| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
   |
Posted - 2011.06.18 12:50:00 -
[1]
IÆve search for a while to see if any type of solution was similar to this and was unsuccessful. I apologize if this was already talked about.
-----
Problem Statement:
Super Carriers are too powerful when gathered in large groups without a need of a support fleet, which is causing an unfair out-Blobbed advantage in fleet battles and sovereignty game mechanics.
Background on Solution:
The super carrier is no doubt meant to be extremely powerful and can turn the tide on any battleground. Nerfing a super carrierÆs HP, drones or resistances may bring about game changing mechanics that wonÆt support their 20 billion isk price tag. If SCs fall into disuse, many ôend gameö fights will lose their epic feel when these ships are held back. A good solution would be to allow them to keep their end-game appeal as one of the havoc reaping ships they were meant to be. A super carrier gone unchecked should be able to leave a wake of death in its path.
CCP is looking for solutions that wonÆt be a massive game changer, but will effectively even out the edge these ships bring. Proposed solutions such as a T3 battleship or T3 javelin frigate would require months of testing, development and cost due to their effect on several levels of game play (mission running, pirating, fleet battles, solo pvp etc). Aside from that, eve players will find a way to exploit these making the most of their niche and most likely replace many roles already filled by existing frigates and battleships.
Proposed Solution
A form of ECM that I have not seen posted yet: an ECM module that disrupts a ships maximum drone bandwidth.
Pros:
- Drone bandwidth ECM could effectively lower a super carrierÆs drone DPS, if not stop them from fielding drones completely (depending on balancing)
- Flying 40 supers carriers around knocking out fleets or sovereignty could be countered by a less powerful 10man super carrier fleet with support sub-caps fit to ECM the drone power of the enemy super carriers
- Easier to balance than making another ship class
- Could be applied to all levels of game play as a new ECM form
- Capitals can still keep their original ECM immunity, HP, resists ect
- ôBlobingö more super caps can be countered
- Require a support fleet of super carriers to prevent fleets with super cap ECM fits
- Bring back dreadnaughtÆs effectiveness with a drone-bandwidth ECM bonus
Cons
- Requires fleets to change setups more often
- More organization of fleets to quickly get an anti-super carrier blob formed
- Fear of using capitals vs the new drone based ECM
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 12:52:00 -
[2]
Balancing options:
A drone based ECM could be applied to all levels of pvp, since drones are usually extra dps. Using an ECM form such as this, would have to have drones perform the ôreturn and orbitö feature on a drone that no longer has the bandwidth to be controlled to prevent loss of drones. When the ECM fails to hit on the next cycle, the drones would go back to doing what they were previously doing. In game thought: Using one this ECM on a Dominix for example may prevent using 5 heavy drones but it could still field 5 medium drones. Using two drone-bandwidth ECMs on the Dominix would prevent 5 mediums but still fields 5 light drones.
A Player Owned Station could receive a drone-bandwidth ECM module that reduces (x)% of ship drone bandwidth within (x)KM. This would lower dps of the hot-drop-oÆclock super carrier blobs that incapacitate the POS in 5 minutes.
Taking the idea of anchoring of a warp bubble, anchor a drone bandwidth bubble. The idea here to allow another viable defensive measure on stations
If only a few ships are chosen to use the drone-bandwidth ECM, dreadnaughts could be the class that is given this ability. This would return their usefulness and in their limiting a super carrierÆs DPS, increase their own survivability.
If super carriers are being too easily countered this way, there could be four multiple forms of drone bandwidth ECM that affects each race specific drone and the fifth version which would be your multispectral ECM.
---------------------
I would be happy to read any additional constructive pros and cons to this solution to fully explore this idea. Looking for more cons, since I don't have to many.
|
Jace Errata
Caldari
New American Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:00:00 -
[3]
I like it. Some thoughts:
- Perhaps Gallente ships could have increased resistance to it?
- How would this affect sentry drones and manned drones (the frigate-size drones that actually have an NPC pilot and can follow ships in warp)?
- There should be some minimum drone bandwidth so that drone ships are not completely disabled, as this would lead to Gallente ships (and the Arbitrator) losing their main long-range attack capability.
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:16:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Jace Errata
I like it. Some thoughts:
- Perhaps Gallente ships could have increased resistance to it?
- How would this affect sentry drones and manned drones (the frigate-size drones that actually have an NPC pilot and can follow ships in warp)?
- There should be some minimum drone bandwidth so that drone ships are not completely disabled, as this would lead to Gallente ships (and the Arbitrator) losing their main long-range attack capability.
I was thinking Gallente would be the more vulnerable to this. Other jamming ecm renders ships unable to lock making them worthless until a cycle of jamming is missed. Gallente would still be able to field a 5 fleet of smaller drones so they are not made completely worthless.
Sentry drones, since they don't move, would just stop shooting. The frigate sized drones following in warp would return and orbit to the ship that deployed them. Once the bandwidth ecm is removed they return to what they were doing unless the instructions have changed from the pilot.
I agree bandwidth should never be 0, even so though, it doesn't disable their modules. A heavy Bandwidth-ECM'd super carrier could still field 24 heavy drones/sentries, just not the bombers. |
Jace Errata
Caldari
New American Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:32:00 -
[5]
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it.
The Caldari should have a bonus to anti-drone ECM (DCM?) though, since they're the direct anti-Gallente and are all ECM-y anyway.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 13:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jace Errata
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it...
Fits perfectly with Amarr though: Laser boats vs. Neuts+TD's .. best counter to Amarr is Amarr 
I say let Gallente experience the same joy .. hahahaha.
|
Precisionist
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 19:36:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Precisionist on 18/06/2011 19:39:03
Originally by: Jace Errata
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it.
The Caldari should have a bonus to anti-drone ECM (DCM?) though, since they're the direct anti-Gallente and are all ECM-y anyway.
Perhaps a new support cap or sub cap for ecm warfare, all have 1 race bonus, and the other bonus is anti fight/bomber drone ecm bonus. This would in theory make fight those carrier blobs doable with not the same amount of carriers if using enough ECM Drone ships.
Also make a ship with ECM that prevents people from docking after the module has been applied for more than 25-30 secs.
|
phantomshura
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 21:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Jace Errata
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it...
Fits perfectly with Amarr though: Laser boats vs. Neuts+TD's .. best counter to Amarr is Amarr
I say let Gallente experience the same joy .. hahahaha.
+1 warp strength to ishkur is a terrible bonus lol
hybrid suck and droneboat are the only viable ship in the whole gallente race we should nerf them more so more people train minmatar. =)
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 22:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Precisionist
Perhaps a new support cap or sub cap for ecm warfare, all have 1 race bonus, and the other bonus is anti fight/bomber drone ecm bonus. This would in theory make fight those carrier blobs doable with not the same amount of carriers if using enough ECM Drone ships.
Also make a ship with ECM that prevents people from docking after the module has been applied for more than 25-30 secs.
I disagree with any sort of new ship creation for this role. New ships created to fill a very specific balance mechanic will be much harder to fit and test in the game. A module is all that is needed to support a drone bandwidth ecm.
If ships are changed, the dreadnought could use a drone-ecm bonus buff to make it more usable again.
A docking ECM is off topic for this threads focus of super carrier balancing.
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.18 23:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: phantomshura
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Jace Errata
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it...
Fits perfectly with Amarr though: Laser boats vs. Neuts+TD's .. best counter to Amarr is Amarr
I say let Gallente experience the same joy .. hahahaha.
+1 warp strength to ishkur is a terrible bonus lol
hybrid suck and droneboat are the only viable ship in the whole gallente race we should nerf them more so more people train minmatar. =)
Assuming this goes past super carrier balancing into all levels of pvp; I don't believe Gallente is going to have it all that bad off. They start with much more bandwidth than any other race so they still will have quite a bit to work with if jammed. If they can't field 5 t2 heavy, they sure can do 5 t2 mediums which is still providing quite a bit of damage with drone bonuses (granted getting into theory crafting a bit here).
A ship is also going to need to fit a drone-bandwidth ecm module that will be aimed at Gallente, but they are giving up a jamming ECM module that can make any ship inert, drone boats still have access to their modules to offset the drone-bandwidth ecm.
(Current Jamming thought)
Drone boat Gallente ships have a slight advantage with the current jamming setup by still being able do a majority of their dps through drone damage. Jamming is meant to make the ship incapacitated which they can get around setting their drones to assist/guard fleet members, or already have the drones attacking something. Guns, missiles, lasers and hybrids have to wait till a missed ECM cycle until they can relock and resume doing dps.
Drone-bandwidth ECM doesn't appear to be able to ôbreakö the Gallente
|
|
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 05:01:00 -
[11]
What happens to drones that are deployed when a ship's drone bandwidth is reduced below the level needed to sustain the current flight?
What is the counter to drone bandwidth ECM? It can't be more bandwidth, otherwise we'd have vexors flying four sentry drones.
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Josefine Etrange
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.19 12:35:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
What happens to drones that are deployed when a ship's drone bandwidth is reduced below the level needed to sustain the current flight?
What is the counter to drone bandwidth ECM? It can't be more bandwidth, otherwise we'd have vexors flying four sentry drones.
They return to orbit / become idle. Counter to bandwidth ECM would be to use less bandwidth. So for example a domi would use instead of 125mbit just 50mbit (40% of its bandwidth) with medium drones or just 100mbit with just 4 heavy drones (80%).
Why a forum in the year 2011 still has no automatic double post merge which can be done even with javascript mostly is beyond my understanding. |
Recursa Recursion
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 16:03:00 -
[13]
You could apply a stacking penalty to multiple ECM drone B/W, i.e. say a hit of 30% of Drone B/W yields 100 MB -> 70 MB (100-100*.3=70) -> (70-70*.3=49), etc. to make it hard to effectively entirely remove the drone B/W via excessive ECM.
The counter is an interesting question. Maybe the Drone Control Unit or one of the Drone Support Modules increases resistance or reduces the effect of the bandwidth reduction? Perhaps a new module that explicitly focuses on countering this or even add it as a bonus to ECCM?
|
Velator Nador
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 17:51:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Velator Nador on 20/06/2011 17:55:07
Edited by: Velator Nador on 20/06/2011 17:53:41
Edited by: Velator Nador on 20/06/2011 17:52:47
Doesn't ECM count as electronic warfare? If not can't you just cloak a bunch of ships and apply reduced targeting ranged stuff to them and knock them out. If you have 40 caps period you should be expecting to use large and extreme numbers to counter. You should be able to get a lot of ships on them time it so they can't attack or you can all stay out of range or other things and kill them. There are fast tactics and thought you can use to take something like that down isn't there. I get the feeling this games problems may be inability to use good group work or tactics or all think enough to pull out real strategy that doesn't really on equipment doing all the work for you.
If you cap drain and target snuff them or other usable things you should be fine. if you think it out and can think out quickly enough and react fluently enough to do something. if the fault is people can't work like that then they need to live with the consequences until they deal with the fact they can't play at that level. Even if it's game wide.
Cloak a bunch of velators apply stuff and keep at range. That would show them. 8p
Not to mention isn't this where those really little sized utility drones would be handy. Lots of them doing target reduction and draining cap etc...?
|
James Moroci
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 18:57:00 -
[15]
why keep asking for nerf ?
i trained for years and spend tons of isk to fly one.. now why nerf ?? its called supercap.. and the way i look at it they are killed way to easily!!
|
Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 13:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Jace Errata
Hmmm...yeah, you're right about the Gallente being more vulnerable. From a backstory standpoint, they're the drone users, so they wouldn't be the ones developing anti-drone tech, so they wouldn't have access to the technology to create defences against it...
Fits perfectly with Amarr though: Laser boats vs. Neuts+TD's .. best counter to Amarr is Amarr
I say let Gallente experience the same joy .. hahahaha.
lol the hel as bad as it is would really suck cos the ecm drone bandwidth jamming module would work by spraying salt water to rust up the fighter bay doors so the fighter bombers cant fly out of the hel
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 22:20:00 -
[17]
Originally by: James Moroci
why keep asking for nerf ?
i trained for years and spend tons of isk to fly one.. now why nerf ?? its called supercap.. and the way i look at it they are killed way to easily!!
I agree, super carriers are meant to be extremely dangerous to fight against, I noted this in the original post. The bandwidth ECM a potential way to balance the problem stated in original post. They will still have all their original resistances, HP, fits Damage, and original ECM immunity. This balance would allow a opposing force to be able to configure their fleet to counter a blob of super carriers rather than out blobbing with more super carriers. They still have access to their modules to provide other functions rather than just DPS via bombers with this balance.
If the ECM of drone bandwidth isn't compatible with all levels of PVP, giving ship classes such as the dreadnought the ability to use bandwidth ecm would allow a more specific form of balancing. At the same time a counter to the drone bandwidth would be to focus fire on dreads first freeing up those bombers.
|
beldorr
Aurora Polaris
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 22:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Recursa Recursion
You could apply a stacking penalty to multiple ECM drone B/W, i.e. say a hit of 30% of Drone B/W yields 100 MB -> 70 MB (100-100*.3=70) -> (70-70*.3=49), etc. to make it hard to effectively entirely remove the drone B/W via excessive ECM.
The counter is an interesting question. Maybe the Drone Control Unit or one of the Drone Support Modules increases resistance or reduces the effect of the bandwidth reduction? Perhaps a new module that explicitly focuses on countering this or even add it as a bonus to ECCM?
I agree with you that bandwidth should never be able to be taken to 0. Like tracking disruptors and sensor dampers, a percent per application with a stacking penalty is all that is needed. The ability to make the bandwidth disrupt, could be based on the current logic in place of the disruptors and dampeners.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |