| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kamikaze jihawt
   |
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:43:00 -
[1]
It is quite easy, reduce siege and triage cycles down to 2-3 minutes. Problem solved. flame on.
|
Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 07:57:00 -
[2]
And reduce the fuel use too right?
|
nano bobcat
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 10:09:00 -
[3]
supported
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 10:16:00 -
[4]
Don't boost, nerf instead. Give titans and supercarriers a ten-minute immobilising "siege mode" before they can use DDD, open a portal or launch FBs. And stop Slaves working on capitals, ofc.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:01:00 -
[5]
Two ideas:
Remove ability for fighterbombers to hit sov structures.
Remove ability for titans to DD carriers in triage and dreads in siege.
Creates necessity to use dreads when contesting sov and reduces titan total dominance over regular caps.
This signature is brought to you by Nvidia(tm) |
Asuka Solo
Gallente
Defenders of Sovereignty
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:06:00 -
[6]
Whoever wants to nerf supers should go die in a fire.
How to make Carriers use full against supers:
Give carriers more teeth, by increase the drone bandwidth to allow Carriers to use 5 bombers maximum, or 1-2 bombers with the remainder being fighters.
How to make Dreads use full against supers:
Bring in T2 variations to counter supers like t2/t3 cruisers scare carriers/dreads.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:18:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Asuka Solo
Whoever wants to nerf supers should go die in a fire.
Because they are not overpowered as-is. Not at all. True Story.
This signature is brought to you by Nvidia(tm) |
Beer Monk
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:22:00 -
[8]
Quote:
reduce siege and triage cycles down to 2-3 minutes.
Carrier triage is 5 min but I agree with the idea the cycle is entirely too long. Carriers work in their out of siege capacity just fine. Its common to see starbases being sieged by battleships supported by carriers. Carriers need not be in triage to be effective in that capacity.
Dreads offer no advantage. Out of siege they suck in every respect and in siege thats it. You are stuck with no means of evac if/when the enemy counter drops. Carriers can still cyno out and battleship fleets may disperse. Dreads are screwed.
Cutting the siege time to 2 minutes means going from 100% chance of a massacre to 20%. I'd actually fly my dreads again not just my carriers.
|
Asuka Solo
Gallente
Defenders of Sovereignty
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Asuka Solo
Whoever wants to nerf supers should go die in a fire.
Because they are not overpowered as-is. Not at all. True Story.
Because as underpowered as they are, their equally under priced. True story.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:42:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Asuka Solo
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Asuka Solo
Whoever wants to nerf supers should go die in a fire.
Because they are not overpowered as-is. Not at all. True Story.
Because as underpowered as they are, their equally under priced. True story.
They're ridiculously cheap and therefor extremely proliferate. What's your point?
This signature is brought to you by Nvidia(tm) |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:45:00 -
[11]
Make super capitals vulnerable to ECM. Set their sensor strength to several hundred, so there will be no "permajamming" them without a fleet of ECM ships. Add a significant boost to sensor strength when in siege/triage mode. Same deal for warp core stability - set the stability for supercaps at some hundreds, and it will require a HIC or a few hundred other ships to keep a super cap scrammed.
Add a new ECM module or script which reduces drone control (either the number of drones, or the available bandwidth).
There's your super carrier nerf, without directly nerfing supercarrier stats (you're actually boosting their stats ;)
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Jade Greenfire
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 11:50:00 -
[12]
Titans were meant to be the best anti capital ship in the game,a role they are still effective at.
Supers are Super because they were supposed to be like a T3 carrier - only they are actullay more like a T4 carrier instead due to their unrestricted drone use age abiltiy owing to the bandwith.
Dreads are supposed to be a anti capital ship & anti structure ship, not just a ship thats is good for POS bashing. Only they lack the ability to be effective in the anti cap role & with the introduction of supers in their current state, they seem to have become even less relative due to the all round capability of supers.
A reduction in seige time and giving dreads the ability to be a more effective anti capital ship would help make them useful again.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 12:33:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jade Greenfire
A reduction in seige time and giving dreads the ability to be a more effective anti capital ship would help make them useful again.
Dreadnoughts are balanced excellently. The siege mode means that they have to commit to a fight and can't just jump/warp out as soon as extra hostiles turn up. They're extremely vulnerable to subcapitals and can only be deployed with support. They do sensible DPS and cost sensible ISK. It's these limitations that make them balanced.
Supercapitals break every part of this balance. Without any sort of siege mode, the ECM burst and the immunity to ewar and normal tackle, they're much harder to tackle and pin down. Not needing to commit themselves to a fight in the fashion of dreadnoughts just encourages frivolous deployments, accentuated by current cyno/jump mechanics. Even worse, when they are deployed foolishly, they do not share the vulnerability to subcapitals that dreadnoughts possess, being able to just DD or spam fighters or ECM burst and ignore normal tackle. They're too mobile, too good against too many targets, have too much EHP with Slaves and they're nowhere near vulnerable enough to subcapitals.
Requesting a boost to capitals in light of these factors, rather than a nerf to supercapitals, is absurd, just another swing of the power-creep pendulum. Supercapitals need to be less mobile, have less EHP and be more vulnerable to subcapitals. That suggests immobilising them on the field while DDD/FBs are deployed, changes to cyno/jump mechanics and change to Slaves' effect on capitals. Increased vulnerability to subcapitals can be achieved by removing the immunity to normal tackle and maybe limiting supercarriers to FBs only.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 13:37:00 -
[14]
The poster above is spot-on when he says the key is not to boost caps, but nerf supercaps. This is exactly what is needed.
Supercarriers are the main culprits:
Cut their EHP, give them a valid penalty when deploying FBs, remove Slave effects. DO NOT take away their absurd DPS, they should still be excellent at killing structures and other caps, but they do need appropriate weaknesses to go with it. At the moment, a Supercarrier is pretty much the tabooed solo-pwnmobile that is not supposed to exist. That needs to be changed.
As for Titans, I would dare to say they are more balanced then most would admit. I do not really know what to change about them, save for the generic nerf of removing Slave effects.
Also, to those who insist on the "Supercaps are expensive, and deserve to be powerful" argument. Your point is valid in a sense - they do indeed deserve to be powerful. However, powerful does not equal being as ridiculously overpowered and unbalanced as Supercarriers currently are. Also, the price is hardly an issue for the major powerblocks, for whom the current state of Supercaps is just another sledgehammer to pulverize everything and everyone that is not able to field their own Supercap fleets.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 13:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Horizonist
The poster above is spot-on when he says the key is not to boost caps, but nerf supercaps. This is exactly what is needed.
Supercarriers are the main culprits:
Cut their EHP, give them a valid penalty when deploying FBs, remove Slave effects. DO NOT take away their absurd DPS, they should still be excellent at killing structures and other caps, but they do need appropriate weaknesses to go with it. At the moment, a Supercarrier is pretty much the tabooed solo-pwnmobile that is not supposed to exist. That needs to be changed.
As for Titans, I would dare to say they are more balanced then most would admit. I do not really know what to change about them, save for the generic nerf of removing Slave effects.
Also, to those who insist on the "Supercaps are expensive, and deserve to be powerful" argument. Your point is valid in a sense - they do indeed deserve to be powerful. However, powerful does not equal being as ridiculously overpowered and unbalanced as Supercarriers currently are. Also, the price is hardly an issue for the major powerblocks, for whom the current state of Supercaps is just another sledgehammer to pulverize everything and everyone that is not able to field their own Supercap fleets.
I agree mostly but I think a suitable nerf could be accomplished fairly simple by means of the two points I mentioned above. If you make MS too vulnerable you revert the entire situation back to late 2009 when they were so vulnerable that nobody used them. Nerfing their ability to interfere with sov, and nerfing titans ability to DD any subcap is more suitable in my opinion.
This signature is brought to you by Nvidia(tm) |
Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 14:39:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 01/04/2011 14:39:32
As said again and again price is not a balancing factor, in fact it is more of an imbalancing factor.
If the price of a super carrier was raised to 200 billion who would have them, only a handful of the most powerful alliances in eve could afford them. This would make it so they would be used to utterly dominate every alliance that does not control high value moons or have a huge membership to tax.
|
Rakamy
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 16:52:00 -
[17]
This is my idea it involves buffing the heavy nut/nos when the dread is in siege mode
Idea
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 16:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kalia Masaer
If the price of a super carrier was raised to 200 billion who would have them, only a handful of the most powerful alliances in eve could afford them. This would make it so they would be used to utterly dominate every alliance that does not control high value moons or have a huge membership to tax.
Exactly. They need an actual nerf, not an increase in price, which actually has the potential of making them even more gamebreaking.
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 18:40:00 -
[19]
the thing with SCs is that they are too multi role they can fight everything structures BS even frigs with their drones they can rep they can ecm burst
they can hit structures
Remove RR, R-ecm and all drones smaller then FBs
that way they will be solely anti cap ships and carriers will have to support them for RR and anti BS support dreads will be the anti structure ships again
imo I see not why dreads should not be able to get RRed I mean SCs can be RRed o.O and they still can warp and move and all that
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 18:52:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Crazy KSK
the thing with SCs is that they are too multi role they can fight everything structures BS even frigs with their drones they can rep they can ecm burst
they can hit structures
ergo, they are solopwnmobiles, which has no place in Eve.
I don't know if I agree with your fixes, it takes away too much from them. I think they should keep their offensive versatility, but take a nerf on the defensive said. As an earlier poster said, they simple have to be more vulnerable.
|
Sky Mart
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 02:36:00 -
[21]
just limit Super carriers to True 0.0, and not let them in low sec or NPC 0.0 problem solved 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |