Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zakarazor
Amarr Inadeptus Mechanicus
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 14:32:00 -
[1]
As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM.
They are very common and also kind of steal the role of POS and cap ship killing from dreads and carriers.
While i am sure this have been suggested before sometime, i would like propouse a fix for the forum to think over.
A simple fix(I think) would be to remove the E-War immunity of the Motherships.
|
Friar KIte
Amarr Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 15:00:00 -
[2]
Even if you were to remove EWAR immunity jamming would be the only thing that would work consistently, becuase if fighters work the same as other drones then as soon as you are locked and have one on you then you cant really get them off. A friend suggested making them only be able to use fighter-bombers so that they cant kill anything they come up against with a variety of drones and fighters. That might be a more effective nerf that would return it to a niche instead of being everything at once.
|
Tammarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 15:24:00 -
[3]
deploy fighterbombers only in SC siege mode... That will put some risk into it.
|
Vecila
Live and Learn Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 16:28:00 -
[4]
Super numbers are actually the prime example of a fundamental error in ccps economic issues which largely ignored mudflation (although they're slowly correcting that). As such, there's no easy single fix.
In laymans terms, they set the limiting factors of time and isk on supers. Now, years later people have had time a failed to loose enough isk. If people don't loose enough isk through explosions or isk sinks then things (dread) devalue and get replaced by the bigger 4x4 model.
Insurance changes were the first part of ccps correction, sanctum changes the second, but the reality is if you lost a drake fleet today it only cost 1/3 what it did 18 months back. It's going to require a numer of changes over time to correct the balance and no single tweak to a big ship will change that thanks to the cash reserves behind them growing at a rate which supports the loss.
Losses have to hurt more. Basically eve has to revert to the way it was. Hacs costing 250m fitted rather than 125m, loss of a dread fleet a crippling thing. ecm immunity won't change the driving forces behind their numbers, although nit will push black bird prices up which somehow retained its range bonus during the emc nerfs.
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 18:56:00 -
[5]
Must feel hard to be asskicked by the Supers you sold to your enemies...sucks.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente The 8th Order
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 19:02:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Asuka Smith on 05/06/2011 19:03:07
Originally by: Vecila Super numbers are actually the prime example of a fundamental error in ccps economic issues which largely ignored mudflation (although they're slowly correcting that). As such, there's no easy single fix.
In laymans terms, they set the limiting factors of time and isk on supers. Now, years later people have had time a failed to loose enough isk. If people don't loose enough isk through explosions or isk sinks then things (dread) devalue and get replaced by the bigger 4x4 model.
Insurance changes were the first part of ccps correction, sanctum changes the second, but the reality is if you lost a drake fleet today it only cost 1/3 what it did 18 months back. It's going to require a numer of changes over time to correct the balance and no single tweak to a big ship will change that thanks to the cash reserves behind them growing at a rate which supports the loss.
Losses have to hurt more. Basically eve has to revert to the way it was. Hacs costing 250m fitted rather than 125m, loss of a dread fleet a crippling thing. ecm immunity won't change the driving forces behind their numbers, although nit will push black bird prices up which somehow retained its range bonus during the emc nerfs.
I agree. When Mercenary Coalition betrayed Band of Brothers and lost their capital fleet, it was the end of their alliance. Nowadays my bot ravens in every system in Geminate can replace mothership losses on the spot, plus fittings, and enough left over to pay 650b monthly to Pandemic Legion. The amount of ISK being added to the system is like a trillion a day.
However, ISK/TIME will never be a limiting factor in a true sense. People will always invest the time and save the money. No matter how expensive or time consuming it is, it will be achieved. That's how we have 200 man mothership fleets. You simply can't have such OP ships in the database with nothing stopping them from pwning the whole galaxy besides the irrational notion that "oh, they'll just never get more than a couple so it's okay".
Fix botting, and change it so that you can't buy a solopwn "IWIN" button.
|
Mocam
|
Posted - 2011.06.06 05:36:00 -
[7]
That's one possible solution. A different one might be to restrict their use a bit more - both super carriers and titans. Just block them from use in any NPC held space.
As such, they couldn't be used in lowsec nor NPC held nullsec - making battleships tops in highsec, capitals tops in low and NPC nullsec with supercaps bosses in SOV nullsec.
This way, everyone could pretty much ignore the OP nature outside of SOV nullsec, which has already pretty much turned into "super caps -r- us".
|
Soldarius
Caldari Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.06.06 06:22:00 -
[8]
Better solution:
1. Stop selling supercap/titan blueprints from NPCs. 2. Make all super cap BPOs into BPCs. 3. Start incursions for all NPC pirate factions with supercap BPCs as best reward.
