Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
King Dave
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 16:36:00 -
[331]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
All Supercarriers have had their base jump drive range increased from 4LY to 5 LY.
W I N
|
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 20:32:00 -
[332]
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?
|
Kraken Kill
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 22:19:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Kraken Kill on 28/10/2009 22:21:59 what does IRC need Super Carriers for? But anyway, Could You guys Clarify Details on the Slave Implants. It was mentioned that some balance between the armor and shield implants would take place- the balance being most likely that Slaves would have their effects disabled on Capital ships.
Will this still be the case? |
Lira West
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:45:00 -
[334]
Being able to use the Jump Portal would be super cool. Thanks for the jump range increase. What about a size increase now. Maybe have it be 3/4 the size of a Titan? |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:31:00 -
[335]
Originally by: CCP Abathur A few quick updates:
Supercarriers will not be docking in Dominion. If this ever happens it will be the result of a very expensive infrastructure or outpost upgrade.
The Hel has had its hit points adjusted to reflect a primary shield tanking role.
All Supercarriers have had their base jump drive range increased from 4LY to 5 LY.
Nice, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks Seleene. Since they will never be dockable any word on their drone bays being able to hold 20F/20B and how about physical size? I'd love to be larger than dreads and BS.
|
Serena Ku
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:12:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Kraken Kill ...It was mentioned that some balance between the armor and shield implants would take place- the balance being most likely that Slaves would have their effects disabled on Capital ships.
Oh hell please no
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Rage of Inferno Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:39:00 -
[337]
That would be the boring solution.. -
|
ByFstugan
Caldari Big Shadows Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 05:29:00 -
[338]
Edited by: ByFstugan on 30/10/2009 05:34:39
Originally by: CCP Abathur A few quick updates:
Supercarriers will not be docking in Dominion. If this ever happens it will be the result of a very expensive infrastructure or outpost upgrade.
The Hel has had its hit points adjusted to reflect a primary shield tanking role.
All Supercarriers have had their base jump drive range increased from 4LY to 5 LY.
Docking: Plz don't just state "no docking" but instead motivate the reason (if U have anyone else than it seems hard for U to fix). And when that's done plz change your mind again, the ability to dock is a really good feature imo since being trapped in POS's is poop.
Size: As another thing I agree with those who wants Super Carriers bigger, perhaps not insane much larger than a regular Carrier, but so it's noticed there's something big on the field.
Active tank: Another VERY important comment imo; I'd like to see either an XXL-rep/booster for supercaps or an x00% effectivity to the regular capital reppers. Without that a regular carrier in triage get 4x more effective active rep than a Super Carrier, and the Super Carrier tanks will ONLY be about EHP, since active rep gives like nothing compared to that.
Implants: Since Super Carriers is REALLY expensive ships and EVE get's more and more a very deadly place for this behemoths (now with Titans/SC's who specilize in killing them also) the best way to go concerning implants should be to also make crystals make for shield tankers (or make an new Shield implant for HP-buff and make only crystals not work for capitals as it is).
Hel: A good move to adjust the HP on this. I got a small thought about it's new bonus to fighters. Isn't it more in Minmatars style to get extra speed to their fighters instead of an resist bonus? Anyone is fine by me, it's just a thought. _______________________________
The wise knows what he knows not. |
xttz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:45:00 -
[339]
Originally by: ByFstugan
Docking: Plz don't just state "no docking" but instead motivate the reason (if U have anyone else than it seems hard for U to fix). And when that's done plz change your mind again, the ability to dock is a really good feature imo since being trapped in POS's is poop.
This has been done to death, but OK I'll oblige you.
SC's can have the effective hitpoints of a large pos, immunity to ewar, and the dps of several cap ships. Short of assembling a dozen titans, they are extremely unlikely to die in the current aggro mechanics before being able to dock and repair for free in their outpost. As the new sov mechanics now rely on defending outposts directly, this becomes a major balance issue. Until docking aggro mechanics are examined, supercarriers should not be able to dock.
Originally by: ByFstugan
Active tank: Another VERY important comment imo; I'd like to see either an XXL-rep/booster for supercaps or an x00% effectivity to the regular capital reppers. Without that a regular carrier in triage get 4x more effective active rep than a Super Carrier, and the Super Carrier tanks will ONLY be about EHP, since active rep gives like nothing compared to that.
Supercarriers are alliance-level ships. They require an alliance to build, they will need the support of an alliance to keep them safe during production, and require an alliance to support them in combat. Why would you think they should recieve bonuses designed around solo play? Carriers get remote repair triage bonuses specifically to assist things like Supercarriers in combat. Also carriers may well be able to tank more than supercarriers, but they do so at the expense of remote repair ability and are still extremely vulnerable to high alpha attacks such as doomsdays and the new citadel torps. A double or triple strength active tank is often worth far less in fleet battles than having 40 times the EHP. The strength of supercapitals is their ability to fit a very siginifcant EHP buffer that allows them time to recieve remote assistance and have it be far more efficient due to high resists, or to buy time to get out if needed.
|
xttz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:52:00 -
[340]
Originally by: ByFstugan
Implants: Since Super Carriers is REALLY expensive ships and EVE get's more and more a very deadly place for this behemoths (now with Titans/SC's who specilize in killing them also) the best way to go concerning implants should be to also make crystals make for shield tankers (or make an new Shield implant-set for Shield-HP-buff and make only crystals not work for capitals as it is).
As discussed at length in the titan thread, slave implants are not the issue.
Shield vs armour tanks are actually fairly well balanced providing a few other issues are resolved. Firstly shield tanks lend to higher average resists with less modules, due to invuln fields being more efficient than EANMs. This makes remote repair more efficient. However the issue is that higher meta level shield modules are far more expensive than their equivalent armour modules. This is down to lower drop rates and popularity among empire mission runners - both issues unrelated to capitals or implants.
Secondly armour tanks typically need to compromise DPS for tank, as both related modules share low slots. Shield tankers on the other hand can fit damage mods and tank and only compromise cap stability. For zero cap use weapons and passive tanks this is very powerful.
Finally there is the gang bonus problem. For some reason still unexplained by CCP, shield amount gang bonuses are not applied immediately and the extra shield must recharge. Coupled with the fact that the bonus is lost due to changes in fleet structure, this puts shields at a disadvantage. Of course this is still unrelated to implants, and its better for it to be fixed directly rather than lazily patching it up with new implants.
Originally by: ByFstugan
Hel: A good move to adjust the HP on this. I got a small thought about it's new bonus to fighters. Isn't it more in Minmatars style to get extra speed to their fighters instead of an resist bonus? Anyone is fine by me, it's just a thought.
This is a good idea. The resist bonus is largely useless, as fighters will often be out of repair range and take too long to lock up anyway. A better bonus would either be speed so they can return faster when shot at, or optimal range so that they orbit out of range of any smartbombs.
|
|
ByFstugan
Caldari Big Shadows Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:30:00 -
[341]
I don't quote, but this is reply to xttz posts 339-340. First thx for good answers.
Docking: The issue of using supercaps defending stations I think is better solved by making SC's not be able to use modules/drones at station grids, in same way as Smart bombs are made ineffective to close to stations. I still want to see them able to dock, and think the problems with that should be solved instead of keep them unable to dock :)
Active Tank: I get your point but I still think a larger and 20 times more expensive ship should have better active tank, even if it's just a double bounus the rep-amount (or half cycle). The active tank will still be almost non-existent compared to the EHP. And I don't think it's really fair to compare the 700 million ships vulnerability to instapop versus a 15000 million ship. It's still mostly paid by personal players and not alliances. As always in such matters there could be valid arguments from both sides, but in the end someone (CCP) will have to weigher one more heavy than the other. Their choice isn't by any law the most fair or logic one - it's just the one they got stuck with at the coffetable.
Implants: I still don't think it's fair that one way of tanking should have set implants and the other not. This is much more so since the overall best tank is armor also - especially due to the amount of remote armor reps compared to the shield transfers. What damage mode in low-slots got to do in a topic about SC's I don't get. _______________________________
The wise knows what he knows not. |
Odda
Gallente Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 15:06:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Serena Ku
Originally by: Kraken Kill ...It was mentioned that some balance between the armor and shield implants would take place- the balance being most likely that Slaves would have their effects disabled on Capital ships.
Oh hell please no
Problem here is that with shield tanking supercarrier you can stil out tank any armor tanked supercarrier. a officer fittet nyx, wil tank the same as a faction fitt chimera (3,5k dps)
Wyverns and hell's can out tank the Nyx and Aeon.
But the Nyx and Aeon got more EF HP.
Slave setts gives passive bonus. Crystals sets give active bonus to boosters.
|
Petit Faucon
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 18:05:00 -
[343]
Edited by: Petit Faucon on 30/10/2009 18:06:31 Unless pyfa is wrong and the shield recharge times are incorrect..
It seems possible to get a 8-9k dps passive shield tank on most super capitals...
Edit: without using estamel invuls etc, just normal meta 13 hardners and caldari navy invuls... With meta 14 etc you can get 9-10k..
|
Odda
Gallente Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 18:18:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Petit Faucon Edited by: Petit Faucon on 30/10/2009 18:06:31 Unless pyfa is wrong and the shield recharge times are incorrect..
It seems possible to get a 8-9k dps passive shield tank on most super capitals...
Edit: without using estamel invuls etc, just normal meta 13 hardners and caldari navy invuls... With meta 14 etc you can get 9-10k..
When you say "most" is that even aeons\nyx? or wyvern\hell?
|
Petit Faucon
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 20:55:00 -
[345]
Edited by: Petit Faucon on 30/10/2009 20:57:40
Originally by: Odda
Originally by: Petit Faucon Edited by: Petit Faucon on 30/10/2009 18:06:31 Unless pyfa is wrong and the shield recharge times are incorrect..
It seems possible to get a 8-9k dps passive shield tank on most super capitals...
Edit: without using estamel invuls etc, just normal meta 13 hardners and caldari navy invuls... With meta 14 etc you can get 9-10k..
When you say "most" is that even aeons\nyx? or wyvern\hell?
Edit: Scrap-that pyfa doesn't have updated shield recharge times, unless they are still the same on sisi now.
|
Ukiah Oregan
O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 21:00:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Ukiah Oregan on 30/10/2009 21:00:36
Originally by: Jack Sparroxx Edited by: Jack Sparroxx on 23/10/2009 09:12:10 ... 4: fix the fighter/fighterbomber orbit range. 20*15mill=300mill is for a flight of fighter/bombers. They are WAY WAY to easy to kill with a couple of smartbombs. I dot mind smartbombs being able to kill off normal drones, but fighter/bombers should be orbiting further out and be taken down by normal drones or light support fleet.
5: Fix the dammed corp hangars so random scumbag canĘt run of with the gear you have stored there ...
I have to agree with the idea of having to involve light support to kill fighters/bombers - Destroyers would be a good class for this role and it would let younger pilots with less skills have a vital role in a large fleet action - the protection of large fleet assists.
I also have to agree with the POS & corp hangers - a better rights management system should be implemented to provide for a better player experience.
|
Cleat
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 21:38:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Cleat on 30/10/2009 21:38:30 Passive Shield 'rechage based' tanked motherships. Let me know how that works out for you... GL capping up in that to jump.
You can chunder all you like about being able to tank X-amount of Dps more in an 'Active tanked' Shield ship compaired to an armor tanker, but these SuperCarriers will rely on pure HP buffer and resistances, not the active tanking capabilties. When you can only out rep 1.5-2 Dreads worth of DPS thats rather irrelevent, the fact that your Capacitor is now on its arse due to the cap use ontop of this isnt going to help you either. No one uses just 2 Dreads worth of DPS.
Crystals do not work, it seems some people still dont realise this, They dont work on capital modules, only on subcap modules. Right now Slaves Directly affect the Hitpoints of armor ships while Shield tankers have nothing that has any real effect to them.
It means Aeons are capable of massive armor hitpoints along with the 5% resistances from the ship. Hels alone have less base Shields than the Nyx's Armor. Its not a level playing field. |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 21:56:00 -
[348]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 30/10/2009 22:07:00
Originally by: Cleat It means Aeons are capable of massive armor hitpoints along with the 5% resistances from the ship. Hels alone have less base Shields than the Nyx's Armor. Its not a level playing field.
The EHP difference between a nyx and wyvern is not that big. I really believe only one shield mom has a tank issue, and that's the Hel. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 23:26:00 -
[349]
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.
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 00:03:00 -
[350]
Edited by: Mioelnir on 31/10/2009 00:03:26
Originally by: xttz
Originally by: ByFstugan
Hel: A good move to adjust the HP on this. I got a small thought about it's new bonus to fighters. Isn't it more in Minmatars style to get extra speed to their fighters instead of an resist bonus? Anyone is fine by me, it's just a thought.
This is a good idea. The resist bonus is largely useless, as fighters will often be out of repair range and take too long to lock up anyway. A better bonus would either be speed so they can return faster when shot at, or optimal range so that they orbit out of range of any smartbombs.
Unless my caffeine-deprieved math was wrong, the resist bonus increases the average EHP of a fighter drone from 14k to 17.5k. I'd vote for completely useless, not largely.
Similarly, I don't think even a 200% speed bonus will be anywhere near the league of the other supercarrier's +25% DPS or +25% resistances.
[Edit] Oh, and thanks for the jump range upgrade and rework of supercapital HP amounts.
|
|
Serena Ku
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 15:29:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Soleil Fournier
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?"
Well said.
I was thinking the logistics work with Logistics or Triage Carriers can be fun with the challenges of quick ever constant changing of targets to be repped up. The fact when a supercapital needs logistics support by triage carriers may well end up as a "lock it, overload remote reps, wait and hope you get your carrier replaced in time".
|
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 17:47:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Soleil Fournier
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?"
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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Soleil Fournier
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 18:30:00 -
[353]
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.
|
ByFstugan
Caldari Big Shadows Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 18:42:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Letifer Deus
Originally by: Soleil Fournier
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?"
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.
That sounds almost as same thing to say as there really isn't much different in loosing a mom versus loosing a carrier. I have to say in both cases there is a BIG difference. First of all ISK-wise - second of all logistics-wise. U can't just pay someone 150-200 millions and get a fitted Carrier delivered or picked from the market with fittings. _______________________________
The wise knows what he knows not. |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 23:09:00 -
[355]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 31/10/2009 23:11:29
Originally by: ByFstugan That sounds almost as same thing to say as there really isn't much different in loosing a mom versus loosing a carrier. I have to say in both cases there is a BIG difference. First of all ISK-wise - second of all logistics-wise. U can't just pay someone 150-200 millions and get a fitted Carrier delivered or picked from the market with fittings.
The initial argument was of people saying "I don't get anything out of it (aka I don't get to pew pew/get on KMs) and just get risk, so why should I help you get to pew pew?" This same thing can be applied to logistics cruisers. I never argued there weren't differences in scale or otherwise (of course there are). And if your alliance is willing/able to field supercaps in large scale cap engagements, it shouldn't be having problems replacing a triage carrier in timely fashion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
menace ace
Gallente Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 18:15:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Kraken Kill Edited by: Kraken Kill on 28/10/2009 22:21:59 what does IRC need Super Carriers for? But anyway, Could You guys Clarify Details on the Slave Implants. It was mentioned that some balance between the armor and shield implants would take place- the balance being most likely that Slaves would have their effects disabled on Capital ships.
Will this still be the case?
I doubt they will nerf slaves as with shield tankers power diag increase the shield hitpoints so if they nerf slaves it will be unbalanced imo
|
Ginlene
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 03:10:00 -
[357]
I think a lot of problems could be fixed by limiting the number of supercapitals/titans that can be in a system. However, limit it by positive standings.
Eg.
3 Titans in system, 1st is positive to 2nd, and 2nd is positive to 3rd, but 1st is not positive to 3rd. This counts as "one group" and if there was a three titan limit, no titan with a friendly standing to ANY of the other three titans could jump in.
It would still be possible to amass more friendly titans, but the logistics would get very complicated. You would need them all in seperate corps with no alliance and no friendlies, but know each other. But it would cause confusion at the lower levels with dreads shooting friendly titans, etc. and be a risk that many may not want to take.
If each side has 3 titans, the stratgies involving other ships become much more appealing, and it is less useful for an alliance to just amass craploads of money and field as many titans as possible because you couldn't use them all at the same time. It would be more about fielding good groups of vehicles.
The eve excuse for the limit could be due to interference from friendly communication systems in Titans. This interference impacts the jump drive of any friendly incoming titan by overloading it.
|
xttz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 09:11:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Ginlene I think a lot of problems could be fixed by limiting the number of supercapitals/titans that can be in a system. However, limit it by positive standings. 3 Titans in system, 1st is positive to 2nd, and 2nd is positive to 3rd, but 1st is not positive to 3rd. This counts as "one group" and if there was a three titan limit, no titan with a friendly standing to ANY of the other three titans could jump in.
You have to be joking.
This is going to result in 2 effects: 1) Defending alliances bringing in titans one by one, altering standings between each jump. 2) Attacking alliances marking hostile titans blue should they be suspected of jumping in.
Ships need to be balanced via their ingame stats and abilities, not via arbitrary and easily exploited rules.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 11:27:00 -
[359]
1 comment. I am not a cap pilot, but when i sit in my Bs, mothership does not look big and impressive, but it should. MAKE THEM BIG! Fix Destroyers |
Zeveron
Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 11:33:00 -
[360]
Any official response on the leviathans cpu and gang bonuses issues? Or should I start whining about the 7 launchers needed and the armor buffer again? ________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |