| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mr Hyde113
   |
Posted - 2011.03.10 15:07:00 -
[1]
I had posted this earlier in the Ships & Modules section, but I thought i'd copy it here aswell to see what people thought.
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. Suggestions/criticisms are welcome.
Cheers,
-Hyde
|
NinjaSpud
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:04:00 -
[2]
Well, IDK if this is the best solution, as Dreads are supposed to be vulnearable in seige mode...but I agree that dreads need a better roll in fleets. Right now they're mainly just POS bashers, I think it would be nice if they where anti-carrier cap ships too.
So in doing this, one could potentially find a counter to the problem of super carrier blobs.
I'll support this idea, it's not a bad one, and would encourage dreads to be deployed.
|
Smodab Ongalot
Gallente
Shadows Of The Federation
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:38:00 -
[3]
Any suggestion for a counter to supers that isn't "moar supers" is good in my book.
I'd support this.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 18:03:00 -
[4]
Your idea breaks citadel missiles while not affecting capital turrets.
A sieged Dread shoots another. They are stationary, so transversal is zero, so full turret damage is dealt assuming that the target is within optimal. Reducing the signature of the target does not change this, because transversal is zero.
A sieged Dread shoots a citadel missile at another. The reduced sig of the target imparts an upper limit to the missile damage of [target sig]/[missile explosion radius].
Now, you could reduce citadel missile explosion radius in proprtion to the change in sig to maintain full damage, but you may start running into problems with citadel missile effectiveness against subcaps.
Far easier to just nerf supercarriers rather than the boost-boost-boost of the power-creep cycle, tbh.
|
Mr Hyde113
Shadows Of The Federation
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 19:35:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Gypsio III
Your idea breaks citadel missiles while not affecting capital turrets.
A sieged Dread shoots another. They are stationary, so transversal is zero, so full turret damage is dealt assuming that the target is within optimal. Reducing the signature of the target does not change this, because transversal is zero.
A sieged Dread shoots a citadel missile at another. The reduced sig of the target imparts an upper limit to the missile damage of [target sig]/[missile explosion radius].
Now, you could reduce citadel missile explosion radius in proprtion to the change in sig to maintain full damage, but you may start running into problems with citadel missile effectiveness against subcaps.
Far easier to just nerf supercarriers rather than the boost-boost-boost of the power-creep cycle, tbh.
Hmmm I didn't think of that. Perhaps there could be a numerical balance between adjusting citadel missiles explosion velocity and the proposed sig radius reduction?
My goal with this proposal is to allow more tactical choices to dread pilots without nullifying the roles of super-capitals. I understand that members of the eve community feel that super-capitals are overpowered and that they have nullified the combat role of dreads. I agree with this sentiment to a certain degree. However I also dont think straight nerfing supercarriers is a great solution because it doesnt create more options in combat.
Can anyone else think of a way to adjust my idea to address the citadel missiles problem?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 21:11:00 -
[6]
The problem is that supercarriers and dreadnoughts have the same role - they're anticapital ships. One of these is also effective against subcapitals and doesn't need to commit to a fight in nearly the same way as the other. No matter how you look at it, supercarriers are overpowered. God knows what CCP was thinking.
|
bartos102
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 21:15:00 -
[7]
not long ago i had a sudden idea to a possible counter to SC with the help of dreads
what if the siege would give smartbombs more range and more damage thus killing FB as atm no smartbomb goes far enough to hit a FB
|
Mr Hyde113
Shadows Of The Federation
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 21:20:00 -
[8]
I agree that the roles have become mixed. However i feel that dreads still are built for structure siege where as super carriers are meant to do high dps to caps without having to have alot of ships.
The balance is what we need to find, something that allows for a dynamic game in strategies and counters.
In regard to the Smartbomb idea, id say it would be good, but it would require new bonuses and slot layouts ect. The goal is to make small changes in mechanics that shake up the status quo. Atm ccp has ALOT of pvp mechanic and balance issues to fix. No use complicating the solutions.
|
Mr Hyde113
Shadows Of The Federation
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 21:23:00 -
[9]
Although i think the main issue for many people is that SCs, unlike dreads and titans, dont have to commit to the field. Perhaps making the deployment of fighter bombers prevent warp or jumping could help?
|
Sephiroth CloneVII
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 23:23:00 -
[10]
this idea breaks with logic and the character of the ship, and siege mode. Its a large heavy armored behemoth, how do you make its signature smaller. And why would equipping siege mode make it more nimble when characteristically it improves armor and firepower (and severely hampers mobility, something that would make it more nimble).
|
Mr Hyde113
Shadows Of The Federation
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.11 01:16:00 -
[11]
We are not trying to make a realistic rp solution here. The explanation could easily be that the stront in the siege module creates a field that restricts the signature of the ship. Also Sig radius has nothing to do with a dread being more nimble...the siege module would still prevent the dread from moving and have the same effects that it usually has.
Please keep the suggestions and critiques coming.
|
James Razor
Amarr
The Executives
|
Posted - 2011.03.11 09:22:00 -
[12]
@Ops: problem with dreads currently is that they are 10 min sitting ducks. Remove/adjust the siege cycle timer to a resonable time (10 to 1 min) and u will again have a role for dreads.
@Gypsio: Nerf everything into submission again, so that they become never used shiny toys again? Supercarriers are just perfect atm. What needs to be adjusted is the dreadnought. That ALWAYS had a very bad role.
I own all of these shiptypes and fought with them. Dreads are still usefull against structures and especially POSes. But this 10min timer is realy killing their effectivness in terms of mobility and flexibility.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |