Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Orboro Naheema
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 21:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Orboro Naheema on 11/02/2011 22:04:02 Edited by: Orboro Naheema on 11/02/2011 21:54:17 Problem: Lots of people talking about rebalancing capital ship warfare
Goal: To reinforce combined arms fleets and to get more dreadnoughts and carriers into the mix while further refining the role of the supper carrier
I agree with some of the things said in an earlier thread concerning reducing the amount of regular drones that super carriers can carry to make them more dependent on other ships, but I would like to give something back to super carriers to make it cool to fly them. All the numbers are for discussion only. I pulled them out of my arse for discussion. It would be necessary to allow dreadnoughts to receive some repair from carriers when in siege mode in order to balance out the carriers and super carriers fleet against the carriers and dreadnoughts fleet. The repair amount could be balanced by reducing the effectiveness of carrier RR on dreads in siege mode through some sort of diminishing returns or requiring carriers to be in triage mode.
ALL SUPER CARRIERS
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can fit Projected Electronic Counter Measures Can deploy 3 additional Fighters, Fighter Bombers or Drones per level Can fit 1 additional Warfare Link module per level 200% bonus to Fighter or Fighter Bomber control range Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare
AEON
5% bonus to all Armor resistances per level 5% bonus to Capital Energy and Armor transfer range per level to all carriers in the SCÆs unit 2% increase in dreadnought weapon tracking with an equivalent increase in dreadnought missile explosion velocity per level to all dreadnoughts in the SCÆs unit
WYVERN
5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level 5% bonus to Capital Energy and Shield transfer range per level to all carriers in the SCÆs unit 2% bonus to dreadnought weapon rate of fire per level to all dreadnoughts in the SCÆs unit
NYX
5% bonus to deployed Fighters or Fighter Bomber damage per level 5% bonus to Capital Energy and Armor transfer range per level to all carriers in the SCÆs unit 2% bonus to deployed Fighter damage to all carriers in the SCÆs unit
HEL
5% bonus to Shield and Armor transfer amount per level 5% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level to all carriers in the SCÆs unit 2% bonus to dreadnought weapon damage per level to all dreadnoughts in the SCÆs unit
|
klyeme
The Mind's Eye Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 04:52:00 -
[2]
I like this idea, but the bonuses should be changed a little and applied as gang link bonuses so you can only get 3 SC's providing these bonuses per fleet.
Also Wyvern and Aeon should give shield with capacitor or armor with capacitor, and the Nyx and Hel should give bonuses that would fit their race.
|
Col Callahan
Caldari Boogie Monsters
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 07:39:00 -
[3]
This does nothing to fix the real problem with SC's, witch is that they can 10k dps wile mobile. This allows a handful of people to tear apart POS defense's in less then 5 mins, and destroy blockade units in less then 60 secs. They've gone from useless to WTFPWNMOBILES. I heard you the last time. |
Parsee789
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 08:04:00 -
[4]
There is nothing wrong Super Carriers, they do what they were meant to do, which is to be Superior fire support. Dreads are simply cheaper and weaker alternatives for those who don't have the isk or the power to use em. Nerfing Super Carriers will destroy what made them super in the first place.
The game needs more dps and less tank. The only thing I would support is if the HP of all ships would reduced by 25% and dps output increased by 25%. Making killing easier and surviving harder will be a more hardcore element of the game.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 09:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Orboro Naheema Goal: To reinforce combined arms fleets and to get more dreadnoughts and carriers into the mix while further refining the role of the supper carrier...
"Supper Carrier", at least you didn't call them soup carriers
Where is the combined arms part of the solution? All I see is capitals, capitals and more capitals. No inherent vulnerabilities and SC's becoming even better and more spamable than today.
You need to make them weak against not only dreadnaughts but to sub-capitals. Do that and you force them to lug around support fleets (ie. combined arms).
Not supported. SC's do not need even more power and reason to exist.
|
Orboro Naheema
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 19:32:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Orboro Naheema on 12/02/2011 19:33:17 LOL@ supper carriers thought those were waiters and waitresses DAMN YOU SPELL CHECKER!
Yeah. The bonuses listed are for discussion only. I actually copied them from the super carrier's old secondary bonuses. This is why they may not have the bonuses that you mentioned, and they are intended to transfer their bonuses like command ships. I may have been unclear about that.
@ Col Callahan and Hirana Yoshida
This was only intended to be a partial fix. I do not want super carriers to be nerfed back to POS ornaments. I want people to want to field them in fleets as well as solo. Removing all of their remote repair and energy transfer bonuses and turning them into fleet bonuses passed to capital ships below them was intended to make them dependent on other capital ships.
They now have a significantly weakened ability to form remote repair gangs with other super carriers. They also give significant buffs to carriers and dreadnoughts below them which should make people want to field them with these ships. I should have been more clear in my opening statement, but I was concerned only with the combined arms aspects of capital and super capital ships. I was not attempting to bring sub-capital ships up with these changes. Others have discussed this already. I referred to some of these proposals in the beginning. Some of them include:
* reducing super carrier EHP * reducing super carriers ability to carry wave after wave of small drones * reducing super carrier fighter/fighter bomber bay size to force them to carry enough of them to fulfill a single role (i.e. anti-capital or anti sub-cap) * Adding some sort of timer to super carriers when switching from fighter types (fighters and fighter bombers) * Making them more vulnerable to ECM
I do not necessarily support all of these. If changes are to come, I think it would be better to see a refining of the super carrier role and a drawing together of the other capitals rather than brute force hacking at EHP and damage. Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |