| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bruno Bummel
   |
Posted - 2011.07.19 14:40:00 -
[1]
In an interview with TacticalGamer.com, CCP Soundwave and Flying Scotsman leaked that the Devs are thinking about fiddling around with the BO to give them the anti SC role.
To be honest, I could not listen to what they say while beeing at work. But the idea alone got me thinking...
How could that look like?
First off all, I would not like them to be changed in a way that kills their current niche. I'd like to see things added rather than removed. Still the current role needs improvement.
Improvements for current role:
+ slight increase in jump-/bridging range
+ slight increase in fuelbay/cargo size to fit the increased fuel need
+ covert ops cloaking
+ full T2 resistance profile
+ more pg/cpu depending on race
+ some sort of ewar bonus like force recon
Nerfs for current role:
- Speed bonus while cloaked
- Targeting delay like force recons
A BO like this should be strong in combat and only be second to a PVP fit pirate BS with a similar pricetag. It should however need help with initial tackle, which can be provided by a CovertOps frig or a bomber. Maybe it needs another nerf in an area that I am not thinking about as they are not intended to be solo pwn mobiles at all.
--------
Anti SC role:
allow them to work like very big torp fitted stealth bombers without bomb launcher
+ Capability to use Citadel Torps (rolebonus for fitting requirements)
+ Damage bonus on Citadel Torps resulting in about paper 2.5k DPS
+ Sensor strength to avoid counter by mass Remote-ECM-Bursting by SC blob
+ Anti SC fit should allow bringing Citadel Torp launchers + Covops Cloak + 1 Heavyneut + ~100k EHP + medium Cap Booster + MWD
- explosion size / velocity nerfed to allow only full damage on SC sized vessels. Dread signature might need adjustment downward
- range reduction for Citadel Torps to avoid making BO a POS killer (max range < large POS shield radius)
A BO like this can still be killed by a support fleet and by fighters. So before fielding them it will be required to beat the hostile support fleet. Due to the range of their weapons they will probably be fighting in the bubbles which pin the hostile SCs down. It has to be required to keep them alive with logis. The SCs can try to kill them with fighters and rECM-burst the logis.
Maybe I put too much DPS on the individual ship, I think a discussion about the amount of them needed to be effective will reveal a reasonable dps amount. I also do not want to step too far into the role of Dreads. So ideas to tweak that are very welcome.
This is of course only a viable way to fight SCs if the logoffski maneuvers get dealt with.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 15:03:00 -
[2]
Giving blackops an anti-supercapital role is a stupid idea. You do not solve their problem of a lack of vulnerability to all subcapitals by making a subcapital counter in the form of a single, extremely expensive and SP-intensive battleship that will immediately get primaried and doomsdayed. It's just... stupid.
Supercaptials are designed to engage capitals. As such, their counter should not just be a single subcapital class, it needs to be all subcapitals. Every subcapital pilot, from some week-old newbie in a Rifter to your fleet battleship, needs to be effective against them. Supercapitals should be helpless against subcapitals; they should need a support fleet of their own. This means that:
All supercapitals should lose their warp-scramble immunity.
The timer for disappearing when logging under aggro for supercapitals is increased from 15 minutes to 2 hours, at least.
Supercarriers lose the ability to deploy drones or fighters - they're restricted to FBs only.
Projected ECM bursts work only against other (super)capitals.
Doomsdays can only be used against other (super)capitals.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 15:23:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Gypsio III
Giving blackops an anti-supercapital role is a stupid idea. You do not solve their problem of a lack of vulnerability to all subcapitals by making a subcapital counter in the form of a single, extremely expensive and SP-intensive battleship that will immediately get primaried and doomsdayed. It's just... stupid.
Supercaptials are designed to engage capitals. As such, their counter should not just be a single subcapital class, it needs to be all subcapitals. Every subcapital pilot, from some week-old newbie in a Rifter to your fleet battleship, needs to be effective against them. Supercapitals should be helpless against subcapitals; they should need a support fleet of their own. This means that:
All supercapitals should lose their warp-scramble immunity.
The timer for disappearing when logging under aggro for supercapitals is increased from 15 minutes to 2 hours, at least.
Supercarriers lose the ability to deploy drones or fighters - they're restricted to FBs only.
Projected ECM bursts work only against other (super)capitals.
Doomsdays can only be used against other (super)capitals.
This. Big problem with supercaps is that they are not specialized enough. Supercarriers are swiss army knives and titans are huge FU snipers with aimbot.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 15:24:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Giving blackops an anti-supercapital role is a stupid idea....
WHAT!?!
How dare you insinuate that the butler of the Barbie-House-of-MT and the As-Seen-on-TVÖ has no idea of what makes for interesting and balanced gameplay experience!!!! 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 17:12:00 -
[5]
I think the CSM notes said something about "supercarriers being the problem, titans being relatively well balanced". The problem here is that nerfing supercarriers more than titans produces a motivation to upgrade into a Titan. And 100-man Titan fleets are just as silly as 100-man supercarrier fleets. So if CCP doesn't balance Titans properly we'll just shift the problem to Titans in 2012.
Also, the stuff I posted above deals only with the balance of subcapitals to supercapitals. It doesn't deal with getting the balance between capitals and supercapitals right. This is trickier, because the current implementation of supercaps is that they're designed to be capital-killers. But dreadnoughts are also supposed to be capital killers, but as it is, supercaps have obsoleted dreadnoughts, so there is a problem to fix.
Dreadnoughts need their role back. This can be regarded as an argument for reworking supercaps into an entirely different role, but let's stick with what we have for now. It's hard to know exactly how to do this, but possibilities include making dreads more effective against supercaps (but NOT subcapitals; the vulnerability of dreads to subcapitals should be the model for the future balance between supercaps and subcaps).
Making dreads more "mobile" than Titans is another idea, but some would say that jump-capable ships are already too mobile. Also, that sort of thing leads to suggestion about reducing the siege timer. In my opinion, a long timer is a good thing because it forces people to commit to a fight; a fleet that makes a strategic mistake and commits to a fight when it shouldn't have done so deserves to get punished, while a fleet that tricks its enemy into committing when it shouldn't have deserves to be rewarded. Titans already have an immobilisation penalty upon DDing - maybe that could be altered, maybe to not being immobile, but being unable to warp or jump for ten minutes after DDing, so Titans have to commit to a fight like dreadnoughts. Ah, I think I'm just waffling now but i'll post this anyway.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.07.19 20:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gypsio III
.... rant with rash suggestions...
Your nerf is quite a bit overboard, and would quickly obsolete supercarriers.
The problems with supercarriers are:
1.) Swiss army knife... They can apply excellent damage to any target... They have the virtually unlimited drones to quickly and effectively destroy all threats to them.
2.) They stack too effectively: Not only do they have an amazingly high buffer, they have lots of utility highs for Remote Rep. This means while 1 super is hard to kill, 15 supers are insane.
The solution to supers-online is 3 fold:
1.) Limit their role. CCP mentioned separating the drone bay from the fighter/fighterbomber bay. This would be extremely effective at limitting their "good against all targets" dps. With a low enough standard drone bay, they would become succeptible to dictors and hictors again, and they would be pigeon-holed into their designed anti-super role.
2.) Provide a ship class such that a group of them can apply the appropriate dps to bring them down timely (w/in 15 minutes). Dreads don't work, as supers shred dreads.... so it needs to be a subcap ship, but not one that makes super's obsolete. If a group of heavy bombers can bring down dreads more cheaply and safely than supers, then SC's will be obsoleted again... The BO is an interesting choice, as they are vulnerable to capital weapons, and expensive enough to not be disposable. It might be a good choice.
3.) Limit the ability of supers to stack. The ONLY method to do this is to add a stacking penalty to Capital RR. This would also severely limit titan blobs, at least until they get large enough to DD entire fleets. Note, this requires careful implementation, but would be worth the effort!
|
Soldarius
Caldari
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 07:19:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Soldarius on 20/07/2011 07:23:45
In regards to the title of this thread, no. Not even plausible. Blops get instapopped by titans cap guns. Not DD. Just the guns. Was engaging a BS in a Widow on SiSi when an Avatar literally one-shot me at speed. No warning, nothing. I'm going along merrily shooting at some random dude when all bars went red, I get the "Your ship is out of control." message, and then I'm in my pod.
Blops BS are not the answer for anti-cap role. They are far too fragile and expensive. They are designed for insertion behind enemy lines into cyno jammed systems. The problem is there isn't much they can do once they are there. What are you gonna do? Shoot the cyno jammer? Don't mind the Death Star lasers.
edit: You want to fix the super problem? REduce EHP for structures, reduce EHP for supers. Give supers a bay for fighter-bombers only. Give carriers a bay for fighters only. Leave regular drones for subcaps. Now all caps will have to have a subcap support fleet or they will lose badly. At the very least, separate the drone and fight bays. Having a 200,000m3 bay full of 25m3 drones is just ******ed.
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).
|
Dallenn
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 08:16:00 -
[8]
BO are already quite powerful, just happily buffing them would make them OP. OK, they are a niche ship, but the hotdrop niche is a very useful one in the right hands and needs to be carefully controlled. Maybe some slight balancing could be done to guarantee that all ships in the class do have some kind of a combat roles as well.
If you need new functions for BO, you need to introduce new ships. A cloaked combat or recon vessel in in the BO class could make sense. Not sure about that anti-SC capability, given all the arguments above against it - this could perhaps better be a subsystem for T3 BSes?
Fed up with monocle wearing tyrants? Jericho Fraction |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 08:21:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/07/2011 08:21:09
Originally by: Dallenn
Not sure about that anti-SC capability, given all the arguments above against it - this could perhaps better be a subsystem for T3 BSes?
Originally by: me
You do not solve supercapitals' problem of a lack of vulnerability to all subcapitals by making a subcapital counter in the form of a single, extremely expensive and SP-intensive battleship that will immediately get primaried and doomsdayed. It's just... stupid.
|
Recursa Recursion
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 13:58:00 -
[10]
Tweaking Black Ops to be a supercap counter does seem pretty stupid for all of the above reasons. Though if the do OP black ops, it means I probably get two+ years until they fix it :)
My tweak for supercaps would be that any repairs get run through the resistance to counter the insane resists that most everyone pimps out their supercaps to.
Average your armor or shield resists together and poof and reduce any incoming logi effects, i.e. if you have 90% resist, that incoming Archon triage carrier only applies 10% of what it would normally apply. Local repair would be left alone leaving one vulnerable to neuts and such. Passive shield recharging might need to be looked at but it would nerf the crap out of supercap spider-tanking and remove the relative invulnerability once you get past N supercaps and the only counter being N+1 supercaps to be able to overcome the resist / logi amplification effect. One can still drop a group of supercaps but now, focus-fire from a strong fleet might actually have a chance at getting one of the supercaps instead of spider-tanking and triage carriers making it nigh on impossible to break through the DPS sink. Basically, just an increased risk that the opposing fleet might actually get one of your SCs if they are savvy enough.
To keep sub-cap logi from getting a serious nerf, make it apply only to supercaps or supercaps and caps.
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 16:08:00 -
[11]
no its true...
the current role for BO would be better suited for a BC as they are faster and can be speed tanked...
So what CCP will do its take my idea for a techII tier II bc called a heavy bomber (basically spewing citadel torps and a extream low expolsion velocity bomb) and put that on the BO...
then they will take the current bonus on BO and put them on teir II tech II bc's...
not a bad idea if i do say so myself...
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |