EVE Search - Massive Supercarrier nerf intentional?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Massive Supercarrier nerf intentional?

» 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)
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 00:22:00 - [1] Quote: What we want to create is an anti-capital ship/role Isn't that exactly what it was on SISI, up until a few days ago? Originally by: CCP Nozh which is more effective than dreadnaughts against moving targets "Explosion Velocity: 45" ??? Quote: nor do they have to be stationary while dealing damage My nyx can move 80 m/s while it kills things, YES! Quote: The main advantages everyone seems to be overlooking is that Super carriers don't need to commit to a battle like Dreadnaughts You're right, your supercap player base is dumb and overlooking this fact. Oh, and taking multiple billions worth of mostly uninsurable super cap onto the field isn't a commitment, nor is having a dedicated account/character + pos to keep it. Originally by: CCP Nozh There is currently a devblog in the making which should clarify the big picture a bit. Innapropriate language removed. Zymurgist ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 01:58:00 - [2] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 13/11/2009 01:58:38 Nozh, recipe for not ***ing up motherships and making your DCUs better: return prices to pre-nozh rofllulfcked levels keep +1 drone per lvl add 20% drone dmg/hp per lvl make DCUs give +1 drone AND +7.5% drone dmg per lvl (dmg bonus stacking penalized) take pre-nozh rofllulf*cked compact torp stats and reduce torp damage slightly. With a 10% reduction in base F/B dps, you'd see approx. 23.2%/38.3% increase over pre-nozh f/b SC with 2/3 DCUs, respectively. Given the huge implications of using up high slots for more damage, I'd say this is about right. P.S. they will also be useful on carriers for...whenever people actually use carriers for dps. Bing! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:44:00 - [3] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 13/11/2009 02:46:04 Originally by: toxicvega Well if they decide to allow 20 drones/fighters and 10FBs with increased damage/HP I will be just fine. Don't forget that nozh made explosion radius on f/b torps about double the sig rad of a dread. Over 2x what it was before. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 05:12:00 - [4] Originally by: Sarah Norbulk LOL. The use TP argument is priceless. Anyone who believes a TP will be useful is clueless to capital combat. Your targets in a capital engagement are dreads, which siege. One of the by products of siege is EWar immunity which means no TP and S-Carriers will still not hit for full damage. It certainly makes a ton of sense to make a anti capital ship whos weapon system can't hit even capitals for full damage. I have this amazing, amazing feeling Nozh can be counted as one of the people expecting SCs to have TP support. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 16:59:00 - [5] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 13/11/2009 17:00:24 Originally by: Letifer Deus Nozh: recipe for unscrewing SCs AND making your DCUs better: return prices to pre-nozh levels keep +1 drone per lvl add 20% drone dmg/hp per lvl make DCUs give +1 drone (of all types) AND +7.5-10% fighter/FB dmg only per lvl (dmg bonus stacking penalized) take pre-nozh compact torp stats and reduce torp damage 10-15%. With a 10% reduction in base F/B dps, you'd see approx. 23.2%/38.3% increase over pre-nozh f/b SC with 2/3 DCUs (@ +7.5%), respectively. Given the huge implications of using up 2,3 or more high slots for more damage, I'd say this is certainly not OP. Making the added damage bonus on DCUs for fighters/FBs only removes any real concern of dcu boosted sentry spam subcap rapage. P.S. they will also be useful on carriers for...whenever people actually use carriers for dps. Quoting myself because I still think it's a good idea. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:42:00 - [6] I also like how in "SuperCarriers and you: why CCP?" Weirdfish links a more appropriate thread to "express our support for or against" but it's the thread Zymgurgist locked. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:06:00 - [7] Nozh: docking = SC spam fleets as not being able to dock was about the only thing stopping this from happening at lower price explosion rad = 3500 = not shooting dreads for crap and carriers STILL **** F/Bs with smarties. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:54:00 - [8] Originally by: tx eight Originally by: Hatsumi Kobayashi Free CCP Abathur No, really. Free him. pretty please? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.13 21:32:00 - [9] How long is it going to take Nozh to write his "big picture" blog? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.14 07:16:00 - [10] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 14/11/2009 07:25:57 Originally by: Diamaht Nevain Well I guess that's the real question here. Now that they've revised the numbers, is it the new stats that everyone has trouble with or the station games? It's that the buff was almost universally praised (as close to it as any major change to a class can be expected). Then Nozh came in 3 weeks before release, made enormous, unanounced changes. Waits 2 days to say they are not, in fact, a bug. Proceeds to spew vague crap that makes it clear he has no clue how the actual game plays and with no real reasoning behind the changes except that when the next dev blog comes out we'll all see "the big picture". Then, after pages and pages of angry, angry people he goes "osh*t!", and tries to make things better by increasing explosion velocity (something no one really complained about), doesn't change explosion radius (something everyone pointed out was at horrid levels), puts drones up to 15 from 10 (but lowers f/b damage) and then allows SCs to dock, something every sane person that has provided feedback up to that point had already stated was a bad idea. I think more than just him making changes people saw as negative to their overall quality, or their ability to dock, it was how it was handled that really caused the rage to brew. Nozh came in last minute and said "no, no, this thing everyone seems to think will work out great is actually wrong, THIS (terribly thought out) idea that I have is right, so I am changing it, last minute, unannounced and I'll get around to explaining it next week sometime." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"

Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.14 16:33:00 - [11] Originally by: ByFstugan - Let more ppl enjoy more ships and not only the filthy rich. The non "filthy rich" have fairly good access to every ship in game except 2 (excluding uniques) and that isn't enough? Quote: Someone else above (MS owner) said that the changes for SC's might be a good change for the future (even if it hurt him abit), to give room for new supercapitals in the future. So...new supercapitals like the one we were going to have before Nozh came out of his cage? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.14 17:29:00 - [12] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 14/11/2009 17:35:09 Originally by: The Nastrond 30m+ EHP Exactly which supercarrier had 30m+ EHP and 12K dps? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.16 07:20:00 - [13] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 16/11/2009 07:21:03 Nozh's "big picture blog" or at least a solid, good sized response better be out by the time I get home from work tomorrow. there are many points, but there are two in particular I'd like to emphasize: -explosion velocity of 3500m = 1/2 damage on dreads, which are about 95% of what's important in a cap fleet. If you are thinking you're going to make SCs just good at killing "moving" caps (aka carriers, SCs and titans), you art a fool. -DCUs are total sh*t. Either increase their effectiveness GREATLY or don't expect a single person to fit a single one off of a station. adding in a fighter/FB only, stacking penalized damage bonus to DCUs (I think someone else suggested this?) would be perfect way to go. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Letifer Deus Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.11.19 00:59:00 - [14] CCP needs to make playing the game a mandatory requirement of being a game balance dev, tbh. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"

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.