Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 10:52:00 -
[1]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 19/12/2010 10:52:57 Proposed changes
: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot : Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot : Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate : Reduce scan resolution : Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers : Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3 : Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000% : 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers
With these changes a supercarrier or even group of them would be much harder pressed to counter hictors, interdictors, and subcap fleets in general.
The reduction of DPS would finally allow titans to out dps them but keep a supercarriers DPS high enough to fulfill their role as an anti capital ship.
The nos/nuet removal hinders their ability to nullify hictors and to a lesser extent interdictors which are countered more by the scan res reduction.
None of these changes would stop a supercarrier from killing capitals, only subcaps. You would be required to bring support to strip tacklers or defend against a conventional fleet.
edit: Oh and I am a long time Wyvern pilot. This isn't about me hating Supercarriers. It's pretty plain to see they are presently overpowered.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:36:00 -
[2]
Ed, how do you see roles of different capitals in general? Would make it bit easier to see your vision of cap warfare.
Obviously these are big nerfs but you are still leaving these ships with massively oversized tanks, especially on armor tank side (capitals with slaves ).
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:36:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/12/2010 11:37:09 This would go quite far to balancing them, with adding a weakness by forcing them to choose more what drones they take with them.
Still a bit worried though that they wont really get a seperate role from other ships.
And obviously shield and armor supercaps should be rebalanced, but that is a matter of slaves and not of supercarriers specificly.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:46:00 -
[4]
I've been talking about these with Ed in our jabber channel so its probably helpful to go through and explain some of the theory.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot : Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot : Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate
These three changes are part of a package - by removing a slot from the supercap's 'utility' (usually capacitor mods) layer, and simultaneously reducing the cap/recharge, supercarriers are more vulnerable to energy neutralisation and less capable of sustaining unbreakable circle-reps when under attack.
Quote: : Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers : Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3
These two, again, work together. By seperating off the fighters and fighter bombers into their own bay, and reducing the drone bay to 'sensible' levels, we no longer see the situation where supercarriers are capable of launching endless waves of expendable drones against anything that threatens them. Killing off drones will begin to affect a supercarrier's offensive capabilities , something that is not the case under the current system where they carry literally hundreds if not thousands of spare drones and can pop fresh waves out to replace casualties for hours on end.
The fighter bay must be small enough that supercarrier pilots have to choose between fighters and bombers, and without room for more than a couple of spares. This would mean, again, that supercarriers would need to take some care to manage their fighters and it becomes a viable tactic for opponents to pick them off to reduce the supercarrier's damage output.
Quote: : Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000% : 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers
Having said all of the above, these are the two that me and Ed don't agree on!
My preference to the neut/nos modifier would be to remove one or two highslots from all supercarrier hulls to reduce their ability to omni-fit the highs, and to force the pilots to make a decision at the fitting screen about whether they wanted anti-tackle utility (neuts and smartbombs and remote ECM) or a set of remote rep circlejerk mods. As it is, supercarriers have no fitting decisions to worry about, and that makes for poor design.
As for the Fighter-bombers, to me their DPS isn't the problem so much as their EHP, although admittedly Ed has a point that supercarriers are frequently able to both out-gank and out-tank titans. I'd like to see fighter bombers reduced in velocity and hitpoints by around 20%, and increased sig radius by around 20%. This would make them more vulnerable to being targeted and picked off by anti-support subcaps, so supercarrier pilots would be less able to simply launch bombers against any target with impunity, would be more reliant on subcap support to tie up those ships that would otherwise be blowing up their bombers, and would need to pay attention to more ships on the field than just the dictors and the capitals.
-----------------
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 12:54:00 -
[5]
Looks pretty good, I'd personally leave the poor Hel out of the lowslot removal.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 12:56:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 19/12/2010 12:56:38
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot : Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot : Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate
Should work as intended, will certainly make them susceptible to neutralization.
Quote: : Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers : Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3
While I understand I appreciate the idea behind it, I fear that it will once again make them far too hard to manage resulting in a few thousand POS ornaments. Problem is the size of the drones, where are they supposed to "reload"? For the SC fleets that we all know and love (heh) you would need entire POS dedicated to just storing the swaps, even on "small scale" it benefits larger entities far more than smaller due to ISK/Logistics concerns. In another thread I wrote the idea of having a hangar deck on the SC themselves where bombers/fighters are stored when not in drone bay. Make the difference between the two amount to a couple of drones and you avoid the insta-swap in combat.
F.Bombers really need to be made much more vulnerable to sub-cap assets if SCs are to maintain their absolute EHP/DPS advantage over everything else. Personally think that the 20% tweaks are too little, they are cruiser sized, moving at cruiser speeds which in it self takes BS counters out of the equation (blobbing excepted). They need to be double signature for it to have any impact I think.
Whichever way it is handled there still needs to be reliable counters available to super-fleets which this unfortunately does not provide, at least not on its own.
In short: A good start, but not enough. Tentative support.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:19:00 -
[7]
Edited by: xttz on 19/12/2010 13:20:39 Posting an amended list. The focus here is to make supercaps more susceptible to sub-caps, and improve the usefulness of dreads+carriers.
: Titans : Standard doomsday reduced to 50km range, same damage : Mid-range DD script - 125km range, 1mil damage : Long-range DD script - 200km range, 250k damage : Cannot activate DD on non-capital or non-supercapital ships
: Supercarriers : Reduce scan resolution : Turn current drone bay into fighter/bomber only bay. : Regular drone bay of 250m3 (400m3 Nyx) : Aeon armour reduction 1.1m -> 975k : Nyx armour reduction 1.05m -> 950k : Wyvern shield reduction 1m -> 975k : Hel bonus change -> +5% shield hp per level : All SC's can deploy 1 additional drone per level : Role bonus: Each DCU allows for 3 additional drones : (No change to current bandwidth)
: Tackling : Anchorable bubbles cannot be targeted by bombers/fighters : New module for AF's - Focus point with 10-15km range. : New bubble probe for interdictors - 30km range, only affects jump drives and not warp drives.
The net result of this is:
- Supercarriers must choose between pure damage and the ability to remote rep each other. A RR-circlejerk fleet will now do much less DPS, while a fleet that focuses on DPS will need carriers to support it.
- Supercarriers are much more vulnerable to dictors and HICs. No more waves of 1k drones that alpha any tackler at no risk to the supercap fleet. And no more tens of thousands of spare drones degrading server performance.
- Long-range dreadnought fleets are now more viable against titans. Massed titans will now need to coordinate doomsdays to be as effective.
- All supercaps will find it tougher to shake off tackles without a support fleet
- Assault frigates finally get a usful role. Yay.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:32:00 -
[8]
I like this proposal.
|
Brian Khan
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:32:00 -
[9]
Sure why not.
|
Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:33:00 -
[10]
As a supercarrier alt (curently without supercarrier fortunately) I support this proposal.
|
|
Tuleingel
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:34:00 -
[11]
I support this.
|
Tehnomaag
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:34:00 -
[12]
Sounds good.
|
Hun Jakuza
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 19/12/2010 13:36:38 Supported, need supercarrier nerf before they ruined the game.
|
NeoKalista
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:40:00 -
[14]
Why not. SuperCaps need to be change.
(SC Pilot)
|
Vile rat
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 14:34:00 -
[15]
As an Aeon pilot I think it's a great idea. It needs to happen.
|
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 14:45:00 -
[16]
Supported.
And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 15:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.
No.
I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital. Back to the topic, I simply can not support this unless ALL drones are banned from super capitals. Especially super carriers. They have many tools at their disposal that allows them to Leroy around solo and get away. One of them that needs to go is the ability to field ECM, Neut and light drones to fight of HIC's and dictors. Support ships is what should be used to protect the super caps from that stuff.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 19:15:00 -
[18]
looks good but first they need to fix the way shield bonuses apply.
Cause taht already gimps shield supers
|
Vmir Gallahasen
United Mining And Distribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 20:14:00 -
[19]
A big step in the right direction for sure
|
wr3cks
Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 20:43:00 -
[20]
Edited by: wr3cks on 19/12/2010 20:43:16 Needed, good, supported.
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 21:00:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.
No.
I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital.
Cost in itself isn't a factor to balance around - State Ravens cost more than titans, does that mean they should get ewar immunity too? What if I officer-fit a rifter?
(I actually agree that the e-war immunity should stay, just not for the reason you give.)
-----------------
|
EdFromHumanResources
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 21:27:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.
No.
I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital.
Cost in itself isn't a factor to balance around - State Ravens cost more than titans, does that mean they should get ewar immunity too? What if I officer-fit a rifter?
(I actually agree that the e-war immunity should stay, just not for the reason you give.)
Then you're dumb for officer fitting a rifter. These should not be vulnerable to ewar
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 23:30:00 -
[23]
I support the idea of reducing supercap effectiveness against solo PvPers and small roaming gangs.
Either make them less effective, or give me a chance to solo it.
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:14:00 -
[24]
Ok i am not a super capital pilot, but I am going to weigh in as I am a capital pilot.
It of course is always hard to determine how to nerf something to bring it in line with other ships, especially since the new fighter bombers pretty much replaced dreads for capital pvp. Instead of large amounts of dreads fighting we now just have super capital blobs going at it with massive amounts of ehp and nothing really dying except for those not in a super cap.
So what are my thoughts
Wyvern and Nyx -1 mid slot Hel and Aeon -1 low slot
Ok yeah this is like a kick in the balls hit to the tank, but they can still survive several DD at them plus the aeon and the wyvern both have natural tank bonuses.
I would go for reduced capacitor recharge rate and, maybe increase the amount of base cap needed to jump?
Fighter bay - this could be an interesting concept, i dont know about implementation.
Neut / Nos - ok this is a good imo, but 3000% is extreme, maybe 300%
30% reduced dps - yeah, this would be useful to give regular a fighting chance to either escape or take a few of them with them.
Other thoughts - maybe have some sort of draw back to having full flight of bombers out?
Still supported though
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:20:00 -
[25]
The 3000% is meant to be extreme. its complete discouragement from using neuts much like using points is discouraged by a massive bonus to activation cost during triage.
Reduction in tank wont reduce its effectiveness vs subcaps and will only hurt its given role. This is akin to an EHP bonus and does literally nothing but hurt the ship needlessly. A supercap at 10% hp is just as dead as a supercap at 1% hp. Not giving it that extra 9% is pointless. A reduction in the slots typically used to give cap recharge wont hurt its given role but will hurt its ability to be a highly mobile anti subcap fleet tool.
|
Piercing Silence
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:23:00 -
[26]
nerf to bots> no thanks
|
De'Veldrin
Green-Core The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:24:00 -
[27]
Agreed. --Vel
I'm more of a care-badger. |
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:52:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Piercing Silence nerf to bots> no thanks
I think you wandered into the wrong thread bro.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 05:45:00 -
[29]
So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 06:42:00 -
[30]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.
Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 06:59:00 -
[31]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.
Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.
Sorry, but the idea of fighters shooting goto/bombs has been around well before your proposal. Anyhow, proceed with your super capital ultra nerf.
By the way, will fighters bombers be allowed to be assigned while these super carriers hug POS shields?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:03:00 -
[32]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 07:03:41
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.
Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.
Sorry, but the idea of fighters shooting goto/bombs has been around well before your proposal. Anyhow, proceed with your super capital ultra nerf.
By the way, will fighters bombers be allowed to be assigned while these super carriers hug POS shields?
Sure there was, but during the prospective changes thread my thread as linked, not previous ones.
And nope sorry, I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does. But that doesn't change the fact it's needed.
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:50:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 20/12/2010 07:53:25
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does.
So that is what this is about ehh? An alliance that has been using their supercarriers taking giant dukies all over your sandbox and you think its time for a nerf.
I just was simply correcting you and you burst into tears of rage over an alliance I was in before I quit the game.
Anyways, I am all for cutting back on capital ship projection. Especially super capitals. More sub caps, less super caps. Just so you know I do like some aspects of your idea. The problem is there is so many nerf in it that super caps will be back to POS hugging and the only time they will see combat is when they are dropped on an opposing force when it is going to a slaughter.
Remove the ability to field any non-fighter/bomber drones from super caps. If they want to Leroy around without a proper support fleet to keep the superstitious from being tacked then that is their problem. Can we at least agree on that?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:58:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does.
So that is what this is about ehh? An alliance that has been using their supercarrier taking giant dukies all over your sandbox and you think its time for a nerf.
I just was simply correcting you and you burst into tears of rage over an alliance I was in before I quit the game.
Anyways, I am all for cutting back on capital ship projection. Especially super capitals. More sub caps, less super caps. Just so you know I do like some aspects of your idea. The problem is there is so many nerf in it that super caps will be back to POS hugging and the only time they will see combat is when they are dropped on an opposing force when it is going to a slaughter.
Remove the ability to field any non-fighter/bomber drones from super caps. If they want to Leroy around without a proper support fleet to keep the superstitious from being tacked then that is their problem. Can we at least agree on that?
We can definitely agree on that but I don't think CCP will simply remove all other drones from supercarriers. Simply giving them a small drone only bay forces them to pick and choose what they want to be able to counter and even then they cant simply spit drones endlessly.
As for your tears comment, this isnt about us fighting them. NCdot has clearly relied on its supercaps and still is. That's their primary worth right now. It makes sense that someone who is in the alliance would dislike a nerf to their bread winner.
These nerfs listed wouldnt ruin supercaps. They would remove a supercaps ability to be a highly mobile **** mobile that can counter anything in the game with only 30-40 ships. The only thing that counters 40 supecarriers is more supercaps. That's broken.
The amount of hictors required to tackle that many even if you bring more supercarriers than them is astronomical because of how quickly 40 supercarriers can melt/nuet down anything able to tackle them. That's broken. I dont think even 50 of them would be enough. You may get 3-6 supercarriers before they had time to react and get out but the simple mathematics of it are incredibly in the SC's favor of surviving.
That's assuming they have zero support. Which seems to be happening more and more. If 40 supercarriers have 200 support, then yes, they should be able to curbstomp damn near anything except more support and supercaps.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:05:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
I realise that you're just trolling (and as usual you're not very good at it), but for the benefit of other readers, the problem with Sisi testing is that the circumstances in which supercaps are typically used on TQ aren't easily replicable. Pre-Dominion testing mostly involved people mashing T2 fit supercaps into each other at the capital FFA beacon in FD- and jerking off in local over their damage notifications. There were few if any organised attempts to determine how they performed in particular battlefield scenarios (for example, how a small gang of supercarriers held out against a large subcap fleet).
What we're seeing on tranquility is the Law of Unintended Consequences in action. Everyone was excited at the prospect of seeing supercaps given a useful battlefield role, but what we've seen with supercarriers has been the introduction of zillion hitpoint gankmobiles with enough free utility slots and drones to counter anything that can be thrown at them - except another larger supercap fleet.
-----------------
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:17:00 -
[36]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I will still be happily taking my supercarrier away from pos shields for combat little NCDOT person. I realize you guys would stand to lose a lot from this nerf, any alliance that's been heavily reliant on their SC performance and nothing else for the past year does.
So that is what this is about ehh? An alliance that has been using their supercarrier taking giant dukies all over your sandbox and you think its time for a nerf.
I just was simply correcting you and you burst into tears of rage over an alliance I was in before I quit the game.
Anyways, I am all for cutting back on capital ship projection. Especially super capitals. More sub caps, less super caps. Just so you know I do like some aspects of your idea. The problem is there is so many nerf in it that super caps will be back to POS hugging and the only time they will see combat is when they are dropped on an opposing force when it is going to a slaughter.
Remove the ability to field any non-fighter/bomber drones from super caps. If they want to Leroy around without a proper support fleet to keep the superstitious from being tacked then that is their problem. Can we at least agree on that?
We can definitely agree on that but I don't think CCP will simply remove all other drones from supercarriers. Simply giving them a small drone only bay forces them to pick and choose what they want to be able to counter and even then they cant simply spit drones endlessly.
As for your tears comment, this isnt about us fighting them. NCdot has clearly relied on its supercaps and still is. That's their primary worth right now. It makes sense that someone who is in the alliance would dislike a nerf to their bread winner.
These nerfs listed wouldnt ruin supercaps. They would remove a supercaps ability to be a highly mobile **** mobile that can counter anything in the game with only 30-40 ships. The only thing that counters 40 supecarriers is more supercaps. That's broken.
The amount of hictors required to tackle that many even if you bring more supercarriers than them is astronomical because of how quickly 40 supercarriers can melt/nuet down anything able to tackle them. That's broken. I dont think even 50 of them would be enough. You may get 3-6 supercarriers before they had time to react and get out but the simple mathematics of it are incredibly in the SC's favor of surviving.
That's assuming they have zero support. Which seems to be happening more and more. If 40 supercarriers have 200 support, then yes, they should be able to curbstomp damn near anything except more support and supercaps.
How do you feel about a change where not all super caps are able to make it to a fight, even if they are online?
Also, I hate to break it to you, I'm not in NCDOT.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
How do you feel about a change where not all super caps are able to make it to a fight, even if they are online?
Also, I hate to break it to you, I'm not in NCDOT.
You means some arbitrary negative they would get for having a certain amount of supercaps in the system? I think it would only hurt the game and be abused even more than the current mechanics.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:59:00 -
[38]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Marlona Sky
How do you feel about a change where not all super caps are able to make it to a fight, even if they are online?
Also, I hate to break it to you, I'm not in NCDOT.
You means some arbitrary negative they would get for having a certain amount of supercaps in the system? I think it would only hurt the game and be abused even more than the current mechanics.
No no. Not that at all. What I mean, and I hope this analogy works, is say capital ship jumping is similar to a ships capacitor. Let's say players have a capacitor the size of a battlecruiser. Now let's say an armor rep is a capital ship. The bigger the rep the faster the capacitor drains and you can't activate it anymore. It would take some time recharge a bit before you could use the rep again but if you cap wad full you could use it a lot in a sprint before you capped out.
So if super caps are large reps and normal caps are medium to small, even if your online with a capital, how active you have been over the last few days jumping will dictate if you can do a jump and make it to a fight. You may he on but you might have to take a non-cap to the fight instead because of your jump capacitor. Super capital and your jump capacitor is too low from you hot dropping stuff left and right the last day or two? Too bad, your going to have to sit this one out.
I'm not saying other changes don't need to happen but instead of 100% of the available super caps showing up at every fight it might be only 50% or something. Also will cut back on superstitious groping on a couple battleship for instant "I Win" stuff because it is not with burning jump capacitor for a couple if typhoons or something.
Does any of that make sense?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:27:00 -
[39]
So you want to give an advantage to people who play Eve rarely and punish those who play frequently.
That sounds like a terrible idea.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:48:00 -
[40]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources So you want to give an advantage to people who play Eve rarely and punish those who play frequently.
That sounds like a terrible idea.
/facepalm
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 09:59:00 -
[41]
I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:13:00 -
[42]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
Hang out with different friends that are not narrow minded and not blinded by political agendas? v0v
Anyways, ill let you get back to nerfing super carriers back to POS ornaments.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:20:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
Hang out with different friends that are not narrow minded and not blinded by political agendas? v0v
Anyways, ill let you get back to nerfing super carriers back to POS ornaments.
Actually I meant they couldnt gather any message out of that but "Lets punish people for playing frequently".
Maybe your poorly worded block of words can be re worded to be more legible?
|
Alfa225
Invictus Australis BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:55:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I asked a few other people to translate that really really poorly written post and they all got the same thing out of it I did.
Hang out with different friends that are not narrow minded and not blinded by political agendas? v0v
Anyways, ill let you get back to nerfing super carriers back to POS ornaments.
The way i Read your horrible, horrible wall of text is that If i want to use my Capital and drop it left and right (which i have done in the past) That I am inventually going to be unable to jump because EVE wants to punish me for using my toy?
Ok how about your idea put into a sensible idea, since personaly, i think your a total idiot, not that I think much more of the idea im out to put out.
Capital Jump Drives become a mod similiar to the subsystems on a T3 cruiser. In which they can be only jumped a certian ammount of lightyears before they have to be repaired in with a station, some super epic huge nanite paste, or mabey some kind of RR mod from a logi or something, who knows.
Actaully for the new RR mod you could use the Rorqual hull and repurpose it from its carebear lolness to something even more awesome by giving it the ability to repair other capital ships jump drives while in deployed mode. You could call it a Fleet Tender or something like that, and change its ore bay to a Fuel bay.
Please don't flame me, I'm just trying to make a joke out the NCDOT tard.
|
Trygonus
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 12:05:00 -
[45]
The tears in this thread are epic. It sounds like everyone wants them nerfed, but not nerfed in how THEY are using titans and super carriers. Anyways, thumbs up from me to put them back to pos control tower modules.
P.S. - Mrs. Sky needs to pass me some of that stuff. Your imagination hurts peoples feelings too much. Time to back off hun.
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 19:52:00 -
[46]
Supercarriers are only killable by more supercarriers. They don't need support fleets, even.
In fact, while we're nerfing supercarriers, let's nerf Dominion's epic failwhale of a sovereignty system.
Originally by: CCP Zulu You're assuming I read threads before I turdpost in them :)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 00:40:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
--- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 01:22:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
Long time ago I had similar idea, it was something like this:
a ship similar to Stealth Bomber firing x-large torpedoes in same way as they fire bombs - non targeted, detonates after certain time period. But unlike current bombs, they would have to travel minimum of 50km before exploding, possibly all 100 km. And unlike current bombs, support ships would be able to lock incoming bombs and destroy them without making them detonate.
That way, capitol fleet would be vulnerable to sub caps unless the capitol fleet has dedicated support to destroy incoming bombs.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 01:51:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.
|
David Carel
Caldari Random Selection. Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 02:01:00 -
[50]
Not supported. SC are end-game WTFPWNBBQMOBILES and should remain as such.
|
|
Venetian Tar
United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 02:05:00 -
[51]
Supported. It could do with a little revision but I'm terrible with numbers and/or Eve Online.
Originally by: David Carel Not supported. SC are end-game WTFPWNBBQMOBILES and should remain as such.
Clueless much? |
Chih Neu
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 02:12:00 -
[52]
|
FDIC Agent
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 02:49:00 -
[53]
Flame me if you wan't but I do like the idea of the more they jump around, the less likely they will be blobbing on your face like mentioned earlier. These changes do very little to keep them from dropping 50+ on a fleet of 50 normal capitals.
Add more nerfs to your proposal so they are only really useful for hugging a pos tower.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 04:43:00 -
[54]
Originally by: FDIC Agent Flame me if you wan't but I do like the idea of the more they jump around, the less likely they will be blobbing on your face like mentioned earlier. These changes do very little to keep them from dropping 50+ on a fleet of 50 normal capitals.
Add more nerfs to your proposal so they are only really useful for hugging a pos tower.
This is what we call an obvious troll. But thanks for the bump dude.
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 05:26:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Jason Edwards So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.
Do you actually play this game? Or do you just pay CCP to be able to post terrible suggestions on the Assembly hall? ---
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 06:24:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources So you want to give an advantage to people who play Eve rarely and punish those who play frequently.
That sounds like a terrible idea.
/facepalm
Well he is right Marlona Sky. If your in a SuperCap your stuck in the thing 24/7. It's the nature of the beast. Now if they let the damn things be Docked then I would be down with a Jump Cap on them. But as is right now they cant get out of the damn things to go play in something alse. I know Make a Alt. But thats lame too.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 10:52:00 -
[57]
<<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 11:02:00 -
[58]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 11:54:00 -
[59]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
All your proposal does is encourage them to only be fielded when it will be an ultra blob on someones face. Come on man, you should know better than with your half ass idea here.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 11:57:00 -
[60]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
All your proposal does is encourage them to only be fielded when it will be an ultra blob on someones face. Come on man, you should know better than with your half ass idea here.
No it ensures they will be deployed with support of a subcapital fleet. If for IT that means an ultra blob then so be it. That isn't how it is for all alliances though
|
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:05:00 -
[61]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman <<
A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.
I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.
They would still ) Demolish capital fleets ) Out DPS anything under them in size ) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother ) Have the EHP of a POS
All your proposal does is encourage them to only be fielded when it will be an ultra blob on someones face. Come on man, you should know better than with your half ass idea here.
No it ensures they will be deployed with support of a subcapital fleet. If for IT that means an ultra blob then so be it. That isn't how it is for all alliances though
Please refrain from personal attacks. Spitfire
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:08:00 -
[62]
Well at least you countered my proposal with well thought out examples of how these changes would do what you say.
Oh wait, you didn't.
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:04:00 -
[63]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Well at least you countered my proposal with well thought out examples of how these changes would do what you say.
Oh wait, you didn't.
Ok fine.
First of all, lowering the drone bay for normal drones is fine. That limits what they can do against support.
Also the neutralizer penalty is fine too. Again, makes it more difficult to fight off support.
So with those in place, they will not do well against support, so I ask, why...
Scan resolution penalty? All this does it make it take longer and longer to lock capital ships. A useless nerf.
The fighter bomber nerf, why? If you learned to read patch notes you would know they are being changed so they are no where near as affective against sub capitals. So again, all this does is nerf their ability to fight capital ships.
Capacitor recharge? Are you hoping they bring triage carriers/guardians with them to cap each other up to jump out? If it is not a tactical good choice to fit neuts, then they will just fit remote cap transfers. So again, your cap nerf is just bypassed, therefor, a pointless nerf. But if it makes you feel like your nerf has more nerfness to it, then keep it I guess.
The -1 fitting slot. First of all this will just make the Hel even more worthless. Another thing with all the carriers fitting remote cap transfer, again, your hope of them not fitting a cap recharger to get away is just bypassed.
Also forcing them to pick between fighters and fighter bombers, why? They are incredibly easy to kill. And with support on the field they will make short work of them now that super carriers are not very effective against support. So again, a pointless nerf that just nerfs their effectiveness against other capitals, not support like you are claiming they are for.
So all in all, out of 7 different nerfs, only 2, maybe 3 are needed. The rest is just nerfing their ability against capitals.
But, in the end, you have made up your mind you are the super carrier expert, and any discussion on your suggests as can be seen from previous posters, is meet with bitter rage. So arguing with you is pointless, just like most of your proposal. Just don't forget to reply to this with some meme or something of the equivalent so you feel like you have won some debate or something. For the sake of the super carrier pilots, I strongly suggest you have this moved to F&I section where it belongs instead of trying to force feed this to us. It is not 100% fail so it deserves to be discussed over there.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:19:00 -
[64]
Quote: Scan resolution penalty? All this does it make it take longer and longer to lock capital ships. A useless nerf.
It takes my wyvern about 8 seconds to lock a capital ship. This would could raise that to maybe 10 while at the same time making it take over a minute to lock a dictor. Making them that much harder to tackle and kill unless they just idle on grid for a long time before bubbling for some reason.
Quote: The fighter bomber nerf, why? If you learned to read patch notes you would know they are being changed so they are no where near as affective against sub capitals. So again, all this does is nerf their ability to fight capital ships.
If you read patch notes you would know this change is in fact, already in the game. This change as stated in the OP is so capitals arent instagibbed quite so fast by fighter bombers. Right now dreads are virtually worthless because of the outrageous dps of FB.
Quote: Capacitor recharge? Are you hoping they bring triage carriers/guardians with them to cap each other up to jump out? If it is not a tactical good choice to fit neuts, then they will just fit remote cap transfers. So again, your cap nerf is just bypassed, therefor, a pointless nerf. But if it makes you feel like your nerf has more nerfness to it, then keep it I guess.
This does a number of things. Makes them cap out easier if you are neuting them, reduces their ability to maintain sustainable spider tanks, and finally makes them less mobile without support carriers giving them cap. Again encouraging the SC fleet to instead become a capital fleet with support carriers and dreads to accompany them.
Quote: The -1 fitting slot. First of all this will just make the Hel even more worthless. Another thing with all the carriers fitting remote cap transfer, again, your hope of them not fitting a cap recharger to get away is just bypassed.
This hurts cap recharge and utility further. That's the point. It won't hurt their EHP just their ability to maintain spider tanks, survive nueting and reduce their mobility. As for the hel...it's already worthless as you said. You cant retract worth from a worthless time. That goes against the very essence of the word worthless.
Quote: Also forcing them to pick between fighters and fighter bombers, why? They are incredibly easy to kill. And with support on the field they will make short work of them now that super carriers are not very effective against support. So again, a pointless nerf that just nerfs their effectiveness against other capitals, not support like you are claiming they are for.
Because 20 SC's fielding 20 fighters each melt hictors so fast you need 80 or more just to tackle the 20 SC's for a few minutes. If you want to keep them tackled for the half an hour it would take to kill that many in low lag conditions you need hundreds.
Quote: But, in the end, you have made up your mind you are the super carrier expert, and any discussion on your suggests as can be seen from previous posters, is meet with bitter rage. So arguing with you is pointless, just like most of your proposal. Just don't forget to reply to this with some meme or something of the equivalent so you feel like you have won some debate or something. For the sake of the super carrier pilots, I strongly suggest you have this moved to F&I section where it belongs instead of trying to force feed this to us. It is not 100% fail so it deserves to be discussed over there.
Given your statements in this thread I am going to go out on a limb and say you dont use a supercarrier. Either that or you simply don't use it or you would know the nerf vs subcaps is already in. I do, I have for some years. Several supercarrier pilots have already responded and endorsed this thread. So obviously your assumptions are off. But again, you're welcome to your opinion even if it's wrong
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:53:00 -
[65]
Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 21/12/2010 13:54:04
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources desperate argument
You of all people are hardly a super carrier expert. lol
You position is unwavering and you refuse to discuss the suggestions. You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"
So again, your proposal is over the top. Too much of a nerf and you will make these turn into pos decorations or even worse, nothing but sanctume mission ships. Also it is funny how you argue for the nerf because you don't like how a specific alliance is using them. So it's, "Nerf how they use them, not how I use them" proposal.
Anyways, enjoy the free bumps to your thread.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:55:00 -
[66]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 21/12/2010 13:54:04
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources desperate argument
You of all people are hardly a super carrier expert. lol
You position is unwavering and you refuse to discuss the suggestions. You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"
So again, your proposal is over the top. Too much of a nerf and you will make these turn into pos decorations or even worse, nothing but sanctume mission ships. Also it is funny how you argue for the nerf because you don't like how a specific alliance is using them. So it's, "Nerf how they use them, not how I use them" proposal.
Anyways, enjoy the free bumps to your thread.
So after having all that shot down with reasonable arguments this is the best you can do? Guess I am not surprised. See you in Fountain if you guys show up again ^_^
|
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 14:01:00 -
[67]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"
Maybe if you want people to see things from your position, you could try holding a better thought out position rather than the blind ad hominems and unsupported rhetoric?
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 14:07:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 21/12/2010 14:07:46 :D
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 15:15:00 -
[69]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.
It is not my goal to nerf conventional caps, and this could easily be avoided. Looking at the numbers a bit more closely, titans have a sig radius of 15-16km, supercarriers 10-12km, carriers about 3km and dreadnoughts less than 2km. Setting explosion radius to 15km would give carriers an 80% tank and dreadnoughts almost 90% against these weapons, before considering resistances etc. These missiles would be a form of torps and would not gain any bonuses to explosion radius from rigs, skills or implants.
With this restriction in place, it's just a matter of deciding on an appropriate peak DPS per bomber and making sure that they don't end up displacing dreadnoughts from their anti-POS role. This could be done by giving the torps a peak range of 20-25km - insufficient to reach a large control tower through the shields. Smaller control towers and other structures would be protected by their lower sig radius.
This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.
--- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 17:51:00 -
[70]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.21 22:08:00 -
[71]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 21/12/2010 22:08:41
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34 I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):- 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
- 3000m explosion radius
- 100m/s explosion velocity
- Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
- ~0 dps vs. anything else
These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.
It is not my goal to nerf conventional caps, and this could easily be avoided. Looking at the numbers a bit more closely, titans have a sig radius of 15-16km, supercarriers 10-12km, carriers about 3km and dreadnoughts less than 2km. Setting explosion radius to 15km would give carriers an 80% tank and dreadnoughts almost 90% against these weapons, before considering resistances etc. These missiles would be a form of torps and would not gain any bonuses to explosion radius from rigs, skills or implants.
With this restriction in place, it's just a matter of deciding on an appropriate peak DPS per bomber and making sure that they don't end up displacing dreadnoughts from their anti-POS role. This could be done by giving the torps a peak range of 20-25km - insufficient to reach a large control tower through the shields. Smaller control towers and other structures would be protected by their lower sig radius.
This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.
Alright so you bring a valid point. But these would still be a serious problem for sieged dreads. It may be possible in the future but in todays climate dreads are almost useless as is. Let's get out of the woods we are in presently before throwing more into the mix eh?
Originally by: Windjammer
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:38:00 -
[72]
This was after the FB change correct ed?
Also
If the problem is that they are super hp with super rr tank why not just remove their ability to RR eachother and make them need carriers...?
DOes that not solve all the problems? without soo much change?
as carriers are easier to kill, by support and are jammable and very able to be neuted.
Tho im not sure how we can say supers cant be neuted as Imperians Erebus was neuted out by Evoke and killed in less than 5 minutes.
But it is my opinion that before any changes to supers are made, that the way shield bonus's apply needs to be looked at. as at the moment is gives armor tanks jumping into a fight an unfair advantage.
Also i think if your gonna nerf the SC ability to nos i'd nerf the effective range of them not the cost of them.
Make them 50% less range so that gives hics and dics a 15k buffer where supers cant neut them but they can point em/ bubble them.
also their is no need for the slot reduction as you know cap recharge is already terrible and 1 pdu doesnt change that.
But then again i think the whole argument is moot, because when dreads were king they had no counter except a bigger dread fleet.
Good luck bringing a bs gang against a dread gang unless you severely out number them. Not to mention carriers i've been in a 50 man carrier fleet and taken a 500 man support fleet, we had 3 losses. this is force escalation, people refuse to use the counter that is given to them, which is small fast ships to clip fighter bombers then dreads to finish the job, done and done. Problem is usually lag. Or people wanting an easy fix.
There are definitely some changes needed to super carriers but what you have listed is a lil stiff.
|
StanFromRiskManagement
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:53:00 -
[73]
Actually you bring forth a few very valid points. I think a range negative instead of an activation bonus would be better. It wouldn't outright bar their ability to use the module but would hinder them using it against tacklers.
I also think you are right about the dread fleets of old. I will work on responding to this more lafter after I eat :)
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: StanFromRiskManagement Actually you bring forth a few very valid points. I think a range negative instead of an activation bonus would be better. It wouldn't outright bar their ability to use the module but would hinder them using it against tacklers.
I also think you are right about the dread fleets of old. I will work on responding to this more lafter after I eat :)
Whoops, wrong account
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 03:09:00 -
[75]
Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships). -----------
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 03:13:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 06:34:00 -
[77]
---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:22:00 -
[78]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then youÆll understand itÆs more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,àà..stretching the truth?
I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say itÆs from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your groupÆs main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:30:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then youÆll understand itÆs more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,àà..stretching the truth?
I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say itÆs from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your groupÆs main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.
So in your mind you think a long time supercap pilot would troll the eve world to get supercarriers nerfed for what benefit?
Also it's not just MY source. I am just the only one raising my voice about it. Your knee jerk reaction however is noted. You forgot to mention we only fly t1 rifters and that there are no goons or one of a dozen other worn out memes.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:45:00 -
[80]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then youÆll understand itÆs more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,àà..stretching the truth?
I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say itÆs from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your groupÆs main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.
So in your mind you think a long time supercap pilot would troll the eve world to get supercarriers nerfed for what benefit?
Your question was answered before you asked it. I repeat, ôfor the sheer joy of screwing with peopleö.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Also it's not just MY source. I am just the only one raising my voice about it. Your knee jerk reaction however is noted. You forgot to mention we only fly t1 rifters and that there are no goons or one of a dozen other worn out memes.
Oh. I see. YouÆre the only one of a secret group of people who have secret advance knowledge of a secret Supercarrier nerf. It all makes sense now. If only IÆd known there was a secret group.
Are you actually thinking about what youÆre writing? The above makes some sort of credible sense to you?
As far as my ôknee jerk reactionö? Come on! Your group has worked long and hard for its reputation. ItÆs not going to go away merely because itÆs inconvenient to you at this time.
-Windjammer
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:12:00 -
[81]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16 Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one. We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes. We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu. We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable. We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
|
|
CCP Spitfire
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:17:00 -
[82]
Just a friendly reminder: please try to keep the discussion in a civil and constructive vein.
Thanks!
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:30:00 -
[83]
We need to fix super carriers in such a way that people will actually deploy them in combat. Make them cost half as much, and do a third less damage and we might see them being fielded for something other than packing a cynojammed system full of them as a show of 'strength'.
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:39:00 -
[84]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.
To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.
Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.
And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.
but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you? -----------
|
Farinet
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:46:00 -
[85]
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:49:00 -
[86]
If sub capitals or other ships suck, fix that. Fixing the nerf of dreadnoughts will help a lot.
/not supported
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:51:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.
To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.
Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.
And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.
but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you?
I completely agree they are overwhelming to both capitals and subcapitals beyond what they should be. That's why my original post actually includes a 30% FB DPS nerf as opposed to your 25%. I also don't think carriers or motherships should be viable towards subcaps at all. That steals the thunder of subcapital fleets in my eyes and makes the game a little less fun.
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:51:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle Fixing the nerf of dreadnoughts will help a lot.
What was nerfed about dreadnoughts that would allow them to kill super carriers more effectively?
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:59:00 -
[89]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16 Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one. We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes. We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu. We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable. We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
AND your group loves to screw with people. You have not addressed that assertion nor have you given any reason to believe you have special knowledge other than we should trust you. As a member of a group of people who love to spread disinformation we should trust you. Your assertion that the Supercarriers will be nerfed may be correct. As nerf happy as CCP is and with Zulu parked where he is it could well happen. However, your suggestion that the EVE community simply take your word for your alleged inside information is ludicrous. To state it as a matter of fact is absurd. To expect us to accept it as fact in support of your plan to nerf Supercarriers your way is unbelievable.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
Regardless of whatever else your group does or has done, it is composed of many who love to troll. Look up your groups history. ItÆs on the web for those who havenÆt had firsthand experience.
What youÆre saying is some of the CSM members are in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement? Further that your group regularly communicates with them regarding insider information?
-Windjammer
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:09:00 -
[90]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:10:55
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16 Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one. We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes. We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu. We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable. We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
AND your group loves to screw with people. You have not addressed that assertion nor have you given any reason to believe you have special knowledge other than we should trust you. As a member of a group of people who love to spread disinformation we should trust you. Your assertion that the Supercarriers will be nerfed may be correct. As nerf happy as CCP is and with Zulu parked where he is it could well happen. However, your suggestion that the EVE community simply take your word for your alleged inside information is ludicrous. To state it as a matter of fact is absurd. To expect us to accept it as fact in support of your plan to nerf Supercarriers your way is unbelievable.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
Regardless of whatever else your group does or has done, it is composed of many who love to troll. Look up your groups history. ItÆs on the web for those who havenÆt had firsthand experience.
What youÆre saying is some of the CSM members are in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement? Further that your group regularly communicates with them regarding insider information?
-Windjammer
Actually I never claimed the CSM said it. You said that. Assumed that. As for knowing Goons history I am fairly well sure I know it more intimately than you. So if you think this is just a simple troll you don't think supercarriers would be more balanced from these proposed nerfs?
Actually I really can't tell at this point if you honestly don't think supercarriers are a large problem in current form or if you're simply trolling.
You surely can't believe that because some goons trolled that everything any goon says is a troll. That's straight Pavlovian conditioning right there.
|
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:09:00 -
[91]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).
So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?
Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?
Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.
I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.
To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.
Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.
And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.
but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you?
I completely agree they are overwhelming to both capitals and subcapitals beyond what they should be. That's why my original post actually includes a 30% FB DPS nerf as opposed to your 25%. I also don't think carriers or motherships should be viable towards subcaps at all. That steals the thunder of subcapital fleets in my eyes and makes the game a little less fun.
YooHoo!!!
You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!
So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???
Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:19:00 -
[92]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:20:24
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
YooHoo!!!
You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!
So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???
Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??
Do please provide proof of where I raged at the idea of removing non fighter/fighter bombers drones from the ship entirely. Just did a scan of the thread and I can't find me saying any such thing. I actually encouraged the removal of their ability to field as many non FB's. It's part of my original proposition.
I see one spot where I pointed out that removing FB alone and retaining everything else would remove this ships role versus capitals, which it would. Making it a very expensive carrier that does pretty much everything the same as a carrier. But I never try to discourage someone from suggesting you take away normal drones.
But yes I think that supercarriers should be more at risk without support present and thus make support more viable/vital on the battlefield.
I also took the liberty to make your post a little easier to read. Removed the signing of the post since your name is clearly evident on the left hand column.
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:38:00 -
[93]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:20:24
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
YooHoo!!!
You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!
So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???
Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??
Do please provide proof of where I raged at the idea of removing non fighter/fighter bombers drones from the ship entirely. Just did a scan of the thread and I can't find me saying any such thing. I actually encouraged the removal of their ability to field as many non FB's. It's part of my original proposition.
I see one spot where I pointed out that removing FB alone and retaining everything else would remove this ships role versus capitals, which it would. Making it a very expensive carrier that does pretty much everything the same as a carrier. But I never try to discourage someone from suggesting you take away normal drones.
But yes I think that supercarriers should be more at risk without support present and thus make support more viable/vital on the battlefield.
I also took the liberty to make your post a little easier to read. Removed the signing of the post since your name is clearly evident on the left hand column.
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromLogistics
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:44:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:52:00 -
[95]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually I never claimed the CSM said it. You said that. Assumed that.
In point of fact I did not say that nor did I assume it. I asked you if thatÆs what you were saying.
-In post 32 of this thread you state, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.ö
-In post 71 of this thread you reply to my request for a method of confirmation with, ôSorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.ö
-In post 81 of this thread you state, ôIf you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club.ö
Your statements clearly state you have insider information from a group you will not name. Further, your statements strongly suggest that group is composed of members of the CSM. If not the CSM, then the only other source for such insider information is CCP itself. Either you are alleging someone is in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement or your claim to insider information is false as is your allegation of NDA violations.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources As for knowing Goons history I am fairly well sure I know it more intimately than you. So if you think this is just a simple troll you don't think supercarriers would be more balanced from these proposed nerfs?
IÆm sure you do know the totality of goon history better than I. This does not change the history I know nor refute anything IÆve said about that history. I do not believe this is a simple troll. I think itÆs an attempt on your part to gain support for your nerf plan by making false claims you cannot support.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually I really can't tell at this point if you honestly don't think supercarriers are a large problem in current form or if you're simply trolling.
You surely can't believe that because some goons trolled that everything any goon says is a troll. That's straight Pavlovian conditioning right there.
I donÆt believe everything a goon says is a troll. I believe goon history points directly to distribution of disinformation for giggles and self benefit. EVE is hardly the first or only game goons have done and are doing this in.
I donÆt believe your OP is a troll. I believe itÆs a genuine attempt to nerf Supercarriers in such a way as to gain your group maximum strategic and tactical benefit. I believe that your concern is more for goons and less for EVE and I believe youÆre more than willing to make false statements to support your concerns and endeavor.
-Windjammer
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:55:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???
Well for starters it means that supercarriers can't shoot POS, and everyone knows how much fun shooting POS is.
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:56:00 -
[97]
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?
Hai!
Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.
Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:00:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?
Hai!
Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.
Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
It is castration to be sure their intended role(Which is anti capital work) remains intact and unintended roles(against sub capitals) does not?
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:04:00 -
[99]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Oh honey...
Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.
So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?
Hai!
Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.
Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
It is castration to be sure their intended role(Which is anti capital work) remains intact and unintended roles(against sub capitals) does not?
No darlin, it does not.
You make them player owned station modules that cost more than the tower itself.
Please rethink your idea, discuss it, and then bring it back in assembly hall.
Thank you sooo much honey!
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:07:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua
Stop posting.
|
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:11:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Toffee Stunner ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua
Stop posting.
Yeah. That'll work. Exactly what you needed to say to get him to stop.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:14:00 -
[102]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 10:17:06
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
No darlin, it does not. You make them player owned station modules that cost more than the tower itself.
Please rethink your idea, discuss it, and then bring it back in assembly hall.
Perhaps a reason supported by some mechanics/data supporting your wild claims?
Originally by: Windjammer Yeah. That'll work. Exactly what you needed to say to get him to stop.
As for you, you are a forum alt that has done nothing productive on the forums since 07 but try to troll any thread with the word nerf in it unless it involved nerfing suicide ganking in some way.
You came into the thread with some very obvious trolls but was humored for a while, you still have brought nothing beyond "U r goon u troll" and certainly haven't added to the discussion at all regarding supercaps and their use or misuse. I will likely keep responding to you because I appreciate the bumps but I won't be trying to argue with you anymore because you're using circular logic that is as flawed as it is annoying.
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:27:00 -
[103]
TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:28:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Toffee Stunner ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua
Stop posting.
Hello Mr. Goonie,
Please S.O.S. more goonies into this thread to try and convince the rest of us this is a good idea.
Seriously though, this idea has some merit, so I am not saying it is all bad. It is just not ready for a vote in assembly hall.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:34:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Vuk Lau TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
I could get behind this if the method of tackling remained the same(Bubbles and hictors only). Vulnerability to Ewar would permit subcaps to jam, sensor damp(hahaha, I hope people don't seriously use this module), jam, or target paint(not sure why this would be needed but whatever) the supercaps. Jamming alone would make it much harder for supercarriers to counter hictors and dictors attempting to tackle them. It would also give subcaps a role versus supercaps.
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:40:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Vuk Lau TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
/epic facepalm
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:56:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Windjammer on 22/12/2010 11:01:40
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources As for you, you are a forum alt that has done nothing productive on the forums since 07 but try to troll any thread with the word nerf in it unless it involved nerfing suicide ganking in some way.
Ah. Another set of allegations. Aside from the very obvious and never denied fact that Windjammer was created exclusively as a forum alt., do you have some substantiation to your claims this time? Or are the readers just supposed to take your word on these claims too?
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You came into the thread with some very obvious trolls but was humored for a while, you still have brought nothing beyond "U r goon u troll" and certainly haven't added to the discussion at all regarding supercaps and their use or misuse.
Correction; I came onto this thread in post 70 with a polite question which you were unable to satisfactorily answer. Your answers spoke to your lack of credibility as does your lack of response to post 95. If your credibility can be questioned in one aspect of your presentation it brings suspicion to the rest of it and that brings to question the value of your presentation.
Correction; I did not say you were trolling. In fact I said you werenÆt trolling or at least that I did not believe you were trolling.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I will likely keep responding to you because I appreciate the bumps but I won't be trying to argue with you anymore because you're using circular logic that is as flawed as it is annoying.
You really should look up the definition of circular logic. It does not mean what you think it does and I never employ it. Perhaps you know more about Supercarriers than you do about logic?
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
-Windjammer
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:07:00 -
[108]
Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.
Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:26:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Windjammer
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.
Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:30:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Furb Killer Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.
Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
Relevance, fur killer, is found in my disproving the OPÆs allegation made in post 32 of this thread regarding his access to information nobody else has. The OP partially bases his request for support of his particular nerf by stating a nerf is coming and suggesting it will be a lot worse nerf than his suggestions if we donÆt accept his suggestions and try to move them through the CSM process to CCP. ItÆs nothing less than an attempt to panic people into accepting an overboard nerf of Supercapitals which will benefit the play style and membership his group uses. This is a one dimensional perspective and is hardly good for EVE as a whole.
This is what he wrote, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?ö
The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ôtrust meö. Hope this helps you.
-Windjammer
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:34:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Furb Killer Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.
Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
Relevance, fur killer, is found in my disproving the OPÆs allegation made in post 32 of this thread regarding his access to information nobody else has. The OP partially bases his request for support of his particular nerf by stating a nerf is coming and suggesting it will be a lot worse nerf than his suggestions if we donÆt accept his suggestions and try to move them through the CSM process to CCP. ItÆs nothing less than an attempt to panic people into accepting an overboard nerf of Supercapitals which will benefit the play style and membership his group uses. This is a one dimensional perspective and is hardly good for EVE as a whole.
This is what he wrote, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?ö
The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ôtrust meö. Hope this helps you.
-Windjammer
If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:38:00 -
[112]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.
Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
This is your best response? More avoidance of the questions regarding your credibility? Claims that IÆm trying to drag the thread into politics when what IÆm doing is questioning your credibility with some very direct questions? Questions you will not answer for fear of treading upon yourself?
-Windjammer
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:42:00 -
[113]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 11:47:12
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.
Your responses to me havenÆt been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. YouÆre avoiding because youÆre boxed in, in post 95.
This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.
Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
This is your best response? More avoidance of the questions regarding your credibility? Claims that IÆm trying to drag the thread into politics when what IÆm doing is questioning your credibility with some very direct questions? Questions you will not answer for fear of treading upon yourself?
-Windjammer
What part of makes you think that I want this one random empire dweller believe me when you are here just to argue pointlessly? You have brought literally nothing to this thread and continue to. But as always I appreciate the bumps.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:44:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/12/2010 11:46:27
Originally by: Windjammer
This is what he wrote, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?ö
The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ôtrust meö. Hope this helps you.
Maybe you are just reading too much between the lines?
All I get from it is the typical introduction to a NERF-XYZ post, where the OP says something along the lines of "its so blatantly overpowered it will get nerfed we all know it".
Still supporting the original idea, as I actually think in this instance its really true.
Edit: And in fact, implying "someone who knows for a fact told me, but I cant tell you who" would most likely still spell trouble for the persons involved.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:59:00 -
[115]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donÆt support your proposal. IÆd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.
I find it interesting that youÆve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?
You wonÆt reveal your sources because they donÆt exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youÆre such an honest guy?
-Windjammer
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:01:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donÆt support your proposal. IÆd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.
I find it interesting that youÆve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?
You wonÆt reveal your sources because they donÆt exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youÆre such an honest guy?
-Windjammer
So with this post you admit you're here just to argue and troll. Thanks for this.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:08:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/12/2010 11:46:27
Originally by: Windjammer
This is what he wrote, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?ö
The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ôtrust meö. Hope this helps you.
Maybe you are just reading too much between the lines?
All I get from it is the typical introduction to a NERF-XYZ post, where the OP says something along the lines of "its so blatantly overpowered it will get nerfed we all know it".
I might believe that if heÆd offered a correction to his statement. Instead he danced around the question and follow up questions. HeÆs not just making an exaggerated statement. HeÆs suggested he has insider information. Check out post 95 for a list of what he posted and itÆll give you a better idea of what IÆm talking about.
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edit: And in fact, implying "someone who knows for a fact told me, but I cant tell you who" would most likely still spell trouble for the persons involved.
I agree that it should, but I wouldnÆt go so far as to say it likely will.
-Windjammer
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:12:00 -
[118]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.
Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donÆt support your proposal. IÆd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.
I find it interesting that youÆve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?
You wonÆt reveal your sources because they donÆt exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youÆre such an honest guy?
-Windjammer
So with this post you admit you're here just to argue and troll. Thanks for this.
And with this you admit youÆre calling anyone who argues with your proposal a troll. Seriously?
-Windjammer
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:16:00 -
[119]
Oh golly gee!
So Ed received insider information?! Only the CSM would know stuff like that.
So which CSM member broke the NDA??
Well throw in the pooper sideways and call them Spanky, to think this would be the first CSM without scandal.
So much for that.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:17:00 -
[120]
Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.
|
|
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:22:00 -
[121]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.
I'm sorry Eddie,
I simply do not agree with what you want to do to the super carriers.
I left it at that and you kept replying with, "Why?! Why?! Why?!" You even used your alt yourself and messed it up exposing the alt as yours.
So can you please let us say we don't like it, give the reasons why, and if you don't agree, leave it there?
Anyhoo, again, I strongly advise you take this to Ideas and Discussion forum where it can be worked on. A lot of good things happen there so please don't be afraid.
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:24:00 -
[122]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 12:24:39
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.
I'm sorry Eddie,
I simply do not agree with what you want to do to the super carriers.
I left it at that and you kept replying with, "Why?! Why?! Why?!" You even used your alt yourself and messed it up exposing the alt as yours.
So can you please let us say we don't like it, give the reasons why, and if you don't agree, leave it there?
Anyhoo, again, I strongly advise you take this to Ideas and Discussion forum where it can be worked on. A lot of good things happen there so please don't be afraid.
You mean when I responded with an alt on accident and immediately admitted it was my alt? If you haven't noticed all my alts have the same naming scheme and thus are bad for alt posting on forums anonymously.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:44:00 -
[123]
Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
-----------------
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:46:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:48:00 -
[125]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
Because I'm a lol t1 goonie nerfsploiter and so my only reason to play this game is to ruin it for everyone INCLUDING YOU
-----------------
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:50:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
Because I'm a lol t1 goonie nerfsploiter and so my only reason to play this game is to ruin it for everyone INCLUDING YOU
Ah well, the logs should be out soon and they can see the exact things said with everyone else. But :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 18:03:00 -
[127]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
Why you gotta ruin my fun Scatim? None of these trolls would have stumbled upon this.
Are you saying this is entirety of your information source?
-Windjammer
|
Hun Jakuza
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 19:27:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 22/12/2010 19:29:13
Originally by: Vuk Lau TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
No, with warp distruption too. That would be stop the brainless SCs hotdopping on a single ship. They can safe their ships against with small stuffs, they can use, neutralizer,small drones,fighters etc.
It's time to remove their all EW immunity before the game change to SC online (almost 1500 in game, and every months, this number growing with over 200+), it's time to make it the game to dangerous for them too. Stop 100+ SC fleet blobs now, before will too late
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 20:01:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Bobbeh on 22/12/2010 20:02:42
Originally by: Hun Jakuza Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 22/12/2010 19:29:13
Originally by: Vuk Lau TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)
No, with warp distruption too. That would be stop the brainless SCs hotdopping on a single ship. They can safe their ships against with small stuffs, they can use, neutralizer,small drones,fighters etc.
It's time to remove their all EW immunity before the game change to SC online (almost 1500 in game, and every months, this number growing with over 200+), it's time to make it the game to dangerous for them too. Stop 100+ SC fleet blobs now, before will too late
Omg cause we were already at Dreads online......... Think before you post.
Tho i do agree with vuk i think they should have a large sensor srength but not be immune to ewar. I do think they should keep their immunity to points and webs. or else we are gonna see dd titans that get webbed off grid immediately after their immobility timer.
Its obvious something needs to change for super carriers.
earlier in the thread i voiced my opinion that a simple change to neut range for sc's would suffice as then they cant counter hics with neuts. Another Thing i wanted to mention is Removing their ability to use Ewar, Meaning Supers cant web or tackle, or target paint or anything like that (minus their projected ecm.) My final Point is Make FB's Signatures bigger.
AS's and Cruisers should beable to lock them quickly so make their signatures bigger.
So to sum it up If i was gonna recommend a change to super carriers it would be this -40% to Neutralizer and Nos range Cannot Fit EW mods Fighter Bombers get a larger sig. +20% to Smart Bomb Range Cannot use Combat Scout Drones (This means mediums heavys and lights cant be used) but sentries and ewar drones and logi drones can
|
Regina Wylde
Minmatar The Demon Gate SCUM.
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 20:17:00 -
[130]
As discussed on twitter...
Make super carriers actual carriers.
- increase ship maintenance array from 2.5M m3 to 10M - bring back the clone bay - remove +3 fighter / bomber per level and set it back to 1 (dropping their dps dramatically, but still able to defend themselves) Borrowing Ed's idea a bit...have a separate fighter bay and drone bay. 600m3 drone bay, enough fighter space to hold 1 full set of bombers and fighters. - keep their current HP and ECM burst - increase their jump range to that of carriers
I believe this would help to re-balance super caps. Super carriers would be more logistical support, but still able to defend themselves on the field...but they wouldn't be the main damage dealers anymore. Let Titans and Dreads fill that role again.
They would be able to help pilots re-ship during an op and if someone gets podded they can jump clone back to the carrier. This might make them less of a front line ship, but that is the point.
I envision the future of large fleet battles to be (in order of damage) Titan, Dread, Super Carrier, Carrier, Battleship, HAC, BC etc...
peace o/
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 20:25:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Regina Wylde As discussed on twitter...
Make super carriers actual carriers.
- increase ship maintenance array from 2.5M m3 to 10M - bring back the clone bay - remove +3 fighter / bomber per level and set it back to 1 (dropping their dps dramatically, but still able to defend themselves) Borrowing Ed's idea a bit...have a separate fighter bay and drone bay. 600m3 drone bay, enough fighter space to hold 1 full set of bombers and fighters. - keep their current HP and ECM burst - increase their jump range to that of carriers
I believe this would help to re-balance super caps. Super carriers would be more logistical support, but still able to defend themselves on the field...but they wouldn't be the main damage dealers anymore. Let Titans and Dreads fill that role again.
They would be able to help pilots re-ship during an op and if someone gets podded they can jump clone back to the carrier. This might make them less of a front line ship, but that is the point.
I envision the future of large fleet battles to be (in order of damage) Titan, Dread, Super Carrier, Carrier, Battleship, HAC, BC etc...
peace o/
I will edit more into this response later as I have time tonight I just wanted to say do you remember how utterly worthless clone bays are/were?
|
Rixiu
The Forgotten Navy
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 21:36:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Regina Wylde As discussed on twitter...
Make super carriers actual carriers.
- increase ship maintenance array from 2.5M m3 to 10M - bring back the clone bay - remove +3 fighter / bomber per level and set it back to 1 (dropping their dps dramatically, but still able to defend themselves) Borrowing Ed's idea a bit...have a separate fighter bay and drone bay. 600m3 drone bay, enough fighter space to hold 1 full set of bombers and fighters. - keep their current HP and ECM burst - increase their jump range to that of carriers
I believe this would help to re-balance super caps. Super carriers would be more logistical support, but still able to defend themselves on the field...but they wouldn't be the main damage dealers anymore. Let Titans and Dreads fill that role again.
They would be able to help pilots re-ship during an op and if someone gets podded they can jump clone back to the carrier. This might make them less of a front line ship, but that is the point.
I envision the future of large fleet battles to be (in order of damage) Titan, Dread, Super Carrier, Carrier, Battleship, HAC, BC etc...
peace o/
Why not simply use a normal carrier?
I'd go the other way and add the removal of the remote repair range bonus to the list in the first post. The supercarrier role is dps, so why do they have logistic bonuses? If we compare them to subcaps we see that battleships don't have remote repair bonuses...
Supporting this though :)
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.22 23:20:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Rixiu Why not simply use a normal carrier?
I'd go the other way and add the removal of the remote repair range bonus to the list in the first post. The supercarrier role is dps, so why do they have logistic bonuses? If we compare them to subcaps we see that battleships don't have remote repair bonuses...
Basically this.
If CCP wants the supercarriers role to be megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles, then fine, lets have megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles. No problem with that. What's problematic is when they are megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles which also have the abilty to sustain permarepping circlejerks, neut and ECM Burst anything that looks like tackling them, switch between effectively infinite waves of different drone types to respond to any threat, and carry vast amounts of assets in their CHA and SMA, all at the same time, from the same hull, and even the same fitting.
-----------------
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:08:00 -
[134]
Funny how every comment from someone in the NC power block is welcomed with open arms but if your not part of the NC power block, your comments are meet with extreme tear filled bitter rage.
Take off the political goggles ehh?
Just saying.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:15:00 -
[135]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 23/12/2010 02:15:17 Skimming the thread I see a number of non NC powerbloc posters supporting this and only 3 non NC not supporting it. Also the thread has been a lot more of our powerbloc than anyone else because ive been spattering this all over our various forums, jabbers, voice comms, etc to get as much input as possible. The thread's like 2 days old. I am sure it will spread. So far the only people with problems with it haven't really been able to articulate what about it they think is bad. With the exception of Marlona who did a pretty good job and voiced actual concerns I have thought over.
edit: Thanks for PNQY Btw London.
|
Ephemeron
Solitairian Society
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:19:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Rixiu Why not simply use a normal carrier?
I'd go the other way and add the removal of the remote repair range bonus to the list in the first post. The supercarrier role is dps, so why do they have logistic bonuses? If we compare them to subcaps we see that battleships don't have remote repair bonuses...
Basically this.
If CCP wants the supercarriers role to be megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles, then fine, lets have megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles. No problem with that. What's problematic is when they are megabuffered anti-capital gankmobiles which also have the abilty to sustain permarepping circlejerks, neut and ECM Burst anything that looks like tackling them, switch between effectively infinite waves of different drone types to respond to any threat, and carry vast amounts of assets in their CHA and SMA, all at the same time, from the same hull, and even the same fitting.
This sounds right to me. The supercarrier is too powerful against sub-caps, mostly cause of fighters, regular drones, and heavy neuts.
Regular carriers also have most of that power against sub caps, but least regular carriers can be tackled and killed by medium gang of sub caps.
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:39:00 -
[137]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources With the exception of Marlona who did a pretty good job and voiced actual concerns I have thought over.
Really? Because it looks like you did a good job of scaring her out of the thread on her last idea/comment. It was a bit long and I didn't follow what she was on about but never the less, my point still stands.
Just try and be a bit more neutral politically when it comes to AH, can you do that?
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 02:55:00 -
[138]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 23/12/2010 02:57:47
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources With the exception of Marlona who did a pretty good job and voiced actual concerns I have thought over.
Really? Because it looks like you did a good job of scaring her out of the thread on her last idea/comment. It was a bit long and I didn't follow what she was on about but never the less, my point still stands.
Just try and be a bit more neutral politically when it comes to AH, can you do that?
His last point was awful. But at least he tried to actually point out where he thought the flaws in the concept was. Unlike you ^_^
Originally by: Ephemeron This sounds right to me. The supercarrier is too powerful against sub-caps, mostly cause of fighters, regular drones, and heavy neuts.
Regular carriers also have most of that power against sub caps, but least regular carriers can be tackled and killed by medium gang of sub caps.
That's exactly what I came to as well. I think making them jammable would also help but I wouldnt like to see their ewar immunity completely removed. Things such as scramblers and webs should still not work on them.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 03:25:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 23/12/2010 03:25:12
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman Really? Because it looks like you did a good job of scaring her out of the thread on her last idea/comment. It was a bit long and I didn't follow what she was on about but never the less, my point still stands.
Just try and be a bit more neutral politically when it comes to AH, can you do that?
I appreciate the white knight thing here, but I don't need someone to defend me. Especially a dirty alt. I said what I thought and that was that. I am still watching the thread, so I'm hardly 'scared' away from it.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources His last point was awful. But at least he tried to actually point out where he thought the flaws in the concept was.
My intent on that idea was not to punish the active players. The idea was to scale back the amount of super capitals showing up, that actually does scale up and down. I will admit that what goes on in my head and when I talk about it on comms, it sounds better when I start talking about all the different scenerios it would apply to and how it would interact heavily with strategy and the political landscape. In a good way, I assure you.
It is that whole brain to keyboard thing, a lot is lost in translation.
Originally by: Ephemeron That's exactly what I came to as well. I think making them jammable would also help but I wouldnt like to see their ewar immunity completely removed. Things such as scramblers and webs should still not work on them.
I am not a fan of this idea. Not to disagree just to disagree, but this statement just shows how over powered ECM is. When by allowing them to not be EW immune just so you can jam them. Now if something was done to make ECM a different type of EW completely, like is some other guys thread on here about a resist debuff, it would be different. What sucks is this could be a good option if the EW wasn't so incredibly unbalanced across the board.
Time for Caldari to have two different types of EW like the other races instead of one all powerful one. Meh, who knows, but that is another topic.
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 03:49:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Drink bleach. Signature removed. |
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 04:46:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Drink bleach.
Cope with life.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 05:16:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Fot those of you bleating about imagined NDA scandals as you attempt to cast yourselves as the Julian Assange of Eve, here's a quote from the Winter Summit thread:
Originally by: Sokratesz Day 3
Post dominion 0.0 (3hrs!) If I had to fly to Iceland only for this session I would have done it. We had gathered a list of items and prepared it a bit. Important things we went over were supercaps, force projection, empire building, profitability of 0.0, objectives for small gangs and of course sovereingty.
The CSM spent 3 hours talking to CCP about how Dominion had changed 0.0, and the first thing on Sokratesz's list is supercaps. Its not hard to figure out the nature of the discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you're right, and the CSM's priority for this discussion was to talk about how underpowered and useless supercarriers are and how they needed triple the EHP and DPS from their current levels?
(it wasn't)
The OP stated in post 32 of this thread, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.ö If this is the single source of his information, then itÆs all the proof needed to show heÆs spewing rubbish designed to misinform. Much as the rest of his posts insisting drastic nerfs need to be applied to Supercarriers.
A large nerf of Supercarriers benefits goons and any other blob happy group with a large number of newer players in their membership. It isnÆt good for EVE. ItÆs good for the OPÆs group and similar groups.
The proposed nerfs would virtually mean that only large corporations or alliances could field Supercarriers without unrealistic risk to a heavy investment. Large corporations have many people on simultaneously and can afford the increased demand on logistics the proposed nerf would require. Any carrier, even Supercarriers, require support to be used without high risk of getting killed quickly. The proposed nerf would raise the required support to such a level that smaller corporations/alliances would seldom be able to have enough personnel on at one time to field support for a Supercarrier and thatÆs IF they could do it at all. Thus any but the largest of corporation/alliances would be at a severe disadvantage.
This proposed nerf would create an elitist environment where numbers would say whether a corp can have access to Supercarriers, not skills trained, not resources to build, not knowledge of EVE, but simply numbers.
These are Supercarriers, formerly known as Motherships. TheyÆre expensive as all get out, theyÆre huge and theyÆre SUPPOSED to be hard to kill. Enough with the nerfs to make the blobs life easier. LetÆs leave people with something to aspire to other than to join one of the enormo alliances and be a good little follower.
-Windjammer
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 06:27:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Windjammer
The proposed nerfs would virtually mean that only large corporations or alliances could field Supercarriers without unrealistic risk to a heavy investment.
Why would that be? Even a medium sized corp would be fine using them in their intended role as anti-capital platform, its not like they'd suddenly be made out of paper and could be tackled by a t1 frigate.
They would have to bring a minimal support fleet with them though, I dont see how it is too much to ask to bring like 2 additional regular carriers plus say 15 battleships as support.
If the entity in question does not have the option to field about 20 ships, then they shouldnt be fielding supercapitals.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 09:31:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 23/12/2010 09:32:56
Quote: even Supercarriers, require support to be used without high risk of getting killed quickly
BS, unless you mean by support of supercarriers more supercarriers...
This is the only way you got 0.0 a bit healthy again. The current situation forces every powerblock member to either RMT or bot to be able to keep up with the arms race. It also removes any kind of player skill and brings us back to bigger is better, and more of the bigger is especially better. I thought the idea behind eve was that every ship has their role, and bigger is not automatically better. If you cannot field a support fleet with a few supercaps you shouldnt be fielding a few supercaps. Really are you saying a small-medium corp should be able to use supercaps that walk over the enemy small-medium corps subcap fleet without any support?
Tbh the idea of making SCs back into motherships (as in make them carry loads of subcaps + clone bay so during a fight people can reship, something like a mobile station) is interesting, but the main issue i see is that it will never leave POS shields. And if you force it to be outside pos shields to operate it will never leave hugging the POS shields.
Also @ goonies and other NC here. A previous poster pretty much said that everyone in favor is an NC member. Since that apparently makes me an NC member, do you guys have some kind of NC wide reimbursement scheme that i am then eligeble for?
|
Hollow Confrontation
Decepticle Corp
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 13:09:00 -
[145]
There is no solution to my mind, they were added and implemented badly, were nerfed then buffed and nerfed again.
Sov is fkd, super caps are fkd, this proposal is fkd.
No, because I'm fking sick of every one and his wife crying nerf, and because your goons I suspect an underlying reason for the change based on selfish reasons not the good of the game as your offensive in Fountain and moves into Delve against IT cap systems suggests.
Just calling it how I see it.
For me remove all super caps from the game and make titans gigantic mobile space stations hard to kill with limited offensive capability, as for sov I honestly can't see a good solution that would work.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.23 18:51:00 -
[146]
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman Funny how every comment from someone in the NC power block is welcomed with open arms but if your not part of the NC power block, your comments are meet with extreme tear filled bitter rage.
Its more funny how so many of the comments actively opposing the various proposals come from no-name alt and NPC corpers making ham-fisted innuendo about the ulterior motives of the Evil T1 Goonie Nerfsploiters.
I mean, if this was so clearly a plot to get CCP to nerf the people we fight against, I'm sure the members of those entities would be falling all over themselves to jump into this thread and call us out on it, but 5 pages in for some reason it seems they don't possess the x-ray vision required to spot our Machiavellian espionage.
(Dont worry, I'm sure they'll be along any minute now)
-----------------
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 02:18:00 -
[147]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 19/12/2010 13:03:48 Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 19/12/2010 10:52:57 Proposed changes
: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot : Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot : Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate : Reduce scan resolution : Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers : Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3 : Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000% : 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers
With these changes a supercarrier or even group of them would be much harder pressed to counter hictors, interdictors, and subcap fleets in general.
The reduction of DPS would finally allow titans to out dps them but keep a supercarriers DPS high enough to fulfill their role as an anti capital ship.
The nos/nuet removal hinders their ability to nullify hictors and to a lesser extent interdictors which are countered more by the scan res reduction.
None of these changes would stop a supercarrier from killing capitals, only subcaps. You would be required to bring support to strip tacklers or defend against a conventional fleet.
edit: Oh and I am a long time Wyvern pilot. This isn't about me hating Supercarriers. It's pretty plain to see they are presently overpowered.
Alternatively here is a suggestion by XTTZ
Quote:
: Reduce scan resolution : Turn current drone bay into fighter/bomber only bay. : Regular drone bay of 250m3 (400m3 Nyx) : Aeon armour reduction 1.1m -> 975k : Nyx armour reduction 1.05m -> 950k : Wyvern shield reduction 1m -> 975k : Hel bonus change -> +5% shield hp per level : All SC's can deploy 1 additional drone per level : Role bonus: Each DCU allows for 3 additional drones : (No change to current bandwidth)
: Anchorable bubbles cannot be targeted by bombers/fighters : New module for AF's - Focus point with 10-15km range. : New bubble probe for interdictors - 30km range, only affects jump drives and not warp drives.
:condi:
This is terrible. This is a Nyx nerf while the aeon and wyvern keep their ehp. **** you and die BFM.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 19:27:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Hollow Confrontation There is no solution to my mind, they were added and implemented badly, were nerfed then buffed and nerfed again.
Sov is fkd, super caps are fkd, this proposal is fkd.
No, because I'm fking sick of every one and his wife crying nerf, and because your goons I suspect an underlying reason for the change based on selfish reasons not the good of the game as your offensive in Fountain and moves into Delve against IT cap systems suggests.
Just calling it how I see it.
For me remove all super caps from the game and make titans gigantic mobile space stations hard to kill with limited offensive capability, as for sov I honestly can't see a good solution that would work.
Actually if you know anything of IT's supercap fleet you would know it's quite Titan Heavy. They have something along the lines of a dozen times our amount of titans. So if we wanted to have our best chance of getting into delve we would want Supercarriers to be as strong as possible not nerfing them if this was part of some ulterior motive.
|
Kalle Demos
Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 20:29:00 -
[149]
Not sure about damage reduction on FB tbh, but yes to everything else.
As for Xttz idea, not really keen on AF getting a focus point but would be nice to see titans changed so they cant kill non caps.
Originally by: Kool StoryBro <---
Originally by: CCP Spitfire Spam post removed.
Random forum moments ftw |
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 22:33:00 -
[150]
Nerf them into the gound baby! INTO THE GROUND!
lmao
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
|
Cpt Winky
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 06:51:00 -
[151]
My thought is to not really hurt their survivability or dps, but increase the price of using them in battle, by nerfing fighter bomber survivability. Reduce MWD speed. Cut the hp in half. Bump up the sig radius. Also reduce their lock time and sensor strength by a fair bit with the purpose of making ECM bursts a viable defense. Finally, increase the drone bay size so they an carry several flights of replacements.
SC are big investments, absolutely, so its ok that they aren't going to die all that easily. So instead we make them likely to lose plenty of fighters in engagements. Gives an expense to battle with them without greatly increasing the risk of losing them. No SC may be lost during the fight, but a LOT of FBs are, and will cost several billions to replace.
And you'll think twice about hotdrops if a single on the ball stealth bomber who can respond quickly can cost the operation as much as the target you are going after...
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 07:19:00 -
[152]
Except that a 20 man SC blob is 400 fighter bombers at a time. The odds of killing many even with half EHP is very slim unless you bomb them. Since we are routinely seeing 40 man SC gangs you would be seeing clouds of 800 FB at a time. Again, not going to make a big dent into that before they slaughter your fleet.
|
Alain Kinsella
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 07:53:00 -
[153]
While I have no experience/interest in this ship type, I do have a question on XTTZ's suggestion.
Adding a module for AF would (perhaps should) be placed hand-in-hand with giving the Retribution his 2nd midslot in some form (thereby making it at least passable for PvP). Could you get behind this as well?
I'll support it (provisionally) as its thought out, and is making a good attempt at full-race balance - something you just don't see enough of here.
[BTW, I do have a lot of respect for you guys - used to 'fight' some of ya (SA) tooth and nail during SL's early years. Anyone there remember Plastic Duck?]
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 09:16:00 -
[154]
Just nerf the damage that fighter bombers do to sub caps, I know this has been done but it needs a little more nerfing.
Also Fighter bombers cannot be used against structures/pos, whoever thought that one up needs sacking.
Job done.
Oh and give the Hel a resist bonus, or a cap bonus, or something because it is terrible compared to the other 3.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 10:50:00 -
[155]
Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33 3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.
How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?
Carriers are a major source of the problem with supers because they can elect to repair other ships both in and out of traige.
Titans have to be nerfed at the same time or this will just escalated the problem with titans.
Having said all that, yes, I agree mostly with what you said, but I doubt seriously CCP will be able to implement a proper nerf w/o killing the ship and causing mass emo rage quits.
The thing about titans is that by far they are more overpowered than super carriers in large blobs. The only reason they haven't been fully exploited YET is because of the threat of a SC hot drop, and the lower cost of SC to build. The moment SC become less imposing, you're going to start seeing 100 titans in a system as opposed to 100 SC, and then people are really gonna throw up their hands and wonder WTF do I bring against 100 1 shot killers.
|
Medidranda Livoga
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 11:11:00 -
[156]
Whole supercapital shebang was (and still is) a gigantic failure right from the start, IMO. Too bad this forum doesn`t have emote :ccp: because that`s what this whole thing is like.
I doubt they would be man enough to abolish them from the game, reimburse skills and isk/minerals and be done with it.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 13:29:00 -
[157]
Originally by: I'm Down Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33 3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.
How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?
Slot removal or at least slot juggling has been done before - the Nidhoggur for one switched a midslot for a low, so whatever happened back then to Nids that happened to be in space during the patch with too many midslots fitted, would presumably apply again.
As long as pilots are warned well in advance that they're about to lose a slot and should get themselves to an SMA to refit appropriately the bulk of the active supercarriers will fix themselves, and for the rest it shouldn't be difficult to implement a downtime script which moves one of the excess modules to your cargo or at worst to your home station hangar.
Quote: Carriers are a major source of the problem with supers because they can elect to repair other ships both in and out of traige.
I disagree, Carriers aren't really a significant factor because they're relatively vulnerable themselves (unlike supercap circlereps which are unbreakable and where every link is megabuffered in its own right). To be honest, if a supercap fleet is reliant on regular carriers for rep support then that's progress from today's state of play, as it means carriers actually have a role to play in fleet combat again other than as a pointless lossmail, and there's an actual strategy for other fleets to take them down by picking at the weak links in the chain, rather than just 'bring more supercaps than the other guy or don't bother'.
Quote: Titans have to be nerfed at the same time or this will just escalated the problem with titans.
I actually think that Titans are a lot closer to being balanced than supercarriers, not really because of the cost but because of the relative lack of utility slots. Supercarriers basically have everything except their tanking layer as a free choice to fit whatever the hell they like, since drones don't take up slots in the same way as a Titan's guns and the damage mods for them do, which allows them to omni-fit to counter every scenario they might face.
Titans do have a particular balance issue with EHP - mostly that when tackled and unable to shake their attackers it has become a viable strategy to ctrl-q and have a reasonable chance that the hostile fleet can't chew through your buffer before you vanish 15 minutes later - but the supercarriers have that same problem. I agree that massed doomsdays against subcap fleets are irritating, but I'm not sure they're game-breakingly so, nor that its all that much worse than massed ECM bursts while fighter-swarming, and it seems to be mostly a problem when the servers are grinding to a halt and the doomsdays are effectively cycling at the same rate as everyone else's turrets (which is a server performance issue and not one of balance).
-----------------
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 19:39:00 -
[158]
Someone suggested a state similar to siege when fighter bombers are deployed, with a little tweak that could be a pretty good way of dealing with the problem at hand:
FB's Out: * Loss of all invulnerabilities. * Unable to receive any remote assistance. * -50% sensor strength (drops to Carrier level).
Combined with a reduction of bay capacities so they can't carry a life-time supply of drones, using them would become a lot more "interesting".
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:00:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Someone suggested a state similar to siege when fighter bombers are deployed, with a little tweak that could be a pretty good way of dealing with the problem at hand:
FB's Out: * Loss of all invulnerabilities. * Unable to receive any remote assistance. * -50% sensor strength (drops to Carrier level).
Combined with a reduction of bay capacities so they can't carry a life-time supply of drones, using them would become a lot more "interesting".
You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:09:00 -
[160]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?
Yep, which is why I said "similar to".
Essentially a state change like that given to regular capitals, but in reverse.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:26:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?
Yep, which is why I said "similar to".
Essentially a state change like that given to regular capitals, but in reverse.
Honestly I really don't think anymore root mechanics are what this game needs. The game needs to be more fluid not less.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 22:06:00 -
[162]
Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 22:14:36
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: I'm Down Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33 3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.
How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?
Slot removal or at least slot juggling has been done before - the Nidhoggur for one switched a midslot for a low, so whatever happened back then to Nids that happened to be in space during the patch with too many midslots fitted, would presumably apply again.
Right, and if memory serve me correctly, a ship with a module not in the proper place will freeze in space... nids could dock, moms can't. I would guess the problem where a undocked nid got stuck would have been far fewer and less hazardous than 2000 super carriers.
Also, in terms of titans, they're problem isn't simply limited to sup caps. They're able to instantaneously remove capitals from the field too. Every game that's ever come out with an ultimate death gun has always had the issue that it's abused to no end.
Going old school, look at counterstrike and the 1 hit AWP. There's a reason everyone started banning it from their servers.
Everyone here can list probably 3 games where an ultimate weapon destroyed the game.
Super carriers were bad... but the moment they get nerfed, you're going to see an explosion of titans unlike what we've seen so far unless they get changed too.
|
Intar Medris
Amarr EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:10:00 -
[163]
Why is everytime someone doesn't like getting their ass kicked by something in this game they want it nerfed. I hate warp scrams every hardcore pvper in the game has one, but you don't hear me crying to have em nerfed. Get some guts, and bring more DPS if you want to take one down. I Make Forums For Corps And Alliances. 250 Mil ISK See Example Forum To Get A Idea of What Your's Could Look Like Example Forum |
Intar Medris
Amarr EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:12:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Intar Medris on 25/12/2010 23:12:57 sorry did a double. I Make Forums For Corps And Alliances. 250 Mil ISK See Example Forum To Get A Idea of What Your's Could Look Like Example Forum |
Mr LaForge
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 00:04:00 -
[165]
Bring back the titan AOE DD weapon.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 07:42:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Intar Medris Why is everytime someone doesn't like getting their ass kicked by something in this game they want it nerfed. I hate warp scrams every hardcore pvper in the game has one, but you don't hear me crying to have em nerfed. Get some guts, and bring more DPS if you want to take one down.
If you took a moment to read the thread you would see its not just a whine thread. But I am sure the honourable EntroPraetorian Aegis fields many supercaps and thus is aware of their power in large numbers and how game breaking it can become |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 08:12:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Mr LaForge Bring back the titan AOE DD weapon.
This thread is not about titans. Also AoE books day was fine. The problem was when it was 3-5 AoE titan doomsday days at once. A lot of alliances just started relying on quad AoE DDs to fight everything. It was dumber than a box of ****.
Back on topic, I do like the idea of swapping the bonuses for drone amount of the super carriers and drone control units. The DCU would need to be made a fully passive module though. Imagine the lag and then your DCUs stop cycling. I never understood why they made it an active module. It doesn't even use cap.
|
Davelantor
The Hunt United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 08:37:00 -
[168]
I am a Cap pilot and i approve this message o/
The Hunt |
GreGh Rakrot
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2010.12.26 11:51:00 -
[169]
I own a Nyx. They can delete it for all I care, also they can delete titans while they are at it,
...and jumpbridges, and cyno gens, and cyno jammers, and jump freighters (I have 2).
No, I wouldnt want any refund. Better game would be my refund.
*keeps dreaming*
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 00:09:00 -
[170]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
<idea for giving stealth bombers citadel torps with 15km explosion radius>
This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.
Alright so you bring a valid point. But these would still be a serious problem for sieged dreads. It may be possible in the future but in todays climate dreads are almost useless as is. Let's get out of the woods we are in presently before throwing more into the mix eh?
I've had a look at some of the numbers - here's a simple case study, using 15km explosion radius torps: Supercarrier :- 22m EHP
- 8k effective tank
- 12km sig radius
Sieged dreadnought:- 2.2m EHP
- 5.8k effective tank
- 2.9km sig radius
Total bomber DPS needed to kill the SC in 10 minutes: 56k Time taken to kill the dread using the above: 7 minutes 20 seconds.
Exactly how many bombers should be needed to do this is a separate discussion, but if it's quite a bit of work to get the required number of pilots together, I doubt they'd bother just for the sake of a dread.
If this was still a problem, another balancing option would be to make siege mode reduce the sig radius of dreadnoughts slightly. This wouldn't affect their vulnerability to any other weapons.
--- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
|
titshangin out
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 02:54:00 -
[171]
I like big, overpowering things.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 06:01:00 -
[172]
What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel? Also only the wyvern can seriously tank its EHP and put up a massive passive tank at the same time. Expect all other(non ******ed) supercap to be pure passive tanks
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 09:43:00 -
[173]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?
Did you miss the thing about the active tank he mentioned? Not that anyone uses that, but thats probably where the missing EHP went.
Anyway, it doesnt really matter all that much, his point was the sig radius comparison I believe, and a dread dying in half the time a SC would live isnt too bad for the anti-supercap bomber scenario.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:04:00 -
[174]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 27/12/2010 11:05:37
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?
Did you miss the thing about the active tank he mentioned? Not that anyone uses that, but thats probably where the missing EHP went.
Anyway, it doesnt really matter all that much, his point was the sig radius comparison I believe, and a dread dying in half the time a SC would live isnt too bad for the anti-supercap bomber scenario.
The fact no supercap in their right mind active tanks was my point. The numbers are based on a hypothetical situation that happens extremely rarely. Like if I ran numbers on encountering a deadspace tanked T1 rifter that was buffer tanked.
edit: I like the idea of small anti capital ships. However at this point we dont need more stuff to discourage normal capitals.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 14:16:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I've had a look at some of the numbers...
Want to bet that CCP also looked at those numbers and thought all was good?
Does not take into account that SC can receive RR while DPS'ing whereas the Dread cannot. Does not take into account that active SC's outnumber active Dreads by 2:1.
There may be thousands of Dreads in mothballs around Eve, but as long as SC are able to do their job better plus have all the versatility of Carriers there is no reason for people to even consider them.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 14:54:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I've had a look at some of the numbers...
Want to bet that CCP also looked at those numbers and thought all was good?
Does not take into account that SC can receive RR while DPS'ing whereas the Dread cannot. Does not take into account that active SC's outnumber active Dreads by 2:1.
There may be thousands of Dreads in mothballs around Eve, but as long as SC are able to do their job better plus have all the versatility of Carriers there is no reason for people to even consider them.
This right here is the heart of my OP. My main is days away from a nearly perfect nag but ill likely never buy him one because we literally never field dreads. We field SC's p much every day.
|
Regina Wylde
Minmatar The Demon Gate SCUM.
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:19:00 -
[177]
I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:24:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Regina Wylde I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.
|
Regina Wylde
Minmatar The Demon Gate SCUM.
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:40:00 -
[179]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Regina Wylde I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.
You probably did, I am at work and skimming most posts lol. But this fix is still sound...and it would give more people a reason to fly bombers, which appeals to my interest in getting everyone in eve to fly bombers lol. :D
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:00:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Regina Wylde
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Regina Wylde I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...
Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.
Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.
You probably did, I am at work and skimming most posts lol. But this fix is still sound...and it would give more people a reason to fly bombers, which appeals to my interest in getting everyone in eve to fly bombers lol. :D
Going to respond as I did last time. I really don't think Eve needs more root mechanics. The game needs to be more fluid not less.
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:25:00 -
[181]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources The fact no supercap in their right mind active tanks was my point. The numbers are based on a hypothetical situation that happens extremely rarely. Like if I ran numbers on encountering a deadspace tanked T1 rifter that was buffer tanked.
Acknowledged, but the numbers bear out fairly well in the case of a 50m EHP flying brick vs. the active-tanked dreadnought. In that slightly more plausible scenario, the dreadnought dies in about 2 minutes if the SC dies in 10. Adding a sig radius reduction when in siege would increase this to whatever level is reasonable.
Quote:
edit: I like the idea of small anti capital ships. However at this point we dont need more stuff to discourage normal capitals.
I think if this was done right, it could encourage the use of normal capitals over supercaps for more routine operations. I know this is broadening the scope of what you originally wanted to look at with this thread, but no class of ship exists in isolation.
I also like the ideas XTTZ presented for giving other small ships more tools to use against caps, and I think adding more things like these would give combat in EVE more of a rock-paper-scissors sense of balance than changing SCs alone. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 19:34:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro ... Adding a sig radius reduction when in siege would increase this to whatever level is reasonable...
You risk running into issues with Dreads vs. Dreads by messing with signatures too much. Sig.Res on capital guns is 1km, and with severely crippled tracking it won't take much to make them lose damage.
And tweaking gun characteristics to compensate is not an option as that risks making sieged Dreads capable of hitting sub-caps.
When it comes to Dread tweaks, the best suggestion so far has been a siege EHP buff either through raw numbers or through resists, large damage boost and/or cutting siege cycle duration as was done with triage.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.28 21:16:00 -
[183]
By messing with sig you also drastically reduce the damage they take from FB. Down to what BS levels were pre FB nerf.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 06:53:00 -
[184]
Edited by: I''m Down on 30/12/2010 06:57:29 50% resist boost while in siege can give a dread approximately 4-10 mil ehp based on the current setups and some unique ones. I'm assuming that people would do some wacked out fits that could get them as high as 20 mil ehp.
With that amount of EHP, and b/c it only affects dreads in siege, I'd say that would provide huge problems to both motherships and titans being spammed left and right. Dreads would once again be the work horses of the capitals.
Dreads would still be vunerable to neuts, non siege operations, and not high enough ehp to logoffski too badly. Logging off capitals is more a problem with log off mechanics than capitals anyways.
It would still not fix Supers, but would certainly put more scare into them when 5 motherships see 20 dreads somewhere.
I'm sure someone will whine about POS guns at that point, but honestly, if you lose capitals to POS Guns, it's ******ed FC work, not the capitals that are the problem currently.
[Revelation, New Setup 1] Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Explosive Hardener II Regenerative Plating II Dark Blood Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Dark Blood Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Damage Control II
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I
That fit would get 7mil ehp with resist bonus... a faction pimp dread with titan might get up to 20. But it would sacrifice dps and any active tank to do so.
|
leich
Amarr bish bash bosh
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:34:00 -
[185]
This is the most rediculas idea i have ever read.
Super caps are under powered not over powered.
a Super cap fleet is a mix of anti BS blob and anti cap. Your sugestions take this away. and would make them useless against BS.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:36:00 -
[186]
Originally by: leich This is the most rediculas idea i have ever read.
Super caps are under powered not over powered.
a Super cap fleet is a mix of anti BS blob and anti cap. Your sugestions take this away. and would make them useless against BS.
Look at this obvious troll here |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 15:34:00 -
[187]
Originally by: leich This is the most rediculas idea i have ever read.
Super caps are under powered not over powered.
a Super cap fleet is a mix of anti BS blob and anti cap. Your sugestions take this away. and would make them useless against BS.
0/10
|
Kalle Demos
Amarr Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 17:21:00 -
[188]
Any idea when and if CCP will 'look' at supercaps
Originally by: Kool StoryBro <---
Originally by: CCP Spitfire Spam post removed.
Random forum moments <0> |
Quicktime
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 18:38:00 -
[189]
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 19:22:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Kalle Demos Any idea when and if CCP will 'look' at supercaps
18 months.
Originally by: CCP Zulu You're assuming I read threads before I turdpost in them :)
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 21:11:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Kalle Demos Any idea when and if CCP will 'look' at supercaps
Going from the CSM summit notes, they are already discussing them.
The more pertinent question is when they'll do anything to them.
-----------------
|
Ryan Starwing
Gallente Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 04:04:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 31/12/2010 04:09:04 I am in favor of a super cap eph nerf (this includes titans). I think the eph buff they got was a bit to much. Cutting the eph in half for them sounds about right though.
Edit:This is also with a dread buff cutting seige mod cycle and fule cost in half, and make seiged mode=more dps with but cant move. This means dreads only disadvantage of seiged mode is cant move for 5 minutes, and with allowing them to get rr boosts their tank so supers (bar titan dd) dont slaughter them.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 22:21:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro ... Adding a sig radius reduction when in siege would increase this to whatever level is reasonable...
You risk running into issues with Dreads vs. Dreads by messing with signatures too much. Sig.Res on capital guns is 1km, and with severely crippled tracking it won't take much to make them lose damage.
When in siege, dreads are stationary, so the ability of capital guns to track them is not an issue. Do you think this bonus would be necessary for dreads not in siege mode?
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources By messing with sig you also drastically reduce the damage they take from FB. Down to what BS levels were pre FB nerf.
No damage reduction occurs until dreadnought sig radius goes below the bomber explosion radius of 2.25km. That's still low enough to mitigate 85% of the damage from an anti-supercap torp with a 15km explosion radius. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Toffee Stunner
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 22:58:00 -
[194]
Oh my goodness...
Almost 200 replies and only 35 votes for this idea.
I think it is safe to say this idea is bad.
Don't feel bad honey, you tried your best and that is what matters.
So, stop bringing this back to the top and it is time to flush this ok?
- <3 Toffee Stunner
|
Ephemeron
The Dirty Dozen
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:12:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner Oh my goodness...
Almost 200 replies and only 35 votes for this idea.
I think it is safe to say this idea is bad.
Don't feel bad honey, you tried your best and that is what matters.
So, stop bringing this back to the top and it is time to flush this ok?
- <3 Toffee Stunner
It is a good idea and your immature gloating doesn't change that fact.
Anyone with a brain can understand the supercarriers are too good against sub-caps and that's not their role.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:27:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner Oh my goodness...
Oh my goodness, a replier that hasn't read any of the thread he is ridiculing
Vast majority are actually in favour of capital rebalance, we just bicker about how to go about it. So fear not, you get to fly your broken SC for a little while longer with no chance of loosing it barring supreme idiocy.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 02:33:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Toffee Stunner Oh my goodness...
Almost 200 replies and only 35 votes for this idea.
I think it is safe to say this idea is bad.
Don't feel bad honey, you tried your best and that is what matters.
So, stop bringing this back to the top and it is time to flush this ok?
- <3 Toffee Stunner
Well this would be true if they were unique responses. However they aren't.
|
Jessica Autumn
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 03:37:00 -
[198]
Well, havn't u all noticed they already got nerf DPS to sub caps is been cut by 30%, If u don't like how the Super Carriers are now then don't go hunting them, for 11-14 Billion isk, Id want something that can take on anything out there, Hence the SUPER CAPITAL, crying that there to OP has been going on since Dominion.
|
paracidic
Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 03:49:00 -
[199]
Edited by: paracidic on 04/01/2011 03:51:24 I think the true question here is how few drakes should be able to kill supercarriers.
I mean Since NC and friends etc can field 1k drakes I think the server should just reset Sov as soon as they enter system. Titans and other Capitals should self destruct immediately and POS shields should drop allowing anything inside to be targeted.
Oh and the 600m insurance for a titan loss should be forfieted to the killers allaince to compensate them for the Caldari Navy Missles used to kill the 70B isk machine.
Why do we have to constantly dumb down the game to make recruits from Something Awful able to enjoy it?
oh and judging from the date of the OP I suspect that he is just butthurt.
***********************************************
Everything ever written by a goon or DS1 member is absolutely factual and should not be challanged in anyway. |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 04:27:00 -
[200]
Originally by: paracidic Edited by: paracidic on 04/01/2011 03:51:24 I think the true question here is how few drakes should be able to kill supercarriers.
I mean Since NC and friends etc can field 1k drakes I think the server should just reset Sov as soon as they enter system. Titans and other Capitals should self destruct immediately and POS shields should drop allowing anything inside to be targeted.
Oh and the 600m insurance for a titan loss should be forfieted to the killers allaince to compensate them for the Caldari Navy Missles used to kill the 70B isk machine.
Why do we have to constantly dumb down the game to make recruits from Something Awful able to enjoy it?
oh and judging from the date of the OP I suspect that he is just butthurt.
Because they canÆt do that all at once. They have to sneak up on it. One little nerf at a time until the only thing that matters in a battle is how many three month old players one side has over the other.
I say offer them some pureed carrots. Maybe theyÆll go away.
-Windjammer
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 04:45:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Jessica Autumn Well, havn't u all noticed they already got nerf DPS to sub caps is been cut by 30%, If u don't like how the Super Carriers are now then don't go hunting them, for 11-14 Billion isk, Id want something that can take on anything out there, Hence the SUPER CAPITAL, crying that there to OP has been going on since Dominion.
Actually they were nerfed against subcaps by far more than 30% but I think thats just the first step in what should happen.
As for the DICE troll you're in a pretty special place to talk about being butthurt. If you honestly view being unable to simply field one type of ship to counter p much anything in the game as "dumbing down" of Eve maybe you should relook into what the concept of dumbing down means.
You should also look into your apoc fits.
|
galphi
Furnulum pani nolo
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 06:14:00 -
[202]
Sounds good to me, I also like the 'DCU's give 3 extra drones each + only 1 drone extra per carrier level' thing, that makes a lot of sense.
Don't bother removing that lowslot on the Hel, it's already so very weak by comparison. What we should also be talking about is making slave implants not function on capital ships too.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 09:51:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Jessica Autumn ..for 11-14 Billion isk, Id want something that can take on anything out there, Hence the SUPER CAPITAL, crying that there to OP has been going on since Dominion.
And a billion ISK faction BS should be able to kill anything that costs less than that, right? ISK is not now nor has it ever been a balancing factor .. to use it as such would mean decoupling all prices from market so they do not fluctuate except when Devs wish it so. Reason for not going "hunting" (I assume you mean fail-fit ratting SC?) is that you need your own or a stupendous blob to do anything should you happen to catch one.
Originally by: paracidic I think the true question here is how few drakes should be able to kill supercarriers ...
So you want to balance Eve on the basis of what FotM jockeys latch on to every time they get an impulse from a stray neuron. There has only been one occasion where a player entity has been directly responsible for a major game change - wardec system and Privateers. As for "dumbing down" .. how does asking for changes that makes more than 3 (4 counting Drakes ) ships viable become 'dumbing down', quite the opposite. Capitals Online is BORING .. whatever change makes it less so is a good change.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 11:23:00 -
[204]
I still think the Hel bonus should be changed to engine trail length per level. |
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 11:33:00 -
[205]
I haven't read the last 2 or so pages, but what would buffing dread dps against supercaps do? Or maybe a special siege module that works like a cloak (toggle on/off), but you can't target structures while it's active so it doesn't get abused for ninja pos takedowns.
Close range dreads have DPS that almost matches that of a mom, but cost and EHP are only 10% of a mom's. Surely there can be something done here to make them into supercap melting glass cannons when used correctly. Currently this isn't possible, because supers melt them too fast as soon as they enter siege (no remote reps, can't even get out).
Just an idea I had the other day, feel free to figure out everything that's wrong with it :P
Supporting this thread, though you might want to rethink the -1 slot on Hel. I think if it stays like it is while the others lose the slot might make it look like it can compete. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 12:58:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Nuts Nougat I haven't read the last 2 or so pages, but what would buffing dread dps against supercaps do? Or maybe a special siege module that works like a cloak (toggle on/off), but you can't target structures while it's active so it doesn't get abused for ninja pos takedowns.
Incorporating this into the existing siege module (via a script, perhaps?) could work, but since the balance issue is with supercarriers its surely more appropriate to modify the ships that are causing the problem rather than re-arranging everything else to fit in. The benefit of the proposed alterations is that it if supercarriers can no longer swat away tacklers and subcaps so freely, it helps re-establish the importance of smaller support ships and a balanced fleet composition, rather than a 1-dimensional 'just bring more of the biggest ships' approach that Dominion has introduced.
Plus, if supercaps remain as anti-capital gankmobiles and capitals become anti-supercap gankmobiles, the food chain starts to look more like a circle!
Quote: Supporting this thread, though you might want to rethink the -1 slot on Hel. I think if it stays like it is while the others lose the slot might make it look like it can compete.
I'm assuming that the Hel will (eventually) get some sort of reworking of its bonuses and/or stats to bring it in line with the rest (or that the others will be nerfed down to Hel levels!) seperately from any reworking of supercarrier abilities as a whole. If not, then you have a point.
-----------------
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 13:00:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Jessica Autumn Well, havn't u all noticed they already got nerf DPS to sub caps is been cut by 30%, If u don't like how the Super Carriers are now then don't go hunting them, for 11-14 Billion isk, Id want something that can take on anything out there, Hence the SUPER CAPITAL, crying that there to OP has been going on since Dominion.
Confirming that spending the most ISK on a ship should make it functionally indestructable.
*fits officer mods to a rifter*
-----------------
|
VuVieth7
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 05:14:00 -
[208]
As a Super Carrier pilot, Capital FC and 0.0 fleet FC, I've had some experience with supercaps. Both fighting as and against the supercap blob.
The short of it is, the issue Isn't with SuperCaps. They are fairly well balanced, given their expense, difficulty to construct, etc. The issue is with Dreads.
Currently, I would quite happily take my single SuperCap against 3-4 Dread's, knowing that I would win the fight (Assuming they don't have support). Short range fit Dreads do close to SC DPS (with the Moros at just over 7k). However, given that the Siege cycle goes for 10 mins, and that they cannot receive reps, they are easy kills.
So, IMHO, the simple fix to supercaps is to buff Dreads. * Shorten their Siege Cycle to 5 mins. * Allow them to receive remote reps when they are in siege.
What will this do? It means a Dread/Carrier blob has a chance at beating a SuperCap Blob. It will give more of a roll to Carriers (to support Dreads). It will also mean that Dreads are not completely useless in large scale warfare.
Currently their ONLY role is to shoot at POS's. Unless you hold complete superiority its a huge risk to use them to shoot at Sov Structures/Cap Battles, a much larger risk than using a SuperCap.
A well organized Dread/Carrier fleet, could counter a Supercap fleet (depending on sizes etc.) |
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 06:19:00 -
[209]
Originally by: VuVieth7 As a Super Carrier pilot, Capital FC and 0.0 fleet FC, I've had some experience with supercaps. Both fighting as and against the supercap blob.
The short of it is, the issue Isn't with SuperCaps. They are fairly well balanced, given their expense, difficulty to construct, etc. The issue is with Dreads.
Currently, I would quite happily take my single SuperCap against 3-4 Dread's, knowing that I would win the fight (Assuming they don't have support). Short range fit Dreads do close to SC DPS (with the Moros at just over 7k). However, given that the Siege cycle goes for 10 mins, and that they cannot receive reps, they are easy kills.
So, IMHO, the simple fix to supercaps is to buff Dreads. * Shorten their Siege Cycle to 5 mins. * Allow them to receive remote reps when they are in siege.
What will this do? It means a Dread/Carrier blob has a chance at beating a SuperCap Blob. It will give more of a roll to Carriers (to support Dreads). It will also mean that Dreads are not completely useless in large scale warfare.
Currently their ONLY role is to shoot at POS's. Unless you hold complete superiority its a huge risk to use them to shoot at Sov Structures/Cap Battles, a much larger risk than using a SuperCap.
A well organized Dread/Carrier fleet, could counter a Supercap fleet (depending on sizes etc.)
I like this ideal best. It feels alot like how a BS/Logic's fleet can handle a Dread/Carrier fleet so why should a Dread/Carrier fleet not be made able to handle a SC/Titain fleet?
I have no exp. with Caps. I have no real love for them. But thats becouse I only like ships that I can take everywere with me. But the ideal looks sound to me.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 07:19:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Rip Minner
Originally by: VuVieth7 As a Super Carrier pilot, Capital FC and 0.0 fleet FC, I've had some experience with supercaps. Both fighting as and against the supercap blob.
The short of it is, the issue Isn't with SuperCaps. They are fairly well balanced, given their expense, difficulty to construct, etc. The issue is with Dreads.
Currently, I would quite happily take my single SuperCap against 3-4 Dread's, knowing that I would win the fight (Assuming they don't have support). Short range fit Dreads do close to SC DPS (with the Moros at just over 7k). However, given that the Siege cycle goes for 10 mins, and that they cannot receive reps, they are easy kills.
So, IMHO, the simple fix to supercaps is to buff Dreads. * Shorten their Siege Cycle to 5 mins. * Allow them to receive remote reps when they are in siege.
What will this do? It means a Dread/Carrier blob has a chance at beating a SuperCap Blob. It will give more of a roll to Carriers (to support Dreads). It will also mean that Dreads are not completely useless in large scale warfare.
Currently their ONLY role is to shoot at POS's. Unless you hold complete superiority its a huge risk to use them to shoot at Sov Structures/Cap Battles, a much larger risk than using a SuperCap.
A well organized Dread/Carrier fleet, could counter a Supercap fleet (depending on sizes etc.)
I like this ideal best. It feels alot like how a BS/Logic's fleet can handle a Dread/Carrier fleet so why should a Dread/Carrier fleet not be made able to handle a SC/Titain fleet?
I have no exp. with Caps. I have no real love for them. But thats becouse I only like ships that I can take everywere with me. But the ideal looks sound to me.
This idea completely removes the buff to local repairers and makes carrier swarming that much more overpowered. The Resist concept keeps dreads vulnerable, but just boost their survivability. I prefer the resist.
|
|
VuVieth7
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 08:29:00 -
[211]
Edited by: VuVieth7 on 05/01/2011 08:32:20
Originally by: I'm Down This idea completely removes the buff to local repairers and makes carrier swarming that much more overpowered. The Resist concept keeps dreads vulnerable, but just boost their survivability. I prefer the resist.
Increased resists / reps are impossible to scale. Each SC puts out 7-10k DPS. At what level would you raise the tank for the Dreads so they arn't overpowerered v's groups of 1-5 SC's, but are still dog food to groups of 50-100. A well fit dread can currently tank 4-5k DPS in siege mode. What would you raise that too? Raise it to 8-10k...and two dreads could kill a SC (which seams OP considering the value comparison), but would still be mean nothing v's 20 SC's.
Yes, making dreads able to receive reps in siege is going to significantly change the balance of power. However, as Siege'd dreads are still useless v's subcaps, and several can still smash down any POS...I think really all your going to effect is the SC/Titan v's Dread/Carrier balance. Titans will be able to still one shot Carriers / most Dreads every 10 mins.
|
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 11:23:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 05/01/2011 11:24:22
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Nuts Nougat I haven't read the last 2 or so pages, but what would buffing dread dps against supercaps do? Or maybe a special siege module that works like a cloak (toggle on/off), but you can't target structures while it's active so it doesn't get abused for ninja pos takedowns.
Incorporating this into the existing siege module (via a script, perhaps?) could work, but since the balance issue is with supercarriers its surely more appropriate to modify the ships that are causing the problem rather than re-arranging everything else to fit in. The benefit of the proposed alterations is that it if supercarriers can no longer swat away tacklers and subcaps so freely, it helps re-establish the importance of smaller support ships and a balanced fleet composition, rather than a 1-dimensional 'just bring more of the biggest ships' approach that Dominion has introduced.
Plus, if supercaps remain as anti-capital gankmobiles and capitals become anti-supercap gankmobiles, the food chain starts to look more like a circle!
I understand this thread and support it. I'm just thinking of an alternative to it that might bring dreads back into fights.
TBH, I like what my naglfar looks like and would like to use it effectively on non-pos ops. One way to do this is to have dreads restored as an anti-supercap glass cannon.
As already noted, their dps isn't lacking, so as long as they had the ability to get out if **** hits the fan (much like supercaps can currently, though moms risk losing FBs if they need to do it real fast), one could do strafing runs with sniping dreads + anti-tackle support fleet against a supercap fleet.
With the recent changes to bombers, where they don't fire torpedoes until they get close to their target, sitting at range would give a dread wing enough time to fire a significant amount of DPS into the supercap blob cluster**** and then bugger off, only to warp in again at a different position. This requires a good prober/warpin provider on your team, and dreads paying maximum attention. Several moms yellowboxing your dread = time to drop siege and start aligning align.
Basically giving people that want to fly dreads a chance at participating without certain death, if nothing else.
Also, I'd give the siege a 15-30 sec cooldown time before the dread can warp/jump to prevent doomsdays from being useless against such strafing fleets. This would also make titans a good defense against such fleets?
Maybe I should start a separate thread for dreads :D
I also like the idea of just making siege 5 minutes and allow sieged dreads to receive reps, but this wouldn't work well in large fights imo, where dreads get 1-2 volleyed by fb swarms. Seems good at first, but doesn't scale well.
Some fun facts: 30 torp phoenixes equal a titan's doomsday every 15 seconds. At half the titan's price. If they could do this without getting locked down by siege and then instapopped by moms they'd be rather scary imo. Naglfar has similar alpha: 40k from artillery and another 40k from torps if **** survives long enough (supercaps do). Maybe a script for siege module that only gives the damage mod bonus/tracking nerf for one shot/30 seconds/something, and then has a cooldown, but doesn't hamper a dread's mobility to such a large extent? ---
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 12:37:00 -
[213]
The problem is not really cost effectiveness, the problem is that cost effectiveness is largely irrelevant, what is way more important (especially with the amount of macro/rmt financed supercaps) is the pilot effectiveness. It is nice that 30 phoenixes are better than a titan (and not really half the price, more than that), but wouldnt it be much better if you put those 30 phoenix pilots in 30 super caps?
And that is the problem, regardless of the situation and what enemy brings, super caps are pretty much always the best choice.
|
Kristina Kirtchner
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 12:56:00 -
[214]
No.
Your proposal ignore SCs roles.
|
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 14:02:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Furb Killer The problem is not really cost effectiveness, the problem is that cost effectiveness is largely irrelevant, what is way more important (especially with the amount of macro/rmt financed supercaps) is the pilot effectiveness. It is nice that 30 phoenixes are better than a titan (and not really half the price, more than that), but wouldnt it be much better if you put those 30 phoenix pilots in 30 super caps?
And that is the problem, regardless of the situation and what enemy brings, super caps are pretty much always the best choice.
If cost effectiveness is indeed irrelevant, then either supers are too cheap (nerf build cost) or too good (nerf supers themselves). Maybe a mechanic like the office rents. More supers == next one costs more to build. Yes, this would make them even more exclusive to rich people, but if you bring 50 dreads to drop one 1t supercap, and get slaughtered in the progress, you still end up on top as far as isk goes. And if 1t isn't enough a deterrent, make it even higher.
Alternatively, nerf mineral yield from ALL current ingame sources. It'd hardly hit tech1 hulls because of current insurance mechanic, but everything else will be getting more expensive.
IMO all ships that aren't basic t1 hulls should have pricetags that make them not worth flying. This is already the case when you compare tech2 cruisers and teir2 battlecruisers. People only still fly hacs because they are faster.
There should be a game mechanic that adjusts the build cost of tech2/3, faction, supercap hulls depending on how FOTM they are. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever from a real world view (mass production makes **** cheaper), but it's the only way I can see supercaps in their current form staying without any new counters. Which is why I'm supporting the general notion in this thread, supers need a nerf, either by getting a proper counter, increasing in price or getting nerfed directly.
Direct nerf is also incidentally the easiest and safest to do, I'm just exploring different ways of getting to the same end.
Also, I'm really not sure many people RMT finance supercaps. 20bil would be 900? bux in GTC. I'd assume that makes it 500 if you buy it off some shady site. I dunno about people, but I wouldn't pay that for an internet spaceship... ---
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 14:43:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 05/01/2011 14:46:14
Originally by: Kristina Kirtchner No.
Your proposal ignore SCs roles.
Actually the proposal doesnt, read it again.
Quote: If cost effectiveness is indeed irrelevant, then either supers are too cheap
Euhm, so because cost effectiveness is irrelevant you want to make them more expensive. How is that in any way helpful if cost effectiveness is largely irrelevant? It will still be irrelevant. Even if you make them 100 times more expensive there will just be more macros running to finance them. The fact stays that per pilot they will always be the best option.
Supercaps are just the manifestation of bigger = better, i thought the idea behind eve was that pilot skill, ship choice and ship fitting was supposed to be better, not which side RMTs more.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 15:09:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Kristina Kirtchner Your proposal ignore SCs roles.
And what is their role in your eyes?
Originally by: Devblog, Jan2010 The biggest news is that Supercarriers will make their long-awaited debut on Tranquility. Intended to be the heavy hitters of capital ship PvP,..
CCP clearly meant for them to be anti-capital ships but due to the nature of drone based damage they have in fact become anti-everything ships. That is not a role, that is deification.
- Increasing manufacturing cost will not solve the issue as it will probably just result in even more CSAA being spammed in bubble-gum space. - Increasing Dread power through EHP and/or DPS risks making them the blob-mobile of choice thus pushing supers back into POS for permanent storage. - Decreasing SC power by enough for it to make a difference will most likely make them POS ornaments again.
In conclusion: Fixing the power imbalance of SCs has to be a combination of multiple facets if untoward side-effects are to be avoided.
|
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 15:36:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 05/01/2011 15:43:45 Well if people are running macros to finance their supercaps then the problem is elsewhere and simply nerfing price wouldn't do much (if any) difference indeed. This is then a problem at CCP though. Or maybe it's just time to move to another game (as if). It's really hilarious how no matter how terrible eve is, it's still the best MMO around..
I really hope CCP do something to their game, there's a bunch of competition coming up (black prophecy, miner wars, jumpgate...) and chances are maybe one of those will be worth playing over eve for most people...
Originally by: Furb Killer Btw sadly enough people would RMT 500 dollar to get one, also it isnt *that* much, look at the ammount of people with 3 accounts they pay for the normal way (so no plexes). They spend more than 500 dollar yearly on eve.
I currently have 4 accounts. I pay for two (Main + carrier/jf/haul alt), other two I use as cyno alt accounts and use plex when I need them. Using the JF intelligently can easily make me a couple bil in 1-2 weeks, so it's not a problem at all when I actively play at all. The only reason I haven't ground up to a supercap is because I don't want to have a char stuck in it, and grinding for another alt to put it in said supercap is :effort: beyond what seems reasonable to me at this point.
Therefore I get the whole "price isn't an issue", it'd take me a gigantic 2 months of 1-2 hours of playing per day to grind up enough isk for a well fitted mom. Not really what I'd call expensive in an MMO environment.
If macroing is really as bad as you're making it look, there's not much point in playing the game anymore for legit players like me though.
Edit @Hirana: Then let them be POS ornaments. They're clearly too effective at the moment if they're being used so much despite their price tags. Whatever Furb Killer might say, I still think not a large percentage of moms is financed via macros. It's easy to make upwards of 80mil/hour ratting with the new anomalies, which means 200 hours (10 ingame days) nets you a mom if you're willing to grind that hard. I don't think this is balanced, therefore they need to be either nerfed, or price bumped. ---
|
NoStressGaming
54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Kugutsumen.
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 16:37:00 -
[219]
Supercarries are excellent ships, and they should be, they give bittervet's something to aim for.
Are they overpowered in their current form? Yes
Any simple way to fix this? Yes
How? Reduce their (fitted) EHP by 50%
How does this bring them back in line? This makes supercarriers vulnerable to Dreadnought fleets, as well as other supercarrier / Titan fleets. The main problem is not that they can dish out immense amounts of pain, it's that they (properly fitted) have EHP levels that are so high that any fleets which wants to kill them, needs to bring so many people that they completely lag out the system.
|
Antir
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 09:49:00 -
[220]
I'm fine with them murdering caps it just silly that they can do the same to subcaps without any support fleet of their own.
|
|
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P. Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 20:38:00 -
[221]
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 13:57:00 -
[222]
Originally by: NoStressGaming Supercarries are excellent ships, and they should be, they give bittervet's something to aim for.
Are they overpowered in their current form? Yes
Any simple way to fix this? Yes
How? Reduce their (fitted) EHP by 50%
How does this bring them back in line? This makes supercarriers vulnerable to Dreadnought fleets, as well as other supercarrier / Titan fleets. The main problem is not that they can dish out immense amounts of pain, it's that they (properly fitted) have EHP levels that are so high that any fleets which wants to kill them, needs to bring so many people that they completely lag out the system.
I mentioned my problem with this in another reply, which is that it makes Supercarriers into anti-dread gankmobiles and dreads into anti-Supercarrier gankmobiles, and so the capital warfare food chain becomes a circle.
Some minor tweaking (in particular some reworking of logoff mechanics so that the default option for a supercarrier tackled by a midsized fleet can no longer be to ctrl-q and wait 15 minutes while they try to grind your buffer down) would be fine, but halving EHP doesn't do anything to solve the main issue with supercarriers, that they're unfocused 'anti-everything' platforms rather than a tool for a specific role.
-----------------
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 17:13:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: NoStressGaming Supercarries are excellent ships, and they should be, they give bittervet's something to aim for.
Are they overpowered in their current form? Yes
Any simple way to fix this? Yes
How? Reduce their (fitted) EHP by 50%
How does this bring them back in line? This makes supercarriers vulnerable to Dreadnought fleets, as well as other supercarrier / Titan fleets. The main problem is not that they can dish out immense amounts of pain, it's that they (properly fitted) have EHP levels that are so high that any fleets which wants to kill them, needs to bring so many people that they completely lag out the system.
I mentioned my problem with this in another reply, which is that it makes Supercarriers into anti-dread gankmobiles and dreads into anti-Supercarrier gankmobiles, and so the capital warfare food chain becomes a circle.
Some minor tweaking (in particular some reworking of logoff mechanics so that the default option for a supercarrier tackled by a midsized fleet can no longer be to ctrl-q and wait 15 minutes while they try to grind your buffer down) would be fine, but halving EHP doesn't do anything to solve the main issue with supercarriers, that they're unfocused 'anti-everything' platforms rather than a tool for a specific role.
The catch 22 is always going to be that the moment they nerf SC w/o nerfing titans, Titan numbers are just going to explode.
Yes SC need a defined role. Nuking their drone bays to only allow fighter and FB use is a good thing. But hammering them in any other aspect is going to convince people to upgrade to titans.
The HP issue is only really an issue in terms of log off mechanics. This is true of all Supers in combat and when trapped by small fleets. A 25% reduction in HP wouldn't be terrible, but it's not really needed.
RR still continues to be a problem. An aeon with 1 RR can mitigate nearly 75% of an enemy super carrier's fighter bomber damage. This is utterly moronic when other SC cannot be jammed and thus provide a **** ton of repping power.
Both titans and SC need to be brought back in line. The Dread 50% resist boost in siege does this quite well. It reduces the effects a titan can have with a DD on a cap fleet, and it prolongs the survivability of dreads vs SC long enough for them to actually project damage.
So it's pretty simple. Remove SC effectiveness with regular drones, and give dreads a defensive bonus only in siege. Keep the 10 minute siege timer, it's a good negative for dreads to have.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 20:53:00 -
[224]
Originally by: I'm Down Snipit
I Do agree with your argument, but I do believe the Fix to Super Caps is in the Rebalancing of Dreads.
Though the RR argument i 100% argee with and as i stated earlier if you removed the range bonus would greatly limit the ability to RR as they are big ships and slow to move. Also one could give them back triage mode, but change it for SC's,range bonus, Not immune to ECM, No drones, No neuts/smarties, and no moving. Basically would be a last ditch rep effort or an after combat rep effort, and to effectively RR friendly Caps you'd have to remove yourself from the dps chain. Problem Is any change to Super carriers RR ability is negated by Carriers and Sacrificial Triage Alts.
This is why i believe that Dreads need a significant boost, There stationary attack tactics limits ability to chase their target but gives them a large damage bonus. In my Eyes this needs to Be Increased damage wise, by 1 more turrets worth of damage. With tracking to counter moving super caps, and Torps/missles that can catch moving super caps and do damage (cause right now pheonix's suck when you start moving as a target.)
Furthermore their needs to be a reduction to Neut range on super carriers by a third this would make them vulnerable to Hics with focused points.
Also just a thought but why not make them jammable? that would be just reducing the sensor strength, it wouldnt affect their ability to be immune to other ecm's but would make them jammable. Just a thought though.
As lag is fixed SC's will be more vulnerable to smaller ships clipping their claws, this and dreads will bring super carriers into line.
At least thats my opinion
|
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:22:00 -
[225]
Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 10/01/2011 21:27:38
Originally by: I'm Down
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: NoStressGaming Supercarries are excellent ships, and they should be, they give bittervet's something to aim for.
Are they overpowered in their current form? Yes
Any simple way to fix this? Yes
How? Reduce their (fitted) EHP by 50%
How does this bring them back in line? This makes supercarriers vulnerable to Dreadnought fleets, as well as other supercarrier / Titan fleets. The main problem is not that they can dish out immense amounts of pain, it's that they (properly fitted) have EHP levels that are so high that any fleets which wants to kill them, needs to bring so many people that they completely lag out the system.
I mentioned my problem with this in another reply, which is that it makes Supercarriers into anti-dread gankmobiles and dreads into anti-Supercarrier gankmobiles, and so the capital warfare food chain becomes a circle.
Some minor tweaking (in particular some reworking of logoff mechanics so that the default option for a supercarrier tackled by a midsized fleet can no longer be to ctrl-q and wait 15 minutes while they try to grind your buffer down) would be fine, but halving EHP doesn't do anything to solve the main issue with supercarriers, that they're unfocused 'anti-everything' platforms rather than a tool for a specific role.
The catch 22 is always going to be that the moment they nerf SC w/o nerfing titans, Titan numbers are just going to explode. ...
BFF dear friend. SC need EHP changes but titan not need nerf, just one single change. Just need disable the simple titan portal. If the fleet want to move to other system, need move with titan to targeted system. Now open a titan bridge is too safe for titan pilots. No danger = no loss. This need to change and not need titan nerf. Titan would be move with fleet if the fleet want titan bridge, this is the solution. Jump to hostile space would be reduce the titan numbers. Titan jump to hostile space with fleet = more dangers for titans.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:31:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
BFF dear friend. SC need EHP changes but titan not need nerf, just one single change. Just need disable the simple titan portal. If the fleet want to move to other system, need move with titan to targeted system. Now open a titan bridge is too safe for titan pilots. No danger = no loss. This need to change and not need titan nerf. Titan would be move with fleet if the fleet want titan bridge, this is the solution. Jump to hostile space would be reduce the titan numbers. Titan jump to hostile space with fleet = more dangers for titans.
Removing the Jump Portal Generator is removing 50% of the entire value of having a Titan in the first place. It is an unacceptable nerf.
The only relatively simpe solution I can see is to make them more expensive and longer to build (including Motherships), but this would harm smaller alliances, while not really affecting the large, mega-rich ones too much. So solution is pending.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:40:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Horizonist
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
BFF dear friend. SC need EHP changes but titan not need nerf, just one single change. Just need disable the simple titan portal. If the fleet want to move to other system, need move with titan to targeted system. Now open a titan bridge is too safe for titan pilots. No danger = no loss. This need to change and not need titan nerf. Titan would be move with fleet if the fleet want titan bridge, this is the solution. Jump to hostile space would be reduce the titan numbers. Titan jump to hostile space with fleet = more dangers for titans.
Removing the Jump Portal Generator is removing 50% of the entire value of having a Titan in the first place.
No,no,no nobody talk about remove Jump Portal Generator. But change the Jump Portal Generator working method.
Now titan pilot open a portal and the fleet jump to targeted system, but the titan not need to jump, just left behind at starting system.
Change titan bridge rule, Move titan to fleet command position and jump to targeted system with all fleet members. Jump with those pilots who where is at titan within 50km range.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 22:20:00 -
[228]
Fixing supercarriers by buffing dreads is problematic because it affects dreads in other circumstances (eg dreads vs subcaps). If every supercarrier was deleted from the server tomorrow, dreads would be more or less balanced, like they were pre-Dominion where nobody used motherships and titans were useless against capitals.
The only real problems with dreads today are supercap related - that dropping supercarriers on sieged dreads is low risk killmail printing unless the numbers are stupendously uneven or the server craps out randomly, and the fact that a supercarrier's damage output beats a dread when shooting sov structures (unlike the old days of POS warfare) whilst again being lower risk due to the lack of siege mode required. Ideas such as siege module resist bonuses or allowing sieged dreads to be remote repped don't just (if even) fix that, they have further knock-on implications across the board.
-----------------
|
Kalle Demos
Amarr Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 05:07:00 -
[229]
What if siege was reduced to 5 mins and if they were allowed remote reps while in siege
Originally by: Kool StoryBro <---
Originally by: CCP Spitfire Spam post removed.
Random forum moments <0> |
lwxsky oli
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 06:51:00 -
[230]
Make super caps log off time to 30 min.
They have the power to insta pop any thing smaller than themselves. They have the tank to log off in most engagements.
Super carriers already become the ultimate god ships in EVE in my opinion, 15 billion is really cheap for their performance since they alway appear in groups these days so they're very hard to lose.
Just check out most cap killmails involved supercarriers. Almost all of them died at around their base HP, carrier spider tank, triage/siege mods have no chance at all to tank them.
I've seen so many times FC requests in cap fleets,"Super caps only, If you don't have one, get out and save the spot!!" lol
So, if you have a spare alt with carrier lvl 5, get in super carrier. This god ship really worth it.
Let CCP decide if they need a ultimate god ship in this game.
|
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:41:00 -
[231]
Not that I am in anyway a Capital buff or even know alot about how Capitals work.
But I am siting here thinking wow that old Titatin DD would be a great counter to SC's just swating down all there dps but having so large a EHP that I belive it would take a Insane number of Titatins to Insta pop one. Meaning that a Fleet would be better off in a Longer Larger fight by timeing the old Titatin DD's to clear out as much SC dps. I mean there going to run out of Fighter Bombers at some point right?
Also what is stoping Titatin's from Taking out SC with there curent DD? Just asking as I realy dont know.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 13:58:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Bobbeh
Originally by: I'm Down Snipit
Also just a thought but why not make them jammable? that would be just reducing the sensor strength, it wouldnt affect their ability to be immune to other ecm's but would make them jammable. Just a thought though.
As lag is fixed SC's will be more vulnerable to smaller ships clipping their claws, this and dreads will bring super carriers into line.
At least thats my opinion
WHy again jammable? WHy is YET AGAIN caldary ECM so privilidgd? Falcons are powerfull enough. WHy don't arazu get such privilige? FIrst more skills, then ECM mods, then marauders, then this.
Give supercarriers partial E-war vulnerability only. ALl e-war has 1/5th of it's normal effect on them, so you need like 40 points to keep a SC in place, and 10 webs to keep it from moving, but you should be able to do it.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 22:46:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Rip Minner
But I am siting here thinking wow that old Titatin DD would be a great counter to SC's just swating down all there dps but having so large a EHP that I belive it would take a Insane number of Titatins to Insta pop one. Meaning that a Fleet would be better off in a Longer Larger fight by timeing the old Titatin DD's to clear out as much SC dps. I mean there going to run out of Fighter Bombers at some point right?
The problem with the old-style DD is that it kills not just the fighters but pretty much everything other than battleships and capitals.
Quote: Also what is stoping Titatin's from Taking out SC with there curent DD? Just asking as I realy dont know.
A Level V Doomsday does 3m points of raw damage, properly set up supercarriers (Hel aside) typcally have upwards of 50m EHP. You need a lot of doomsdays to kill a supercarrier.
-----------------
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 08:08:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 12/01/2011 08:13:14
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Rip Minner
But I am siting here thinking wow that old Titatin DD would be a great counter to SC's just swating down all there dps but having so large a EHP that I belive it would take a Insane number of Titatins to Insta pop one. Meaning that a Fleet would be better off in a Longer Larger fight by timeing the old Titatin DD's to clear out as much SC dps. I mean there going to run out of Fighter Bombers at some point right?
The problem with the old-style DD is that it kills not just the fighters but pretty much everything other than battleships and capitals.
Quote: Also what is stoping Titatin's from Taking out SC with there curent DD? Just asking as I realy dont know.
A Level V Doomsday does 3m points of raw damage, properly set up supercarriers (Hel aside) typcally have upwards of 50m EHP. You need a lot of doomsdays to kill a supercarrier.
Thx u for taking the time to explain that to me.
I dont know jack about Caps or Sov Warfar but I have ran into a few low sec SC's. If there as strong as they do seem to be. I think there going to get nerfed into the ground at some point for all the same reasons that BS's did. How and in what ways I have no clue.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 01:04:00 -
[235]
well well well, what have we here
Quote: The current situation with Super Carriers is that they are just not dying, they do large quantities of damage to other Capital ships and sub Capital ships û in fact they can be wielded in any situation with very good effects. In addition, they are obsoleting a whole class of ships, the Dreadnaughts. There were some examples given of how easy it is to move Super Carriers due to their jump range û allowing extreme force projection by relatively small number of pilot flying Super Carriers. It was decided to postpone this discussion to the 0.0 discussion.
CCP Greyscale floated a trial balloon for some conceptual balance changes, which have not been allocated time or manpower. More details will be provided on the Features and Ideas forum section if the topic is granted development resources
But hey, I'm sure that everyone else thinks supercarriers are completely fine and this thread is just bitter goonie nerfsploits because they can't beat them with their T1 noob rifters, right guys?
-----------------
|
Dunhill 1
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 03:58:00 -
[236]
Like everything else things have ben buffed or nurfed. Another option please
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 04:16:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Dunhill 1 Like everything else things have ben buffed or nurfed. Another option please
So you want an option to bring them into line that isnt a nerf or buff? Do explain how you plan to accomplish that.
|
Shinma Apollo
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 06:53:00 -
[238]
Supercarriers need to be rebalanced, but your proposed changes are largely terrible, since they mostly incorporate straw men and single-scenario circumstances without looking at the broader spectrum of supercap use.
More to the point, it's engaging in a silly buff/nerf cycle rather than creating more tools and allowing player innovation, rather than sheer numbers and dumb luck/server performance dictate engagements. I agree on the supercarrier HP nerf, or at the very least making a shield equivilant to slaves (and having gang stat bonuses not reset meaning 10-45% of your shields disappearing every trucking jump), but supercaps are a huge time/isk investment, and a similar time/isk investment should be demanded to down one of these behemoths.
As for the whining about supercaps being able to shake tacklers too easily, at least in 0.0, I blame this on substandard tacklers, not 'wtfpwnmobile' supercaps. I've been on several supercap kills that one dictor has been sufficient to keep a supercap tackled.
A couple of much more practical solutions include: - All dreads get an extra utility highslot, and create a module for it akin to hictor superpoint (scripted), usable only in siege. This will allow regular cap fleets to have some combat capability against supercapital fleets that come looking for ganks, but still force a commitment. Hictors and dictors can be used for primary tackle, and dreads for the follow-through. You'll see a number of neut dreads as a result as well, but this will also help the supercap destruction you so desire.
- Bring back AOE doomsday in some form: this is both a huge supercap nerf (Bye bye bombers/fighters!) and a much needed change to see a bit more variety in fleets than the current rediculously logistics dominated doctrines. 1 per system per hour would be a lovely, lovely inclusion with it to prevent unrealistic castling for the defender, but I'll settle for 20-30k damage. If you'd like a much lazier way to prevent multi-doomsdays scenarios, just add to every doomsday a huge energy neutralization side-effect to all hit ships. Gives a much more catastrophic-failure-doomsday like element to it. Personally, I'm ok with 4 titans instajibbing all the logis/support/recons from the fleet, especially given that with the improvements in server performance, in most scenarios you should have no problems dodging more than a single dd. (finally, I'm willing to wager that at 30k damage, you'd need about 50 titans to drop a nidhoggur blob, which with 50 titans you could adequately do in an easier fashion than said hypothetical mechanic)
- Capital Class ewar ships: this is just a side bit, but it does offer a very tried-and-true solution to the current problem of capital RR blobs. In fact, make them the new motherships for the Guristas/Angels/Serpentis/Blood Raider incursions for the **** of it(notsureifserious). A bit of variation in the toolkit would do wonders to help break the dilemma in capital warfare.
- Smartbombs/heavy bombers: getting a few + range and damage smartbombing ships would offer a lot of in-fleet support counters to fighter bombers, and add the lots of lulz when accidentally instajib every dictor you have. Also, the pirates in rancer would cry for joy at these, think of those wide-eyed pirates in rancer!
In sum, these are just a few more viable solutions that are not solely dedicated to rendering an entire shipclass down to complete **** again.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:37:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Shinma Apollo Supercarriers need to be rebalanced, but your proposed changes are largely terrible, since they mostly incorporate straw men and single-scenario circumstances without looking at the broader spectrum of supercap use.
More to the point, it's engaging in a silly buff/nerf cycle rather than creating more tools and allowing player innovation, rather than sheer numbers and dumb luck/server performance dictate engagements. I agree on the supercarrier HP nerf, or at the very least making a shield equivilant to slaves (and having gang stat bonuses not reset meaning 10-45% of your shields disappearing every trucking jump), but supercaps are a huge time/isk investment, and a similar time/isk investment should be demanded to down one of these behemoths.
As for the whining about supercaps being able to shake tacklers too easily, at least in 0.0, I blame this on substandard tacklers, not 'wtfpwnmobile' supercaps. I've been on several supercap kills that one dictor has been sufficient to keep a supercap tackled.
A couple of much more practical solutions include: - All dreads get an extra utility highslot, and create a module for it akin to hictor superpoint (scripted), usable only in siege. This will allow regular cap fleets to have some combat capability against supercapital fleets that come looking for ganks, but still force a commitment. Hictors and dictors can be used for primary tackle, and dreads for the follow-through. You'll see a number of neut dreads as a result as well, but this will also help the supercap destruction you so desire.
- Bring back AOE doomsday in some form: this is both a huge supercap nerf (Bye bye bombers/fighters!) and a much needed change to see a bit more variety in fleets than the current rediculously logistics dominated doctrines. 1 per system per hour would be a lovely, lovely inclusion with it to prevent unrealistic castling for the defender, but I'll settle for 20-30k damage. If you'd like a much lazier way to prevent multi-doomsdays scenarios, just add to every doomsday a huge energy neutralization side-effect to all hit ships. Gives a much more catastrophic-failure-doomsday like element to it. Personally, I'm ok with 4 titans instajibbing all the logis/support/recons from the fleet, especially given that with the improvements in server performance, in most scenarios you should have no problems dodging more than a single dd. (finally, I'm willing to wager that at 30k damage, you'd need about 50 titans to drop a nidhoggur blob, which with 50 titans you could adequately do in an easier fashion than said hypothetical mechanic)
- Capital Class ewar ships: this is just a side bit, but it does offer a very tried-and-true solution to the current problem of capital RR blobs. In fact, make them the new motherships for the Guristas/Angels/Serpentis/Blood Raider incursions for the **** of it(notsureifserious). A bit of variation in the toolkit would do wonders to help break the dilemma in capital warfare.
- Smartbombs/heavy bombers: getting a few + range and damage smartbombing ships would offer a lot of in-fleet support counters to fighter bombers, and add the lots of lulz when accidentally instajib every dictor you have. Also, the pirates in rancer would cry for joy at these, think of those wide-eyed pirates in rancer!
In sum, these are just a few more viable solutions that are not solely dedicated to rendering an entire shipclass down to complete **** again.
I stopped reading this after you said they needed an HP nerf and buff in consecutive sentences.
|
Serena Ku
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:50:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Serena Ku on 16/01/2011 08:56:46 Supercarriers definitely needs a nerf sooner or later and the proposed changes seem pretty fair, I'm not so sure on the titans though.
Edit: I think the old AoE DDs can come back, but in a form of a script, smaller radius, longer immobility, and heavier capacitor/fuel cost.
Edit 2: "All dreads get an extra utility highslot, and create a module for it akin to hictor superpoint (scripted)" - I like this idea too.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:18:00 -
[241]
Some ideas I have seen that I think would be good without over nerfing the supper carriers is:
- Remove the remote armor/shield/energy bonuses - Have the drone bay only allow fighters and fighter bombers - Change the +3 to drone amount to +1 - Have a +200% bonus to drone control units (so its bonus is +3 to drones deployed
That way they are far less effective to sub-capitals and if they want to use neuts, smart bombs, cloaks and ecm burst, they sacrifice damage.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:33:00 -
[242]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 16/01/2011 09:35:19
Originally by: Marlona Sky Some ideas I have seen that I think would be good without over nerfing the supper carriers is:
- Remove the remote armor/shield/energy bonuses - Have the drone bay only allow fighters and fighter bombers - Change the +3 to drone amount to +1 - Have a +200% bonus to drone control units (so its bonus is +3 to drones deployed
That way they are far less effective to sub-capitals and if they want to use neuts, smart bombs, cloaks and ecm burst, they sacrifice damage.
This actually isn't a bad plan. They would still retain their role completely while their utility would be stripped. But their DPS would eclipse a titan. That's the only small flaw I see. How would we make titans semi relevant without making them overpowered?
This would allow a Revenant(Sansha Mothership) for example to do over 20 thousand DPS alone. Might need to tone FB damage down a bit if you did this to stop MS from becoming the only thing required in a cap fight.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:58:00 -
[243]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 16/01/2011 09:35:19
Originally by: Marlona Sky Some ideas I have seen that I think would be good without over nerfing the supper carriers is:
- Remove the remote armor/shield/energy bonuses - Have the drone bay only allow fighters and fighter bombers - Change the +3 to drone amount to +1 - Have a +200% bonus to drone control units (so its bonus is +3 to drones deployed
That way they are far less effective to sub-capitals and if they want to use neuts, smart bombs, cloaks and ecm burst, they sacrifice damage.
This actually isn't a bad plan. They would still retain their role completely while their utility would be stripped. But their DPS would eclipse a titan. That's the only small flaw I see. How would we make titans semi relevant without making them overpowered?
This would allow a Revenant(Sansha Mothership) for example to do over 20 thousand DPS alone. Might need to tone FB damage down a bit if you did this to stop MS from becoming the only thing required in a cap fight.
They would also need to cut Dreadnought siege cycle time in half to make them an option again.
As far as titans go, I don't like how they can one shot anything with their DD every five minutes when it is non-capital. I will go on a limb and say double or even triple the damage of their DD and double the cycle time of it. Yes this cuts down on the amount of capitals it can lay waste to by half, but that also includes sub-capitals. This would give dread and carriers more of a chance to last longer but will still be one shouted by a titan. This change also would make titans kill other super capitals faster, that is if it is triple the damage.
It's a tough question but thought I would kick that idea out there. What do you think?
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:06:00 -
[244]
Also another nerf to super caps is to change their base capacitor recharge time to zero. Or something that forces them to have someone pump cap to them to get it full. No more 30+ super carriers lolhotdropping someone and then warping of to cloak up till they have cap to jump out.
Or better yet, when a cloaking device is fitted or turned on, you can not recharge your capacitor. vOv
Or am I going off the deep end now?
|
Steele Balz
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:45:00 -
[245]
wait first you couldnt kill one then came the whine WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ccp then the nerf moms were pos mods basicaly then came the whine WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA then came the buff ) yay super carriers then came the whine WWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA )
Cry moar your pubesent tears fill my heart with joy .
CCP make up your minds and fix something geezz been 5 years oh wait you did fix lag once but didnt last long after a patch .)wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:53:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Consider this information cited. You're welcome back to thread anytime you're ready to move past the :tinfoil: nonsense.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 20:55:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
As far as titans go, I don't like how they can one shot anything with their DD every five minutes when it is non-capital. I will go on a limb and say double or even triple the damage of their DD and double the cycle time of it. Yes this cuts down on the amount of capitals it can lay waste to by half, but that also includes sub-capitals. This would give dread and carriers more of a chance to last longer but will still be one shouted by a titan. This change also would make titans kill other super capitals faster, that is if it is triple the damage.
It's a tough question but thought I would kick that idea out there. What do you think?
I'm kinda shocked you don't see the obvious flaw with this plan. It just means titans replace SC as the I win in every situation instead of just certain situation atm.
Titan DD atm is ridiculously overpowered. Irregardless of ROF, there is no balance to a 1 shot kill weapon. When you start making the 1 shot kill weapon literally volley through anything just to fix one other OP ship, then it's even worse.
Basically your plan means that 20 titans can insta volley 3 SC rather than 1 instantly in a fight. It also means that titan proliferation will just explode. So instead of alliances fielding 60 MS, what do you do when an alliance fields 60 titans? It's already coming to that point. It's already looking ugly. ROF is not going to help that especially with a massive dmg boost.
I've always said titan DD should be a 2ndary effect that does massive effects to things like capacitor, heat, and ewar with very minimal area dmg. To date, this idea still holds up so well compared to anything else I've ever seen in terms of balance. there's literally no way to mass spam and abuse it while it still is a natural counter to MS. Titans should not be 1 shot DD killers of any sort.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 00:39:00 -
[248]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.
The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?
ôHam fistedö. I love that.
Consider this information cited. You're welcome back to thread anytime you're ready to move past the :tinfoil: nonsense.
I donÆt require your invitation or welcome to post in a thread. I havenÆt been posting here because it isnÆt necessary to post against something that seems to be DOA as is. So, much as IÆd like to continue to poke holes in your statements, IÆve resisted as an exercise in avoiding wasting time. Besides, itÆs way too easy and I find things that are too easy to be boring.
Moreover, you failed to cite your confirmation of a ôbeyond a shadow of a doubtö upcoming nerf. What it amuses you to call ôtinfoil nonsenseö was designed to show just how overblown your claims can be and it achieved that goal. You had and have no conclusive information. There was no confirmation of your assertion before and even now none exists. Super Carrier nerfs remain a question. In all probability the best you might have had was mention from a member of the CSM regarding what they intended to ask CCP about.
ScatÆs link didnÆt work, at least for me (linking a PDF may be a problem), though his quote from the minutes was accurate. Selective, but accurate. In the same spirit I offer the following quote taken from the section of the minutes titled Post Dominion 0.0 in which discussion of the Super Carriers was carried out in more detail than ScatÆs quote.
Quote: ôHowever, at the same time, simply nerfing supercarriers will not solve the problem. Supercapitals present a unique problem û once a pod-pilot is installed in one, because the ship cannot be docked in a station, it is difficult to change ships. Thus a supercapital pilot is much more committed to his or her role than the pilot of other ships, and nerfing the ships so that they do not have significant utility imposes a great cost on those pilots.
Furthermore, simply nerfing them may just result in supercapital blobs growing even larger in compensation, and in their deployment only in situations where the risk of loss is very low. A consequence of this is that the victims of supercapital attacks will feel very put-upon.ö
Both the quotes from Scat and myself come from the recently released minutes of the December CCP/CSM summit. Specifically the last third of the three parts those minutes have been released in. I invite readers to read the quotes in their full context to reach their own conclusions. Far better than relying upon out of context quotes which only appear to support the highly inaccurate and strongly biased opinions of the OP and his minion(s).
-Windjammer
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 01:52:00 -
[249]
I am sorry that the dev's stating it's a something of great concern to them doesnt translate into the same thing it does for people who have followed the CSm and dev conversations for half a decade. As for needing permission, it sure looks like you did :)
Nice wall of text to shout down a straw man though.
|
Sviatoslav KillJoy
Jotunheimr Productions Ltd. Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 06:34:00 -
[250]
Not supporting this.
Leave the supercarriers and titans as they are at the moment or take the supercarriers out of the game completely and change titan DD back to AOF weapon.
|
|
Mrs Winter
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 07:49:00 -
[251]
As a super cap pilot, I have read this thread and come to the conclusion that...
Slots should stay the same EHP should stay the same (self-destruct is the real problem IMO) EWAR immunity should remain.
I very much like the idea of the bonus to drone controls (+ 3 drones instead of +1) and changing the super carrier skill to +1 drone per level instead of + 3. Make peeps choose between DPS or survivability. Choose to fill your highs with DCU's or choose protection, ie, ecm burst, neuts & smarties.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 09:12:00 -
[252]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I am sorry that the dev's stating it's a something of great concern to them doesnt translate into the same thing it does for people who have followed the CSm and dev conversations for half a decade. As for needing permission, it sure looks like you did :)
Nice wall of text to shout down a straw man though.
*sigh*YouÆre admitting to being a straw man now? Actually admitting it. So this whole thread was just a troll. Geez. I knew you were full of it, I just didnÆt think youÆd admit it. Stillàààpretty good troll. Well done.
Regards, Windjammer
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 09:35:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I am sorry that the dev's stating it's a something of great concern to them doesnt translate into the same thing it does for people who have followed the CSm and dev conversations for half a decade. As for needing permission, it sure looks like you did :)
Nice wall of text to shout down a straw man though.
*sigh*YouÆre admitting to being a straw man now? Actually admitting it. So this whole thread was just a troll. Geez. I knew you were full of it, I just didnÆt think youÆd admit it. Stillàààpretty good troll. Well done.
Regards, Windjammer
Nope, just admitting that your entire posting history in this thread has been arguing a straw man. Not the content, not the suggestions involved, just one thing you twisted to mean what you wanted for 3 pages ^_^ But hey keep on. Loving the bumps.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 10:23:00 -
[254]
And my idea that you can't recharge cap while your cloaked?
Also by doubling the cycle time of the DD means normal capitals and sub capitals will survive twice as long as they do now. The increased damage does not change if a sub-super capital will die faster, they already die from one hit. What it does mean is super caps will die faster. Less super caps is a win for everyone. But we are starting to get away from the topic of you thread.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 11:59:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Marlona Sky And my idea that you can't recharge cap while your cloaked?
Also by doubling the cycle time of the DD means normal capitals and sub capitals will survive twice as long as they do now. The increased damage does not change if a sub-super capital will die faster, they already die from one hit. What it does mean is super caps will die faster. Less super caps is a win for everyone. But we are starting to get away from the topic of you thread.
I like the idea of proto and improved cloaks gaining a -100% cap regen bonus. Would go a long way to nerfing the behaviour you just stated and other unintended things like afk cloaking. Granted it would have a far lesser effect on subcapitals. It would be crippling to supercaps. A good thing imho.
As for the damage increase it would give entities with titans the abily to alpha a supercap with 7 or 8 titans. Numerous alliances can field 20-40 of them. This would end in people simply not flying supercarriers and instead flying only titans. Not because supercarriers are worthless but because it would be all about whoever could get the most DD's off as fast as possible and nearly nothing else.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:41:00 -
[256]
Won`t that eventually happen anyway with current titans ED? Although SCs are easy to get in and are cheaper, ultimately best way to kill people is to alpha them and titans are ultimate alpha vehicles currently. So as numbers get big enough only titans work well and thus any alliance with sense will only use titans for 0.0 wars. They can kill everything instantly, including tackle if there are enough titans on grid.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:13:00 -
[257]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Marlona Sky And my idea that you can't recharge cap while your cloaked?
Also by doubling the cycle time of the DD means normal capitals and sub capitals will survive twice as long as they do now. The increased damage does not change if a sub-super capital will die faster, they already die from one hit. What it does mean is super caps will die faster. Less super caps is a win for everyone. But we are starting to get away from the topic of you thread.
I like the idea of proto and improved cloaks gaining a -100% cap regen bonus. Would go a long way to nerfing the behaviour you just stated and other unintended things like afk cloaking. Granted it would have a far lesser effect on subcapitals. It would be crippling to supercaps. A good thing imho.
As for the damage increase it would give entities with titans the abily to alpha a supercap with 7 or 8 titans. Numerous alliances can field 20-40 of them. This would end in people simply not flying supercarriers and instead flying only titans. Not because supercarriers are worthless but because it would be all about whoever could get the most DD's off as fast as possible and nearly nothing else.
I see your point. So if the cycle timer was doubled and the damage was doubled, would that be an improvement a bit?
Originally by: Juliette DuBois Won`t that eventually happen anyway with current titans ED? Although SCs are easy to get in and are cheaper, ultimately best way to kill people is to alpha them and titans are ultimate alpha vehicles currently. So as numbers get big enough only titans work well and thus any alliance with sense will only use titans for 0.0 wars. They can kill everything instantly, including tackle if there are enough titans on grid.
In my opinion, titans should not even be able to lock sub-capitals at all. Support should take care of tacklers and key ships like logistics and command ships. Reading from battle reports it seems titans DD more sub caps than actual capitals.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:21:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 17/01/2011 16:24:59 Yes, DDs are used to kill logistics ships and carriers first to break fleets support. After that they shoot expensive stuff like T3 and tackle. There is no defense besides warping off and giving up the field to enemy.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:26:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Juliette DuBois Yes, DDs are used to kill logistics ships and carriers first to break fleets support. After that they shoot expensive stuff like T3. There is no defense besides warping off and giving up the field to enemy.
There's no change in rof/damage the DD currently does that will fix it. Any time you have a 1 shot kill weapon in any game, it's broke. It's broke no matter how you try to affect it with RoF and counters b/c the simple answer will always be, just bring more.
The Titan DD is the only thing broke about titans atm. SC are broke for a variety of reasons.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 17:16:00 -
[260]
Gah, maybe doomsdays need to be changed where when they shoot, all they do is burn out all the modules of the ship they shot.
|
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 18:23:00 -
[261]
Edited by: Yaay on 17/01/2011 18:23:58
Originally by: Marlona Sky Gah, maybe doomsdays need to be changed where when they shoot, all they do is burn out all the modules of the ship they shot.
hi, you sound like another convert, welcome:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1052103
Check out the date on that post yo.
Quote: Titans
My main dilemma here was in which direction titan class ships should go. Even with the initial nerfing of doomsday devices, they are still way too powerful, and with increasing numbers of titans around, they are seriously threatening to destroy the phenomena of fleet fights. Anyway as mentioned, I had 2 directions, nerfing Doomsday or removing it. When I say removing doomsday, it would kill the role of the titan as it is now (if we exclude jumpportaling) so they would need another role, and the only viable one would be to introduce them as capital killer ships as they already have bonuses on their weapons. When it comes to nerfing doomsdays I will be honest and say I didnt have any idea what to do beside decreasing the damage inflicted, until Yaay posted a great proposal, especially the aspect of Doomsdays doing heat damage to modules:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819
Originally by: Yaay the revameped DD idea: Posted - 2009.03.05 22:00:0
ROF 20 min:
20% chance to cause 40 heat damage (lvl 5) 10k Maxed (lvl 5) racial damage 15,000 Energy Neutralized (lvl 5 skill) Warp Stasis, 20 second delay to affected ships warp abilities (including titan)
I would keep the current ROF, and would decrease the amount of energy neutralized, but anyway the idea is excellent. Hats off. This would basically solve the problems with doomsdays atm. They canÆt singlehandedly win a battle with proposed changes and even with multiple doomsdays fired a hostile fleet will be crippled, but alive and you WILL need your support fleet to finish it (or not) :D
2nd thing which is bothering me from day one is damn range of Jump Portal Generator. For the love of God increase it to 5000m at least.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Duncan Dixon
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 23:55:00 -
[262]
Edited by: Duncan Dixon on 17/01/2011 23:55:37
Originally by: Marlona Sky In my opinion, titans should not even be able to lock sub-capitals at all. Support should take care of tacklers and key ships like logistics and command ships. Reading from battle reports it seems titans DD more sub caps than actual capitals.
I just moved to 0.0, am nowhere close to flying a capital in any form, and have never been on the recieving end of a SC blob.
Having read a lot of interesting discussion in this and other threads, a lot of trolling as well, the more I think about it I think Marlona is along the right track, and that through some mechanic (which I don't propose to dictate to CCP) all super capitals should be rendered unable to effect sub-capitals in any form. Not with damage, EWAR, or logisitics. Sub-caps should be able to do their thing to super capitals all day long with 0 fear from the super capital itself. Super-capitals are now balanced solely around there effect on capitals, structures, and other super capitals. Support fleets would be mandatory, nothing changes to carrier and dread capabilities against sub-caps, and SC PvE would die. This would make people mad. I think it would also put the game in a state where cap balance could be achieved by CCP (eventually).
|
Maaxeru
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 03:09:00 -
[263]
Titans now are useless unless you have 10+ of them with significant SC / Cap / Conventional support. Yes: I know they aren't supposed to be solo-ships, but unless you are a large power-block, the 50+ billion Isk is just a fancy jump-bridge. You don't currently dare bring just one to a fleet, regardless of support fleet size. And large supercap fleets battling it out seems to be a non-issue that only the largest of Alliances / Coalitions has to worry about. Smaller to more mid-sized Alliances will rarely use their ship currently.
Titans were meant to be feared shps. While they can one-shot anything sub supercapital every 10 minutes (and becoming pretty vulnerable during that time) . . . so what? I'm sure the DDd BS / HIC pilot is ****ed, but awww.
Titans now are instead frequent victims of supercarrier blobs. I don't mind if a Titan gets tackled by a sizable fleet and slowly dies. But the fact that a handful of SCs can relatively quickly kill a titan when a few titans cannot quickly kill a SC is a problem.
So . . . my proposal:
1 - Nerf SCs. They are way too powerful against all capital ships and pos structures (I joined a friend and the two of us completely incapped all mods on a properly fit DS in about 10 minutes and was never in any jeopardy). Cut their HP and the damage the FBs do. Yaay's idea about only 1x additional per level makes some sense. And EdFromHumanResources' ideas on other nerfs also makes sense.
Also, how about a SC skill? Titans require Capital Ships V, why not supercarriers?
2 - Return AOE damage, but in the form of a script. Make it a single-shot ship when you have that script in (but increase it to 5m damage so it finally does some meaningful damage to a SC - it will still instapop anything sub super-cap now anyway) and a AOE weapon when that script is in with 200-300k damage just like it used to have.
This revision will make it necessary to actually use strategy when attacking one rather then just blobbing it and hovering on some "post" button in yet another dead-titan CAOD thread. Like all other mods, you cannot change scrips until the module has cycled, so it does give the hostile fleet some idea of what to consider.
Titans are supposed to be feared. Not just juicy and hunted targets. Bring that fear back. They will still die when used improperly / in smaller fleets. But they will once again be what they were meant to be: The feared ship of Eve.
(and yes: I do fly a SC on one of my alts)
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 04:08:00 -
[264]
Nerf doesn't even go far enough tbh.
Wouldn't mind seeing all scap stats reduced to a fraction; cost, dps, ehp. De-Super them so to say until they fit into the previous capital lineup as specialised capitals.
Still, regardless of the specific direction proposed, there needs to be change.
|
Erienne
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 12:45:00 -
[265]
1. Cynosaural field generators can only be fitted onto a cruiser classed ship with a tank like Heavy Interdictors. Voila. Now everyone will know what that ship is up to; follow you closely and gank you when in low sec. And no cloakies either as it interferes with Cyno generation capacity. Make it bloody hard to get a cyno ship into a systems enemy home. Add in a need for strontium clathrates for stability and a thirty second warm up period after cyno is lit. Impact will be felt on hot drops now won't it.
2. Supercarrier becomes T2 Assault Carrier. Loses ALL high slots bar one which can fit remote ECM projector. Assault carriers are the vanguard of a force; you jump them in to break up a gate camp. Assault carriers field fighter bombers and fighters only. They have *****ing tanks and do great damage. They have a fuel bay and cargo bay and that is it. Bonuses are to racial damage and to tank. They are ECM proof still but can receive NO support from logistics or other capitals.
3. Dreadnaughts damage is buffed across the board so that dreads can **** a supercarrier IN SIEGE.
4. Restore Titan AOE Doomsday - Restrict range to 30km. Titan kills should be bloody hard to achieve but they die like flies.
5. Stations become destructible. You don't defend them; they become smashed hulks. If a disused hulk; clones destroyed, ships destroyed, modules destroyed. Return Eve to that ugly dark world where defeat makes you cry. Two fights one to put into reinforced where all services are destroyed. Second one against station; fight or "boom". That is, force a major fight.
6. Make mining worthwhile in null sec again with scannable awesome belts. Improve the quality of ice belts in null sec markedly. I can mnake moire doing level 4 missions in empire per hour than I can mining or ratting; why bother. Mining should be the number one isk generation method; then ratting; then plexing and then missioning.
7. Make missioning harder - its too easy to mission.
8. Change current tier 3 battleships to a new ship class - Pocket Battleship; Pure damage boats (Minnie - guns, Amarr - lasers, gall- hyrbrids and caldari - Missiles). Ship requires Capital Ship/ AWU 5 skills, Capital Armor Rep, only Battleship sized guns and NO jump capability (must use gates). Pocket battleships have awesome tank and great damage, remain vulnerable to ewar. These ships are a stepping stone between battleships themselves and jump capable capital ships.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 16:32:00 -
[266]
This doesn't fix the fact that supercaps are more powerful in low sec than in 0.0 - primarily due to the lack of counters available in low sec.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 21:12:00 -
[267]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Nope, just admitting that your entire posting history in this thread has been arguing a straw man. Not the content, not the suggestions involved, just one thing you twisted to mean what you wanted for 3 pages ^_^ But hey keep on. Loving the bumps.
-You raised a key premise supporting your particular nerf. Your premise was, ôWe know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt.ö - I suspected this assertion was a lie. -I politely refrained from calling you a liar and asked you to substantiate. -You failed to because there was nothing which would verify your assertion and you refused to admit it. -I proved you a liar by drawing out a line of reasoning which indicated you were either lying or improbably privy to information you should not have been able to access. -Recently released CSM/CCP summit notes proved you a liar.
No twisting involved there. And since most of your ôargumentsö and so called ôcontentö rely upon trusting you to tell the truth, because you wonÆt link any verifications, your credibility is key to the majority of your argument. No straw man argument, no logical fallacy, just fact.
YouÆre welcome for the bump. Not that one of you wouldnÆt bump it anyway and not that you seem to be getting much support. That jump from 39 to 40 thumbs up took Scatààà.what? Four major bumps?
-Windjammer
|
Miasmic Truth
Minmatar In Pennae of Mors
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 21:58:00 -
[268]
SUPER caps are super for a reason; the idea that a small gang should be able to nuet and drop a super cap to me is ridiculous. If you take a step back and look at the material cost vs. performance, itÆs not really that great. Dropping it further only and reducing its ability to take on smaller targets defeats the concept to which this ship was born.
|
Ephemeron
Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 22:25:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 18/01/2011 22:26:11
Originally by: Miasmic Truth SUPER caps are super for a reason; the idea that a small gang should be able to nuet and drop a super cap to me is ridiculous. If you take a step back and look at the material cost vs. performance, itÆs not really that great. Dropping it further only and reducing its ability to take on smaller targets defeats the concept to which this ship was born.
I think the idea is not for small gang to kill a supercap, but for supercap to be unable to neut and drop entire small gang.
Supercaps and small roaming gangs should simply not be able to do anything to each other.
Also, the concept on which the ship was built on was anti-cap. That role shouldn't be nerfed.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 22:52:00 -
[270]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources This actually isn't a bad plan. They would still retain their role completely while their utility would be stripped. But their DPS would eclipse a titan. That's the only small flaw I see. How would we make titans semi relevant without making them overpowered?
Why would moving the +drone bonus from the hull to the modules boost SC DPS?
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 23:43:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources This actually isn't a bad plan. They would still retain their role completely while their utility would be stripped. But their DPS would eclipse a titan. That's the only small flaw I see. How would we make titans semi relevant without making them overpowered?
Why would moving the +drone bonus from the hull to the modules boost SC DPS?
I believe he is talking about the Sansha mothership, it can fit 6x drone control units. DD's fire every 5 minutes, so take a super carriers DPS and add that up over 5 minutes. I'm too lazy to do the math but correct me if I am miss informing here.
|
Alessia Suvayarin
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:34:00 -
[272]
Edited by: Alessia Suvayarin on 19/01/2011 00:37:18 Well, one thing i do agree with is that Supercarriers do too much damage indeed and i can imagine that tackling 40 of them over a longer period of time is a tough thing to accomplish. On the other hand i don't like the idea of leaving them more or less totally defenseless against 1-2 HICs by crippling all the anti-subcap abilities too hard. Even though they are predominantly capital killers they should still have some semi-decent form of defense.
At this point the most reasonable thing to me seems to be the idea of giving them +1 drone per lvl and +3 drones per DCU along with say 25-33% total damage reduction on the bombers itself. They would still be able to do massive damage if they are fitted with "carrier class damage mods (i.e. DCU)" while they would at the same time sacrifice self-defense capabilities (somewhat similar to how a BS sacrifices tank for damage). Or they could retain their self-defense (aka Neuts, Remote ECM, Smarties) with lesser damage.
I would also not be too averse to a pure Fighter/FB bay and a much smaller regular drone bay even though i am not too sure if less than 1000m¦ would be good. I feel like you should still be able to launch one full group of almost every drone possible but that is just a gut feeling at the moment.
Altering their slots and/or capacitor attributes on the other hand i don't see as necessary just because i think the lowering of the scan resolution (which seems like an ok idea again) would take care of the "Ha! I will just quickly lock you and neut you out/drone you to death" issue when it comes to smaller ships. If a HIC gets a point on a Supercarrier and can't get anything that resambles a jesus blob or at least more HIC backup on the field within say 1-2 minutes the Supercarrier should still make it out in my book.
Also, bring in Slave implants for shields and while you are at it, even though a bit off-topic, Crystal implants for armor reps (active armor tanking BS might become useful \o/), fix the shield amount loss on jump-in and adjust the relative EHP of all Supercapitals to one another.
TL:DR
- Don't touch slots - Don't touch the capacitor - Yes, reduce scan resolution (HIC/Dictors should take a while, Capitals not so much) - Yes, possibly add a seperate bay for 1 flight of either fighters OR bombers (plus 3-5 backup) - Yes, reduce the regular drone bay size but not to much. 2000m¦ or 2500m¦ rather than 1000m¦ - No, dont increase cap usage for Neuts. Instead do the +1 drone per lvl / +3 drones per DCU thing - Yes, reduce FB base damage by around 1/4 or 1/3
And no, don't even dare to touch their EWAR immunity. The day 10 Falcons lolerjam even 5 Supercarriers more or less permanently (we all know how it goes) while 5 Arazus stomp their scan resolution totally into the ground is the day the server should shut down
o/
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:47:00 -
[273]
Just want to add one more thing before I head to bed. If anything was changed about super carriers where fitting drone control units was needed to get the damage they do now, as in +1 drone per carrier level and +3 drones per DCU fit, you absolutely have to make the DCU fully passive. Right now they are active modules and don't use cap. I have no clue why they made it an active module but the last thing we need is for an epic fight to be happening, lag hits, and DCU's stop cycling and all the super carriers lose control of their fighter bombers and thus, almost all of their damage.
I know some of you would love it like that, but we have to be reasonable.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 03:11:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 18/01/2011 22:26:11
Originally by: Miasmic Truth SUPER caps are super for a reason; the idea that a small gang should be able to nuet and drop a super cap to me is ridiculous. If you take a step back and look at the material cost vs. performance, itÆs not really that great. Dropping it further only and reducing its ability to take on smaller targets defeats the concept to which this ship was born.
I think the idea is not for small gang to kill a supercap, but for supercap to be unable to neut and drop entire small gang.
Supercaps and small roaming gangs should simply not be able to do anything to each other.
Also, the concept on which the ship was built on was anti-cap. That role shouldn't be nerfed.
If the small gang wants to warp away, not much the SC can do about it. Thus the SC cannot kill the small gang unless the small gang is a willing participant. Willingness displayed by staying when they should have warped away.
Something about this whole discussion has been bothering me for some time. Why do people assume that the Super Carrier was designed to be exclusively anti capital. ItÆs ability to do sub cap damage is substantial and can be nothing less than an intended design. When the bombers were added it was to create a situation in which the SC had to make a choice. Attack structures and capital ships with maximum effect or deal with the sub capitals. Bombers were found to be too effective against sub capitals and were dialed back accordingly to reduce their effect to sub caps. I donÆt see the point at which they were designed to be exclusively anti capital.
-Windjammer
P.S. YouÆre welcome for the bump.
|
Paskis Robinson
SPORADIC MOVEMENT The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 03:50:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Paskis Robinson on 19/01/2011 03:52:21 Some interesting discussion here. The OP's ideas are quite good, though I think there's some other good brainstorming in this thread the could develop them further. I'm an SC pilot so I have a vested interest and some relevant experience.
My general philosophy is that a supercap ship should require and rely upon a support fleet. In the real world, a carrier always belongs to what's known as a Carrier Strike Group. The carrier is always accompanied by missile cruisers, defensive ships like subs and destroyers, and logistics ships. I'd like to see changes that encourage teamwork and coordination - bringing an SC to a fight should be a brown pants moment for the enemy.
To that end I'd generally support changes that remove the SC's ability to defend itself against subcaps and tackle. I'd allow SC's to carry only FB's and fighters, and would remove the bonus to the number of fighters (but leave it for FBs.) I'd remove most if not all SC EWAR immunity (probably just leaving them immune to ECM because I hate it;) I'd leave SC's with HUGE DPS against capital ships, and a huge buffer tank.
I'd then look for cool ways to actually buff the SC's so they fit the role of being the focus of a Squad or Wing. I'd task the SC as a Wing Leader ship, and provide it with some bonuses if it is in the fleet role of Wing Leader. I would allow characters in the SC's Wing to dock *in* the SC while it cyno jumps, allowing a small titan-bridge like capability (up to the maintenance bay capacity of the SC.) I think cynoing, then having a dozen support ships undock from my ship would ROCK.
TLDR - The SCs should be nerfed so they need a support fleet, and buffed so if they have a support fleet they are awesome. Awesomeness should be proportionate to the teamwork involved.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 04:21:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Paskis Robinson
TLDR - The SCs should be nerfed so they need a support fleet, and buffed so if they have a support fleet they are awesome. Awesomeness should be proportionate to the teamwork involved.
That's not "buffing", that's giving them a role.
Currently Scaps do not have their own roles but are instead straight upgrades of existing ships. What you're thinking of is differentiating them from existing ships to get them out of the way of existing ships (mostly the dread and carrier, but also in large parts the support fleet that was made obsolete by the drone swarms).
Needless to say that this would be a very positive thing for Eve as a whole. Personally, I'd like to see moms as combat oriented version of the carrier, with much less dps/ehp/cost, no ewar invulnerability and gained docking ability. But a more fleet support oriented style would be okay too, as long as the dps and ehp inflation is tuned down a lot.
|
james1122
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 13:01:00 -
[277]
Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 13:02:07 Alot of this stuff sounds life nerfing for the sake of nerfing. The problem i see is SC's lack their own role.
This idea probs wont be popular but i think it would give a purpose to each capital.
but my idea is .........
Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.
This would make it so that the role of dreads would again be anti-capital and/or poor mans sov bash ship. It would also force SC to have their own role as anti sov structures.
Would even be inclined to increase FB dps as they would only be able to hit non-dread stationary targets. The idea is say that your SCs would be your battering rams. They would still be extremly effective against sub caps with their neuts, SBs and fighters but would be very weak against other caps. However with a dps increase they could put down say 15k-20k dps against a sov structure.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 14:17:00 -
[278]
Originally by: james1122 Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.
Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.
|
james1122
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 14:31:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: james1122 Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.
Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.
hmmm no? admitablly it was an off the cuff idea but what makes it so outragiously wrong then ?
All the above points mentioned are good at nerfing SC's but none of them really seem to address the issue of giving SC's their own unique role as well as giving a purpose back to dreads.
Dreads still have to seige and be stuck in place for 10 minutes in which time they are immune to RR. SC's can wipe dreads out with disgusting efficancy and are also currently better at taking down pos's and sov structures.
My idea makes SCs even more efficant at knocking out sov structures but gives Dreads back a purpose of anti-capitals. At the moment dreads are simply eclipsed by SCs.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 15:24:00 -
[280]
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: james1122 Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.
Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.
hmmm no? admitablly it was an off the cuff idea but what makes it so outragiously wrong then ?
All the above points mentioned are good at nerfing SC's but none of them really seem to address the issue of giving SC's their own unique role as well as giving a purpose back to dreads.
Dreads still have to seige and be stuck in place for 10 minutes in which time they are immune to RR. SC's can wipe dreads out with disgusting efficancy and are also currently better at taking down pos's and sov structures.
My idea makes SCs even more efficant at knocking out sov structures but gives Dreads back a purpose of anti-capitals. At the moment dreads are simply eclipsed by SCs.
Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures. This is seriously the worst idea I have seen in this thread. That includes the guy who spams emotes.
|
|
james1122
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:05:00 -
[281]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.
Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals. Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige). Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme. What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.
Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.
Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:09:00 -
[282]
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.
Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals. Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige). Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme. What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.
Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.
Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)
If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make supercarriers anti everything.
|
waeaw
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:10:00 -
[283]
Edited by: waeaw on 19/01/2011 16:11:10
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.
You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.
Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals. Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige). Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme. What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.
Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.
Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)
Supercarriers really suck at taking down control towers
|
james1122
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:30:00 -
[284]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make super carriers anti everything.
Lol your a bit of a d*** really arenÆt you :p
I like your original proposal as well as many of the other changes mentioned by other players, they would go along way towards balancing the ship as a hole.
However none of these issues seem to address the fact that SCs leave dreads with very little purpose. Was just trying to fire off ideas to give dreads some meaning other than SC fodder.
The inability to be repÆd or move whilst in siege mean they are just to much of a liability compared to SCs.
|
Sykhotic
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 18:41:00 -
[285]
No
|
Robert Arbosa
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:19:00 -
[286]
James your just Terrible. Honestly wow, being a pilot that has flown with Ed several time i know that he can be a little harsh. His Proposal needs to be toned and i did as much earlier on. But the Point is Moot because CCP opening said in the minutes they do not want to nerf the SC.
The the question that begs is how can it be changed then. One idea that was proposed to me earlier this week in a corp meeting was giving FB's a limited Clip size for their bombs. This means they'd have to Fly to the target attack until out of ammo then return to the SC for Ammo, then reapproach target. This idea has pro's and con's but i wasnt much of a fan.
The other idea that the same pilot proposed that i really enjoyed was a counter that was derived from the Sub capitals it came in 2 ships
1 a t2 destroyer hull. Needs a modification to the auto target selector that allows this mod to be set up to target specific things like fighter bombers/ fighters/ drones
Then the T2 Destroyer Hull Which has the function of being an anti Drone platform, this hull would fit an auto target selector that would target the specific drone class (maybe through scripts) and the guns would cycle against the targetted drones. These would give support fleets a counter to the Drone swarm.
Next The t2 Cruiser Torpedo Boat, this ship would be an anti capital platform the same as a stealth bomber is an anti bs platform. It would fire Citadels. But it would not cloak and would be a paper tiger. The idea being if defended by a support fleet and against a cap fleet or ship that is lacking a support fleet these ships would destroy caps. But if the enemy caps were protected by a support fleet these ships would easily die before being able to deal significant damage to the caps and supers.
Why is this line of thinking good?
Because if we continue making the counter to one ship, the next one on the food chain we won't have a cyclic system we will just have endless proliferation. If we make the PvP system cyclic as in Subcaps<Caps<Supers<Subcaps we will eliminate one motive for force escalation in terms of ship class or size.
So the TL;DR is
Instead of Nerfing SC's Bring the counter into place in the sub capital arsenal. By doing this you make the force escalation for super capitals either more supers or more subcapitals. (and which is easier and costs less to field?)
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:30:00 -
[287]
Ah sh*t the patch reset my default toon the above is me
|
Serena Ku
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:11:00 -
[288]
I've been watching this thread, but I got to say..
James1122, get out.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:20:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Serena Ku I've been watching this thread, but I got to say..
James1122, get out.
Im juat waiting for the Well My Cruiser should beable to kill a carrier 1v1 because by the time i can fly a carrier there will be something else thats trying to kill me.
"omg i can almost fly a dread but sc's own dreads sooo lets nerf sc's so that dreads are cool . Because im at least another 6 months from flying a sc and about the same for affording it."
James's idea was neither a summation of previous ideas, new constructive idea, or an improvement on something previously stated. It was basically a cry to make SC's useless for pvp and dread fleets nigh invincible for pvp. Its Pretty obvious he falls into one of These categories
1) His main can almost get into a dread and wants it to be more powerful or OP. 2) Has a Dread and does not like shooting Sticks or waiting to enter a cap fight and click the russian roulette button for death known as siege. 3) Is part of an alliance that cannot field any supers and only has a dread fleet but wants to fight against supers and larger 0.0 fleets. 4) Honestly just has no grasp of Capitals and Cap warfare and 0.0 5) duhhh err i uhhhh i like post and errr myyyy name is james and my mommyyyy sayssss im spechial.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:25:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Windjammer Something about this whole discussion has been bothering me for some time. Why do people assume that the Super Carrier was designed to be exclusively anti capital.
because CCP said so?
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=717
Originally by: CCP Nozh We're unhappy with the role they currently occupy in practice and after much deliberation and testing we aren't happier with the direction we were taking them as anti-capital Supercarriers.
The anti capital role they were 'unhappy' with was later fully restored in Dominion 1.1 , you may remember.
-----------------
|
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:33:00 -
[291]
Although i agree Scatim the Problem lies in the word exclusively.
CCP never stated they were designed to be used only as an anti capital battery. They just stated that would be the primary roll of the SC.
I mean we really are just arguing the finer points of it. But the difference Being
Exclusive Anti-Cap Platform Cannot or would not be used to attack anything but capitals. No exceptions as that is their sole and only role.
Non-Exclusive Anti-Cap Platform Can be used to attack all classes and variations of ships in eve, but excels at attacking capital class ships and has a primary use and purpose of attacking capital class vessels.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 04:37:00 -
[292]
Originally by: james1122 Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 18:09:34
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make super carriers anti everything.
Lol your a bit of a d*** really arenÆt you :p
I like your original proposal as well as many of the other changes mentioned by other players, they would go along way towards balancing the ship as a hole.
However none of these ideas seem to address the fact that SCs leave dreads with very little purpose. Was just trying to fire off ideas to give dreads some meaning other than SC fodder.
The inability to be repÆd or move whilst in siege mean they are just to much of a liability compared to SCs and even regular carriers.
What do you suggest as a solution to giving dreads an active purpose in current cap-warfare?
This thread isn't here to suggest a fix to make dreads useful. That would likely be a seperate change *to dreads*.
This thread is here to discuss changes to SC vs subcaps so they cant roflstomp subcap fleets and any tacklers involved.
And ya, im a ****. Why would that bother me? You obviously havent even read the OP of the thread with your last 2 posts.
@Bobbeh your corp mate suggested my original FB idea verbatim, congrats. It's my understanding they werent put into the game in that way because CCP would have had to alter drone mechanics heavily and they dont really know how drones work anymore.
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 04:43:00 -
[293]
Edited by: Bobbeh on 20/01/2011 04:46:37
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
@Bobbeh your corp mate suggested my original FB idea verbatim, congrats. It's my understanding they werent put into the game in that way because CCP would have had to alter drone mechanics heavily and they dont really know how drones work anymore.
i thought it sounded Familiar
:P
Yea i figured as much but as i said i think the change is in the subcaps
cyclical vs linear
|
CHAOS100
The Ankou The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:11:00 -
[294]
Edited by: CHAOS100 on 20/01/2011 07:16:02 Keep everything the same.
But remove EW immunity. Except for regular warp disruptors. Maybe reduce sensor strengths to concentrate the nerf.
Problem solved.
This means they are still useful in smaller numbers and multiplied in large numbers, except they are counter-able by something other than an equal number of supercaps, because people will be able to jam and dampen the hell out of them.
--------------
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:17:00 -
[295]
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/01/2011 07:18:28
Originally by: CHAOS100 Edited by: CHAOS100 on 20/01/2011 07:16:02 Keep everything the same.
But remove EW immunity. Except for regular warp disruptors. Maybe reduce sensor strengths to concentrate the nerf.
Problem solved.
This means they are still useful in smaller numbers and multiplied in large numbers, except they are counter-able by something other than an equal number of supercaps, because people will be able to jam and dampen the hell out of them.
The only ewar that would be even remotely useful to use against them would be ECM. So really youre wanting ECM immunity removed. Because one races overpowered ewar apparently "balances" things.
Hint: It doesn't.
Jamming 30-40 supercaps would take at least 100 dedicated ECM boats if not more using all the proper racial jammers and we all know what drones tend to do against those who are jamming their host. This would just result in a lot of dead ECM boats followed by the rest of the subcaps.
An unjammed titan can alpha an ECM boat every 15-16 seconsd.
|
Taisuke Black
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:03:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Taisuke Black on 20/01/2011 20:08:50 Edited by: Taisuke Black on 20/01/2011 20:04:06 How about increasing the capacitor need or cooldown of supercarrier jumps? Making them hard to move around and nearly impossible to retreat from battle? Super Carriers should be all-or nothing ships, i.e. if two fleets with supercarriers show up only ONE of them will leave with a single supercarrier alive. Hasn't CCP been saying they want them to die more? Give SC's the ability to prevent other SC's from warping, jumping, or logging out of the battle.
CCP already wants big uberfleets to be less mobile, they should start with the biggest ships and work their way down instead of looking at jump bridges first.
As for actual stats, I agree that fighter-bombers should be easier to lock up.
Here's an idea, just a thought: What if SuperCarriers couldn't be affected by any implants or boosters? After all it's a freaking huge ship, why should a little chipset and some chemicals in your head increase its hitpoints by MASSIVE amounts? This alone would reduce the overpowered tank of the Nyx & friends to more reasonable levels.
|
Crebjr
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 17:25:00 -
[297]
Support.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 02:37:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 10/02/2011 02:37:38 Your original post on changes to sc's is reasonable and well thought out. I'll tentatively support it, but I really prefer the following two counter suggestions, as I think they accomplish the same goal of making supers more susceptible to subcaps: 1.) Make F/FB's more vulnerable to BS weapons so they can be declawed. Although a POS mod for drone storage would probably be needed for refilling drones. 2.) A cruiser anti-super citadel bomber ships to provide a subcapital counter to super-capitals.
|
guthin aspheirocy
Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 19:04:00 -
[299]
Putting the idea of nerfing aside for one moment, there are a few things which currently dont make a lot sense about the overall balancing aspects of the super carrier and need to be discussed before any conclusion for change can be made.
First off, the super carrier is first and foremost a carrier, Which, by definition, is a support vessel intended for logistical and combat purposes. The combined adjective 'super' promotes the ability of being able to excel at its original purpose, with perhaps additional abilities. So where the carrier is intended to be an anti-sub cap vessel with the ability to provide logistical aid, the super carrier should excel at these tasks. In a sense, it does, and provides new abilities such as the fielding of fighter bombers which allow it to become an anti-cap platform. Comparing its ability to deal with capitals, against the carriers ability to deal with sub capitals, the super capital seems to be much more efficient at this task, which in my opinion, shows that the vessel is more of an 'attack vessel' then a support vessel. Hindering this role probably needs to be considered, it is in my opinion that the super carrier should be just as effective at taking out a capital class vessel, as a carrier is at taking out a BS or BC class vessel. The super carrier should be seen as a multipurpose platform (its size and name should allow to do a bit of everything), but should also be known as a support platform. A carrier vessel of this size should be able to move independently of a fleet, but not to the extend that it can knock out entire fleets of sub-caps. This i believe is already met, but perhaps needs further address as noted by others in this thread.
In terms of hp, this i struggle to understand. It has similar HP to a titan, and also has the ability to issue similar dps with the exception of the doomsday device. Cost is a useful fall back to identify the ability of a ship. The super carrier is more then half the cost of a titan and yet, is more effective in a fleet, or at least, close to. There is something definitely wrong here. In my eyes, the Titan, is not a support vessel, it is a vessel which carries entire civilizations to planets, the flagship of fleets and the bringer of destruction. The titan is almost the opposite of this, the largest ship in the game and has absolutely no ability to defend itself against anything but capitals. I wouldnt want to keep the people of Earth in one of those if it could be destroyed so easily. I would rather buy them all manticores.. it would be cheaper anyways. More to the point, the titan in my opinion should be the ultimate attack ship, and its price should reflect this. It is by no means twice as good at killing capital ships as the super carrier. And this is where it needs to be. In terms of each vessels health, i think this should be reflected by price. The carrier is 800 million or so. And has 350k or so hp. The super carrier hull is 13.5 billion or something on the order of and has 2.6 million hp or more. The titan hull is approx 45 bill and has 2.7 mill hp. In terms of ratios, the super carrier is 13 times the cost of a carrier and has 7.4 times the hp, plus a massive increased combat ability. The titan is 57 times the cost of a carrier and 7.7 times the health of a carrier, with similar combat effectiveness to a super carrier.
In conclusion, HP is unbalanced, with the titan requiring more, or the super carrier requiring less. The super carrier also needs less dps in order to set accordance with the price. The titans power is in accordance to its price somewhat, although is a little weak in my opinion.
From the ratio comparison with the carrier, it shows that the hp value of the super is in the right place, but reducing slots may be the answer so that the hp cannot be used so effectively. It is the dps that needs to be knocked in my opinion (which is in accordance to the ideas provided in this thread). In my opinion, the titan need a hp bump also.
|
Melkie
Element 115.
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:50:00 -
[300]
NO
|
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:45:00 -
[301]
Honestly, any kind of nerf should be a last resort, or a counter to a truly game-breaking mechanic.
Im more in favor of buffing the underpowered than I am of nerfing something that may be a bit overpowered. Are there some areas of a super that probably need to be tweaked? Sure. But there's no reason to try and tear down the buffs they got in Dominion that actually made them useful. Supercarriers are endgame ships, it takes close to two years of training to fly them properly, and they cost as much individually as a small carrier fleet. They should be fearsome and scary.
Another solution to the supercarrier issue though, could be to buff standard capital ships, dreadnoughts in particular.
To start, they need to do more damage, so either give them an extra gun or two (this would require altering the ship's model though), increase the damage of capital guns (would end up buffing titans as a secondary result though), or give them a unique role bonus that adds extra damage to their XL guns. This would give dreads more bite. You could even add a damage bonus to ships with, say, greater than a 10km sig radius, to ensure than the extra damage only gets applied to supercapital-class ships.
The second thing that would need to be addressed is their tank. Even a sieged dread gets shredded by a supercarrier. I would suggest buffing their resists and/or total HP, to at least give them a little more time in a fight against supers. If the dreads' damage does get buffed, that would mean that standard carriers should probably get an HP buff as well (let's face it, they were always a bit too fragile to begin with).
I'd also suggest lowering the cycle time on the siege modules, since being stuck in place for 10 minutes can be a death sentence in the middle of a warzone. They need to definately be lowered to 5 minutes in length, bringing them in line with the triage module. I'd even support lowering the cycle time more, although that could cause some stront issues on longer POS sieges.
Also, and this is more of a pet-peeve than a major balance tweak...but alter the size of the models. Carriers need to be sized up to be more in-line with dreadnought size (since right now, a Machariel is as big as some carriers), and Supercarriers should be scaled up to roughly half the size of a titan (there's no reason the naglfar and phoenix can dock, but the supercarriers can't).
In short, maybe try to focus on potential buffs before we get into heavy nerf talks. Nerfs have a way of spiralling out of hand, and the last thing we need is for supers to be taken back to a mothership level of uselessness. ---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.25 23:12:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 25/04/2011 23:14:25
Originally by: rcs619 Honestly, any kind of nerf should be a last resort, or a counter to a truly game-breaking mechanic.
Im more in favor of buffing the underpowered than I am of nerfing something that may be a bit overpowered.....Another solution to the supercarrier issue though, could be to buff standard capital ships, dreadnoughts in particular.
Dreadnoughts aren't underpowered though. The only major issue with dreads is simply that post-Dominion supercarriers vastly outperform them (and everything else) in most useful roles, and that the one areas where dreads work better than supercarriers (POS shooting) has greatly diminished in importance thanks to the new dominion structures. Like I've said elsewhere, if every supercarrier was deleted from the game tomorrow nearly all of the problems with dreadnoughts would be removed as well, and buffing dreadnoughts to compete with overpowered supercaps has knock-on effects - for example their performance against subcapitals or carriers or titans.
The major balance issue is with supercarriers, and not just against dreads but against the rest of the capital and subcapital ranges too, so that's where re-balancing should occur - otherwise, are you going to propose a raft of buffs for titans, carriers, battleships, dictors and hictors to bring them up to scratch as well? Using the newly-overpowered supercarriers as a baseline and then changing everything else in the game to fit around that is a pointlessly time consuming and inefficient exercise for CCP.
-----------------
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 05:52:00 -
[303]
Edited by: rcs619 on 26/04/2011 05:58:14 Edited by: rcs619 on 26/04/2011 05:57:32
Quote: Dreadnoughts aren't underpowered though.
They are underpowered in relation to supercarriers though, which is why they should be buffed to take this new ship class into account. That is what you do when you add in new features, you first try to buff the older features to bring them up to snuff. You don't go to nerfing down the new feature unless you have no other choice.
Quote: and that the one areas where dreads work better than supercarriers (POS shooting) has greatly diminished in importance thanks to the new dominion structures.
Ehh, that's semi-debatable. POS bashing is still probably the most important aspect of sov warfare, since it is the only way to gain control over the tech moons that drive big-alliance sov warfare. The IHubs are just an extra annoyance that needs to be taken into account during the process. When it comes down to POS bashing, Dreads are still king. The main issue with dreadnoughts bashing POS's is that their long seige timers make them sitting ducks if they get hotdropped. A shorter cycle time would help with that some, and a buff to their total HP would give them a greater chance to hold out in a fight or get out of dodge if things go badly.
Quote: and buffing dreadnoughts to compete with overpowered supercaps has knock-on effects - for example their performance against subcapitals or carriers or titans.
That depends. If we just give them a broad damage increase, then yes, it will affect carriers as well (which deserve a HP buff anyway, in my opinion). But, if we go with a more limited option, such as giving them a damage boost agaisnt objects with over, say, a 10-12km sig radius, then you would only see the impact on supercarriers and titans. Titans got a huge HP bonus after dominion and only get killed by large fleets anyway, so dreads doing a bit more damage to them doesn't really make a huge different.
Quote: The major balance issue is with supercarriers, and not just against dreads but against the rest of the capital and subcapital ranges too
I honestly don't think them being able to take on sub-caps is that big of an issue. They're the most powerful PvP ships in EVE. They SHOULD be able to hold their own against multiple players in different ship-types. If you buff dreads to the point where a dread fleet has a change to drop and kill a supercarrier, then you're going to see them drop on sub-capital targets a whole lot less. The only reason they drop a 25billion isk ship on sub-caps now is because they really don't have anything to fear besides other supers coming down on their heads.
Right now, supers have no fear. The enemy's supercarrier pilots are all watch-listed, so they know when they can, and cannot engage a target in their own supers. If you give a much cheaper, and easily fielded ship, like the dreadnoughts (which also have the same jump range as supers) the ability to pounce on them in groups and take them down, then you add a whole lot of fear and uncertainty to the equation. People will be a lot less loose with their supers if they have that uncertainty.
I just think its time to give Carriers and Dreadnoughts some love. They have been around for years, and haven't changed much. Capital warfare in EVE has changed with Dominion, and I just think Dreads and Carriers need to be buffed a little to help bring them into the modern age of capital warfare. Supercarriers will probably need to be nerfed, but nerfs should never be your first option. Buff up the older capitals, and then pepper in a couple nerfs to supers to bridge the gap and bring both sides intoa better balance. ---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Shiroi Kiba
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 06:30:00 -
[304]
Dread buff:
Reduced seige timer to 5 min, in line with triage.
Increase damage for larger targets, eg against super capitals.
Super carrier:
Remove the ability of super carriers to lock structures. If you want to shoot a structure bring dreads. (I do own a super and find it ridiculous that my Aeon out dps's a seiged dread on a control tower)
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:00:00 -
[305]
Edited by: rcs619 on 26/04/2011 15:01:20 Edited by: rcs619 on 26/04/2011 15:01:01
Originally by: Shiroi Kiba Dread buff:
Reduced seige timer to 5 min, in line with triage.
Increase damage for larger targets, eg against super capitals.
Super carrier:
Remove the ability of super carriers to lock structures. If you want to shoot a structure bring dreads. (I do own a super and find it ridiculous that my Aeon out dps's a seiged dread on a control tower)
Ehh, I don't really mind them being able to target structures. Ihubs and stations are a drag to tear down as it is, plus fighter-bombers can't hit POS's, which are what sov warfare is really about.
Also, I had an idea today.
Capital Interdictor vessels
One of the main issues brought up in this thread is the supers' ability to either neut down, or outright kill Heavy Interdictors, one of only two ships in the game capable of pinning a supercarrier down. The only other option then is dictor bubbles, but they are only temporary, and the ships that lay down more of them die if you look at them funny. Buffing Hictors to the point where they can hang with a supercarrier just seems absurd to me, it'd be like trying to get a chihuahua to hang onto Mike Tyson's ankle without being killed.
That line of thought lead me to this idea. I honestly doubt its going to be a complete solution, but I haven't seen anyone else propose something like this yet, and doing a little thinking outside the box never hurt anyone.
Basically, Im proposing a capital-class interdictor vessel. It would have terrible DPS, but its tank would be superior to a dreadnought's, and it would be able to equip a capital warp jamming module (basically, a bigger, meaner version of the hictor's infinite point). I imagine it would need to have an ECM immunity (either naturally, or when its point is activated) so that a couple falcons don't render it useless.
What this would do is add more risk to supercarrier hotdrops, which is something a lot of supers don't currently have.
Imagine this scenario
- Group A decides to drop some carriers repping a POS/Ihub/Station with a super or two. - Group B manages to pin the supers with hictors. - The hictors hold on for dear life until Group B lights a cyno, and jumps in a couple Capital Interdictors along with a capital kill-team of carriers, dreads and maybe a couple supers. - At this point, Group A has two choices. Either let their hotdropping super(s) die, or escalate the situation. - Group A escalates, as does Group B, and what started as a small hotdrop turns into a full-on brawl between two capital fleets.
Basically, this would force supercarriers into more life or death situations, and would lead to them actually dying. It would force them to choose their targets carefully, and weed out pilots who are sloppy with their supers. It would add a threat to supers that they couldn't just neut out, or shred in seconds.
Of course, supercarrier hotdrops would still happen, since not every group could assemble a kill-team quick enough to catch the super...but the threat of it would still there. Hictors would still have their place in sub-cap fleets, and to get the initial tackle on a super-cap, but they would no longer have to die in droves to keep a super pinned down.
---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Marconus Orion
S.E.G.W.A.Y.
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:02:00 -
[306]
Is it me, or are we seeing the same suggestions over and over and over from people who never bothered to read the thread?
|
de4deye
Element 115.
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:11:00 -
[307]
A lot of people like to complain too much, methinks. Dreads shouldn't be dropping on towers without capital support ready to back them up, eh? However, I think due to the recent Supercarrier buff, it would be reasonable to reduce siege cycle time to 5 minutes rather than 10; this makes it so dreads aren't so much of a helpless target anymore. Stop wanting to hit **** with the nerf bat already lol.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 15:58:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Marconus Orion Is it me, or are we seeing the same suggestions over and over and over from people who never bothered to read the thread?
Yes.
To be fair, its a long thread.
-----------------
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 20:43:00 -
[309]
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 26/04/2011 20:44:07
Originally by: rcs619
Quote: Dreadnoughts aren't underpowered though.
They are underpowered in relation to supercarriers though, which is why they should be buffed to take this new ship class into account. That is what you do when you add in new features, you first try to buff the older features to bring them up to snuff. You don't go to nerfing down the new feature unless you have no other choice.
That's silly. Supercarriers were overbuffed in Dominion, and you're saying that mistake shouldn't be corrected, but that its set in stone and the rest of the game has to adjust to fit them in.
If you put some new chairs in your lounge and decide you don't like where they're positioned, do you leave the chairs in place and demolish your entire house and rebuild it so that they fit, or do you correct your mistake and move the furniture?
Quote:
Quote: and that the one areas where dreads work better than supercarriers (POS shooting) has greatly diminished in importance thanks to the new dominion structures.
Ehh, that's semi-debatable. POS bashing is still probably the most important aspect of sov warfare, since it is the only way to gain control over the tech moons that drive big-alliance sov warfare. The IHubs are just an extra annoyance that needs to be taken into account during the process. When it comes down to POS bashing, Dreads are still king. The main issue with dreadnoughts bashing POS's is that their long seige timers make them sitting ducks if they get hotdropped. A shorter cycle time would help with that some, and a buff to their total HP would give them a greater chance to hold out in a fight or get out of dodge if things go badly.
Here's how POS sieges with dreads go these days: 1)Form up capfleet. 2)Count your supercarriers. 3)Count the hostile supercarriers. 4)If you have more supercarriers, its safe to send the dreads in.
Quote:
Quote: and buffing dreadnoughts to compete with overpowered supercaps has knock-on effects - for example their performance against subcapitals or carriers or titans.
That depends. If we just give them a broad damage increase, then yes, it will affect carriers as well (which deserve a HP buff anyway, in my opinion).
A HP buff to carriers will vastly decrease their vulnerability against subcaps. They don't need that.
Quote: But, if we go with a more limited option, such as giving them a damage boost agaisnt objects with over, say, a 10-12km sig radius, then you would only see the impact on supercarriers and titans. Titans got a huge HP bonus after dominion and only get killed by large fleets anyway, so dreads doing a bit more damage to them doesn't really make a huge different.
I actually don't think Titan's are anywhere near as overpowered as supercarriers, as I stated way back in this thread their primary weapon systems actually take up fitting slots, and don't have the same versatility against tacklers and other sub-caps. You've responded to the overpowering of supercarriers with what is effectively a nerf to titans.
The supercarriers are the hull that's out of sync, so fix the supercarrier. Don't demolish the house just to make the furniture fit.
That aside, you've missed the whole point of the original suggestion, which is to make supercarriers less effective against sub-cap fleets. I've no problem with supercaps killing other caps and supercaps, that's the role CCP gave them in dominion. The issue is their ability to destroy subcapitals, including the dictors and hictors required to tackle them, just as easily because of their wealth of utility slots and effectively infinite waves of drones.
-----------------
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 21:07:00 -
[310]
Originally by: rcs619
Quote: The major balance issue is with supercarriers, and not just against dreads but against the rest of the capital and subcapital ranges too
I honestly don't think them being able to take on sub-caps is that big of an issue. They're the most powerful PvP ships in EVE. They SHOULD be able to hold their own against multiple players in different ship-types.
One of the attractive things about EVE has always been the idea that there was no 'endgame' ubermensch, and that unlike say, WoW's PVP where you have to grind up to Level 80 to join in with the big boys, in EVE even the most experienced player can be vulnerable to relative newbies. If you make dreads the anti-supercap vessel of choice and tolerate supercaps being largely immune to anyone not in another capship, you've removed this distinction and implemented a 'you must grind this much XP to compete' mindset seen in other more mainstream MMOs.
Quote: If you buff dreads to the point where a dread fleet has a change to drop and kill a supercarrier, then you're going to see them drop on sub-capital targets a whole lot less. The only reason they drop a 25billion isk ship on sub-caps now is because they really don't have anything to fear besides other supers coming down on their heads.
If you maintain the existing versatility of supercarriers, you'll still see them dropped on anything and everything because they can swat away dictors and hictors with points, neuts, smartbombs, and endless waves of warrior IIs. If you reduce this ability so that a supercarrier needs support (and by support I don't just mean 'more supercarriers') to break a tackle and escape the bubbles and infinipoints, you see a more well-rounded fleet and more interesting combat.
Quote: Right now, supers have no fear. The enemy's supercarrier pilots are all watch-listed, so they know when they can, and cannot engage a target in their own supers. If you give a much cheaper, and easily fielded ship, like the dreadnoughts (which also have the same jump range as supers) the ability to pounce on them in groups and take them down, then you add a whole lot of fear and uncertainty to the equation. People will be a lot less loose with their supers if they have that uncertainty.
You know what's even harder to watchlist and track than dreadfleets? Battleships and dictors.
Quote: I just think its time to give Carriers and Dreadnoughts some love. They have been around for years, and haven't changed much.
They haven't changed much because they are essentially pretty well balanced, and were universally desirable until Dominion introduced an overbuff to supercarriers so that dreads could be murdered with impunity.
-----------------
|
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.26 23:09:00 -
[311]
Quote: That aside, you've missed the whole point of the original suggestion, which is to make supercarriers less effective against sub-cap fleets. I've no problem with supercaps killing other caps and supercaps, that's the role CCP gave them in dominion. The issue is their ability to destroy subcapitals, including the dictors and hictors required to tackle them, just as easily because of their wealth of utility slots and effectively infinite waves of drones.
They're still carriers though, they should be versitile. You shouldn't be able to just lob subcaps at them and have success. As for hictors and dictors, it kind of makes sense that they'd get demolished. They are punching too high above their weight-class. You can't really buff them up to the point where they'd be able to keep up with supers, or they'd just end up being too overpowered in sub-cap fleets, and you can't nerf down supers without making them totally helpless to sub-caps.
That's why I put forward that Capital Interdictor idea a couple posts ago. It creates a ship who's job it is to pin down supers. You'd still need hictors for the intitial tackle, but once the capital dictors roll onto the field, they would take over, and you wouldn't need waves of hictors and dictors to die in droves to lock down the supercarrier.
Give dreads a slight buff so that they can travel alongside the capital dictors to act as a kill-team, and a lotof the issue with supercarriers gets solved. If they get pinned down by a capital dictor, they HAVE to fight their way out of it, and the situation will likely escalate into a full-on capital engatement where even more supers are put at risk. ---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Tyrophant
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:38:00 -
[312]
Originally by: rcs619 It creates a ship who's job it is to pin down supers.
Hictors *are* the ship whose job it is to pin down supers: they were introduced (at least partially) to tackle otherwise invulnerable moms in lowsec.
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:20:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Tyrophant
Originally by: rcs619 It creates a ship who's job it is to pin down supers.
Hictors *are* the ship whose job it is to pin down supers: they were introduced (at least partially) to tackle otherwise invulnerable moms in lowsec.
That was their original purpose, yes. Capital warfare has changed though.
Titan doomsdays are no longer laughably weak and tankable, and the former Motherships have grown teeth, claws and a bad attitude to match.
You can't really buff up Hictors to be able to compete with that, or they become overpowered in their primary role, sub-cap fleet warfare...and you can't beat supercarriers too badly over the head with the nerf bat, or they return to the useless ships they used to be.
That's why I tried to propose a third option. Don't try to discourage people from flying a ship they want to fly, instead, give out some buffs and add some more variety to try and encourage people to fly different ships (while bringing a little more balance to the equation in the process). ---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:26:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Mara Rinn Why would moving the +drone bonus from the hull to the modules boost SC DPS?
I believe he is talking about the Sansha mothership, it can fit 6x drone control units.
On the one hand, that can be addressed through bandwidth limitation or the existing game mechanic of "can fit X of module Y."
On the other hand, Revenant BPCs aren't exactly falling like rain, son why wouldn't a rare ship be allowed to have some perks?
I support the call to render SCs "vulnerable" to all EWAR. Adjust the EWAR resistance numbers to make sense. "Focussed Warp Disruption" script thus gets a value of eg 10000 warp disruption strength, SC gets a base warp stability of 500. You could conceivably warp disrupt it with a fleet of 100 ships, or just use 1 HIC.
Set the sensor strength really high (like say the 150-odd it is right now) and let the SC pilot determine whether they wish to use ECCM or not. Target dampeners (using resolution scripts) used in conjunction with jammers will make every successful jam important to the outcome of the fight.
I agree with Ed that we need fewer special game mechanics, in order for the game to be more fluid. Removing EWAR immunity will encourage more diverse fittings for SCs.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:09:00 -
[315]
Originally by: rcs619
You can't really buff up Hictors to be able to compete with that, or they become overpowered in their primary role, sub-cap fleet warfare...
Big ships are traditionally vulnerable to small ships in EvE.... Its what makes the game great, as it enables a low sp character to play an important function in PvP.
Most battleships are vulnerable to tackling frigates and Inties... Most Titans and SC's were vulnerable to tackling hictors...
Since you can't buff hictors to actually tackle supercarriers, perhaps supercarriers aught to be nerfed....
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 08:26:00 -
[316]
This link, from 02:44 to 02:55, should apply to small ships vs. super capitals. The ONLY way to make that a reality without over buffing the small ships and screwing up their balance vs. other non-super capitals is for it to be IMPOSSIBLE for super capitals to be able to lock onto non-capital ships.
I am not advocating that this change should be the only one but it is definitely a right step.
Also, R.I.P. Porkins
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 09:43:00 -
[317]
Quote: They're still carriers though, they should be versitile. You shouldn't be able to just lob subcaps at them and have success.
Yes you should, or if that doesnt work they should be hard countered by another ship, like dreads. But then you would pretty much need to remove fighter bombers. That or make them fire AOE weapons against subcaps, which tbh could be quite interesting.
But ships needs to be balanced on a per ship base, not per ISK. Otherwise there is never a reason not to bring a supercap, since they are just the best per pilot.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 10:48:00 -
[318]
Dreadnoughts are well balanced because they have a specific role, they have to commit to a fight and can't just teleport out when Things Go Bad, and because they're very vulnerable to subcapitals and hence require a support fleet. Supercarriers have none of these attribute. They don't have a specific role, they don't need to commit to a fight and they're not exactly vulnerable to subcapitals. All three of these need changing.
Proposing new ships as a supercapital counter is absurd - the counter should be subcapitals. So to make them vulnerable to subcapitals, supercarriers should be able to launch FBs only - not fighters or drones - with FBs tweaked so that they're close to useless against BS and smaller, and are easier to kill, defining supercarriers' role as anti-capitals only. Supercarriers should not be immune to normal disruptors/scramblers, and the other-ewar immunity might go too. The 15 min disappear-with-aggro-upon-logoff timer should be increased to an hour for supercapitals.
Making them commit to a fight is trickier. Requiring some sort of siege mode to be active to be able to control FBs is a possibility. It wouldn't prevent movement, only warping or jumping. They could still receive RR. Short cycle time, maybe as short as 2-3 mins, so they could GTFO semi-quickly, but not immediately. FBs would return automatically upon deactivation. This might have problems with lag though.
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 15:26:00 -
[319]
Quote: Big ships are traditionally vulnerable to small ships in EvE.... Its what makes the game great, as it enables a low sp character to play an important function in PvP.
Most battleships are vulnerable to tackling frigates and Inties...
Battleships are only really vulnerable to them if they are stupid and go out alone. Large smartbombs kill most frigs in one or two vollies, and if they don't, the battleships' drones tear them apart. Frigates are usually just initial tackle, and are only expected to hold onto the BS until bigger ships with more tank can get there to tighten the noose and make sure the BS has no chance of escape.
Change "battleships" to supercarriers and "large smartbombs" to neuts and you have the same situation. Hictors can hold a super down, but they die in droves to do it. Only difference between the battleship and supercarrier examples is that, with a supercarrier, you have no larger type of tackling ship to come in and tighten the noose. There's always the risk that the super will burn down all of the hictors and slip out of the trap. |
bartos100
Killer Koalas R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 16:16:00 -
[320]
you forget that the one thing SC do best is killing capital ships damn fast
so you will need to have one hell of a tank on those capital dictors
else they will just become like dreads (dinnertime :)
|
|
rcs619
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 16:26:00 -
[321]
Edited by: rcs619 on 28/04/2011 16:27:19
Originally by: bartos100 you forget that the one thing SC do best is killing capital ships damn fast
so you will need to have one hell of a tank on those capital dictors
else they will just become like dreads (dinnertime :)
Pretty much, yeah. I figured they would either be T2 Dreadnoughts (imagine a phoenix with the Onyx's color scheme :D ) or their own ship class. But yeah, they'd need a heavy tank to not die horribly like a dreadnought.
To kind of balance the huge tank, they'd basically be useless against subcaps. Their warp jammer would be a focused weapon, instead of a bubble. Maybe only let them equip two capital guns (they wouldn't be siege capable though, so the damage would be terrible), or no guns at all. They aren't there for their damage, their one job to be a huge weight to tie around a capital or supercap's neck.
---------- "Go then. There are other worlds than these" ~ John "Jake" Chambers (The Dark Tower I by: Stephen King) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 16:58:00 -
[322]
I strongly suggest you guys read the entire thread. Yes it is long but it is well worth it.
|
PhantomTrojan
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 19:32:00 -
[323]
/agreed sc need a nerf or every ship in eveneed a buff, make it happend.
|
Mauryce
|
Posted - 2011.04.28 22:00:00 -
[324]
Yesss, nerf Hel asap.
Nerf hull, armor and fantastic shield tank; Nerf fabulous Dps wiht fighters and f.bomber; Nerf that ridicolous amount of Cap; Less high, middle and low slots inmediatly; and specialy that unbeatable Rep bonus (logistic role???????awesome...)
PD: Spetial thank to google-traducto....r
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 13:32:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Mauryce Yesss, nerf Hel asap.
Nerf hull, armor and fantastic shield tank; Nerf fabulous Dps wiht fighters and f.bomber; Nerf that ridicolous amount of Cap; Less high, middle and low slots inmediatly; and specialy that unbeatable Rep bonus (logistic role???????awesome...)
Er, yes, thanks. I think.
If the other three supercarriers were nerfed down to the level of the Hel there'd probably be much less of a problem.
-----------------
|
Mauryce
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 16:09:00 -
[326]
The real problem is the Sov. based in massive HP structures easy to deploy and timers. All they do necessary blobs of the supercapitals to make war in a reasonable time of game.
You can nerf Sc -the only efficient solution against Titans blobs-, but the real solution is a new sov. system based in a solar occupation for players that really live 0.0. -perhaps a new PI with Sov. effects- and not for nomads players in supercaps.
|
Katsura Kotonoha
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 17:27:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Katsura Kotonoha on 30/04/2011 17:28:36
Originally by: Mauryce The real problem is the Sov. based in massive HP structures easy to deploy and timers. All they do necessary blobs of the supercapitals to make war in a reasonable time of game.
You can nerf Sc -the only efficient solution against Titans blobs-, but the real solution is a new sov. system based in a solar occupation for players that really live 0.0. -perhaps a new PI with Sov. effects- and not for nomads players in supercaps.
I'd just like to point out that dreadnaughts can effectively take down sov structures as well. Dreads can easily put out 6-7k dps which is not too far behind a supercarrier. Why don't Dominion sov structures have shields like POS? Simply adding a shield to online IHUBs and TCUs and SBUs would make dreadnoughts a necessary part of sovereignty.
Vocal players wanted a way for relatively small groups to be able to significantly pose a threat to large alliances. They got their answer, with supercarriers. Of course, they were thinking of having a gang of 20 HACs instead. But lets face it, there is a fundamental reason why 100 cruisers is better than 20 cruisers that will not change.
The greatest problem with supercarriers lies most in that they can complete nearly all warfare objectives in the game. That's a greater problem than being overpowered because of having too much capacitor or too large of a drone bay or too many slots. If CCP wishes to fulfill the desires of the roving band style players to disrupt alliances and simultaneously eliminate the ubiquitous nature of supercarriers, then they should consider putting forcefields on sovereignty structures. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 18:12:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Katsura Kotonoha The greatest problem with supercarriers lies most in that they can complete nearly all warfare objectives in the game. That's a greater problem than being overpowered because of having too much capacitor or too large of a drone bay or too many slots.
Well, these are more or less the same thing. Two of the reasons that supercarriers are able to carry out nearly any objective is because they have an abundance of utility slots, and a primary weapon system (drones) which effectively never runs out and can near-instantly switch between types as battlefield circumstances develop.
Every other shiptype in the game needs to make decisions at the fitting screen, and are punished if they decide incorrectly. Supercarriers just shrug, activate the correct utility module from their omni-fit and pop out a different type of drone cloud.
-----------------
|
Mauryce
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 19:04:00 -
[329]
You really cares on SC¦drones in a fleetbattle? Its imposible try to deploy waves of drones in massive engangements. You¦ll be very lucky if you can deploy FBs and make regulars attacks in a laggystyle Sc-fight. In real fights, if you are not in a SC, you¦ll be worried about your targeting time with multiples ECM burts than a wave off drones.
I insist, change sov-mecs and nobody cares abouts sc, fbs, sbus and all that expensive toys.
|
grumpyguts1
|
Posted - 2011.05.05 19:33:00 -
[330]
Why nerf it?? why not give the smaller capitals a chance, bring in a Capital neut. This way SC pilots will have to plan a little better, and a small fleet of carriers who plan well will have a fighting chance, something like setting a curse on a BS except BIGGER.
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.06 12:48:00 -
[331]
Originally by: grumpyguts1 Why nerf it?? why not give the smaller capitals a chance, bring in a Capital neut. This way SC pilots will have to plan a little better, and a small fleet of carriers who plan well will have a fighting chance, something like setting a curse on a BS except BIGGER.
Except that a supercarrier's primary weapon system doesn't require cap, and in the case of the Nyx and Aeon their EHP buffer doesn't necessarily require it either.
All you do with this proposal is bump the neuting caps way up the target priority list from 'free easy killmail' to 'mild irritant' while doing little to rebalance fleet combat and further cementing 'Capitals Online' by obsoleting one of the few semi-useful roles smaller hulls have remaining against caps.
-----------------
|
guthin aspheirocy
Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.05.06 14:53:00 -
[332]
theres a simple way to figure out that super carriers need to be nerfed.
Erebus potential EHP: 36 mill, max dps: 12k (excluding dd)
Nyx potential EHP: 36 mill , max DPS: 12.5k
hmmmmmmm
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.07 07:54:00 -
[333]
There's an excellent post on another EVE forum (its the one that begins with K and ends with ugutsumen) that I'm just going to quote here:
Originally by: Sansa Comfrey Before supercap prolification, you had cap fleets out there of various sizes, but you drop a strong enough subcap fleet on them and they would be in serious trouble. A spidertanking carrier fleet, if big enough, might be able to render itself somewhat immune to a subcap fleet, but not to a dread fleet, and a dread fleet could not protect itself from subcaps and needed subcap (or carrier) support itself. The key here is, for dreads and carriers to operate with any efficiency, they needed, and were vulnerable to, subcap support, and anyone from 1m skillpoints up could contribute to a subcap fleet and have fun.
Massed supercaps are not. Not to anything but another massed supercap fleet.
People are down on the NC for not matching the DRF's supercap fleet, but it really comes down to - the NC doesn't feel its supercap fleet is strong enough (or logging in enough) to risk a major confrontation with the DRF's because if they lose it, they will have nothing left that can stop them because the subcap "blob" doesn't work like it does on non-massed supercaps or regular caps. DC did the same thing to IT, backed by the NC's supercap fleet; IT (more accurately, the individual corps and pets, not the coalition's command) didn't commit their supers because in all likelihood they would lose the fight and not have them anymore. Every major fight is going to work this way for the foreseeable future.
-----------------
|
David Hassan
|
Posted - 2011.05.09 00:22:00 -
[334]
Edited by: David Hassan on 09/05/2011 00:23:01
I agree with the OP, also here is one of my ideas from another thread regarding Super Capitals.
Currently, Super Capital ships can be used for 'risk free' ganks.
It is not uncommon for a supercarrier to log off with aggro and dissappear before anything but the largest of fleets can dispatch it.
My proposal is this:
Super Capital ships should never disappear from space. A ship that large should require the infrastructure of an empire to support it.
Add a new POS module for 'docking' Supercapitals at a POS. This will keep them safe from bumping.
This will force players to have said infrastructure to actually support these behemoths. It might also slow super capital proliferation, as people will actually have to support them logistically with fuel for the POS.
This is a rough idea, but I think it has merit.
|
Pharon Reichter
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 09:39:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Pharon Reichter on 03/06/2011 09:42:05
Originally by: Scatim Helicon There's an excellent post on another EVE forum (its the one that begins with K and ends with ugutsumen) that I'm just going to quote here:
Originally by: Sansa Comfrey Before supercap prolification, you had cap fleets out there of various sizes, but you drop a strong enough subcap fleet on them and they would be in serious trouble. A spidertanking carrier fleet, if big enough, might be able to render itself somewhat immune to a subcap fleet, but not to a dread fleet, and a dread fleet could not protect itself from subcaps and needed subcap (or carrier) support itself. The key here is, for dreads and carriers to operate with any efficiency, they needed, and were vulnerable to, subcap support, and anyone from 1m skillpoints up could contribute to a subcap fleet and have fun.
Massed supercaps are not. Not to anything but another massed supercap fleet.
People are down on the NC for not matching the DRF's supercap fleet, but it really comes down to - the NC doesn't feel its supercap fleet is strong enough (or logging in enough) to risk a major confrontation with the DRF's because if they lose it, they will have nothing left that can stop them because the subcap "blob" doesn't work like it does on non-massed supercaps or regular caps. DC did the same thing to IT, backed by the NC's supercap fleet; IT (more accurately, the individual corps and pets, not the coalition's command) didn't commit their supers because in all likelihood they would lose the fight and not have them anymore. Every major fight is going to work this way for the foreseeable future.
So basically you are whining because you cant kill 300 supercaps with 1000 characters with 1 milion sp each ?
MMOS have allways been like that those who aquire enough wealth and xp are marching over the noobs.
Supercaps require a vast ammount of wealth and xp to have, and to hold them, and an equal ammunt of ingame experience -> just look al all yours and NC noobs that lost them in sanctums, pos jb's and other embarrassing places.
What you ignore in the whole NC war is that the anti-nc fleets didnt come only with supercaps , their subcap fleets ( our fleets ) already wiped the floor with yours in most battle before bringing out the supers.
in fact there was never ever any super only battle from DRF and friends, we just had well balanced fleets, while you didnt and mow you cry. You didnt even have the guts of jumping into our fleets supercap blobbed or not.
500 including supercaps vs 900 subcaps + whatever supercaps you caould have gathered .... and you didnt even try.
It's not supers broken , it's your alliances.
as far as dropping lonly supers in low-sec just take a look at rooks & kings tactics , there's a lot you can learn from them.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 10:42:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Pharon Reichter ...MMOS have allways been like that those who aquire enough wealth and xp are marching over the noobs....
The day Eve can be compared directly with the mass-consumer products out there is the day I (and most vets I reckon) bugger off
Problem with supers is that they require abnormally high numbers or supers to counter which is contrary to all other areas of Eve .. there is no trick or gimmick that allows you to bamboozle a 50+ SC swarm. We had all the theory-crafting in the pre-SC buff discussions, think it took 10+:1 (dreads:SCs) to kill the damn things, and that is before factoring in RR.
Remove eWar immunity .. solves practically all issues (solo-logistics, lowsec ganks, swarm RR etc.) with SCs without making them POS ornaments.
|
Pharon Reichter
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 11:39:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Pharon Reichter ...MMOS have allways been like that those who aquire enough wealth and xp are marching over the noobs....
The day Eve can be compared directly with the mass-consumer products out there is the day I (and most vets I reckon) bugger off
Problem with supers is that they require abnormally high numbers or supers to counter which is contrary to all other areas of Eve .. there is no trick or gimmick that allows you to bamboozle a 50+ SC swarm. We had all the theory-crafting in the pre-SC buff discussions, think it took 10+:1 (dreads:SCs) to kill the damn things, and that is before factoring in RR.
Remove eWar immunity .. solves practically all issues (solo-logistics, lowsec ganks, swarm RR etc.) with SCs without making them POS ornaments.
Wrong 2 times.
Eve has more to do with other mmo's than you would like to admit. there are some differences but as a concept it's still a MMO.
50 sc's w/o support will die from an organised fleet of 500 bs'es And if you calculate means that they (sc'es) arent cost effective to use. Ofc noone uses 50 sc's w.o support that's why they seem invincible. Buy why do you think noone uses 50 sc's w/o support ?
btw you have never used a sc in lag have you ? just pulling out fighters might take anywahere from 10 to 20 minutes and that in low lag. So no sc's arent very good against bs'es.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 12:07:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 03/06/2011 12:07:29
Originally by: Pharon Reichter ...Eve has more to do with other mmo's than you would like to admit. there are some differences but as a concept it's still a MMO...
Sure it is an MMO, but you are comparing it directly to the genre as a whole, a genre which has all but expunged non-playground themes. - Name the mass market MMO where a relative noob has a snowballs chance in hell of besting an oldtimer through skill/decisions. - Name the mass market MMO where a majority of items are made solely by participants. - Name the mass market MMO where an 'early' weapon is not automatically obsoleted by all subsequent weapons (in Eve terms: ship classes). - Etc. Etc. Ad Nauseum.
And yes of course you can defeat SC's by blobbing the snot out of them, big whoop. Does that mean that should be the yardstick of balancing though? If so all of Eve should be revamped to fit this new paradigm, I am sure Eve will be much better off with just 2-3 large entities vying for control .. people who don't want that can just go back to WoW or whatever childish game they came from, right?
|
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 13:22:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Pharon Reichter
So basically you are whining because you cant kill 300 supercaps with 1000 characters with 1 milion sp each ?
MMOS have allways been like that those who aquire enough wealth and xp are marching over the noobs.
Supercaps require a vast ammount of wealth and xp to have, and to hold them, and an equal ammunt of ingame experience -> just look al all yours and NC noobs that lost them in sanctums, pos jb's and other embarrassing places.
What you ignore in the whole NC war is that the anti-nc fleets didnt come only with supercaps , their subcap fleets ( our fleets ) already wiped the floor with yours in most battle before bringing out the supers.
in fact there was never ever any super only battle from DRF and friends, we just had well balanced fleets, while you didnt and mow you cry. You didnt even have the guts of jumping into our fleets supercap blobbed or not.
500 including supercaps vs 900 subcaps + whatever supercaps you caould have gathered .... and you didnt even try.
It's not supers broken , it's your alliances.
as far as dropping lonly supers in low-sec just take a look at rooks & kings tactics , there's a lot you can learn from them.
So it's perfectly acceptable to say, release a ship that costs 1 trillion isk, can one shot any ship every 60 seconds and has 5 billion EHP, so it needs 1000 supers to kill it or 50.000 sub caps to kill it?
I mean, If I manage to buy it, I sure as hell deserve to be invincible right? And what if an alliance manages to buy 100 of them?
It's bad game design to have the only counter to a ship type being the same shyp type in bigger nrs.
You can not counter a 300 man supercap fleet because the servers do not allow it.
---
Sentinum Research Store |
Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 17:27:00 -
[340]
Originally by: guthin aspheirocy theres a simple way to figure out that super carriers need to be nerfed.
Erebus potential EHP: 36 mill, max dps: 12k (excluding dd)
Nyx potential EHP: 36 mill , max DPS: 12.5k
hmmmmmmm
Even with the DD its only a 5000 DPS push with the 10 minute timer. And that is assuming that you are shooting at a target that can take the 3 mil damage everytime, DD is only weapon in the game that deals overkill damage really, Or at least measurable overkill. (>1000 wasted damage points)
|
|
Pharon Reichter
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 17:42:00 -
[341]
you wholly missed one of the points. wich is supers arent invincible. shure blobs of them are hard to fight but that is tue and was true for any ship out there. they are currently on top of food chain
so yes it's hard to fight a blob of them but not harder than fighting a blob of anything that would be any blob of whatever is there on top.
one of the things that attract people in this games atr the massive fights. take any of the points you mentioned in previous posts and you will find it in a certain way implemented in other mmos. except the massive fights. on this no other comes any colser. this is a predsposition to blob.
on the other side one thing that trully is common to all mmos is that an older player has advantage to newer players. supers are hard to come by and that's what it's all about. if they would be that easy everyone would get one and end of storry. but for the ammount of effort to get one they Are not OP
everyone whines about the fact that if some alliances would not have had the ammount of supers they would not won the battles they did. fact is if we nerf the supers those alloances would have still won. noone denies that. and if they do the killboards show the storry. but making supers useless once again wont fix anything.
tl;dr blobs of enough anything will allways win small ammounth of supers ( ex: lowsec) learn to deal with them : look at rooks & kings
|
Wyatt 3arp
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 19:00:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Wyatt 3arp on 03/06/2011 19:02:32 No.
-One fitted SC costs 8000% the price of one fitted battleship. -It takes about 2 years to get a char ready to use one properly, an then you have to keep one acc. acting as an exclusive alt or holding alt. -There is no insurance. -Cynojammers can be protected with supers, caps and subcaps against subcaps alone. So doesnt matters how many supers one enemy can gather. RL skills and tactics are still the big factor.
The only thing that should be adjusted IMO is the logofsky/self-destruct mechanics (when agressed OFC). Make the timers related to the mass of the ships, from frigs to titans.
Any other adjustment should be done with carriers and dreads. They should be more relevant in a supercap fight. |
Azver Deroven
Pitch Black. Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 19:37:00 -
[343]
I have a dream, dream where carriers and sc's send their fighters away from themselves while they sit and do what carriers do, lead their fighters from wherever they are hiding.
A dream, where this is countered by convops working together to pinpoint their location, and by SB's that bomb them with something that brings their bombers in frontline to grinding halt, or simply denies reloading from them.
I know its nonsense but thats how I'd like to see them done. But man's got a right to dream, amirite?
Random giberish beside, I do think there's a problem, and this might be the fix, or this might be too much or not enough. But doing something is better than not doing anything, and we've tried that before. ---------------------------------------------------- My views do not represent those of my alliance, corporation or myself. Trully, sometimes I manage to confuse even myself.
|
Heavenly Blues
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 19:44:00 -
[344]
I agree that supercaps in general need some serious tweaking. I agree with the idea that they should not be able to disappear with a log off. For the most powerful fleet weapons in eve to disappear with a log off is game breaking. You should have to find safe harbor and defend that harbor if you want to keep your super / doomsday weapons in service.
|
Lazarus Vex
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 20:50:00 -
[345]
I think that when the only counter to x is "bring more of x" then it needs to be re-examined. It leads not only to stale gameplay but also a much less tactical environment.
|
lwxsky oli
Minmatar FACTS on EVE
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 01:36:00 -
[346]
nerf ehp so 100 sieged dreads can one shot alpha kill a super carrier.
|
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 01:56:00 -
[347]
CCP plan to nerf them anyway, so why not?
|
Alias 6322A
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:07:00 -
[348]
Question:
I can see how these nerfs would be useful and they make sense...but...
...you're also trying to bring dreads back from being obsolete. Explain how these nerfs help out dreads? The only change I see that helps some is the reduction in FB dps, meaning a dread might compete. If these changes aren't going to improve dreads any, then we need to also be looking at ways to buff/change dreads such that they aren't obsolete anymore. The main problem I see with Supers is their only counter is more supers...which is highly unusual in any game. I like the ideas for reduction of drone capacity/ehp so that supers could be made 'toothless' with a well-built enemy fleet of subcaps.
|
Dr Screamm
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 18:45:00 -
[349]
I DO NOT SUPPORT this nerf at all...... I am a capital AND supercarrier pilot. As many other pilots here have stated, supercapitals cost a HUGE amount of isks, BILLIONS not forgetting that the fit often costs even more than the ship itself. As was said by CCP at FANFEST 2011 SUPERcarriers are meant to be SUPER, and the financial investment and time that many players have dedicated in-game in order to own and fly a supercarrier MUST be protected by giving us the ability to indeed field those powerful ships, and to be able to leave the field as well. The vast majority of those who want this nerf are pilots who just hate supers simply because they either cannot afford them OR they just ruin their killing game. Supers are destroyed every day in EVE, they can still be obliterated, why should a simple fleet of tiny ships that cost very small sums of isks be able to take down a ship worth BILLIONS!!!!! I am TOTALLY against it!!!!
|
Sarina Rhoda
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 20:55:00 -
[350]
Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 09/06/2011 20:59:32
Originally by: Dr Screamm I DO NOT SUPPORT this nerf at all...... I am a capital AND supercarrier pilot. As many other pilots here have stated, supercapitals cost a HUGE amount of isks, BILLIONS not forgetting that the fit often costs even more than the ship itself. As was said by CCP at FANFEST 2011 SUPERcarriers are meant to be SUPER, and the financial investment and time that many players have dedicated in-game in order to own and fly a supercarrier MUST be protected by giving us the ability to indeed field those powerful ships, and to be able to leave the field as well. The vast majority of those who want this nerf are pilots who just hate supers simply because they either cannot afford them OR they just ruin their killing game. Supers are destroyed every day in EVE, they can still be obliterated, why should a simple fleet of tiny ships that cost very small sums of isks be able to take down a ship worth BILLIONS!!!!! I am TOTALLY against it!!!!
Pretty confident this is a troll but o well.
Lets imagine a ship that costs 1trillian. It is indestructible. can insta pop anything. has 0 signature radius. and goes 30kms with perfect agility.
But its fine cos it costs 1 trillion so why should anything be able to kill it yer?
To create balance cost effectiveness should always go down as price increases otherwise you just have the standard tier issues where everything beneath the top tier is useless.
IMO to balance super caps you need a combination of a lot of the ideas already posted in this thread.
I would say 5 drone limit but +3 per DCU (make DCU passive). separate drone bay for Fighters/FBs and regular drones. Slaves no longer work in combination with Supercaps
This makes them pick between dps and survivability mods. Means they can't release endless swarms of drones. Slightly reduces the obscene EHP. Balances the armour supers more with the shield supers
|
|
Icantspellwell
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 00:51:00 -
[351]
So funny that this topic is mostly supported by nc and goons who loved to throw supercapitals around without a care in the world but are now losing or are going to lose their space. I didn't see any of you complaining when you dropped supers religiously for a week on bs gangs.
So on to some common sense: 1 super costs the same price as approximately 100 abaddons at 200 mil each. That super would die alone. Why shouldn't it take numbers to match in the investment for the supercapital? Quit crying because 10 supers costing 180 bil not including the subcap fleet they are usually with forced your fleet to run away.
"So it's perfectly acceptable to say, release a ship that costs 1 trillion isk, can one shot any ship every 60 seconds and has 5 billion EHP, so it needs 1000 supers to kill it or 50.000 sub caps to kill it?"
Let's do some quick math real quick. 1000x 18 bil hmm k hang on i got dis (carry the 4 here) ah yes **** 18 trillion isk super capital fleet. Learn math 1 trillion isk in 18 bil supercapitals is 55. well under what has been seen by many fleets. Or 20 titans at 50 bil whereas you are giving it the equivalent of 138 titans in ehp. So yes if someone got 18 trillion isk for a ship that every 60 seconds could pop a mom then thats great. totally unrealistic and never going to happen but great.
|
Alias 6322A
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 00:41:00 -
[352]
Quote: I DO NOT SUPPORT this nerf at all...... I am a capital AND supercarrier pilot. As many other pilots here have stated, supercapitals cost a HUGE amount of isks, BILLIONS not forgetting that the fit often costs even more than the ship itself. As was said by CCP at FANFEST 2011 SUPERcarriers are meant to be SUPER, and the financial investment and time that many players have dedicated in-game in order to own and fly a supercarrier MUST be protected by giving us the ability to indeed field those powerful ships, and to be able to leave the field as well. The vast majority of those who want this nerf are pilots who just hate supers simply because they either cannot afford them OR they just ruin their killing game. Supers are destroyed every day in EVE, they can still be obliterated, why should a simple fleet of tiny ships that cost very small sums of isks be able to take down a ship worth BILLIONS!!!!! I am TOTALLY against it!!!!
Maybe it's just me...but why did you support the topic then?
|
Jessica Autumn
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 03:40:00 -
[353]
This sounds like a " Super's arn't Fair " post by people who either, don't want to fly them so they support any nerf to them, have died to them multiple times, or some other lame reason, theres a reason Supers are considered to be the Most powerful and destructive ships in the game....cause they are? Thats why they cost 18-60 Billion isk, but now these guys want it to be " Fair " i wanna kill a Nyx with my Abaddon HERP DERP!...plz so If you don't want to deal with super's go to empire and Care bear.
BTW....if you want to be honest a single NPC empire state probably have more Super's than the entire DRF and its freinds combined, If you can afford to fly it then fly it, and dont Ruin other players experience.
|
Zxmagus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 05:55:00 -
[354]
It really is getting to the point of another titan manifesto is coming soon. It's very simple to alot of people that supers being dropped with zero support obliterating anything is game breaking to the point of absurdity. Cap gameplay is very boring ,allways has been in eve it's do you have more if check yes you win and the long awaited super cap critical mass has been reached that was warned oh so long ago.
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 08:06:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Zxmagus It really is getting to the point of another titan manifesto is coming soon. It's very simple to alot of people that supers being dropped with zero support obliterating anything is game breaking to the point of absurdity. Cap gameplay is very boring ,allways has been in eve it's do you have more if check yes you win and the long awaited super cap critical mass has been reached that was warned oh so long ago.
So true but at least they have to push more buttons then the old DD Titans did. :) Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Takseen
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 18:17:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Jessica Autumn This sounds like a " Super's arn't Fair " post by people who either, don't want to fly them so they support any nerf to them, have died to them multiple times, or some other lame reason, theres a reason Supers are considered to be the Most powerful and destructive ships in the game....cause they are? Thats why they cost 18-60 Billion isk, but now these guys want it to be " Fair " i wanna kill a Nyx with my Abaddon HERP DERP!...plz so If you don't want to deal with super's go to empire and Care bear.
BTW....if you want to be honest a single NPC empire state probably have more Super's than the entire DRF and its freinds combined, If you can afford to fly it then fly it, and dont Ruin other players experience.
CCP have already agreed that Supercarriers need a nerf though. The only interesting debate is about how they're going to do it.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:22:00 -
[357]
Yet another nerf supercarriers suggestion on a random blog. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 06:27:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Alias 6322A Maybe it's just me...but why did you support the topic then?
You can support the discussion without necessarily being in support of the proposal. Film at 11.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 09:45:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Zxmagus It really is getting to the point of another titan manifesto is coming soon.
yo
|
Needa3
Minmatar BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 19:19:00 -
[360]
goonswarm tears are fun
cry some more
now that BFF is failing all of the sudden the things are overpowerd
all eggs in the "blob out the system" basket got you screwed ... which is good
about time the WoW players got back to WoW
|
|
Vialle Shadowflame
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 05:55:00 -
[361]
Edited by: Vialle Shadowflame on 22/06/2011 06:14:21
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 09/06/2011 20:59:32
I would say 5 drone limit but +3 per DCU (make DCU passive). separate drone bay for Fighters/FBs and regular drones. Slaves no longer work in combination with Supercaps
This makes them pick between dps and survivability mods. Means they can't release endless swarms of drones. Slightly reduces the obscene EHP. Balances the armour supers more with the shield supers
This seems like a good proposal.
|
Vialle Shadowflame
|
Posted - 2011.06.22 06:04:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Vialle Shadowflame on 22/06/2011 06:16:43
Originally by: David Hassan Edited by: David Hassan on 09/05/2011 00:23:01
I agree with the OP, also here is one of my ideas from another thread regarding Super Capitals.
Currently, Super Capital ships can be used for 'risk free' ganks.
It is not uncommon for a supercarrier to log off with aggro and dissappear before anything but the largest of fleets can dispatch it.
My proposal is this:
Super Capital ships should never disappear from space. A ship that large should require the infrastructure of an empire to support it.
Add a new POS module for 'docking' Supercapitals at a POS. This will keep them safe from bumping.
This will force players to have said infrastructure to actually support these behemoths. It might also slow super capital proliferation, as people will actually have to support them logistically with fuel for the POS.
This is a rough idea, but I think it has merit.
People will just leave them cloaked indefinitely with a PC running 23/7, relog, recloak. Although you could also make them unable to cloak :)
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.07.08 05:35:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 08/07/2011 05:37:43
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Jamming 30-40 supercaps would take at least 100 dedicated ECM boats if not more using all the proper racial jammers and we all know what drones tend to do against those who are jamming their host. This would just result in a lot of dead ECM boats followed by the rest of the subcaps.
"We all know" that drones will keep attacking their assigned target. They only attack aggressors when there are no assigned targets. Even given the assumption that fighters and drones are set to attack the ECM boats, a Scorpion can effectively ECM from ~100km, providing ample opportunity to warp in, jam, warp elsewhere on grid, continue jamming. Tactics can be devised to accomplish the task once the EWAR immunity is removed.
It will take far less than 100 dedicated ECM boats (what's a "dedicated" ECM boat?) to interrupt the repping chain of a supercarrier fleet. Given the sensor strength of an Aeon for example - 150 radar. Using a Scorpion with a nominal 10 sensor strength on each jammer, that's 1/15 chance of jamming, each cycle of each jammer. Thus it is highly likely that a fleet of 8 or so Scorpions operating at maximum range could interrupt the lock of a supercarrier on each attempt. Combine that with some heavy sensor damping (1 module per battleship in the attacking fleet, for example) to slow down the relock, and the ***** in the armour is revealed.
Supercarriers with their current statistics will still be phenomenally powerful, but they will have *****s* in their armour which can be exploited. Your argument about Titans being able to single-shot an ECM boat every 15 seconds is pointless, since the Titans will have plenty of targets to choose from - why would they pick ECM specifically, instead of the heavy interdictors, the Bhaalgorns, the recons, or the other capitals and supercapitals?
In addition to removing EWAR immunity, moving the +2 fighters bonus from the hull to the high slot modules will force supercarriers to choose between fleet boosting, logistics or DPS.
* a crack, cleft or fissure, also a slang perjorative term for Vherokior & Jin Mei.
[ Australian players join channel ANZAC ] |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 15:14:00 -
[364]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/07/2011 15:20:13
Quick, dirty and efficient supercapital fixes...
All: * remove EWAR immunity, or, ALTERNATIVELY, have EWAR modules work at 50% effectiveness against them * PREFERABLE : add jump drive "spool up" time (not very long, under a minute) * OPTIONAL : logoff "vanishing" timers doubled (or even tripled)
Supercarriers also: * bomber-only bay separate from drone bay (which is made too small to fit a fighter) * change +2 bonus to controlled (now only) bombers from "always on" to a +2 boost for one DCU per level _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Harry Eyeball
|
Posted - 2011.07.15 16:22:00 -
[365]
Well done ed ! very well thought out ...... kudos !
|
Sigarni Green
|
Posted - 2011.09.02 07:49:00 -
[366]
Taking the shear cost of super carriers in account and the inability to balance things in any likeness to reality(Ie a ship that size ould have so many gun batteries on it to deal with smaller vessels) The current neuting defence against hic's and dics are fairly well balanced imo. Some people are saying that it is a risk free ganking tool. but that is only if you are reckless. The whole idea of 0.0 is to be high risk, nothing is stopping you from dropping your own supercapital fleet or a fleet of neuting tempests onto a ganker. Look at the amout of carriers that would be required to take down 1 super carrier. If they are in a remote repping chain then a single sc will be sure of not killing them and dying. Permitted you can get it bubbled, it is not a buff feature it is a balancing feature. 8 carriers to a super carrier, you have a fight and they all die, the carrier pilots get insurance payout of 50% of ship and fit, supercaps don't get to have platinum insurance. If don't want groups with 50 supercaps floating about and pawning everything in their way. Don't weaken ships that are only able to counter what they are worth but create a game culture where there would be no benefit in controlling half the map for precious moon goo. But rather that you wil have smaller groupsdefending their own small space where they can generate enough income that it is only worth taking if you can populate it heavily and thus get the isk out.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.09.02 08:17:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Sigarni Green Taking the shear cost of super carriers in account and the inability to balance things in any likeness to reality(Ie a ship that size ould have so many gun batteries on it to deal with smaller vessels) The current neuting defence against hic's and dics are fairly well balanced imo. Some people are saying that it is a risk free ganking tool. but that is only if you are reckless. The whole idea of 0.0 is to be high risk, nothing is stopping you from dropping your own supercapital fleet or a fleet of neuting tempests onto a ganker. Look at the amout of carriers that would be required to take down 1 super carrier. If they are in a remote repping chain then a single sc will be sure of not killing them and dying. Permitted you can get it bubbled, it is not a buff feature it is a balancing feature. 8 carriers to a super carrier, you have a fight and they all die, the carrier pilots get insurance payout of 50% of ship and fit, supercaps don't get to have platinum insurance. If don't want groups with 50 supercaps floating about and pawning everything in their way. Don't weaken ships that are only able to counter what they are worth but create a game culture where there would be no benefit in controlling half the map for precious moon goo. But rather that you wil have smaller groupsdefending their own small space where they can generate enough income that it is only worth taking if you can populate it heavily and thus get the isk out.
Balancing on cost alone has been a failed argument since 2006. In an era when a single tech moon provides an income of billions of ISK per week, then arguing that a ship that costs 50 times as much should be able to take on 50 times as many is simply monsensical. T2 Cruisers cost 50 times as much as a T1 cruiser, but no-one with half a brain thinks that they should be able to take on 50 T1 cruisers and survive.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one page] |