EVE Search - Dominion Supercarrier Feedback

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Dominion Supercarrier Feedback

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.16 19:51:00 - [1] Yeah lets start with the name. Mothership -> Fleet Carrier (or Flagship) Carrier -> Escort Carrier Will post on the numbers and experiences once its on sisi!
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.18 04:56:00 - [2] Was able to log in and play around a bit today. Here's my feedback: Again, I'm going to strongly voice that a buffer tank setup will not allow supercaps to survive on today's fleet fighting battlefield. Titans and Supercarriers are primaried without exception. Average fleet fights include 40+ dreads and 150 support ships. This should be what the testing centers around....placing the supercarrier in the average fleet fight setting. Supercarriers will drop in 4 minutes or less in this scenario and thus this must be remedied. So, I agree with the above poster, 50% increase to armor/shield rep amount per level would go a long ways to solving this problem. Onto FB's... As stated by others, smartbombs eat them up, and carriers love using smartbombs to protect dreads. A massive HP boost to FB's,and an increase in their orbit range is needed. Or, you could nerf smartbombs on carriers by making them a class-level weapon....so large smartbombs could only be used on battleships, mediums on cruisers, etc. I kind of like the latter. I'd also like to note displeasure with not having a truly unique role on the battlefield. We're getting fighter bombers...but we're effectively just going to be doing the same job as dreads. Titans get portals/gang bonuses in addition to their superweapon. Remote ECM burst's effect is barely a speed bump in a fleet fight, nothing real threatening, it's effect it too short. I'd like to see us with our own fleet bonuses, or new special abilities that give us something other than "kill caps."(The rumor about being a mobile cyno jammer sounded sweet, to give an idea).
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.23 00:07:00 - [3] Abathur or other CCP: Any thoughts so far on what you saw with supercarriers with testing or from feedback in this thread? Thanks
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.25 20:21:00 - [4] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 25/09/2009 20:23:13 Gavin, fighter bombers will not be able to be assigned once it hits live. Also, Aeons with 6 perma reps? Get real. An Aeon would have to use CCC rigs, 4 cap recharger IIs, and 5 cap power relays to be cap stable. That leaves them with crap for resistances and crap EHP. It also means they won't be using any smartbombs, projected ECCM, DCUs, cloaks, etc. Highly doubtful. Super carriers will now be buffer tanked. That means 3x trimarks, and lots of hardeners. There will be enough cap for -maybe- one repper per supercarrier.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.30 02:09:00 - [5] Carrier pilots don't need/deserve a free pass against fighter bombers. Citadels were changed a long time ago because smart bombs would kill them. CCP agreed this was no good and gave them a beefy hit point increase to stop this from happening. The same needs to be done for the compact version. The additional orbit range is necessary, at LEAST to 10.5km (the torps can actually fly much farther than this according to their stats). The fighter bombers would be 100% useless if carriers could simply turn on a smart bomb and nullify a supercarrier. Groups of carriers are already going to pose problems to the bombers because they'll simply group up and overlap smartbombs to make sure the bombers die. I'd also like to hear CCP's thoughts on the current repping abilities of supercarriers. they need to be improved with a 50-100% bonus per level to repping. The massive hp increase isn't enough to make them survive. Spider tanking hasn't changed, so if the spider tank was what would keep a mom survive, we would see this on TQ, which we don't.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.10.07 23:53:00 - [6] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 07/10/2009 23:54:13 No, anyone with the role can remove the password without having to enter it.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.10.09 18:14:00 - [7] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 09/10/2009 18:18:36 The notion that by allowing supercapitals to dock that somehow all of a sudden 10,000 of them will show up is far fetched at best. It takes months to build the parts. They're expensive. CCP stated somewhere that the economics of dominion will not allow for the current level of production for them. Also post dominion they won't have the benefit of being produced in invulnerable sov 4 systems. And since we're going to see supercaps die in glorious explosions on live the numbers will be reduced naturally. Supercaps will always be rare, regardless of the docking mechanic. Will more people want them? Sure, but just because more people want them, doesn't mean the supply is there. Not being able to dock negatively impacts the pilot who sits in a pos for 6-18 months unable to do squat, waiting for a war and then a capital engagement within that war that they'd be able to join in. These are not unbalanced Gods of war like they were previously and don't justify the need to keep the pilot slaved to the ship.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.10.28 20:32:00 - [8] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 28/10/2009 20:34:15 /sigh 11 pages of feedback and that's all we get? I appreciate the increase in jump range. It was needed. The hel does need a boost. Lets hope that change helped out. I'm highly disappointed in the lack of docking. Now, my toon is going to sit in a pos waiting for a war, then sit in a pos waiting for a cap fight, then go back to sitting in a pos. You say these aren't overpowered solopwn mobiles, well if that's the case, what gives? Let us upgrade the stations and dock. Or give us something outside of combat to be useful to justify us not docking. Let us use the jump portals too. Or something along those lines Anything on the orbit range of fighter bombers? Anything on the armor/shield rep rate? (spending hours repping armor even when outside of combat is not a good mechanic) The dev blog mentioned more tools for supercarriers to help us in our role. Any info on those?
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.10.30 23:26:00 - [9] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 30/10/2009 23:35:25 Saying that these are "Alliance level ships" and therefore require the alliance support behind them is a misguided argument, from this standpoint: What FC is going to say "Ok, you 20 dread pilots go hop in your triage carriers cuz we're bringing 3 supercarriers to the fight?" No FC is going to say that. The FC is going to be clammoring for as many dread pilots as he can get because the numbers work out better. Any FC worth his salt will take 5 dreads over 1 supercarrier and 4 triage carriers. In addition, pilots who take triage carriers out to support the supercarriers don't receive a benefit in return. Which leads to "Why am I sacrificing my ships and gameplay so YOU can have fun flying in your big ship?" That's the crux of this problem and until it's addressed by either increasing the repping abilities of supercaps to be a more self sufficient without being solo-pwn, or providing the gang a significant bonus to make FCs WANT to take them then supercaps will still be just pretty ships to look at without seeing them on the battlefield. Right now supercarriers are still more of a liability than a benefit. Hopefully CCP realizes this and makes a few more changes before dominion.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.10.31 18:30:00 - [10] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 31/10/2009 18:35:19 Originally by: Letifer Deus It really isn't much different than people flying logistics in sub cap gangs. Besides, a triage carrier supporting a mom is probably going to end up a lot more useful than a non triage carrier (which is really pretty uselesS) and not everyone can fly dreads. True, there will be some carrier pilots that are unable to fly dreads. However, not all of those carrier pilots have trained logistics 5 to use triage. And it is quite different than flying a logistics ship in a fleet fight. With a logistics ship you don't have to enter siege mode, and you can have a decent tank and survivability w/ the mobility of a cruiser, whereas with triage you are sieged, need a failfit just to be cap stable to rep well, and are not apt to survive post capital fight. Thus many pilots will be reluctant to use triage and sacrifice ships unless the gang gets a big benefit in return. That benefit is missing currently as a few dreads/carriers can do everything a super carrier can do for less risk and money.

Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.09 20:59:00 - [11] We're only 2 1/2 weeks away now. Whats the status on: Dedicated fighter bays? The extra tools we'd be receiving as mentioned in the dev blog? What CCP thinks of the current sisi iteration of super carriers based on feedback/testing? Thanks

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.