Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Spartan dax
0utbreak Outbreak.
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:27:00 -
[451] - Quote
Anile8er wrote:Daedalus II wrote:If we look at fighters from the perspective of fighters instead of carriers, we could ask ourselves; what use will they have now?
* For ships that can use FBs they are worse in every way (can't hit smaller ships, makes less damage than FBs against larger ships), so they aren't going to be used there. * For ships that can't use FBs (i.e. carriers) they are also useless because they can't hit the smaller targets that the carrier itself might survive, and they don't make a dent in larger targets, which the carrier will die against anyway.
So what are they supposed to be used for? Ratting carriers with dual TPs? This wouldn't be the first time a Dev from CCP, who clearly doesnt play EVE, has supported the use of target painters as a main stay fit on capital ships.
Well, I just think we've found a proper bonus for the Hel. Job done. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
420
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:28:00 -
[452] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:A base of 27% vs battleships sounds about right to me. Have a Hyena or Rapier fly with you and and it should be back up near full damage. Fun fact: the best result in such a situation would not be to TP the battleship, but to web the fightersGǪ
Anile8er wrote:This wouldn't be the first time a Dev from CCP, who clearly doesnt play EVE, has supported the use of target painters as a main stay fit on capital ships. GǪthe difference being that last time, it was supposed to be used against ships that couldn't be painted GÇö in this case, they can. So no, it's not quite the same thing. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Camar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:29:00 -
[453] - Quote
David Carel wrote:Camar wrote:David Carel wrote:0.008 with 4x Serpentis Tracking Link, 0.009 with 2x Serpentis TC, both with Tracking Speed.
But you can't always cynoout (cap <70%), and you have reduced neut resistance. Hell yeah.
lol faction TC Your alliance's pilots use them all the time, at least the guys with dead titans did. Our pilots used them all the time. With meta guns out and more people trained to fly blap titans I would wager most of our titan pilots have more isk in midslots than most people have in their supercarrier+fit combined. .009 is half of what I get in blap fit. And as far as cap fit goes, I don't plan on jumping in to just jump right back out unless I'm travel fit. |
ToXicPaIN
Souls of Steel Important Internet Spaceship League
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:29:00 -
[454] - Quote
L1m9n1663r wrote:ToXicPaIN wrote: today you can take down a SC with about 50Hurricans in less then 10minutes ... with the patch you only need 5minutes
No you don't.
oh sorry it was a titan not a SC
and it takes 12minutes with 44Hurricans and cyclones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q97pyRfzztQ
check this
|
TheButcherPete
StoneWall Metals Productions Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:30:00 -
[455] - Quote
I love you, CCP.
Too bad I don't have the ability to have your babies >.> |
Haseo Smith
Wrecking Shots BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:31:00 -
[456] - Quote
Kuhn Arashi wrote:Question:
Now that Dreads and Titans do not have drone bays, will the need for Capital drone bay parts be needed in their construction? If not, you just made capital ships a little cheaper, by how much I don't feel like calculating.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Concern: Fighter resolution.
Understandable that you want to limit Supercarrier effectiveness against subcaps. However In the same blog you said we should bring carriers to deal with subcaps.
I know that carriers can still use smaller drones, but those are easily taken out with smartbomb blobs from the supers the subcaps are supporting, and easily taken out with a bomber run.
Carriers main weapons should still be fighters, and fighters deployed from carriers should be able to fight battleships at the very least. If this does not occur when these changes are put out, carriers will be resigned to supporting supercaps as rep fleet instead of supporting subcap and dread fleets.
Aside from the Fighter nerf affecting carriers that everyone else has brought up His first point is pretty valid.
Are we gonna need the capital drone bay parts/PBO's anymore for those hulls?
and if not will they be replaced with more parts of another category to keep the costs roughly the same?
or are gonna have cheaper dreads and titans?
|
Nye Jaran
The Bad Touch Gryphon League
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:32:00 -
[457] - Quote
Why do you hate my Thanny CCP? As other's have suggested, make the fighter tracking a role penalty for Supers, not a change to fighters in general. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
21
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:32:00 -
[458] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fun fact: the best result in such a situation would not be to TP the battleship, but to web the fighters...
True, but you'd need 20 webs vs 1 painter. |
Zarian Uphius
Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:32:00 -
[459] - Quote
Why nerf fighters and destroy normal carriers all at the same time?
-You already limited Supers to having to chose between FighterBombers and Fighters. So if they jump in to kill caps they will not be effective vs SubCaps and vice-versa. So if you go in with 20 FBs and 5 Fighters sub caps really have nothing to be afriad of.
The changes are not bad but nerfing fighters just seems to screw ALL carriers over. Sicne when can fighters not shoot little stuff?
Maybe we should rename fighters to FighterBombers and the current FBs to TorpedoBombers.
-Also, way to completly miss why dreads were not used in combat, nice timer change but it ends there for dreads.
-Titans tracking is still entirly to high when boosted.
All in all to fix your fix...return fighters to their original stats and give dreads better tracking while reducing the titans ability to get ******** tracking.
Titans = Awesome at everything SC = Sov/cap shooting only Dread = Sov shooting only Carrier = pointless since it will still die within 1 min of entering triage |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:32:00 -
[460] - Quote
David Carel wrote:Akara Ito wrote: If only Jumpf Freighters could jump as far as Supercaps and carry a lot of FBs in their cargohold to restock them between engagements.
Evelopedia wrote: Jump Freighters have a base jump range of 5 Light Years. Motherships have a base jump range of 4 Light Years. Titans have a base jump range of 3.5 Light Years.
While I can understand that you honor the traditions of WIdot badposting please go back and read the post I have replied to in order to understand what I tried to point out Thanks in advance. |
|
Aerious
Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[461] - Quote
Thank you CCP, you have saved me 50b isk in 2 super caps + fit, i am so glad i didn't train up for a titan, i would so p1553d off with the upcoming nerf.
Any suggestions what i can do with my glorified wheelbarrow's? A chimera + thanatos!
WTS: 1x WYVERN + 1x NYX BPC packs. |
Daedalus II
Helios Research Combat Mining and Logistics
47
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[462] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:A base of 27% vs battleships sounds about right to me. Have a Hyena or Rapier fly with you and and it should be back up near full damage. Fun fact: the best result in such a situation would not be to TP the battleship, but to web the fightersGǪ Anile8er wrote:This wouldn't be the first time a Dev from CCP, who clearly doesnt play EVE, has supported the use of target painters as a main stay fit on capital ships. GǪthe difference being that last time, it was supposed to be used against ships that couldn't be painted GÇö in this case, they can. So no, it's not quite the same thing. I don't know what is most ridiculous; the fighter nerf or our ways to undo it :p |
Orakkus
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[463] - Quote
My hat is off to you, CCP Tallest, and thank you VERY much for all these changes. They have been sorely needed for years and while I don't agree with all of them, I certainly think that many of the changes are great!
A couple of the concerns have already been mentioned, particularly how the change in Sig resolution will affect standard Carriers and if all E-war will be unable to affect supercaps.. including beneficial ones like Tracking links. I also am very glad to see that this is just the beginning and that you are willing to make necessary adjustments while in testing. I can't ask for any more than that.
Kudos to you sir, and don't let the pilots who whine like little spoiled girls bring you down. Don't let the illogical and non-sensical arguments of those who think that supercarriers should be solo ships make you fret. Most have forgotten that the original intent of Supercarriers was meant that an entire alliance would have maybe 2 or 3 total. Think of those people merely as little fat boys and girls, who for years stuffed their cheeks with everyone else's candy and have become so obese from AFK'ing all the time that even a little actual interaction is too much for their poor, frail fingers.
They have long forgotten what it is like to live in Eve. I'm glad you have had the guts now to remind them.... painfully and with much fear. |
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises Spectrum Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[464] - Quote
dreads need more tracking, not shorter siege cycles. |
DeadDuck
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[465] - Quote
ToXicPaIN wrote:today you can take down a SC with about 50Hurricans in less then 10minutes ...
Sorry it only works if the SC is using active hardeners. If is using passive, non cap dependant hardeners...GL with that. Oh and btw it helps if the SC is not receiving cap transfers also from their buddies.
|
PCaBoo
Ammo and Tag Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:34:00 -
[466] - Quote
What a lazy and sad way of nerfing supers. Most will agree, some sort of nerf was required, but it seems like CCP's ignored pretty much every reasonable suggestion and imposed a bunch of half-assed ideas that noone wanted (Except logoff timer).
I'm glad I don't have a sc anymore. This would have put me into an emo-rage. :p |
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:35:00 -
[467] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:xxxak wrote:Update:
This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.
So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.
That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.
Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.
Other thoughts:
1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary. 2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters 3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps. 4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful. 5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.
The nerf should have been as follows: 1) Fix logoffski timer 2) DD can only hit caps 3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers
Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.
Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??
Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well? Exactly how it should be. 5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support. Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance: sub-caps beat supers supers beat caps caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work).
There is a difference between "proper support" and "losing = loss of 200 billion isk."
I agree that supers should not be used to hot drop on a roaming BC gang for ***** and gigs.
But I also don't think that a 200 vs 200 subcap battle where one fleet gets lucky in lag means that the losing fleet should also lose 10-20-30 supers, and meanwhile the supers literally don't have a chance to defend themselves.
|
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:37:00 -
[468] - Quote
xxxak wrote:Taedrin wrote:xxxak wrote:Update:
This nerf = Win Subcap battle, Kill all supers on the field.
So with this nerf, supers can no longer defend themselves from subcaps, and supers are committed for 23 hours once they cyno in.
That means that if you have a 15 man super fleet (mid size alliance), plus 120 sub caps (mid size alliance), and if lose the subcap battle, you also just lost all your supers.
Kthxbai. No way a sane super pilot will commit now unless they are 150% sure that they have a winning fleet. EVE is dead.
Other thoughts:
1) Nerfing fighters makes carriers even more crap. This was unnecessary. 2) Supercarriers should at least be able to carry 20 FB + 20 fighters 3) The removal of the drone bay is a nerf to small alliances who are more likely to use a small number of "ninja" supercarrier tactics. Now those supercarriers can get tackled and killed much more easily by even a small/medium gang of subcaps. 4) Huge alliances that can field huge fleets (super cap gang+proper sub cap fleet) will be even more powerful. 5) Supercarriers are no longer good for anything but shooting POS mods and Sov mods. LOL.
The nerf should have been as follows: 1) Fix logoffski timer 2) DD can only hit caps 3) Small EHP reduction for supercarriers
Those three fixes alone would have been enough to start.
Can some Dev explain the decision to not even let SC carry 20 fighters??
Actually, looking more at the fighter nerf.... what can they hit now? POS mods? LOL. Huge stealth carrier nerf. Care to explain this one as well? Exactly how it should be. 5 years ago, flying a capital without proper support made you a laughing stock. Why shouldn't flying supers without proper support ALSO make you a laughing stock? If you want to protect your supers, then bring the proper amount of support. Therefore we have a sort of rock-paper-scissors formula for balance: sub-caps beat supers supers beat caps caps beat sub-caps (could probably use some more work). There is a difference between "proper support" and "losing = loss of 200 billion isk." I agree that supers should not be used to hot drop on a roaming BC gang for ***** and gigs. But I also don't think that a 200 vs 200 subcap battle where one fleet gets lucky in lag means that the losing fleet should also lose 10-20-30 supers, and meanwhile the supers literally don't have a chance to defend themselves.
This will make sure supers stay the **** away from fights as often as possible. Dunno but... Win ?
|
Denuo Secus
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:38:00 -
[469] - Quote
Great changes, this could lead to more mixed fleets (with different roles) and interesting fights. Only 3 (already mentioned) concerns:
(@Caps won't be able to hit sub-caps anymore): the proposed solution seems not balanced (btw: it's not balanced atm as well). Turret capitals (Dreads and Titans) are able to receive remote tracking support and ARE able to instapwn sub capitals. A Missile Dread or Titan cannot do this.
(@HP nerf) HP bonus of shield capitals isn't applied instantly. This + the absence of shield HP inplants is a huge disadvantage of shield capitals.
(@Fighter nerf): Carriers should be able to handle sub capitals better than Super Carriers IMHO. So a fighter nerf applied to Super Carriers only sounds better for me. It would give Carriers an additional bonus (role) over Super Carriers as well. |
Casey CIA
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:39:00 -
[470] - Quote
If you limit the Fighter nerf to Super Caps, at least you give Carriers some sort of offensive subcap fleet role.
Carriers could even take a slight fighter bonus empowering them to provide some subcap fighting capability while still remaining fairly weak to super caps and large sub cap fleets, thus balancing out and providing a pvp offensive role that isn't over powered.
Edit: I am ok with the other changes |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
63
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:40:00 -
[471] - Quote
Do not nerf shield tankers as they are already nerfed by lack of an equivalent to Slave implants.
If you slash 20% from ships like the Wyvern, it will be far weaker than the armor tanks which it is all ready far weaker than.
Reducing fighter damage to smaller targets also makes regular carriers less useful in wormhole escalations. |
Paskis Robinson
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:42:00 -
[472] - Quote
As usual, everything that needs to be said has been said in the first 3 pages, then there's 20 pages of overanalytical crap from people who think too much.
The changes are great, the only problem I have with them is we're almost at the point where Thanatos > Hel
|
ScheenK
Constantine.
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:42:00 -
[473] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:ScheenK wrote:removing the focused dd would change alot, no longer will caps get insta'd in the beginning of the fight, and dreads will play the role they are intended for
bring back AOE dd, with shorter range, remain on field for 10mins and have an hourly cycle
ehp removal was not needed, you buffed the ehp on captials because it was needed now your taking it away when its needed most
So how will 18 titans on field, all using AoE DD one after the other affect the battle?
i think its a better solution to fleet fights, when 18 titans instapop the first 18 dread/carriers that are put into the field
|
Jooce McNasty
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:43:00 -
[474] - Quote
I would suggest removing the limitations from the dread siege module. (let them be repped and have cap transferd to them) This coupled with a carrier support would allow for dread/carrier teams to become worthwhile, with a sub cap fleet. Still keep them locked in place and keep the timer at 10 minutes. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
144
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:44:00 -
[475] - Quote
Lan Caden wrote:1 Titan = 90,000,000,000 ISK 1 Hurricane = 50,000,000 ISK
1 Titan = 1,800 Hurricanes 1 Titan = 1 Hurricane a day for 5 years
Do I get mad when I explode to one of these behemoths? No, I think, "well, that makes sense."
The log off change is great IMO. Supers will now have to be very confident in their subcap support before they expose themselves.
Just dying once, just one mistake is enormous--like you just lost a hurricane every day for the next 5 years, and there is no more "pull the internet cord" failsafe. Titans will explode more often, or at least be used less often since the log off change.
Please don't make it so they can't explode hurricanes, it's the whole reason I save money in this game. The idea that "one day" I can murder small fleet all by myself.
I should be able to fit estamel's invulns on a drake and murder a supercap fleet by myself
~ lan caden, 2011 |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
335
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:44:00 -
[476] - Quote
I don't see anything wrong with fighters as they are - no matter if they're fielded from a Supercarrier or a Scrubcarrier.
Also Moros changes will take it out of line with other dreads, but then again, I don't really care - as long as I get easily chewed up by virtually any ship class on the field and get speedtanked by SCs, I'll keep my dread docked for another three years... morons-áare recruiting. We're good at breeding! |
decaneos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:44:00 -
[477] - Quote
so ive only read the first few pages but they made me giggle, there missing the point sooo much, the whole point of nerfing the supercaps is so subcabs are actaully used, its to stop fleets just warping in with only supercaps and nothing else.
this way you need a better balace of ships incedently making big fleet battles more accesable to newer players and they dont need to of trained in supercapitals to be allowed to fight.
|
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:45:00 -
[478] - Quote
David Carel wrote:Akara Ito wrote: If only Jumpf Freighters could jump as far as Supercaps and carry a lot of FBs in their cargohold to restock them between engagements.
Evelopedia wrote: Jump Freighters have a base jump range of 5 Light Years. Motherships have a base jump range of 4 Light Years. Titans have a base jump range of 3.5 Light Years.
Evelopedia is wrong then. JFs, SCs, dreads and Rorquals all have 5 LY base jump range.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:45:00 -
[479] - Quote
Most of this looks pretty good, and long overdue.
Outstanding issues, though I somehow doubt they'll get read at this point of the thread:
Rather than removing hitpoints, why not simply remove the rig slots, as this would have a roughly similar effect (supercap rig slots are only ever used for CDFEs or Trimarks) with the added bonus of un-skewing the Large T2 Rig market and removing the anomaly of the same sized rigs being used for battleships as titans? Aside from that, a flat hitpoint nerf across the board does little to resolve the shield vs armour disparity - in particular, the Hel is still vastly inferior to the rest of the range. Any chance the Hel can be granted a hitpoint-nerf amnesty? Or failing that, replace the Remote Rep bonus with something more appropriate?
Capital guns can still track and kill subcaps easily with assistance from tracking links. The logical solution would seem to be to treat remote assistance modules as e-war and so making supercaps "immune" to them in the same way as debilitating e-war modules (since a tracking link is basically a reversed tracking disruptor, this seems to make sense).
Dreadnoughts still look underpowered, while the 5 minute siege mod is good, it basically gives them a higher chance of avoiding a fight, rather than of winning a fight. Their role now seems to be to act as bait to get a hostile supercap force to come out and play so you can counter-drop with a subcap fleet. Random crazy idea - siege mode makes a warp disruptor into a heavy-dictor-style focused infini-point?
|
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:46:00 -
[480] - Quote
Here are my two cents:
TL;DR version: the nerf is a bit too big without really solving the problem with the N+1 counter.
1) the 20% EHP reduction seems to be too much with the concurrent changes. Looking back, it only took some small changes to turn the SCs into overpowered ships. don't make the inverse mistake.
2) even if it takes more development effort, I'd rather see the ewar immunity replaced by some form of ranked ewar system for all kinds of ewar, more or less like the jamming system works.
3) capital and supercapital ships should be a lot more strategic than tactical. I think it would be better to see a limit on how often a capital ship can jump based on the hull ship size (the bigger the ship, the less often it can do). A titan jumping at most once a week seems more ok to me. May need to adjust ranges a bit though. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |