EVE Search - Hypothetical dreadnought fix?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hypothetical dreadnought fix?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Val'Dore Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided	Posted - 2011.03.11 03:03:00 - [31] I still think making Dreads into baby Titans is the right plan. Without the DDD and EW immunity of course. ~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ Tiericide
Headerman Minmatar Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.11 03:15:00 - [32] Edited by: Headerman on 11/03/2011 03:21:33 Originally by: Val'Dore I still think making Dreads into baby Titans is the right plan. Without the DDD and EW immunity of course. +1. Or create a new class of cap ships to be like that. People seem to like applying high DPS from a ship that has minimal needs for other things (10 minutes, stront, a very dependent support fleet...) At the very least the OP is showing that bringing the dread out from it's ciche in the corner and into the middle of the room is a good step forwards
Izuru Hishido Amarr Lethal Dosage. Violent Society	Posted - 2011.03.14 05:49:00 - [33] Originally by: Headerman The ONLY good things dreads have atm is that they are cheaper than super carriers. SCs outclass dreads in every other area there is. The Ops idea is a good one, but i would like to put forward my ideas of how to FIX dreads: - Tracking penalty removed Interesting idea. Coming from someone who's been a capital pilot for more than a year and a half and being around multiple pilots who have been around capital pilots since their inception, I can say that while interesting, this is a bad plan. Dreads should not be able to siege green and still hit the ultra close range target for full damage. I have an idea about that I will get to later. Quote: - shield/armour boost removed Bad plan. It would be another penalty for dreadnoughts and would make their class even less attractive to anyone. Quote: - Speed penalty removed Its a dreadnought, not an interceptor. It doesn't need to be fast. It doesn't need to be able to MWD or such around the battlefield at all. Quote: - Scan res penalty reduced Agreed to an extent. Will now cover the rest of your ideas which are somewhat concurrent with my own. Dreads are now, and always have been flying coffins. This is the reason everyone decidedly hates the dreadnought and why they need a manner of buff. This buff does not need to turn them into battleships with an EWAR immunity and the ability to spidertank, but instead it needs to turn them into a mobile capital siege platform that out-damages other capitals (being carriers ofc, not motherships or titans) by a great deal, but does not become a 'wtf-iwin' platform like the supercapitals are currently. My theories on this (being a dread pilot helps) are as follows. Cut the siege timer in half, or even quarter it. Instead of locking the ship in place for ten minutes, it is only unable to jump/warp out for five or even two and a half minutes, with a fuel reduction from the siege module to match the time in siege. Another theory I was toying with was to remove the siege module altogether, and to impose certain limitations on the ship for when it is actively doing something. This would mean: The dread would not require a fourth (or in the Nag's case, fifth) highslot to be effective. Without the siege module, it would also give dreads the ability to FLEE if they needed to, rather than being abandoned by their fleet to die in a fire. What I propose is this: Replace the Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration skillbook with some other skill. Pilots who have this skill trained would receive a bonus to weapon damage, a bonus to tanking ability, and a reduction in EWAR effectiveness per level, ultimately giving them the damage they should be able to have innately and the ability to tank. This would, of course, incur several penalties so that dreads would not instantly become 'god mode.' Such penalties could be as follows. Inability to receive remote shield repair/remote armor repair while weapons and local repairers are running and that inability persists for ninety seconds. They would be able to jump after two minutes passed, and would be able to warp as well. That said, dreads would be able to receive limited remote assistance while engaging a target, such as capacitor transfer, remote tracking links, so on. This partial assistance would make the dread extremely viable, and the fact that they aren't simply anchored down would be an immense boost to the class. That said, there would be certain penalties with the new dread. Their tracking/explosion velocity would be even worse at base than it is in siege now (due to the ability to receive RR for this) They would be able to be tackled by any ship, not just a hic or a bubble anymore. The 'new dread' would require 95% capacitor to jump, not the usual 71.25% by other capitals. That would mean that the dread would be utterly reliant on remote support to be able to jump quickly. Feel free to pick at my theory. --Iz. "The point of war is not to die for your country, its to make the other bastard die for his."
AstarothPrime	Posted - 2011.03.14 07:16:00 - [34] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Omara Otawan That would dramatically increase their effectivity against subcaps, which is a very bad idea. Oh come on... dreads dealing 8000 DPS to battleships is totally reasonable. -Liang Learn to read. It would be different siege module. And it wouldnt have DAMAGE modifier. It would basically do same damage as pimped out T3. ~1k DPS @ 200 km with no tracking issues seems ok. WTFPWNS over long range, but cant really defend / run if u come close. Regards I.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.14 12:44:00 - [35] Edited by: Rastigan on 14/03/2011 12:44:54 Dreads should NOT be made to hit small targets well, if not it becomes another imbalanced ship like the Supercarrier. CCP specifically nerfed the Moros for this reason.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.14 13:09:00 - [36] Dreads are not too bad atm... The only reason they are useless are because of super carriers being so nasty with their high dps. Super carriers and carriers still can't reinforce a pos tower unless using sentry drones so they're definately needed. Dreads still need a boost though as it doesn't lookk like super carriers gets nerfed. And Im not sure super carriers should be nerfed except from implementing jump delays of some sort to take away some hotdrop power. I like suggestions like (all seperate suggstions): Siege Module shold be giving 80-99% structure resistance This could mean 1 less lowslot on all dreads though. or Siege mode: Increase weapon system damage x2 of current while adjusting the guns scan resolution accordingly. or Adjust dreadnoughts siege mode to 5 minutes (maybe have skill affect siege time instead of fuel consumption) - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
Spartan dax	Posted - 2011.03.14 13:10:00 - [37] Dreads are fine, they don't need fixing. It's supercarriers that is the problem. Or rather fighterbombers. Nerf fighterbombers so they can't target immobile (read sieged) targets and structures and we'll start seeing dreads a bit more.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.14 15:29:00 - [38] Originally by: AstarothPrime Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Omara Otawan That would dramatically increase their effectivity against subcaps, which is a very bad idea. Oh come on... dreads dealing 8000 DPS to battleships is totally reasonable. -Liang Learn to read. It would be different siege module. And it wouldnt have DAMAGE modifier. It would basically do same damage as pimped out T3. ~1k DPS @ 200 km with no tracking issues seems ok. WTFPWNS over long range, but cant really defend / run if u come close. Regards I. You must have missed this line. I underlined the part you seem to have missed. Originally by: King Rothgar 6) Last and certainly not least, remove the damage bonus from the siege mod. Give the gun's base stats a buff so their damage both in and out of siege is equal to current damage in siege. Learn to read indeed. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.03.14 16:51:00 - [39] Remove Siege modules. Buff dread dps to 1/2 of siege mode damage. Nerf tracking appropriately. Done. IDK can anyone make an coherent argument why dreads SHOULD be totally stationary?
agrajag119	Posted - 2011.03.14 19:57:00 - [40] leave dreads alone (although siege cycle to 5min would be sweet) Give SC's a siege mod. Make it use some ice product (pick one), and give a massive %bonus to FB damage. Without the module active FB's get their damage taken down to normal fighter levels. SC siege mod doesn't have any other penalty than blocking cyno'ing for the cycle (5 minutes). All the sudden SC's have to commit to the field like other caps.
Izuru Hishido Amarr Lethal Dosage. Violent Society	Posted - 2011.03.14 20:14:00 - [41] Originally by: agrajag119 leave dreads alone (although siege cycle to 5min would be sweet) Give SC's a siege mod. Make it use some ice product (pick one), *and give a massive %bonus to FB damage.* Without the module active FB's get their damage taken down to normal fighter levels. SC siege mod doesn't have any other penalty than blocking cyno'ing for the cycle (5 minutes). All the sudden SC's have to commit to the field like other caps. Give SC's a module that ALLOWS them to launch their fighterbombers. When this module is active, their mass is cubed, they can't move, they can't jump, they can't run in any shape way or form. Until that module is activated, they cannot launch any type of fighter drone. Absolute no to the massive bonus to FB damage. They already do 8k-10k DPS and you want them to do MORE? Sure, lets just compound the problem. If they get the HP of a Large control tower, they shouldn't be able to run the second something happens and be able to retract their DPS later. Yeah, that'd be a great fix. Oh, and impose a penalty so that motherships cannot activate this module in lowsec. "The point of war is not to die for your country, its to make the other bastard die for his."
Meatypopsicle	Posted - 2011.03.14 21:56:00 - [42] Edited by: Meatypopsicle on 14/03/2011 21:57:05 Originally by: Izuru Hishido Originally by: agrajag119 leave dreads alone (although siege cycle to 5min would be sweet) Give SC's a siege mod. Make it use some ice product (pick one), *and give a massive %bonus to FB damage.* Without the module active FB's get their damage taken down to normal fighter levels. SC siege mod doesn't have any other penalty than blocking cyno'ing for the cycle (5 minutes). All the sudden SC's have to commit to the field like other caps. Give SC's a module that ALLOWS them to launch their fighterbombers. When this module is active, their mass is cubed, they can't move, they can't jump, they can't run in any shape way or form. Until that module is activated, they cannot launch any type of fighter drone. Absolute no to the massive bonus to FB damage. They already do 8k-10k DPS and you want them to do MORE? Sure, lets just compound the problem. If they get the HP of a Large control tower, they shouldn't be able to run the second something happens and be able to retract their DPS later. Yeah, that'd be a great fix. Oh, and impose a penalty so that motherships cannot activate this module in lowsec. wtf is with the reading comprehension in this thread - underlined the part you missed. In other words, same FB dmg while in siege, worse dmg out of siege. It's a rubbish idea but at least :comprehension: before slagging off.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.14 22:14:00 - [43] Originally by: Meatypopsicle wtf is with the reading comprehension in this thread - underlined the part you missed. In other words, same FB dmg while in siege, worse dmg out of siege. It's a rubbish idea but at least :comprehension: before slagging off. What you seem to be missing is that the way SCs are RIGHT NOW is overpowered, regardless of any siege module. I think they want a siege module and a net damage reduction. ;-) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Val'Dore Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided	Posted - 2011.03.14 22:30:00 - [44] SC damage isnt the problem. SC tank is the problem. Cut the total slot count for carriers and supercarriers in half. ~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ Tiericide
RavenPaine	Posted - 2011.03.14 22:33:00 - [45] I sort of liked the idea about "no supers in lo-sec". could be ammended to no FB's in lo-sec You could add a serious targeting delay for supers, or reduce the seige timer for dreads. Add more tank for the "little" caps? I dont know all the ripple effects, I just know that dreads have some serious issues atm.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.14 22:37:00 - [46] Originally by: RavenPaine I sort of liked the idea about "no supers in lo-sec". could be ammended to no FB's in lo-sec The problem with low sec SCs is threefold: - There are far fewer people in low sec than in 0.0. There are not enormous j/b networks and 50 bored titan/SC pilots ready to hot drop anything that moves. - It's difficult to tackle SCs in low sec because of the lack of bubbles. - They have hella huge tanks - more than is really reasonable for even a prepared low sec gang to deal with in the 15 minutes after they Ctrl-Q. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Alessena	Posted - 2011.03.15 01:03:00 - [47] I think a good way to fix SC's is to require a siege module to launch FB's, and make FB's as easy to hit as a T1 cruiser, and maybe the sig radius of a BC. That lets the SC have more options than a dread(ie regular drones), but their FB dps is very killable.
Lubomir Penev Sausages of Truth	Posted - 2011.03.15 01:44:00 - [48] Originally by: Mr Hyde113 What if the siege module for dreads actually reduced the sig radius for dreads? You know that's the sig radius is only used for tracking wrt gun damage, and that sieged dreads don't move, thus will be tracked perfectly? You change would only have any impact vs capital missiles. Capital guns, fighter bombers, fighters and everything else would still do as much damage... Since no one use the Phoenix anyway, you change would do exactly nothing. There are no macrominers in EVE
AristotleOnassis	Posted - 2011.03.15 05:33:00 - [49] Its easy to fix dreads. All they need is 10x more dps. And explosion velocity and tracking of heavy missiles/medium guns that way they can kill battleships and capitals more easily. and make it more fair for everyone.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.15 09:55:00 - [50] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: RavenPaine I sort of liked the idea about "no supers in lo-sec". could be ammended to no FB's in lo-sec The problem with low sec SCs is threefold: - There are far fewer people in low sec than in 0.0. There are not enormous j/b networks and 50 bored titan/SC pilots ready to hot drop anything that moves. - It's difficult to tackle SCs in low sec because of the lack of bubbles. - They have hella huge tanks - more than is really reasonable for even a prepared low sec gang to deal with in the 15 minutes after they Ctrl-Q. -Liang And only the second one is relevant. There are also enough areas in 0.0 without many people in it, should SCs receive a nerf only when in those areas? Not to mention while supercarriers are unbalanced solo, it becomes much worse when they come in groups (a couple of carriers can tank a single SC, that becomes rapidly impossible when both sides increase in numbers). Less people in low sec = smaller groups of SCs. You got a point they are harder to tackle in low sec, but even if you remove their ability to launch FBs in low sec or something similar, then they are still ridiculously overpowered in 0.0.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.15 16:51:00 - [51] Originally by: Furb Killer Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: RavenPaine I sort of liked the idea about "no supers in lo-sec". could be ammended to no FB's in lo-sec The problem with low sec SCs is threefold: - There are far fewer people in low sec than in 0.0. There are not enormous j/b networks and 50 bored titan/SC pilots ready to hot drop anything that moves. - It's difficult to tackle SCs in low sec because of the lack of bubbles. - They have hella huge tanks - more than is really reasonable for even a prepared low sec gang to deal with in the 15 minutes after they Ctrl-Q. -Liang And only the second one is relevant. There are also enough areas in 0.0 without many people in it, should SCs receive a nerf only when in those areas? Not to mention while supercarriers are unbalanced solo, it becomes much worse when they come in groups (a couple of carriers can tank a single SC, that becomes rapidly impossible when both sides increase in numbers). Less people in low sec = smaller groups of SCs. You got a point they are harder to tackle in low sec, but even if you remove their ability to launch FBs in low sec or something similar, then they are still ridiculously overpowered in 0.0. Yeah, we've had this discussion before. Outside of the occasional vacation to Stain/Curse, I don't live in 0.0 and don't care to argue with people in 0.0 about whether or not SCs are overpowered and/or needed in 0.0. What I can do is restrict myself to commenting on an area of the game that I'm extremely familiar with. Anyway. SCs are more OP in low sec than 0.0... but if you want to argue that they're still OP in 0.0, feel free. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Maz3r Rakum Gallente The Imperial Fedaykin	Posted - 2011.03.15 17:24:00 - [52] I didn't read the entire thread, but this is my proposed change (similar to op). Just remove the active tanking bonuses, cap/rep amount, and just allow them to receive remote reps. Perhaps even allow the siege module to be scriptable (or a new dread only mid slot), that would allow them to tackle super caps. Or maybe, make it so dreads are viable without a siege module (ie worth using), but keep the siege module the way it is, so a pilot would make a similar choice as a triage carrier does (much more likely to die). Basically active tanking is increasingly becoming less than desirable, and resist bonuses are preferred. This is true for sub-caps as well as capitals. Changing active tank bonuses on dreads and allowing for logistics to rep them would allow them to be viable.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.03.15 19:29:00 - [53] You'd still have the numbers problem when the damage on the field is more than an arbitrarily large fleet of carriers can rep though. Once the DPS exceeds a certain percentage of the EHP, you just don't have enough time to get reps on the target before they drop. What I wanted to achieve with my change is that dreadnoughts would have a specific period when they can receive these reps -- and because the repping team has advanced notice of when siege is going to drop, they can get the reps on the target fast enough for the dreadnought to minimize its exposure window. If the opposing supercarrier team is smart enough to keep track of the siege timers and anticipate the rep window, they can overwhelm the reps and capacitor transfer -- but they're going to have to anticipate it, and that includes switching drones to the right ship as it comes out of siege. That was the effect I was trying to accomplish: Give repping teams a metagame advantage by making the piece of information they know (time left on the siege cycle) significant. That should allow carriers to keep dreads on the field, at least until the supercarriers catch onto that dreadnought's siege cycle and send fighter bombers in advance.
Songbird Gallente T.I.E. Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.15 19:35:00 - [54] I like the suggestion for sieged SC. If you wanna launch fighter-bombers 10 min siege, bombers automatically return when siege cycle is over. Normal fighters and lesser drones can be launched at all times. Voila - SC nerfed into oblivion :P
Braelyn Order of Paradox White Angels.	Posted - 2011.03.15 19:36:00 - [55] Edited by: Braelyn on 15/03/2011 19:36:40 Originally by: Val'Dore SC damage isnt the problem. SC tank is the problem. Cut the total slot count for carriers and supercarriers in half. Great idea... instead of creating ideas on how to rebalance the mom, instead let's make it useless, along with the standard carriers... >.>
Baneken Gallente The New Knighthood Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2011.03.15 19:57:00 - [56] Biggest problem seems to be that dreads don't live long enough while sieged so a logical suggestion would be to let dreads to be repped while sieged and carriers as well. Numbers should be tweaked accordingly for how much reps a single sieged / triaged capital should take in, so as to not make them entirely unkillable against non-capital fleets. http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Braelyn Order of Paradox White Angels.	Posted - 2011.03.15 20:07:00 - [57] Originally by: Baneken Biggest problem seems to be that dreads don't live long enough while sieged so a logical suggestion would be to let dreads to be repped while sieged and carriers as well. Numbers should be tweaked accordingly for how much reps a single sieged / triaged capital should take in, so as to not make them entirely unkillable against non-capital fleets. Dreads have always suffered heavy losses, though. It is not some new part of the meta. We know that siege has always been worth using, despite this fact, whereas triage was never heavily implemented until the reduction in cycle time to 5 minutes. The only way I can see removing the "no aid" part of siege, is if the bonuses to local tank are removed from the module at the same time.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.03.15 21:43:00 - [58] I've posted it on the assembly hall, here.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.15 22:11:00 - [59] Edited by: Furb Killer on 15/03/2011 22:11:57 Quote: if you want to argue that they're still OP in 0.0 Serious? You have any doubts about that? (btw the whole "i just dont want them in lowsec then i dont care about it" is a bit pointless, I say the same about 0.0, lets put them in high sec. But that is not actually solving the issue with SCs, and yes as i said before they are more OP in low sec, but banning them from lowsec does not actually solve the problem).
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.15 22:21:00 - [60] Originally by: Furb Killer Serious? You have any doubts about that? (btw the whole "i just dont want them in lowsec then i dont care about it" is a bit pointless, I say the same about 0.0, lets put them in high sec. But that is not actually solving the issue with SCs, and yes as i said before they are more OP in low sec, but banning them from lowsec does not actually solve the problem). I thought I made it clear. I have no doubts that they're overpowered in 0.0, but that isn't a fight I'm terribly well equipped to fight. Also, who said anything about banning them from low sec? Whatever happens with them in 0.0, the tackle immunity in low sec really needs to go. -Liang

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.