EVE Search - Balance for Dreads

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balance for Dreads

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Impact1983 Missions Mining and Mayhem Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.09.12 18:55:00 - [1] Currently the dreads are locked out of use because of moms and their fighter bombers. But moms are a bit over powered atm with no real counter to them, so why not dreads be the counter? Add two more highslots to dreads that will allow smart bombs to be fited, when the dread is in siege the range of smart bombs would be extended by 25% per level of dreadnought skill. Also make the smart bombs hit fighterbombers harder than other things, so that the smart bombs are not over powered in gate camps and what not. This isn't a perfect fix but it could be used to setup a counter to the current mom fleets and it would give dreads a role again in fleets. Plus you do not have to nerf the current moms if you supply a reasonable counter to them.
mmhrmm	Posted - 2010.09.12 19:15:00 - [2] Originally by: Impact1983 Currently the dreads are locked out of use because of moms and their fighter bombers. But moms are a bit over powered atm with no real counter to them, so why not dreads be the counter? Add two more highslots to dreads that will allow smart bombs to be fited, when the dread is in siege the range of smart bombs would be extended by 25% per level of dreadnought skill. Also make the smart bombs hit fighterbombers harder than other things, so that the smart bombs are not over powered in gate camps and what not. This isn't a perfect fix but it could be used to setup a counter to the current mom fleets and it would give dreads a role again in fleets. Plus you do not have to nerf the current moms if you supply a reasonable counter to them. Dreads have always had 1 role and 1 roles only POS warfare. They are not meant for anything else this is their sole job. +1 AGAINST
Impact1983 Missions Mining and Mayhem Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.09.12 19:23:00 - [3] Originally by: mmhrmm Dreads have always had 1 role and 1 roles only POS warfare. They are not meant for anything else this is their sole job. +1 AGAINST Dreads are not pulled out because of moms and that dreads are locked down for 10 mins. Without a defence against the current sotm then dreads will stay docked and moms will just be nerfed with a bat making them useless unless there is a counter. Using small ships as a counter to the drones would mean 10 people per mom. So you would need 100 man fleet to counter 10 moms, not realistic so what do you propose to counter moms and their fighterbombers? More moms doesn't answer the counter question as it is the same tactic but just throwing more numbers at it isn't really that great of an idea. CCP will need to balance this and hopefully without making moms and fighterbombers useless.
mmhrmm	Posted - 2010.09.12 19:42:00 - [4] Dread fleets should always have their own support? whats the point your trying to make?
Nerdy Deadshot	Posted - 2010.09.12 19:54:00 - [5] -im hijacking this thread- Moms are only so deadly cause worse comes to worse, set drones to aggressive and turn on tanking. And go watch some TV. Fleet lag is the problem... CCP fix fleet lag
Impact1983 Missions Mining and Mayhem Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.09.12 20:06:00 - [6] Originally by: Nerdy Deadshot -im hijacking this thread- Moms are only so deadly cause worse comes to worse, set drones to aggressive and turn on tanking. And go watch some TV. Fleet lag is the problem... CCP fix fleet lag I do not disagree with the fleet lag; but why is it that people are ignoring the elephent in the room? There is currently no counter to moms other than more moms so why not give a counter using a ship that has been docked up as it isn't that useful with the currently game mechanics?
Lord NathanZachary	Posted - 2010.09.12 20:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Impact1983 Originally by: Nerdy Deadshot -im hijacking this thread- Moms are only so deadly cause worse comes to worse, set drones to aggressive and turn on tanking. And go watch some TV. Fleet lag is the problem... CCP fix fleet lag I do not disagree with the fleet lag; but why is it that people are ignoring the elephent in the room? There is currently no counter to moms other than more moms so why not give a counter using a ship that has been docked up as it isn't that useful with the currently game mechanics? if mom's are the elephant in the room, fleet lag is the space whale in the room
Hofbrau Dunkel	Posted - 2010.09.12 20:19:00 - [8] There's no counter to a blob other than a bigger blob. Whats your point?
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.09.12 21:05:00 - [9] The problem is not SC's, it's dreads. The blob is always a problem but short of some fundamental game changes that isn't going anywhere. The problem with dreads is they are unique in how they are used. Every other ship in the game can shoot without getting stuck in one spot for 10 minutes. If we applied the model dreads used to all ships, then anything but a titan would be a sitting duck. The way to fix dreads is to make them just like every other ship in the game, make them work without the siege module. Carriers work just fine without triage, in fact non-triage carriers outnumber triage carriers by staggering proportions. A carrier that actually uses triage is an exceptionally rare sight. Triage boosts their scan res, tank and RR but those concerns are generally secondary to getting stuck there for 5 minutes and being unable to use drones. Dreads need to follow the same model. They should be highly effective combat ships without dropping into siege mode. That said, the siege mode should offer a significant improvement in some way. It should not be damage output however. Dreads should get their base damage increased to that of what they get with a siege mod active. The siege mod should do something else instead. It should not nerf tracking, it should boost it. Perhaps it should boost range as well. I also think it should increase scan res instead of reducing it. Obviously it should keep it's tanking bonus. The remote effect restrictions should remain as well. The biggest drawback of sieging needs to be simply getting stuck there for 5-10 minutes (a reduction to 5 minute cycle would be wise). It shouldn't nerf the crap out of tracking and targeting ability. And of course, like carriers and triage, it needs to be optional. The ships need to do full damage without sieging. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Dmoney3788 THE DISC	Posted - 2010.09.13 00:55:00 - [10] I think I see your point, as I'm not a dread pilot atm, but I've plugged in the common dread fits, and the common theme is that you'd be tanking a couple thousand DPS less than what a mom (DARE I SAY) can dish out, and from what I gather, dreads can't be RR'ed while in siege mode, so they're simply sitting ducts. Naturally I can see you shifting the blame to the new mom buff and the siege module, but I don't believe CCP is gonna undo their supercap buffs, so trying to undo that is gonna be pointless. The other side of the coin is the siege module. As the role of the dread is to be a POS basher, the siege module ensures that the dread is ineffective while moving, putting out less DPS than most well fit BS's. So if you allow dreads to do siege mode damage out of siege you effectively alter the role of dreads. Solutions? -Perhaps boost the tank of dreads so that they are able to tank at least 1 mom in siege mode -Remove the no RR restriction when in siege mode -shorten the cycle of the siege module (proportionally reducing the fuel cost per cycle) so you have a better chance of getting out of siege sooner

King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.09.13 01:31:00 - [11] Removing the siege mod limitation on them for damage dealing wouldn't alter their role too much. My revelation can't hit a BS going 90m/s at 50km with pulses and that's with a TCII. If you're worried about them slaughtering BS's, I think you have nothing to worry about. Their tracking is so bad even out of siege that they just can't hit a moving target. Of course they could hit a stationary BS but they can already do that. I have a few funny solo kills with my rev because the target simply parked next to me and didn't move at all. Removing the siege mod limitation on their damage output simply makes them more mobile like carriers. It allows you to hit a POS or another capital and pull out if things get a little too hot. Their should be an advantage to sieging, but it shouldn't be mandatory to dish out the damage, it should give you other benefits instead. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.09.13 01:56:00 - [12] Originally by: King Rothgar Removing the siege mod limitation on their damage output simply makes them more mobile like carriers. It allows you to hit a POS or another capital and pull out if things get a little too hot. Their should be an advantage to sieging, but it shouldn't be mandatory to dish out the damage, it should give you other benefits instead. And what other advantage you propose for the siege module? Tanking is certainly not gonna be it, as RR will always trump that. So whats left? In fact, you are not supposed to pull out if things get a little too hot, that is exactly the problem with supercarriers in lowsec these days, its just too easy to pull out. So the question is, should supercarriers maybe have the same restriction in order to deploy their bombers? You can still use it as a beefed up carrier, but if you want bombers you have to sit there for 10 minutes.
Lord NathanZachary	Posted - 2010.09.13 02:26:00 - [13] is it just me or is this thread getting some awesome over tones.. we are talking about either making the dread able to PULL OUT or SUPER TANK it all the way through. protection vs pull out... i prefer pull out every time. And if u dont like people pulling out in super cap wars... use idk... jammers
ShahFluffers Gallente Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.09.13 03:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Lord NathanZachary i prefer pull out every time. And if u dont like people pulling out in super cap wars... use idk... jammers There is a punchline in there somewhere... I just have to find it... _______________________ "Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.09.13 03:10:00 - [15] You're mind is in the gutter mate, watch some **** and get it out of your system. Anyways, forcing SC's to use a siege mod of some sort to use fighter bombers is an option. But TBH I think it's a bad game mechanic on dreads, extending that to SC's may balance it, but it's still a sucky mechanic. You are right about RR trumping any self tank from sieging but the same is true when you look at a carrier in triage. What makes putting a carrier into triage occasionally useful is the other stuff like increased scan resolution, more powerful RR and of course immunity to EW. Making the siege mod boost tracking, gun range, self tank and grant EW immunity makes it a useful feature even if it isn't used that often. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.09.13 03:42:00 - [16] i think, reduced cycle times on triage gave carriers an interesting option. all the bonuses from siege without the penalty would be a bit overpowered.
it440 Caldari OZ industries and Technology	Posted - 2010.09.13 08:14:00 - [17] i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! CCP supports this message. I think.
LoveKebab Caldari LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.09.13 15:06:00 - [18] Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial
Impact1983 Missions Mining and Mayhem Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.09.13 15:56:00 - [19] Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... And there is currently no counter to a mom, unless you plan on bring 10-15 pilots per mom pilot which would be hard as I can easy get 30 man fleets but how am I going to grab 200 man fleets to counter 20 moms? We need a counter which the current dread is mothballed so why not work in a counter with the dread??? And yes a mom is = to 10 or 15 cruisers maybe bc so we need a realistic counter to them not just lagging out the system with 200 man fleets.
LoveKebab Caldari LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.09.13 16:55:00 - [20] i was told 30 moms generate just about as much objects as 200 bs (bombers + torps) xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial

Dristra Amarr Idle Haven	Posted - 2010.09.14 03:00:00 - [21] Dreads could really need a buff\change to make them more versatile, even outside the whole mom situation they have but one purpose and that is shooting stationary objects. Carriers are support, logistics, complex runners and assault. I see no reason to train dread over carrier. this is a sign of fail.
SR65 Amarr Core Impulse	Posted - 2010.09.14 05:01:00 - [22] Edited by: SR65 on 14/09/2010 05:05:21 Edited by: SR65 on 14/09/2010 05:03:29 Originally by: mmhrmm Dreads have always had 1 role and 1 roles only POS warfare. They are not meant for anything else this is their sole job. +1 AGAINST Dreads have always been used to kill caps as well as siege POSs. Now it just so happens that supercaps **** other regular caps with ease. I think simply changing the siege cycle to 5 minutes would almost make Dreads usable again. Right now, it's almost always too risky to siege dreads on a capital or a POS because of the fear of being supercap blobbed by the major alliances. Supercaps are the new dreads with the way the game mechanics work atm and they are only going to get more and more common in capital fleets. Basically, with supers being fairly easy to obtain and being wtfpwn, the risk of deploying dreads needs to be reduced and I think that changing the siege cycle to 5 minutes would be the best way to do this. I don't agree with OP, I think the smartbomb idea is just absurd. I also don't think that dreads need to be able to solo supercaps, after all there's a 15-16 billion ISK difference in cost of the two ships, not to mention a lot more training time and a committed character to the ship. I just simply think that dreads need less time of being deadweight. Thoughts on this?
it440 Caldari OZ industries and Technology	Posted - 2010.09.14 08:18:00 - [23] Edited by: it440 on 14/09/2010 08:18:46 Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... but what would happen 1v1? i dont know but titans have 3x the tank dont they? CCP supports this message. I think.
LoveKebab Caldari LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.09.14 08:35:00 - [24] Edited by: LoveKebab on 14/09/2010 08:42:29 Originally by: it440 Edited by: it440 on 14/09/2010 08:18:46 Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... but what would happen 1v1? i dont know but titans have 3x the tank dont they? it's just as good as trying to match an ibis vs a caracal... with the way they r being used now titan will logoff on the 1st sign of a threat the general issue is that we would have an even match if we would put them isk wise which means 3 moms vs 1 titan and then titan would most likely lose cuz it just cant active tank 30k dps and with passive tank his buffor will disapear in what ? 10? 20 minutes? just enough for 1-2 dd which wont even put down 1 ms (add 4-5dps from close range guns to be fair) but then again moms got rr and ** dont get me wrong, im not talking about nerfing supercaps (altho i wouldnt cry if they would be nerfed) but in case of cap warfare eve is atm Supercarrier-Online which started after Seleene's **up with ballance... would be fun to have a sieged dreads being able to tackle caps up to 40km with a point (i dont know how u would explain that - sieged point whatever) and the fun might come back to use them again since atm all u need is to kill hics and then its just warp out if low hp and go back couple sec l8er when enemy changes the target other idea would be to give them considerably more dps against caps and some more hp but then again they might end up overpowered :( (i suck at ballancing) and to prevent them from instapopping the toweres reduce their sig radiusos or something xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial
it440 Caldari OZ industries and Technology	Posted - 2010.09.14 09:16:00 - [25] lovekebab, i see what your saying but its not like just a few alliances are privledge to use mother ships, anyone can train and use them, i see it as a reward for all the long training and making enough isk to fly them. and look at what your risking flying them compared to dreads, they deserve what they can do. CCP supports this message. I think.
LoveKebab Caldari LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.09.14 10:09:00 - [26] training for carrier takes routhly 5days less than for a ms (titans r off the scale with cap ships 5) unless u take the fighters 5 into equasion(which carrier pilots usually dont train) skilled pilot can earn enough isk to buy a mothership in aprox 1-2 months if he rly gets into it (it took me like 2 weeks but it was a diferent eve back then :P) isk was never the issue in this game - isk factor mentioned by ccp back in the days when they introduced the moms and titans today is a big laugh since not only big alliances can afford titan but played on their own can buy 1 or 2 even (all hail to t2 bpo) xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial
it440 Caldari OZ industries and Technology	Posted - 2010.09.14 10:37:00 - [27] dont forget about fighters V to train fighter bombers, ive got carriers V now and still 24 days to fighters V and then ill train fb to V too, thats alot i think and about the isk, wow! im a serious carebear and cant touch that, been grinding and saving for about 7 months and just made 20b missioning my butt off. CCP supports this message. I think.
Hadiax	Posted - 2010.09.14 13:30:00 - [28] Originally by: Impact1983 Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... And there is currently no counter to a mom, unless you plan on bring 10-15 pilots per mom pilot which would be hard as I can easy get 30 man fleets but how am I going to grab 200 man fleets to counter 20 moms? We need a counter which the current dread is mothballed so why not work in a counter with the dread??? And yes a mom is = to 10 or 15 cruisers maybe bc so we need a realistic counter to them not just lagging out the system with 200 man fleets. So in essence you're complaining that you can't beat a mom with 15 cruisers or battlecruisers? I mean seriously? A 20bil ship can't be beaten by 15 10-ish or even 15 100-ish mil ships? Damn I NEVER saw that comming! Obviously if your fleet consists at out cruisers & battlecruisers moms will eat you. Same goes for a dread, you cannot make a 1bil ship take on a 15bil one, that's absurd. Yes a solution has to be found, but just random boosting a dread for instance is not it. Maybe another ship (like a dread but then mom size & priced) that is the same 'upgraded' version of a dread as the mom is off the carrier.
LoveKebab Caldari LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.09.14 17:31:00 - [29] Originally by: Hadiax Originally by: Impact1983 Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: it440 i would think the counter to the super carriers is obviously titans, everyone should be fleeting more titans! ms does more DPS than titan... And there is currently no counter to a mom, unless you plan on bring 10-15 pilots per mom pilot which would be hard as I can easy get 30 man fleets but how am I going to grab 200 man fleets to counter 20 moms? We need a counter which the current dread is mothballed so why not work in a counter with the dread??? And yes a mom is = to 10 or 15 cruisers maybe bc so we need a realistic counter to them not just lagging out the system with 200 man fleets. So in essence you're complaining that you can't beat a mom with 15 cruisers or battlecruisers? I mean seriously? A 20bil ship can't be beaten by 15 10-ish or even 15 100-ish mil ships? Damn I NEVER saw that comming! Obviously if your fleet consists at out cruisers & battlecruisers moms will eat you. Same goes for a dread, you cannot make a 1bil ship take on a 15bil one, that's absurd. Yes a solution has to be found, but just random boosting a dread for instance is not it. Maybe another ship (like a dread but then mom size & priced) that is the same 'upgraded' version of a dread as the mom is off the carrier. following ur logic - u CAN kill 60bil ship with 3x 20bil ships without much problem... ofc there is always the tackling issue but the point stands xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.09.14 18:18:00 - [30] Originally by: King Rothgar Removing the siege mod limitation on them for damage dealing wouldn't alter their role too much. My revelation can't hit a BS going 90m/s at 50km with pulses and that's with a TCII. If you're worried about them slaughtering BS's, I think you have nothing to worry about. Their tracking is so bad even out of siege that they just can't hit a moving target. Of course they could hit a stationary BS but they can already do that. I have a few funny solo kills with my rev because the target simply parked next to me and didn't move at all. Removing the siege mod limitation on their damage output simply makes them more mobile like carriers. It allows you to hit a POS or another capital and pull out if things get a little too hot. Their should be an advantage to sieging, but it shouldn't be mandatory to dish out the damage, it should give you other benefits instead. I think Rothgar here has a very valid point. Being stuck in one place should really be the only drawback of a sieging (and no outside rep of course). It's a pretty severe drawback. seiging should bring benfits. It should be an option to improve preformance, not a requirement to be useful in any way.

MyVodka	Posted - 2010.09.29 09:49:00 - [31] I agree Torothanax, dreadnoughts do need a boost of some sort.
ViolenTUK Gallente Demolition Men	Posted - 2010.09.29 10:05:00 - [32] When the changes to Supercarriers were introduced dreads had their tracking nerfed to make them only really effective against poses. The fact of the matter is that dreads were always used for fleet warfare as well as pos pashing. Once dreads were nerfed they became no longer effective against super capitals. I feel that boosting dreads tracking would at least stop them from being ineffectual.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente Wormhole XXXtreme	Posted - 2010.09.29 12:57:00 - [33] Originally by: ViolenTUK When the changes to Supercarriers were introduced dreads had their tracking nerfed to make them only really effective against poses. The fact of the matter is that dreads were always used for fleet warfare as well as pos pashing. Once dreads were nerfed they became no longer effective against super capitals. I feel that boosting dreads tracking would at least stop them from being ineffectual. Agreed, I think dreads need a tracking buff at the very least.
Asuka Solo Gallente Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2010.09.29 13:27:00 - [34] Edited by: Asuka Solo on 29/09/2010 13:35:27 Why not just lobby for new Dread hull variants and follow the Battleship class approach? Generate one Dread hull with increased tracking to enable hitting smaller or moving ships. Generate a 2nd with improved tank or perhaps even immunity from Ewar or something to enable it to pull out if needed, or insane damage bonuses (like the 100% damage bonus from Marauders) and more hi slots to actually hurt Super Carriers.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.09.29 18:14:00 - [35] Edited by: Camios on 29/09/2010 18:15:47 One of the things I see in the SC Vs Dreads problem is that SC is clearly made to kill capitals. This point is quite important: with the exception of Titan + old AoE Doomsday, before dominion there was no ship that whose specific aim was to kill lesser ships. Moreover we can notice that in a "small vs big" fight, the small has always the advantage of speed and agility, while the big has the advantage of DPS and tank. This is not true when we consider Capitals Vs Supercapitals. Actually, "Capitals Vs Supercapitals" is more similar to "T1 Vs T2" than to "Small Vs Big". So, the problem "Dreads are useless" is similar to the problem "T1 cruisers and frigates are useless". But of course the problem of dreads being useless is quite more important. Another related problem I see is that the DPS a Supercarrier can put on a BS is way too much. It's over 1000 dps on a MWD BS, and this is probably why we don't see BSes around anymore (please correct me if I'm wrong). Possible solutions to these problems The mobility of dreads must be enhanced to increase their survivability to SC fire. There should be a consistent reduction in siege time, or at least various stages of sieged mode, when you exchange your mobility for DPS and tank. They should not put out more DPS than now, if you look to them from a certain perspective they look a quite cheap weapon system after all. More mobility could encourage the use of short range dreads maybe. SC damage to subcapital should be lowered even more, for example increasing the explosion radius of compact citadels and obviously increasing the Signature radius of capitals and supercapitals. Pos modules and sov structures should remain like they are now, in order for dreads to be still effective (and better than SCs) in pos bashing. This is important to make the BS fleet tactic viable again (more variety = better game).
Malak Starfire	Posted - 2010.09.29 19:10:00 - [36] I'm new to cap warfare, but wouldn't 16-20 dreads take out a supercarrier? Sure a few dreads would die but the isk vs isk is about the same. I would enjoy a shorter siege cycle time though.
Demjon	Posted - 2010.09.29 20:38:00 - [37] In order to fix the cap ship problem all ship designs will need to be reworked. The whole idea of rock paper scissors in game this complex is a sad joke in itself. I wonÆt argue the fact that a dread turret or missile would have a problem tracking or even hitting a small fast ship. I think this is correct and as it should be. What I have a problem with is that fact that each ship type is forced to use only turret sizes that are equal to it. Frig = small turret Cruiser = Medium turret Battle ship = Large turret Dread = X-Large turret This means that as the ships get larger they have more and more difficulty hitting smaller class ships. By doing this medium turrets and cruisers become the favored ships and the t2 and t3 versions of these cruisers are very fast and carry a lot of firepower. A BS has no chance against these ships 1v1 much less in numbers because their guns can not track them. A BS just takes longer to die (not much longer). If a BS canÆt defend against these attackers, how would a dread fair against them? Carrier fighters are no long effective against them and they often times can outrun drones. LetÆs face it no navy would ever build a ship that couldnÆt deal with a ship in a lower class. The speed of cruisers and frigs allow them to escape a larger more powerful vessel not speed tank it indefinitely or provide invulnerability because drones and missiles and turrets canÆt hit them. The time it takes to target a smaller vessel provides additions time to retreat as well. This speed invulnerability can be applied to BSÆs as well when they face dreads or carriers. How do we fix this issue? Nerf bat again really? I propose that we use all 12 of the function keys for a change. Push the awesome key for once. For ships that are BS and up they should be allowed to fit medium turrets in addition to their primary armament in order to combat smaller ships. Give a bonus to small and medium turrets against fighters and fighter bombers as well. If you launch an air strike against any ships your going to loose some of those fighter/bombers in the process. The carriers and SC still have tons of drones, and spares to use in the fight and even if they run out the can always RR. On BS ships and up you can give a 2X bonus to medium turret damage so the turret damage is comparable to a cruiser and if they get a lucky shot in with the big guns, well all is fair in love and war. Specifically for dreads they need to fit both long range and short range medium turrets especially because the can not move in siege mode (moving battle station). You can even put medium turrets on the carriers for anti fighter/bomber actions but they might be overpowered (unless the fighter/bombers are all shot down). The t2 and t3 cruisers and frigates can always run away before they get locked. 99% of the time 1v1, BS> then cruiser. Dread > BS/Cruiser, Carrier > All, unless all the fighter/bomber have been shot down, or you get caught in the open. ThatÆs my two cents on the subject of fleet fights.
Arklan1 Dunedain Rangers	Posted - 2010.09.29 21:02:00 - [38] adding medium guns isn't the solution - it would eliminate the need to bring support fleets of smaller vessels. now, as the the rest of this thread. fascinating. i have zero experience with cap fleets, or really fleet fights in general, but it's very interesting reading. BS's aren't used much in pvp fleet fights, you say? that just screams there's an imbalance somewhere. i mean, i understand it. i love my hurricane. but and entire size category of vessel not seeing use? to make no mention of dreads... it's fascinating to me that there is this whole level of eve (yet another one!) that i know nil about.
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2010.09.29 21:30:00 - [39] Dreads could have a way higher dps and better tracking so they can fight supercaps effectively. The solution against them being more effective against smaller targets becouse of this could be to raise the sig radius on capital guns.
Kashon Rea King's Empire	Posted - 2010.09.30 06:26:00 - [40] i suppose the question has to be, Yes the dread was originally designed as a POS killer. But is that really feasible in the current SC environment. hell i have not undocked my moros for a long time there is no point, i go to kill a POS and a SC jumps in and kills me. I think we should look at altering the dread into a sub-system based ship, not a T3 ship but a cap with 2 sub-systems so that tailoring can be done. Death is not the answer only a means to an end.

GizzyBoy	Posted - 2010.09.30 13:20:00 - [41] Moms used to be pretty naf, Now they got some loving and they have the eeepeen, and this is fine. At some point they will get the nerf again. but for now, they still Can't dock, still require a ready fleet to jump in and support them should things go south, Still cost many more billions than dreads. Should a dread be able to smoke a mom on its own? uhmmm no... the mom was reconfigured to give some balance vrs Titans. If they hadn't given moms some loving, we would all be cursing the excessively large titan gangs. So there it is, You can moan about having Super carriers, Or you can moan about To many titans, Or you can just come back to high sec for some Carebare Love Internet Space Ship Man Hugs are moms getting killed? yep 4 + in September http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7695305
Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.09.30 14:34:00 - [42] ^ so your solution is just to ignore the problem until CCP nerfs moms into the ground? How... original. CCP is much more likely to nerf them into complete suckage than they are into balance if something isn't done to balance them out using other ships. Dreads are the place to look. Dreads are currently the most boring capital ship to fly. They're good for only one thing, banging on towers. They have very little flexibility in their role. They aren't even that great at killing other caps except triage carriers and dreads. The reason for this? Tracking. In siege, dreads have no tracking at all. I'm sorry, but capital ships MOVE. Even moms and titans move. This negates a large portion of dread DPS against anything with a player in it. Unnerf their tracking and buff their HP and they might be able to compete.
Mr Peanut420 The Makhai	Posted - 2010.09.30 19:04:00 - [43] Don't nerf moms! Don't do anything fancy, just remove the siege timer (make like a cloaking device or mining lazer). Siege on: you're gunz do damage, you can't to move (basically to stop dreads from aligning and quickly warping out). Siege off, you can move again. Siege will use stront like a gun uses ammo, slowly counting down. And poof cap battles are fun again.
Orb Lati Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.01 00:32:00 - [44] Going to throw a curve ball here, which I have mentioned in another thread similar to this. Instead of trying to buff dreads against Super carrier damage, consider a solution of using another ship (Assault Frigs?) as an anti fighter/bomber screening platform. If you were able to boost an assault frigate with bonuses to damage and webs to slow a fighter/bomber down to be killed. Then potentially a few squads of these might we worth considering to whittle down the effective dps output of a super carrier. This will still keep dreads vulnerable initially but over the coarse of a battle a super carrier wing might find itself toothless against the remainder. This of coarse wont counter Titans, but Im not sure yet if they need any. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
GoodNDead Caldari Hardcore Industries Hardcore.	Posted - 2010.10.01 05:02:00 - [45] Edited by: GoodNDead on 01/10/2010 05:04:53 It might be easier and simpler fix to dial back the fighter bomber DPS a bit still making them cap killers but at a slightly slower pace so a hand full of MoMs can't hot drop and annihilate a average sized dread fleet and simply walk away in the time it takes to take a good long BM. Its a far better option then to give the dreads a major role change or totally nerfing moms by ramping up dreads effective DPS making MoMs kerplode like a caracal at a low sec gate camp to the average sized dread fleet.
FlameGlow Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2010.10.01 07:42:00 - [46] Edited by: FlameGlow on 01/10/2010 07:44:01 Originally by: Mr Peanut420 Don't nerf moms! Don't do anything fancy, just remove the siege timer (make like a cloaking device or mining lazer). Siege on: you're gunz do damage, you can't to move (basically to stop dreads from aligning and quickly warping out). Siege off, you can move again. Siege will use stront like a gun uses ammo, slowly counting down. And poof cap battles are fun again. you're forgetting the other parts of siege effects 1) not being able to receive remote assistance - drop siege any time you're not tanking the incoming damage and get reps from carriers 2) ewar immunity - siege on/off and you're no longer tackled I'm personally in favor of double/triple smartbomb range boost in siege and utility slot on dreads Originally by: CCP Manifest Imploding servers are not a part of our business model.
Mr Peanut420 The Makhai	Posted - 2010.10.02 03:48:00 - [47] Originally by: FlameGlow Edited by: FlameGlow on 01/10/2010 07:44:01 Originally by: Mr Peanut420 Don't nerf moms! Don't do anything fancy, just remove the siege timer (make like a cloaking device or mining lazer). Siege on: you're gunz do damage, you can't to move (basically to stop dreads from aligning and quickly warping out). Siege off, you can move again. Siege will use stront like a gun uses ammo, slowly counting down. And poof cap battles are fun again. you're forgetting the other parts of siege effects 1) not being able to receive remote assistance - drop siege any time you're not tanking the incoming damage and get reps from carriers 2) ewar immunity - siege on/off and you're no longer tackled I'm personally in favor of double/triple smartbomb range boost in siege and utility slot on dreads 1) I don't think thats a problem 2) remove ewar immunity
Tachash	Posted - 2010.10.03 13:57:00 - [48] One easy way to bring dreads back into contention again would be to give them a new bonus to assist in the tackling of super caps. Remove the infinite warp strength of super cap, give them something in the region of a warp strength of 200 for SC and 300 for Titans. Then either seed T1 Capital scramblers and disruptors or make the siege mod have an effect on scramblers and disruptors, in the region of +150% to range and 500% to tackling strength. This still means even with faction 3pt scrams youd need 14 sieged Dreads to tackle an SC and I think that's fair.
Kashon Rea King's Empire	Posted - 2010.10.06 04:14:00 - [49] It is interesting that most of these posts... mine included are wining about moms Lets stop wining and think of it this way... the dread is an over sized battleship. So why not let it have the same flexibility. Yes it was originally designed to kill pos.. and to be honest it can still do that with the right support. What i would like to see is the dread be allowed to be used for other purposes. Personally i would allow capital ships to fit a couple of subsystems, there giving flexibility and usefulness back to the lowly dread. Death is not the answer only a means to an end.
Magnum Negotia	Posted - 2010.10.25 14:01:00 - [50] Agreed, thanks for the information.

About Mesale	Posted - 2010.10.25 14:48:00 - [51] Edited by: About Mesale on 25/10/2010 14:49:26 Dreads are not broken. The ships that made Dreads utterly and completely obsolete are both supercaps, since both are superior dreads in every single way possible. If you simply remove supercaps from the equation, you see very quickly that (pre-trackingnerf) dreads are the most balanced ship class in eve. Clear role, limited effectiveness outside of said role, clear drawbacks and upsides. It's just that ccp introduced so many hard counters to dreads that their usefulness was reduced to basically zero. There are too many ships that do a better job, so these should be nerfed, as to not upset balance of dreads vs. subcaps and carriers.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.