Now you won't have an isk/RMT-driven build cycle, but a participation driven one. The flow of supers into game will slow to a manageable trickle. (Drop rates can always be adjusted.) Supers will still be useful and valuable. But they won't proliferate like roaches. Losing a super will actually mean something. Seeing one will be like "Holy cow! A supercarrier! That's awesome! Let's kill it!" instead of "Not again. Ok, everybody log. We can't win."
Originally by: Krutoj You dont have a supercapital? buy PLEX trade it for ISK, buy supers. Just like any other mmo you can use your RL to pimp your character out (or tank for that matter). Its just in other g |
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 14:36:00 -
[9]
Part of the problem is that supercarriers have a good synergy with titans. Titans can and will eliminate hard targets like logistics off the field with doomsdays and SCs wipe out the rest. Titans can also kill battleships when used in proper fashion (esp. Ragnarok).
In lowsec titans are much weaker but supercarriers are stronger since they have even less problems with getting tackled and everything supercarriers have, including remote ecm, works.
|
Phantom D
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 19:35:00 -
[10]
What if we add a "Life Span" to them?
|
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 22:17:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Nowadays my bot ravens in every system in Geminate can replace mothership losses on the spot, plus fittings, and enough left over to pay 650b monthly to Pandemic Legion.
You're dumb, hth. _____
|
lordlulzs
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 03:14:00 -
[12]
I was going to troll, but then I remembered that everyone that plays eve consistently is a masochist. Therefore my statement would have been awarded a captain obvious trophy.
|
Cuircuir Moustache
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 13:53:00 -
[13]
My 2 cents :
Reduce the base number of fieldable fighter-bombers to 5. Boost their power accordingly. Make them player-piloted.
If they are nerfed too hard they will just be another useless ship class, and Eve got quite enough (T1 cruisers, EAFs, AFs...) You can try and tweak the eveconomy, people will still be able to field 200 supercaps, with enough time and botting. But if they need 1000 or so fb pilots that's another story.
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 14:41:00 -
[14]
Why not create stealth bomber's that could decloak lock the Super and before the Super knows what has hit them their systems are at half without the ability to turn on their E-War system's to negate an attack?
The Stealth Bomber's Support Carrier would be it's own ship class roughly the size between a dred and a carrier. The SBC would be able to deploy upto five Stealth Bomber Drones at a time but no more than six when upgrades are added to the ship.
The Stealth Carrier could target while cloaked.
The range of the Stealth Bomber Carrier would be 1 A.U. The real trick behind the Stealth Carrier Bomber would be as follow's. The carrier could launch it's drones while cloaked but within ten seconds after lauching the bomber carrier would decloak along with the carrier thus alerting the target to the carrier's presence.
To maintain drone cloak until the target was attacked the drone carrier would need to be de-cloaked. When the drones are launched in de-cloaked mode the target is still passively targeted until the drones are within optimal firing range of 20km. The drones then de-cloak and fire upon the target.
The only purpose of the Stealth Drone Carrier to is launch stealth bomber drone attacks against capital ships and super caps.
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
|
Posted - 2011.06.08 14:43:00 -
[15]
Quote: My 2 cents :
Reduce the base number of fieldable fighter-bombers to 5. Boost their power accordingly. Make them player-piloted.
If they are nerfed too hard they will just be another useless ship class, and Eve got quite enough (T1 cruisers, EAFs, AFs...) You can try and tweak the eveconomy, people will still be able to field 200 supercaps, with enough time and botting. But if they need 1000 or so fb pilots that's another story.
Make them controllable like POS gun's are controllable.
|
James Morgan
Caldari Rim Collection RC Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 06:34:00 -
[16]
Edited by: James Morgan on 09/06/2011 06:35:41 Simple fix
1. Fighter bombers should do negligible damage to sub-caps (something based on signature radius formula). This would result in making SCs a counter for only cap ships. 2. SCs cannot use fighters. This will boost the use of carriers for support of SCs
Rest everything is fine. This would make any blob of SCs counter-able by using sub caps(like BS fleet), thus require them to field support in terms of carriers / sub caps. Thus resulting in more diverse fleets.
A fleet with proper mix of different ships would be tough to counter but not impossible as the current blob of SCs
|
TheMahdi
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 09:02:00 -
[17]
Supercarriers are a problem? Carriers were mean't to shoot sticks? Dreads aren't being used at all?
Since when..
|
Kappas Katamara
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 11:04:00 -
[18]
Originally by: TheMahdi Supercarriers are a problem? Carriers were mean't to shoot sticks? Dreads aren't being used at all?
Since when..
Since you bought your Supercarrier...
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 11:39:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Zakarazor As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM.
No, they're not.
|
Shiva Russell
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 12:28:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Zakarazor As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM.
No, they're not.
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
|
|
Sandrestal
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 12:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Shiva Russell
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Zakarazor As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM.
No, they're not.
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
Depends on what alliance you belong to
|
Quality Poaster SEEEEE
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 17:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Zakarazor As we all know Motherships(Supercarriers) are a bit of a problem ATM.
No, they're not.
Well of course a Hel pilot wouldn't think so.
|
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 21:01:00 -
[23]
Nerfing the ships themselves will not help. The problem, as already stated, is that ISK is too easy to come by in volume hence loosing an SC is not the big deal CCP planned it to be and as a result they're used like a BS.
Solution: nerf income; stop the bots; balance the economy such that an SC is 'expensive'.
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.06.09 21:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Wacktopia Nerfing the ships themselves will not help. The problem, as already stated, is that ISK is too easy to come by in volume hence loosing an SC is not the big deal CCP planned it to be and as a result they're used like a BS.
Solution: nerf income; stop the bots; balance the economy such that an SC is 'expensive'.
... do you even own a SC?
|
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 08:29:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Wacktopia Nerfing the ships themselves will not help. The problem, as already stated, is that ISK is too easy to come by in volume hence loosing an SC is not the big deal CCP planned it to be and as a result they're used like a BS.
Solution: nerf income; stop the bots; balance the economy such that an SC is 'expensive'.
... do you even own a SC?
...do I need one to post in a SC failnerf thread?
You don't need to fly one to know the 'problem' is not the problem.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 09:08:00 -
[26]
Reduce the amount of deployable fighters/fighter bombers to 5.
|
Twisted Girl
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 10:22:00 -
[27]
They see me rolling, they hating.....
uyelly?
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 11:06:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Wacktopia
Originally by: Headerman
Originally by: Wacktopia Nerfing the ships themselves will not help. The problem, as already stated, is that ISK is too easy to come by in volume hence loosing an SC is not the big deal CCP planned it to be and as a result they're used like a BS.
Solution: nerf income; stop the bots; balance the economy such that an SC is 'expensive'.
... do you even own a SC?
...do I need one to post in a SC failnerf thread?
Yes you do.
I for one own three, hence my many posts in this thread.
|
Kunming
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E ROMANIAN-LEGION
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 11:19:00 -
[29]
Even if 'nerfed' SCs wouldnt be able to hurt sub-cap ships, a sub-cap fleet of equal proportions doesnt have the DMG capabilities to hurt SCs either.. this is where the real problem is IMO.
In the end you need a SC fleet of your own to inflict dmg, what we really need is a sort of heavy bomber (T2 tier2 BC maybe) that can only hurt things with the signature radius of capital ships. Only then can we talk about tactical warfare.
Before anyone cries about the cost of their solo-pwn-mobile, consider that a couple frigs, which cost less than 10mils can easily kill a BS, which costs several 100mils, this lack of balance (or counter to SCs) is what makes the SCs overpowered and only countered with equal/higher number of SCs.
|
Headerman
Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 11:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kunming Even if 'nerfed' SCs wouldnt be able to hurt sub-cap ships, a sub-cap fleet of equal proportions doesnt have the DMG capabilities to hurt SCs either.. this is where the real problem is IMO.
In the end you need a SC fleet of your own to inflict dmg, what we really need is a sort of heavy bomber (T2 tier2 BC maybe) that can only hurt things with the signature radius of capital ships. Only then can we talk about tactical warfare.
Before anyone cries about the cost of their solo-pwn-mobile, consider that a couple frigs, which cost less than 10mils can easily kill a BS, which costs several 100mils, this lack of balance (or counter to SCs) is what makes the SCs overpowered and only countered with equal/higher number of SCs.
On the other side though, i do remember Atlas losing a Nyx to some PL BSs in very quick order 9 months ago or so.
SCs are fleet ships through and through. They are far more of a fleet ship than normal carriers or titans. You need alot of them to do anything reliably or they will get picked off easily. And considering their use to date, nearly everyone who has fought with or against them has been done so with careful planning, balls and a bit of luck.
They can certainly be taken down, but it takes a brave FC to face off against them.
Don;t forget though, the frigs Vs BS argument rarely happens in open space, it usually happens on a station or a gate. The BS has options there. For SCs, its options are other SCs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |