| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jita Bloodtear
   |
Posted - 2011.07.20 20:57:00 -
[1]
CCP has stated quite clearly and publicly that supercarriers are bound for an impending nerf. This thread is to poll the playerbase on what they'd consider acceptable ner***e (nerf-age, LOL) for commonly suggested ideas.
1.) Are you a supercarrier pilot (y/n?)
2.) Decreasing effective hitpoints 25-50% (y/n?)
3.) Decreasing carrier skill bonus to 2 extra drones/fighters per level instead of 3 (y/n?)
4.) Introduction of a siege module (like dreadnoughts) which prevents movement/warp/reps, but is the only way to launch fighter-bombers (y/n?)
5.) Trading the immunity to electronic warfare (jamming, warp scram) for the ability to dock (y/n?)
6.) Altering the ship bonuses to change from a combat role to a logistics role like carriers (y/n?)
I'll attempt to gather stats below here:
---------------------------------------
---------------------------
Full Explanation of the Industry Index System |
Alyssa Yotosala
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:05:00 -
[2]
n
y
y
n
n
n
|
Llambda
Space Llama Industries
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:09:00 -
[3]
What's this trying to sort out, exactly? The top 5 least creative ways to "balance" SCs?
|
Cyzin Jita
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:26:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Llambda
What's this trying to sort out, exactly? The top 5 least creative ways to "balance" SCs?
Looks like it. I'll leave the ship balancing to the guys in charge. All I know is that supercarrier hotdrops online is almost as bad as drive-by titans online used to be. Honestly the game would be better without super caps. The way they have been implemented and "balanced" to this point is ridiculous. But whatever.
|
Telvani
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:30:00 -
[5]
These fixes don't address the issues
n
y
y
n
n
n - WTF they already destory carriers in seconds, lets now take away the only thing that makes the carrier worthwhile?
The changes need to be to low sec immunity, log off mechanics, easy of construction and mobility.
If they were used correctly and actually had some RISK associated with them then their HP and DPS would be mostly justified, atm stuff goes bad they just log off.
and NO BLANKET NERFS TO CAPITALS! dreads / carriers are weak enough as it is!
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:34:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Bagehi on 20/07/2011 21:37:37
1.) y
2.) n
3.) n
4.) n (but I don't like siege/triage modules in their current form on any of the ships)
5.) y
6.) n
EDIT: I honestly don't really like any of these suggestions. They seem extremely heavy handed. I'm okay with scarriers losing some dps if structures don't have millions of HP and all caps have lengthened self destruct and log off timers. At the present time, supers are the only way to kill stuff before it gets away through meta tactics and the only way to grind through a sov structure in less than a day (exaggeration, but if you have hit a structure before then you'll know what I mean).
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Last Star Fighter
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:40:00 -
[7]
This is a dumb ****ing thread. This is no different that the half a dozen other super carrier proposals in assembly hall already.
Reporting this thread to be moved to 'Features and Ideas' forum.
***SPACESHIPS > ROBOTS*** |
Romandra
These are not the droids you're looking for
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:45:00 -
[8]
1.) n
2.) y
3.) n
4.) n
5.) y
6.) n
|
Todd4921
Gallente
Caldari Elite Force
Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:51:00 -
[9]
1.) Q
2.) R
3.) 42
4.) 666
5.) Z
6.) P
I hope this clears things up.
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 21:58:00 -
[10]
Moved from General Discussion
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP NA, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
|
|
Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 22:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Moved from General Discussion to the bin
Would have been more appropriate.
1) Y
2) N
3) N
4) N
5) N
Gas OP, clearly does not fly a supercarrier and is butthurt.
|
Digital Messiah
Gallente
Oregami Ultd
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 22:15:00 -
[12]
n
y
y
y
n
n
Quote:
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
 |
Jirai Grepher
Gallente
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 22:59:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jirai Grepher on 20/07/2011 23:00:08
Originally by: Headerman
Gas OP, clearly does not fly a supercarrier and is butthurt.
Half of these people have probably only seen Supers in EVE trailers..
1) Y
2) N (maybe 20% tops)
3) N
4) N
5) N
|
Trader Goil
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 00:42:00 -
[14]
y
y
n
n
y
n
Also, to the guy who said the OP doesn't fly supers - I'm fairly sure that guy owns at least two titans.
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 00:54:00 -
[15]
1) n
2) y (20-25% tops)
3) n
4) n
5) n but that was its intended role
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 09:53:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Aqriue on 21/07/2011 09:53:59
1. No. Couldn't care less, infact Carriers and Dreads need a buff more then SC/Titan need a nerf. The sub-caps haven't been brought up to current building codes and just Titan/Bomber fodder.
2. No. Increase hitpoints more.
3. No. Increase carrier skillbonus to 10 fighters and 20 Drones per level.
4. No. Need instant escapes
5. No. Make immune to all forms of warfare including incomming fire, not just electronic. Super-JuggerHulk-Man The Unstoppable
6. No. End game BS 5 skill ship should be offensive not defensive, leave clerics in WoW.
/sarcasm
Leave them as is. The forum whines are enough justification that having unfit fleets of low skilled pilots in T1 battleships + highskilled pilots in superior ships to blob on blob the f**k out of each other on the same grid means that the combat as a whole needs to be improved, its more like a massive game of Hungry Hungry Hippo's. I don't think a max fleet engagement of only super carrier on both sides has occured yet, but it would probably be a complete standstill pretty much like that of current nullsec politics is right now (haven't heard of any great wars since the Goon on BoB gangbag 2 years ago).
|
Mr Peanut420
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 10:05:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Mr Peanut420 on 21/07/2011 10:10:03
Edited by: Mr Peanut420 on 21/07/2011 10:09:02
1.) No- skilled don't own
2.) Yes- 25% max decrease
3.) No- drone numbers should be high
4.) Yes- fighter bomber siege modules would introduce some risk, like all other caps have, either add seige to supers or remove it from dreads. But boosting dreads is bad because they're pretty well balanced as is (just not against supers, because nothing is, cause they're funking unbalanced).
5.) No- EW immunity is just cool, and wasn't a problem before fighter bombers
6.) No- why have two ships with the exact same function?
|
King Rothgar
Path of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 11:53:00 -
[18]
Edited by: King Rothgar on 21/07/2011 11:54:15
1) n - skilled for it, have the isk, just don't want one
2) y (25%)
3) n
4) n
5) y (minus the docking ability)
6) y
Of these nerfs, only returning them to super-sized triage carriers is acceptable in of itself. I think for flavor purposes they should trade a large amount of their HP for some sort of active tanking/resistance bonus, but it's not absolutely necessary for that option to work. The other options require, nerfs to HP, EW immunity and frankly dps too though you didn't list it. I do not think they should be able to dock without drastic changes to them. In effect they'd have to become some sort of t2 carrier instead of super caps to be dockable. And I don't think that's a workable solution.
|
Ned Black
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 14:30:00 -
[19]
The only nerf needed is to remove anything bigger than dread/carrier from the game entirely...
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2011.07.21 21:36:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 21/07/2011 21:38:22
1.) NO, I'm not a supercap pilot
2.) NO, decreasing HP by 25-50% will not solve the major issues with supercaps.
3.) NO, reducing the number of drones form 20 to 15 will not solve the major issues.
4.) YES, introduction of a siege modules on supercaps would go a long way to solve some of their issues, although it needs to be more restrictive than you just suggested.
5.) Interesting idea, but no.
6.) No, they deserve to be combat vessels. Its their role, and its why most people have them.
You are really lacking the truly relevant suggestions in your survey.... And you should NOT couple EWAR with docking.... that just bias's that answer completely!!!
These are additional questions you should include:
7.) Do you support altering the dronebay of SC's to severely limit the number of standard drones it can field? Y/N
8.) Do you support a stacking penalty to capital RR, thereby limiting the stacking effectiveness of capitals? Y/N
9.) Do you support a new class of bomber specifically designed to mess up supercaps, but not caps? Y/N
10.) Do you support removing the ability of SC's to receive RR in exchange for an active tank bonus? Y/N
7.) Yes
8.) Yes
9.) Yes
10. Yes
|
|
|
Sarrgon
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
|
Posted - 2011.07.24 23:16:00 -
[21]
Here's a thought, more super carriers and titans get nerfed, worse the economy could be. Right now demand for SC's are good, a lot being built to meet that demand. A LOT of minerals get used in making a SC. they get nerfed to much, demand will drop, a lot more minerals get onto the open market and prices drop for minerals and the ships and other goodies they help make.
So more SC's that get made, better it is for the economy, less that get made, worse off the economy is. So if a nerf is incoming, should also be a way to offest the economy so it not get worse. So help us out Obama errr CCP
All the answers we need are inside of us. |
Soulscrystal
|
Posted - 2011.07.25 04:12:00 -
[22]
n
n
n
n
y
n
Increase FB volume from 5,000m3 to 10,000m3. Automatically limits Supers to 20 FB's instead of 40. Would have the effect of causing Super pilots to be more careful with their assests in combat.
Allow carriers to feild FB's. With the increase in volume the max a carrier can carry is 8 FB's. Provides carrier fleets with a counter to Supers.
Halve the damage of FB's from 3,000 to 1,500.
No Nurf bat needed for the super itself. Just my 2 cents.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.07.25 05:23:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 25/07/2011 05:23:42
1.) Are you a supercarrier pilot (y/n?)
2.) Decreasing effective hitpoints 25-50% (y/n?)
3.) Decreasing carrier skill bonus to 2 extra drones/fighters per level instead of 3 (y/n?)
4.) Introduction of a siege module (like dreadnoughts) which prevents movement/warp/reps, but is the only way to launch fighter-bombers (y/n?)
5.) Trading the immunity to electronic warfare (jamming, warp scram) for the ability to dock (y/n?)
6.) Altering the ship bonuses to change from a combat role to a logistics role like carriers (y/n?)
n
n
n
n
n
n
I think none of these suggestions except for the last one address the problem with supercaps, and the last one, I believe further aggravates it. We don't need more strong logistics, that is not something that is missing in the game. Instead I believe supercarriers should have a) The ability to carry a lot of ships and fighters b) having the ability to field lots of fighters (like they do today) BUT, that their role is completely anti-supercapital foremost, and anti-capital as a limited second capacity. This means that they will only be able to use fighter bombers, and that fighter bombers can only do pathetic damage to sub-capitals, and semi-decent damage to capitals. A supercarrier should be completely useless on a gate in low-sec for instance, or hot-dropping on battleships or any such fleets. Their main purpose should be to combat other supercapitals, pos & sovereignty modules, and possibly enemy heavy logistics (such as jump freighters), ie. they should be a thoroughbred champion in 0.0 sovereignty warfare, and completely isolated and useless in subcap fights.
HABIT
|
PCaBoo
Ammo and Tag
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
|
Posted - 2011.07.25 06:28:00 -
[24]
Edited by: PCaBoo on 25/07/2011 06:31:50
Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
1.) Are you a supercarrier pilot (y/n?)
2.) Decreasing effective hitpoints 25-50% (y/n?)
3.) Decreasing carrier skill bonus to 2 extra drones/fighters per level instead of 3 (y/n?)
4.) Introduction of a siege module (like dreadnoughts) which prevents movement/warp/reps, but is the only way to launch fighter-bombers (y/n?)
5.) Trading the immunity to electronic warfare (jamming, warp scram) for the ability to dock (y/n?)
6.) Altering the ship bonuses to change from a combat role to a logistics role like carriers (y/n?)
1. No, but i've already lost 2 =\
2. N
3. N
4. Maybe - I posted an idea a while back about having a "siege" mod to launch FB's. It wouldn't prevent movement, but would prevent sc's from cloaking, warping, or jumping and reduce their defenses (cap recharge and/or not being able to be rr'd).
5. N
6. N
edit: typos =[
________________________________
Stop nerfing everything! |
Star Andedare
|
Posted - 2011.08.12 16:37:00 -
[25]
1.) Yes
2.) NO, decreasing HP by 25-50% shifts the balance of power even more toward large alpha battle ships. Supers are the only effective counter to this tactic.
3.) NO, see #2 above.
4.) NO, see #2 above.
5.) NO
6.) NO
7.) NO, see #2 above
8.) NO, not unless the entire line of RR is reduced for all ships.
9.) NO, makes balance even more of an issue.
10.) NO, see #2 above.
To be brutally frank, none of the listed suggestions in the above threads well really address the issue with super caps.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |