tackled, while waiting for your support fleet to come in. This module functions as a burst repper, and the stats should reflect it. More rep, faster cycle. It'll suck more cap which is negating the higher rep already. * Make the Clone Vat Bay useful. Most useless module in the game atm? On paper it's great. Move your mom, with ships, have pals clonejump to you. Woot! But wait now, I get immobile, and what happens if my friends die? Argh! This is just ****, needs work. Sorry, I have no suggestions.
There's probably alot more that could be discusssed. But in essence, this is some starters. No t2 Fighters, please no. Sort Clone Bay and survivability. Take it from there. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen. |
Annalynn
saber rider and the star sheriffs
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 14:58:00 -
[224]
This thread has gone quite far but i think most people forget something very important:
Since a few years most patches were pro blob and against small-scale warfare. A change is urgently needed. I dont see how any of the proposed changes are gonna improve the situation.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 22:00:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Annalynn This thread has gone quite far but i think most people forget something very important:
Since a few years most patches were pro blob and against small-scale warfare. A change is urgently needed. I dont see how any of the proposed changes are gonna improve the situation.
These changes are geared more towards sup cap fixes than they are about blobs.
That said, DD today do not solve the blobbing problem, they're just as effective for the blobbers as they are for the blobbies.
The proposed change removes the stupid pro DD idea for fleets and replaces it with a Pro fleet approach. For every one instance today where not having a fleet cost a titan, there are 100s of instances where that's just not true. And that's the inherent problem.
The change listed provides chances for strategy, tactic, and counter tactic to titans that isn't so cut and dry as avoid or don't avoid and tank x amt of dmg. It will also change the role of all warfare, not just sub capital warfare, while helping to usher in the age of t3 Equipment and ships in mass.
As for the mothership changes, beyond extra HP, I really couldn't care about them. I personally feel carriers and moms are all wrong in their implementation in game atm. They are single handedly the most over powered and underpowered tool in game ATM. It really takes flying them and commanding them to understand that sentiment.
My hope is that even if they are not fixed soon, the changes to sov will be properly implemented which should expose carrier platforms for the frauds they are.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
marie blueprint
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 03:03:00 -
[226]
yes more boost less nerf
|
Phoenix492
M. Corp Engineering Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 10:22:00 -
[227]
FULLY AGREED WITH.
The Natural progression of skills is good
Frigates - Destroyer - Cruiser - Battlecruiser - Battleship - Carrier - Dread - Moms...
Then you need ALOT more training to get into a Titan. With the Olyimpian, its a stop-gap between Caps and Supercaps.
The whole Capital Fleet needs looking at. Carriers / Dreads / Supercaps.
T2 Modules are needed, T2 Ships are needed. And definitely a ship DESIGNED to take out Capital Ships.
When are the caps gonna get a looking at CCP?
|
GRiMsReAPeR
inFluX. Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 07:28:00 -
[228]
signed
|
Aekrhe
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 11:33:00 -
[229]
|
Seryius
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:17:00 -
[230]
I agree, actual supercaps must be revised. I also agree with the idea to add more types of caps/supercaps like Olympians. That's my proposal:
Titans: _ There can be only 2 titans in a system at the same time. _ 30% DD damage reduction. _ Increase to 10km jump portal range. _ Increase x5 titan HP.
Motherships: _ Increase drastically the ship maintenance, corp hangar, fuel and drone bay. _ Subcap gang members can repair for free near the MS, when they aren't aggroed. _ Increase x3 MS Hp.
New carriers/dreads tier2: _ Double cost, but better bonuses.
New cap -> Capital Interdictor _ Few cap weapons and drone bay _ They have a 150km bubble module _ In reinforced mode, they can be used as a cynojammer
|
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 16:20:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Seryius Edited by: Seryius on 25/08/2009 16:15:06 I agree, actual supercaps must be revised. I also agree with the idea to add more types of caps/supercaps like Olympians. That's my proposal:
Titans: _ There can be only 2 titans in a system at the same time. _ 30% DD damage reduction. _ Increase to 10km jump portal range. _ Increase x3 titan Hp.
Motherships: _ Increase drastically the ship maintenance, corp hangar, fuel and drone bay. _ Subcap gang members can repair for free near the MS, when they aren't aggroed. _ Increase x2 MS Hp. _ No limit on people using fitting service at the same time.
New carriers/dreads tier2: _ Double cost, but better bonuses.
New cap -> Capital Interdictor _ Few cap weapons and drone bay _ They have a 150km bubble module _ In reinforced mode, they can be used as a cynojammer
Seriously? Just stick with the game plan man.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Yaay
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.09.06 20:07:00 -
[232]
http://pc.ign.com/articles/102/1021847p1.html
This article is seriously concerning. How can you possibly add a single focus weapon on a titan to make it worth it while not either a) making it a bigger dread or b) making it a way overpowered or way underpowered platform.
For the motherships and titans, I seriously hope there's a huge tanking boost added that wasn't mentioned as well.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2009.09.06 20:20:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Yaay http://pc.ign.com/articles/102/1021847p1.html
This article is seriously concerning. How can you possibly add a single focus weapon on a titan to make it worth it while not either a) making it a bigger dread or b) making it a way overpowered or way underpowered platform.
For the motherships and titans, I seriously hope there's a huge tanking boost added that wasn't mentioned as well.
Considering the number of them in the game now and the fact they they destroy the gfs(if lag hasn't) I see it as a good thing to convert them to a super dread. The battle-ending dd was never a good way to regulate subcap super-blobbage. Maybe also give the supercaps some ew that can alter the numbers wins situation with cap battles, i.e affecting dreads in siege.
The super-blobbage is a creation of the two-sided political devolution in the game. Address the political dichotomy by changing sov mechanics, and having moon mins deplete and reshuffle. That will reduce the multihundred on each side blobbage better than a dd.
|
Bumkin
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 03:38:00 -
[234]
yaay is awesome his DD idea is the best.
|
Yaay
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 03:40:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Bumkin yaay is awesome his DD idea is the best.
If only everyone did exactly what I said... but you forgot the sexy part.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
SteamIron
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 10:03:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Yaay
If only everyone did exactly what I said... but you forgot the sexy part.
They would get bubbled and killed while you warped out. :)
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |