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