| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aamrr
   |
Posted - 2011.03.10 01:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Aamrr on 10/03/2011 01:55:37
I honestly don't have the expertise to answer this question, so I'm deferring to those with more knowledge of capital warfare.
Suppose that the siege module were modified in the following way:
- -50% armor/shield cycle removed
- +100% armor/shield rep/boost removed
- +60% non-stacking-penalized armor/shield/hull omni resist added
Effectively, a sieging dread would take only 40% of the normal incoming damage when in siege mode. This would have the effect of increasing their EHP by about 150%, and would actually give the ships a decent chance of surviving until they could receive reps.
To compensate, the phoenix and naglfar (and to a lesser extent, the moros and revelation) would lose their cavernous capacitor, as they would no longer be expected to sustain an active tank. (Revelation and Moros would still need to sustain their guns, obviously.)
Once the siege cycle ends, the dreadnought would no longer benefit from the resist bonus, and would take 2.5x as much damage. However, it would also be eligible for remote rep support. I'm not sure how easily an enemy gang can tell when a dread leaves siege, but this would certainly be a good time to apply some damage. 
Essentially, siege mode becomes unsustainable (the hit points will eventually run out), but viable (you should be able to survive five minutes under all but the most determined assault).
Unfortunately, my only knowledge comes from what I've gleaned from number crunching and forum trolling, and I'd like a look from someone that knows what they're talking about. 
|
Cambarus
Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:06:00 -
[2]
That's actually a pretty cool idea, but I think the main issues facing dreads atm are:
Immobility: Forced to sit still for 10 minutes. This is HUGE when combined with the no RR support.
Damage application: Can't hit moving supercaps for ****, and given the recent SC proliferation this is a problem. |
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:12:00 -
[3]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the siege cycle 5 minutes?
And if tracking is a problem, perhaps it's the capital guns that need tweaking, not the dreads themselves?
|
Cambarus
Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:14:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Aamrr
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the siege cycle 5 minutes?
And if tracking is a problem, perhaps it's the capital guns that need tweaking, not the dreads themselves?
Nope. Triage is 5, siege is 10.
Siege mod also nerfs your tracking by 50%. |
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:23:00 -
[5]
Huh. So it is. And yeah, it also nerfs the explosion velocity, but does so by 60% instead. Weird.
Well, as I said at the beginning, this isn't my area of expertise.
Still, is it worth making a post on the assembly hall about it? |
Headerman
Minmatar
Metanoia.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:39:00 -
[6]
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
- shield/armour boost removed
- Speed penalty removed
- Scan res penalty reduced
Things to add:
- Ability to cancel at any time
- Activate for infinite time (ala cloaking)
- 50% resists to armour and shields
- Make them RR'able
basically make them more mobile and more involved WITH gangs, rather than have them DEPENDENT on gangs
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:41:00 -
[7]
Err...if you're going to let them just pop it on and off, why not just give them the bonuses all the time?
As you've written it just now, the only difference is that you've given them a way to circumvent the scan resolution penalty. 
|
Headerman
Minmatar
Metanoia.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:57:00 -
[8]
Cause doing the same DPS as a 15 bil carrier should have a cost more than just in construction
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 03:02:00 -
[9]
You're completely missing the point of my question. If you can simply activate and deactivate the siege module at will, it's not much of a siege, is it?
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 03:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Target Painter on 10/03/2011 03:28:40
Originally by: Aamrr
As you've written it just now, the only difference is that you've given them a way to circumvent the scan resolution penalty.
You lose all your locks when you enter siege. Yeah, they thought about that one already. Your idea in general makes them die much more slowly, but with a ten minute siege cycle, they are still going to die to supercarriers. Possibly even faster, without an active tank.
At any rate, a moderate (20-40%) DPS increase, reduction in the siege cycle to 5 minutes and boost to capacitor/capacitor recharge could make dreads viable again. For the reinforce, a group of DPS-boosted dreads being able to one-cycle the tower with their reduced siege cycle would stand a minimal chance of being dropped, the boosted capacitor would potentially allow them to tank one or two supercarriers in case they were dropped and maybe make them somewhat viable against supercarriers as opposed to be lambs lead to FB slaughter.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 03:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cambarus
Damage application: Can't hit moving supercaps for ****, and given the recent SC proliferation this is a problem.
Hitting moving supercaps with sieged dreads isnt an issue, their huge signature more than compensates for the tracking penality you get in siege.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:02:00 -
[12]
I still think the idea of an active tanked dreadnought is dumb. Active tanks excel in small-scale combat, where the majority of the DPS can be negated by your reps. When you're significantly outnumbered, buffer tanks make more sense.
So a resist bonus...?
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:05:00 -
[13]
Instead of adding even more hp grind in eve, you can just decrease cycle time.
|
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:29:00 -
[14]
I can't support this idea as it skirts around the whole problem. The problem isn't active tank or EHP, it's that if you drop one SC on them they are completely ****ed and can't even shoot back effectively. Remove SC's from the game and suddenly dreads are well balanced and useful. Obviously SC's aren't going anywhere, but they do need a nice heavy handed nerf. That said, I would support making the siege module more like triage in that it's optional. So here are my thoughts on how the siege mod should be altered:
1) Reduce cycle time to 5 minutes
2) Halve per cycle fuel consumption (same fuel currently used over 10 minutes)
3) Replace 50% tracking penalty with +400% tracking buff (equivalent bonus to missiles)
4) Add +100% optimal and falloff bonus
5) Remove scan resolution penalty.
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.
Intended result: You do the same damage outside of siege as you do in it and the cycle time is only 5 minutes. However if you do siege, you not only gain EW immunity, you also get large tracking and range bonuses to your weapons. The idea being to allow your now immobile gunboat to engage moving targets effectively and at extended ranges when needed. The drawbacks are obvious and however, complete immobility for 5 minutes, inability to receive cap transfers or RR and the max lockable targets is reduced to just 2. I would leave the local tank bonus as is, they are pretty squishy all things considered even with it.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:34:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aamrr
I still think the idea of an active tanked dreadnought is dumb. Active tanks excel in small-scale combat, where the majority of the DPS can be negated by your reps. When you're significantly outnumbered, buffer tanks make more sense.
It makes sense in the context they were created. My Phoenix could tank upwards of 40K DPS (overheated, with blue pill) while cap held out. I once tanked an entire 'sniper' dread fleet for half my siege cycle until I could come out of siege, get capped up and jump out. Dreads were designed to tank far more than they gank, while cap held out. Once they went dry, you still have a huge buffer to chew through (triple buffer rigs were standard), with the objective being that your own dreads died slower than the other side's dreads until only yours were left.
I miss cap fights.
Quote:
So a resist bonus...?
As a bonus to the siege module itself, that would be fine, although a resist bonus does more to aid active tanking than a straight boost bonus does. It would make neuting less effective, meaning it would be harder to kill dreads with subcaps but not do too much to roaming hordes of supercarriers, unless it was a truly massive amount EHP being granted.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: King Rothgar
3) Replace 50% tracking penalty with +400% tracking buff (equivalent bonus to missiles)
4) Add +100% optimal and falloff bonus
5) Remove scan resolution penalty.
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.
That would dramatically increase their effectivity against subcaps, which is a very bad idea.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 05:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: King Rothgar
3) Replace 50% tracking penalty with +400% tracking buff (equivalent bonus to missiles)
4) Add +100% optimal and falloff bonus
5) Remove scan resolution penalty.
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.
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
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 05:19:00 -
[18]
At least it's some form of a workable niche. As opposed to being simple SC punching bags.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 08:53:00 -
[19]
Capitals shouldn't be mobile, agile weapons. They should have to commit to a fight. Ten minute siege mode and immobility on dreadnoughts is a good thing - the problem is the supercarriers. Give them a siege mode.
|
Alonzo Harris
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 08:57:00 -
[20]
Don't try to balance Dreads towards SC's, instead nerf SC's back to being realistic.
|
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 09:34:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: King Rothgar
3) Replace 50% tracking penalty with +400% tracking buff (equivalent bonus to missiles)
4) Add +100% optimal and falloff bonus
5) Remove scan resolution penalty.
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.
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
Lols. Yeah there is absolutely no way CCP would introduce a cap that could dish out that kind of hurt to a BS.
|
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 09:47:00 -
[22]
You do realize that +400% tracking on gigapulses is still really god awful tracking right? And I didn't say anything about adjusting their target radius. You could hit a SC and that's about it. Trying to hit a BS like that is like trying to shoot interceptors with megapulses. You might get lucky if they do something dumb but otherwise forget it. Also confirming CCP never released a ship that did 8-10k dps on BS's called a SC.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:03:00 -
[23]
I like the OP but my initial thought is to not only remove the active tank bonuses and add a slight resist bonus but to allow RR while in siege mode and a slight nerf to Titan gun and missile damage (not the DD).
Ofc the numbers might need a bit of tweaking but here's the general idea:
Carriers and dreads become the counter to supercarriers as you can use pantheon to tank a massive amount and the dreads can still do their damage.
Supercarriers are the counter to titans with more EHP and the ability to move while still dealing damage.
Titans are the counter to carriers + dreads as you can alpha strike them before they even have the chance to receive RR.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:14:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Aamrr
I still think the idea of an active tanked dreadnought is dumb. Active tanks excel in small-scale combat, where the majority of the DPS can be negated by your reps. When you're significantly outnumbered, buffer tanks make more sense.
So a resist bonus...?
There's nothing wrong with dreads, they work fine for me.
Not all dreads are used in 0.0 megablobs.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:52:00 -
[25]
Originally by: King Rothgar
You do realize that +400% tracking on gigapulses is still really god awful tracking right?
+400% tracking on a Moros would yield ~8K DPS at 10km and above against a Megathron orbiting at speed. I wasn't a fan of SCs being ******ed that way, and I won't be a fan of much more common dreads being ******ed that way either. Its simply beyond the pale to suggest it.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 11:50:00 -
[26]
Tenfold their dps, make siege cycles 24 hour long, increase mass even more.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 658959
|
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 12:21:00 -
[27]
Dreads => Intended use => Long-term structure siege
So, how 'bout....
- make eligible for rr support whilst in siege (SC defence)
- increase damage, say 100%?
- keep tracking same or a bit less to compensate for damage buff
Verses a static POS dread should do the most damage. More than an SC. But verses ships the damage is mitigated. |
Baneken
Gallente
The New Knighthood
Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:03:00 -
[28]
Or simply give fighter bombers 10-100x more signature radius for their guns, after that FBs shouldn't so much damage to sub capitals but they would still hit smaller caps which they are intended against.
With that issue being fixed, siege/triage should still take a full 10min worth of fuel (less with skills) but you could stop it at any time with a slight cool down to stop you from jumping/docking as soon as triage ends.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:55:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Alonzo Harris
Don't try to balance Dreads towards SC's, instead nerf SC's back to being realistic.
This.
|
Mr Hyde113
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 14:52:00 -
[30]
What if the siege module for dreads actually reduced the sig radius for dreads?
I dont know the exact figures but make the sig radius differential between fighter bombers and the sieged dread enough that it could potentially survive with its active tank enough to get out of siege. This would mean that fighter bombers would hit sieged dreads for a less than regular fighters' damage.
This way while a dread was in siege, fighter bombers wouldnt be able to hit them that well, but would have to wait until the dread was out of siege to apply full damage.
This would give the dreads the option to survive siege and recieve rep, or continue in siege and keep their sig low.
This would also potentially force SCs to carry regular fighters, since they would be more effective in hitting the new lower-sig dreads.
The EW immunity would stay so that dreads cant just be TP'd to hell. All other factors would remain the same.
I know there are prob some flaws in my idea, but I thought i'd add my potentially simple solution to the mix.
Cheers,
-Hyde |
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 |
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 22:50:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Braelyn
Edited by: Braelyn on 15/03/2011 19:56:18
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... >.>
Right, because carriers should be able to trade hits with Dreads and Titans and not be remote power projection force multipliers. Why not just give SCs the Titan stuff and Carriers the Dread stuff and we can just play Carriers Online.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Tiericide |
Von Kroll
Caldari
Kroll's Legion
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 02:24:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Furb Killer
...banning them from lowsec does not actually solve the problem.
Well, it solves a big part of it in low-sec. Sure, it does nothing to solve the null-sec issue, but not having bubbles to tackle them in low means they have little to fear...
|
AristotleOnassis
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 03:42:00 -
[63]
Edited by: AristotleOnassis on 16/03/2011 03:43:22
A better way to improve balance in this game, is to reward strategic gaming in the game
This could be done by rewarding disciplined players, by reducing the resists of a ship which is focused fired by the enemy fleet.
For example, a ship gets -3% resists if two people are shooting it, and this stacks vertically, so a 100 man gang shooting a supercarrier with 80% resists, will get a negative 217% resists, so the SC takes more then triple the damage of a ship with 0% resists.
This will result in the game rewarding people who have discipline in choosing targets, and also reduce the effectiveness of buffer fitted ships.
|
RagnarRox
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 05:14:00 -
[64]
Edited by: RagnarRox on 16/03/2011 05:14:58
Im all for it, If you want an active Dread you still get a ton more Reps in Siege because your Resists, SO you get to chose Fast Attack Gank Dreads like before SC`s or huge Buffered ones, but they need to add a Cap Class "PLate" and "Shield Extender" IMO for it to work but, I like it alot.
But the Drawbacks need to be 3 Minute Siege Intervals. Another cool Idea I saw was a Bonus to Strength of ECM Drones, it would be like a poor mans ECM Burst, so they would stand half a chance of escaping. It might have alot of gaps in it but I liked the idea, unless they wanna make a ECM Burst for it.
I like the ECM Idea because it would be dual like having Tacklers vs Bonused ECM Drones, Tacklers could get them if they didnt have support fleet, but a lone tackler would be beaten by it.
We can all agree 10 mins is ridiculous, now days with Titan Bridging and JB`s so available you can get almost anywhere in 10 Mins so if the guy Goes Green thats a Huge risk, they need to make Dreads mini Titans IMO, like Glass Cannon Titans, So they need to have similiar Cooldown as Titan does rather than 10 mins.
It would encourage people to bring Dreads alot more, and Moms would still have the Jump anytime you have the cap advantage while still sporting on avg 2-3k more DPS, also with the new Resist Buff the Dread would have more like 5 Mil EHP in Siege Mode and what 2.5 mil without or somewhere in there, I like that its not so high to be the best bang for your buck and would actually make Triage carriers useful and not so suicidal anymore, even the Pantheon might come back :)
But the RR thing would make them way to OP`d IMO you could get a huge amount of Cap Reps on a ship that had a base resist of 60%, hell with 4 EANMS or Invulns that is way way to high, and we would start seeing Moms without 2 Nuets or 2 Smarty`s but rather 1 nuet 1 smarty and 2 Cap Reps+ Carriers, They would be only killable quickly by Titans and basically a group of Carriers or hell BS`s would have a very hard time.
I like them as Mini Titans where Carriers are mini SC`s, So I say glass cannons it is. 5 mil EHP with Good resist but standalone until they drop the resists some sort of ECM defense so it makes it competitive with a HIC pilot but slightly loses to 2 of them [Im thinking Lowsec], And with the Resists they can fit either buffer or Active reps. Good idea just no on RR
Take what you Can, when you can. |
Kail Storm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 05:22:00 -
[65]
Originally by: AristotleOnassis
Edited by: AristotleOnassis on 16/03/2011 03:43:22
A better way to improve balance in this game, is to reward strategic gaming in the game
This could be done by rewarding disciplined players, by reducing the resists of a ship which is focused fired by the enemy fleet.
For example, a ship gets -3% resists if two people are shooting it, and this stacks vertically, so a 100 man gang shooting a supercarrier with 80% resists, will get a negative 217% resists, so the SC takes more then triple the damage of a ship with 0% resists.
This will result in the game rewarding people who have discipline in choosing targets, and also reduce the effectiveness of buffer fitted ships.
Lol this is Bass Akwards
All the people who want targeting Nerfs want them the opposite way, Meaning if 1 Guy targets you he does 100% of his DMG 2nd guy does 80% 3rd 60% 4th 40% etc etc but with more refined numbers.
All your thing would do was encourage even more blobbing as now you who ever had the most ships targeting would do the most DMG...That is crazy.
Lol if that were the case no smaller force would ever fight a larger force without vastly superior ships and even then it wouldnt help, You could get 500 Gank ruptures and kill a SC faster than you could with 500 BS`s now since DMg would be stackable, no one would ever fly expensive ships just alot of them...
I hope I got what you said wrong because thats just crazy talk, Thats not target discipline that is who ever targets with more wins, and in fact it would make Dramiels and cynabals top dawgs, a Dram with 2 Nanos and AB can travel so fast nothing bigger can hit it, while the 200 Drams could target T3`s and take there huge Resist to 0 instantly effectively leaving them no buffer at all...Crazy
--------------------------------------------------
"If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed"
-Me
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 15:41:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kail Storm
@ Liang
The problem is since the Tracking Nerf to Moms they really are perfect in 00, Dreads are weak and dont help much and with a few tweaks could actually kill them very well.
See? This is why I refuse to comment on 0.0 Some dumbass is going to come tell me that they're perfect in 0.0 and that I don't know anything because I'm a low suck gankbear ebil piwate. And so I don't give a **** if you guys have massive overpowered whosey-whatsits as long as you keep that **** out of low suck. Yes, its a bit self centered but I'm not going to fight every super awesome elite 0.0 PVPer that wants to tell me how balanced it is in 0.0.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
Kail Storm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:18:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Kail Storm
@ Liang
The problem is since the Tracking Nerf to Moms they really are perfect in 00, Dreads are weak and dont help much and with a few tweaks could actually kill them very well.
See? This is why I refuse to comment on 0.0 Some dumbass is going to come tell me that they're perfect in 0.0 and that I don't know anything because I'm a low suck gankbear ebil piwate. And so I don't give a **** if you guys have massive overpowered whosey-whatsits as long as you keep that **** out of low suck. Yes, its a bit self centered but I'm not going to fight every super awesome elite 0.0 PVPer that wants to tell me how balanced it is in 0.0.
-Liang
Wow Ez Killer, Breath in and out.
I never said you didnt know anything about 00 sec, And in fact I agree`d with you about them needing to be Tackled easier in Lowsec, I agree Lowsec makes them OP while they are there, so take some Valium or hell any Benzo and try to answer me not with vengence but even keeled.
Dont you think if Dreads got a major Boost like the resist one and maybe a ECM bonus itself and 5 Could Kill a Mom this would balance out Lowsec a little more? Assuming they made a module or someway to tackle the MOM in Lowsec?
What is your perfect fix to the Mom problem?
I have seen now how they are balanced IMO in 00, Bestship in small fights but far worse than Titans in Lagfests.
Bro on a side note you are gonna pop something and have a heartattack if you rage all the time.
You were Kelmad :)
--------------------------------------------------
"If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed"
-Me
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 23:13:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 16/03/2011 23:13:15
Originally by: Kail Storm
Dont you think if Dreads got a major Boost like the resist one and maybe a ECM bonus itself and 5 Could Kill a Mom this would balance out Lowsec a little more? Assuming they made a module or someway to tackle the MOM in Lowsec?
You must have missed where I disagreed with the proposed dread fixes. All I know (well, all I'm willing to commit to) is that SCs are OP in low sec.
Quote:
What is your perfect fix to the Mom problem?
I think any good solution to the SC problem will start with removing tackle immunity... in low sec at the very minimum. After that? I have far fewer opinions. I think if I had my druthers about it, I'd cut their build costs, and HP and then make them mobile triage carriers that could field fighter bombers.
-Liang
Ed: I'd probably also allow them to dock. But then, I highly dislike the 'no docking... ever' mechanics.
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 23:36:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Ed: I'd probably also allow them to dock. But then, I highly dislike the 'no docking... ever' mechanics.
+1, hate the concept of supers because of the mobile coffin effect.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.03.17 00:50:00 -
[70]
Well, I've been checking the Assembly Hall forum, and the idea hasn't seen to be gaining much traction. Maybe Liang is right.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |