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) |
Vaako Horizon
Casual Slackers Daily Operations
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:48:00 -
[1831] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
This is a balance issue.. While I am happy for those that like this I dont much like how CCP ignores confirmed bugs in favor of balance... :P As I am a high sec carebear these things dont affect me but since incarna there has been a bug which affect all players using them ( havent hard any user say otherwise )... DRONES!! ( no focus fire+idle ) Would it not be better to fix an actuall bug that affect "everyone" before looking towards balance issues? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:50:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Le Cardinal wrote:A 20B endgame ship shouldnt be able to hold at least a few drones to fend off a dictor? lol. How somone could say thats a sane thing to do is beyond comprehension. please let me reiterate, this is not WoW, end game does not mean end all and be all. In WoW level 85 is just arbitrarily better than level 84. Just because a ship is bigger doesnt mean that it is better Le Cardinal wrote:There are ships designated for most roles in the game, so if you wanna pull the role-card then make it happen to all classes. I would like to see the reactions then from the people in this thread who support the current nerf. What you fail to realize is that ships can have multiple roles and engage multiple ship types but the biggest ships cant because you cant escalate up from them. There is nothing bigger to bring to counter them, so they have to have a weakness to something smaller than them otherwise everyone would just bring those ships because they are uncounterable which btw is what happened. Le Cardinal wrote:No matter how you twist and turn it, you do in fact sometimes end up in situations where you are alone and without support, either from logging at a safespot or pos or whatever. Its inevitable. and it would be YOUR fault for letting that happen in hostile space.
I find all this coming from an alliance that myself and ~8 guys came to within a few days of wiping off the sov map entirely pretty amusing. I guess what he fails to realize is that supers should be utterly defenseless. That way us super pilots can spend more time in EVE doing what you guys do, like hiding in poses refusing to fight, then using exploits to escape from our poses after hostiles rapecage and reinforce them.
Hahaha, incredible. The guys who have to use password resets to fling their jumpfreighters out of rapecaged, soon-to-die POSes because they wouldn't fight 8 people are lecturing us on why supers need to be easier to kill.
Go **** yourselves, Imperial Legion. You're terrible renter scum whose nullsec existence is entirely at the whim of others. Your input in this discussion means next to nothing. |
Kern Walzky
x13 Raiden.
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:51:00 -
[1833] - Quote
CCP. i think this nerf aproach is the wrong way. i have played since 2004 and spent alot of RL money and spent alot of time.
Not only the ship will become nerfed, but the BPO's, and all investments to produce theese ships/BPO's will become worthless. So with a swith stroke from you CCP all my investment is ruined... im stuck in this sadness.
Why not make a dread a bit better to be a cheap competitor to the supers. Instead of making supers worthless.. a ship used only to kill caps and boooring structures. and you need a alt to hold it. subscribtion needed here.
its not tears. but a sad day when Eve becomes booring with no benefit to have isk and skills.
Supercarriers will become the next dread. almost never used... again BS and hacs will become the iwin... with no consideration for skills and isk and the current owners of the supercarriers & titans... |
Solinuas
Beyond Evil and Good
86
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:51:00 -
[1834] - Quote
You know a Sc fix seems pretty simple, just dissallow locking (or possibly only allow 5 drones?) on anything smaller than a bs (exept dictors and hics maybe) and have that with the other changes, and for the love of ****, fighters themselves are fine, if you play it right they cant hit anything smaller than a BS at all |
onefineday
Wings of Omen Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:53:00 -
[1835] - Quote
I think your re balancing is useless and thats why
Reasons:
You say super caps are two strong because they carry drones and they blob, the thing witch will happen the you will limit them to fighter and bomber drones they gonna blob even more.
i know its way harder for you to change amount of armor and shield they have and it would straight away make them easier to kill another thing make dps from bombers smeller whats a point of a carier if he cant even defend him self from one single dictor ? thats a reason they gonna blob even more because they wont be able to defend them self alone so they gonna do everything to make sure they don't die so the same thing ho have more super caps wins :) no logic to your desitions, titan dd is to strong its its lol luck titan uses dd he cant move 5mins he is target if you luck to the history goonswarm not so long ago nearly killed two titans in trash hurri hang because they used dd and cud not move :) cut armore shield ammaunth dps they do but don't cut drones because its juts sorry for expression stupid, can you Emogene moros without drones sorry but its galente ship it has to have drones its all point yes i agry dreads are two weak but maby you sud increase they dps cut armore and shield on titans and supercaps reduce they dps little bit and it will be all good :) it would be relay strange if one dictor would be able to kill super cap because he cant use small drones to kill it away :) don't be lazy to program more because its only reason i can see you choosing this way for super cap nerf, you destroying a game witch i love! |
Gesina Kouvo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 19:57:00 -
[1836] - Quote
Can some one with ridiculous amounts of spare time can count the posts against super-cap nerf from certain alliances? I am just curious ...
Love the tears BTW. If I were CCP I wold go even further ... allow supers to deploy ONLY RACIAL fighters / fighter bombers ... like titans ... plus of course all the proposed changes. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:07:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Trader 99 wrote:i think being dreads cant move in siege i would let them keep their dronebays personally, but not let the supers or titans use regular drones because i think they should be easy to tackle if alone with no support.Just because titans and supers cost quite a bit they shouldnt make it so its easy to deal with the only ships that can hold them.This should be one of there achilles heels.
I guess I'm the only one that (should a Dreds roll be deemed a bit too limited, and some anti support fleet capability be desired) instead of keeping the drone bays instead allow them the rest of their high slots (8) that they can only mount smaller guns/missile launchers/etc in.
I admit to having a vision of Dreads bristiling with guns of all different sizes. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:09:00 -
[1838] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=176360#post176360 ^^ original post
thanks for all the props guys.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:20:00 -
[1839] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=176360#post176360 ^^ original post
thanks for all the props guys.
There are a lot of good points in your post that could work, CCP's plan (with a few tweaks) can work as well however. There are a lot of subtle effects from either plan that could make or break the whole line of thought. Testing will tell in CCP's case.
I will agree that they need to be careful, particularly of following too closely the expressed desires of the community. Yes, feedback is valuable, however the reason Super Caps are in the shape they are today is because they listened too closely to the community wish list. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:24:00 -
[1840] - Quote
hi can you fix titan bridge bug
the titan bridge bug is when a titan bridge goes up, a player then session changes, and said player is unable to go through said portal
thanks |
|
Sahjahn
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:27:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Rodent Jr wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:Some random thoughts...
A blanket EHP nerf across the board is a little silly. The raw HP levels are already out of balance between supercaps of different races. Reducing everyone by the same amount means we miss out on an opportunity to correct that.
Solution? Adjust HP levels as follows: Aeon -20% Nyx -10% Wyvern -15% Hel - No change
Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change Ragnarok +10%
Supercarriers fighter bays are a little anemic. These ships are tricky and time-consuming to refit, so carrying a single flight of their only damage tool seems like a recipe for disaster. Solution? Let them carry ~30 fighters/bombers. Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available.
There isn't enough difference between Capitals and Super-Capitals. Carriers have a role as support and anti-subcap ships, as escorts for Supercarriers that are now unable to defend themselves with their own drones. After these changes Dreadnoughts will still be limited in use as they're still just as vulnerable to being one-shotted as before. If you have enough titans, there will be little reason to use Dreads. Titans also remain overpowered versus subcaps. With tracking links, remote sensor boosters and enough supercarriers behind them, beating a titan blob simply comes down to having more titans. Beyond a certain threshold subcap numbers still do not matter.
Solution? Three actually:
1) Doomsdays balanced on sig radius - A blanket 'no DD on subcaps' rule seems a little anti-sandbox for me. If I want to burn half my isotopes picking off Rifters, why can't I? Let's change Doomsday damage to scale on target sig radius. For example:
Supercap = full damage Dreadnought = ~1mil damage (with DD Op V) Battleship = ~50k damage Cruiser = 5k damage Frigate = 1k damage
It will no longer destroy ships outright (unless they're nearly dead or terribly fitted) and makes Dreads more cost-efficient at taking on Titan fleets, increasing their role. This is also great to help smaller groups fight larger ones using their insured dreads.
2) Jump 'Calibration' - Supercaps should have a delay in order to lock onto a player-activated cyno beacon. This time is based on the distance they are travelling, so while a 2ly jump might take five seconds, a jump to the full range could require 30 seconds to lock on. This has several effects. Firstly it means that supercaps planning a hotdrop need to be nearer the target, increasing the odds of them being spotted. It also increases the odds of the cyno and/or tackler being destroyed or jammed before support can arrive. Finally it gives regular capitals an increased role as 'rapid-response' capitals, able to move around faster than their larget counterparts.
3) Electronic Attack Frigates. Yup you read that right. This diminuitive vessel rarely seen outside of alliance tournaments and hilarious lossmails could use a bit more of a purpose in life. In the same way that HICs bypass the supercap immunity to tackling, EAFs should bypass their immunity to ewar. The best part about this change is that it balances itself: EAFs are already made of paper, which means that any supercap fleet with a supporting fleet of any description will be able to swat them down with ease. It provides a counter to the exponential remote-repping and tracking links of hundred-strong supercap fleets, especially when faced under a cynojammer. Plus of course it opens up an avenue for the Eve Newbie. Remember that guy? Well now he can be taking on the big boys in a few short weeks of training, helping to make a difference to that fight. Bumping dis post from page 64
Quoting a Goon, good god. None the less quoting cos some ideas in here are good, the only one i really don't like is the jump calibration one, but meh.
|
Neurotica
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:38:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Blobbing wont stop, this will just bring about more BC blobbing with the introduction of more carriers being backup.
It's way to drastic, we already had the dreadnoughts / super carriers / titans around for such a time that these sort of changes shouldn't be happening with just a hammer and blindfold.
I wont deny that supers need balancing and it's all about who has more.
A nice apology, then to back it up withan amateur alpha stage style balance.
Monkeys and typewriters do not write Shakespeare. And the certainly can't build bridges. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
429
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:49:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Neurotica wrote:
Monkeys and typewriters do not write Shakespeare. And the certainly can't build bridges.
You ever give a monkey a typewriter to be sure?
|
Melivein
Ore Exploration Team
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:54:00 -
[1844] - Quote
ABOUT TIME ... Not enough, but will do for now. Better then nothing. (that was over due for over 5 years) |
Kerri Desdemonia
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:54:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Temmu Guerra wrote:zero2espect wrote:So i think that this is page 86 of a forum thread
(lots of text)
I donGÇÖt have a super but IGÇÖm not on the bandwagon of NERF THE SUPERS! just because I donGÇÖt have one. I want to aspire to one day have one on this toon and the way things are going there is nothing beneficial in GÇ£wanting moreGÇ¥ out of this game. I might as well stop producing items, buying plexes and adding value to the game and just fly ceptors and cruisers because at least when you **** them up I wonGÇÖt be throwing billions down the toilet.
YouGÇÖd get just as much love out of non-capital pilots if you just fixed low sec and militia and bring in some new sub-capital ships. Hope CCP is watching the number of people that keep posting this tidbit.
Quoting this post multiple times doesn't make it come true. It just makes it annoying! |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
114
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 20:58:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Maria Kitiare wrote: I am saying that the skill tree, made by CCP, indicates that Caps is the next step after sub-caps..
No. Just no.
Caps are not next step after sub-caps. Sub-caps are the step before caps.
Think for a second how these statements mean different things.
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
114
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:01:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Neurotica wrote:
Monkeys and typewriters do not write Shakespeare. And the certainly can't build bridges.
You ever give a monkey a typewriter to be sure?
Don't you think these very forums prove it ? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
444
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:07:00 -
[1848] - Quote
Gesina Kouvo wrote:@CynoNet Two some ideas are good some of them will actually change nothing in today's scenario. Let me explain myself: Quote:Avatar, Erebus, Leviathan - No change Ragnarok +10% Ragnarok has the best tracking out there, you can actually track a frigate, an increase in HP will make it by far the best of all titans. Actually capital blasters have the best tracking of all capital guns, but I'll humour you here:
A quick EFT shows that if you take: a standard MWD flycatcher, moving at 2,480m/s with 570m sig a Ragnarok with 3 officer tracking mods and Drop boosters and feed it with a Scimitar with 4 tracking links at max skills
The Flycatcher will take a maximum of 320-360dps at a range of 80-120km. Below 70km damage drops to under 50dps. If I remove the tracking links, the Flycatcher needs to drop its transversal below 40% of max speed to be hit by the same rate of DPS. If the pilot is smart and fits an Afterburner instead, he cannot be hit below 250m/s transversal.
tl;dr - a Rag can hit very bad dictor pilots at the other end of the field if they stack every possible tracking bonus available. I didn't bother doing frigates because they're even smaller.
Gesina Kouvo wrote:Quote:Alternatively, remove the in-built drone deployment bonus in Supercarriers but increase the number that can be deployed using Drone Control Units. This introduces a trade-off between raw damage and remote-rep ability, as well as an increased risk of losing all your bombers in one flight or deploying less but having spares available. And this will change the actual blobing-with-supers scenario how exactly? You will simply jump 200 SC (like you do now GÇô objective) (with 5 x DCU fitted) and 50 triage carriers for remote-rep and NOTHING will move on grid, kill everything GåÆ go home. It's funny to read that some guys are bringing the GÇ£blobGÇ¥ card out front when now they are the ones that blob GǪ with supers GǪ :)
Carriers become the weak link in that fleet. Triage-focused carriers typically compromise their tank for cap stability. There are several options to easily take them out, including coordinated Doomsdays, your own supercap DPS, and even typical subcap fleets can alpha them.
Also if the drone bay size is balanced around giving spare bombers to pilots who do not fit DCUs, but denying them to those that do we get another effect. A DCU-heavy supercarrier fleet throwing all of its bombers in the same general direction becomes much easier to be defanged by enemy AoE weapons and finds that it suddenly can't replace its full DPS. |
Anile8er
GR3Y N0MADS
71
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:16:00 -
[1849] - Quote
I really don't see a reason why EHP needs to be cut back if CCP is changing the log off timer mechanic. You could up a supercaps EHP to 100 million or more and if it can't go anywhere it doesn't really matter does it? The shield tanked supercaps are in need of some EHP increases to be very honest. Also another point to make, with the scale of large engagements in today's EVE and the log of timer change an EHP increase for all supercaps would not be unreasonable. The reality as it is, is supercaps die pretty quick in most large scale fights and a medium sized gang can drain a supercaps capacitor to 0 in 1 to 2 minutes. If you honestly don't believe that got to youtube.com and search EVE super capital kills and educate yourself or just go to EVE Fitting Tool and see the numbers for yourself.
Drone bays on supercarriers need to be scaled back, I agree with that and I am a Nyx pilot. However what CCP is presenting I don't agree with. Supercarriers still need to have some flexibility in dealing with subcapital ships, particularly tacklers like dictors and HICs. I like the Idea of giving supercarriers and carriers 2 drone bays, 1 coded for fighters or bombers and 1 coded for regular drones, this was an idea CCP had a few years ago but they had some coding issues and gave up. I believe a drone bay for supercarriers large enough to fit 20 fighters AND 20 bombers plus a small drone bay 1000 m3 or 2000 m3 for smaller drones would be awesome. I think 1000 m3 is a bit on the "to limiting" side but it is acceptable. I could also agree with giving supercarriers a drone bay large enough to fit only 25 bombers OR 25 fighters along with a 2000 to 3000 M3 smaller drone bay, to give supercarriers some flexibility with heavy drones. Carrier drone bays should be similar, say enough to fit 15 fighters and a smaller drone bay, say 3000 M3 to 5000 M3. This would allow carrier to be much more versatile with drones in comparison to supercarriers.
Dreads need an enhancement to their ability to tank while in siege. I believe a resistance bonus when the siege cycle is active would be in line. This could be geared to give them the EHP to absorb a single titan doomsday, last a bit longer to vast amounts of fighter bombers, and more importantly tank 2 to 3 supercarriers. So yes I am purposing that dreads should be able to achieve a 25k to 35k DPS tank in siege depending on their fitting. However this would not make them indestructible to subcapital gangs because energy neutralizing. And before the posts start about "You can do that with a dread now if you fit x-type, officer and take pills", that is unreasonable to ask of a ship worth 1.5 billion isk. I believe dreads should have a small drone bay, say 50 M3. The siege timer change and the increased DPS is needed and fair.
Titans need a small drone bay, enough to be able to store ECM drones and light drones. There is no reason to not allow this.
|
Death2all Supercaps
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:25:00 -
[1850] - Quote
welp its been 50 pages since ccp Tallest's last post
i like how the thread is named capital ship rebalancing but NO actual rebalancing between the capital ship races was actually done or even mentioned.
caldari and minmatar are and have been inferior for years. Armor superiority in tank and implants as well.
I had hoped to see CCP Tallest respond more.
a nerf across the board doesnt fix the problem.
But I guess the priority is to make sure we have pretty clothes and living rooms to look at when we only wanted to watch our ship spin anyways. |
|
John Hand
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:28:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Death2all Supercaps wrote:welp its been 50 pages since ccp Tallest's last post
i like how the thread is named capital ship rebalancing but NO actual rebalancing between the capital ship races was actually done or even mentioned.
caldari and minmatar are and have been inferior for years. Armor superiority in tank and implants as well.
Welcome to PVP, may I take you number?
Its been a hard fact for many years that armor tanked races such as gallente and amarr have been better in PvP then the other two. Shield is better for PvE and works for PvP in SOME cases. All of this you should of learned from the first few days of joining a PvP alliance. |
Anile8er
GR3Y N0MADS
71
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:29:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Death2all Supercaps wrote:welp its been 50 pages since ccp Tallest's last post
i like how the thread is named capital ship rebalancing but NO actual rebalancing between the capital ship races was actually done or even mentioned.
caldari and minmatar are and have been inferior for years. Armor superiority in tank and implants as well.
I had hoped to see CCP Tallest respond more.
a nerf across the board doesnt fix the problem.
But I guess the priority is to make sure we have pretty clothes and living rooms to look at when we only wanted to watch our ship spin anyways.
Silence isn't a bad thing, traditionally in regards to CCP this means things are being reconsidered while more information is being gathered.
I agree with you regarding shield supercaps, they need a boost to EHP, however CCP would need to nerf the passive recharge of shield supercaps aswell. While the recharge doesn't make a difference in a blob, where the EHP would, it does make a difference in a smaller gank situation.
The other problem for shield supercapitals is the lack of deadspace invulnerability fields. With only faction (a slight resistance increase over T2) and officer (equivalent to deadspace but much more rare) available players generally fit faction based on the prices of officer. |
Death2all Supercaps
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:36:00 -
[1853] - Quote
John Hand wrote:Death2all Supercaps wrote:welp its been 50 pages since ccp Tallest's last post
i like how the thread is named capital ship rebalancing but NO actual rebalancing between the capital ship races was actually done or even mentioned.
caldari and minmatar are and have been inferior for years. Armor superiority in tank and implants as well.
Welcome to PVP, may I take you number? Its been a hard fact for many years that armor tanked races such as gallente and amarr have been better in PvP then the other two. Shield is better for PvE and works for PvP in SOME cases. All of this you should of learned from the first few days of joining a PvP alliance.
this is a capital thread. i was talking caps.
|
Galyrion
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:52:00 -
[1854] - Quote
The reasoning that a shiptype should be better because it takes allot of time to train for and is expensive to build is plain stupid. All shiptypes should fill a role but none should be able to do fill all. Right now supers are filling all roles and that is the reason why we see supercarriers and titan only fleets, there are absolutely no reason to bring anything else.
These changes makes supers have a specific role, anti capital and structure weapons and they will do it damn well also. If they are not worth fielding in a regular subcapital fight doesnt matter as its role is not to slaughter subcapitals with a click of a button. These changes makes for more diverse fleets and more interesting fights. |
Dr Cedric
Orbital Industry and Research.
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:57:00 -
[1855] - Quote
I'll see if I can recap without this thing eating the post...again....
Regarding SuperCarrier Drone bays; It was mentioned just above that there needs to be a separate drone bay and Fighter bay (including separate Drone bandwidth and Fighter (Bomber) bandwidth...call it communications relays). I fully agree. I can't say how big a fighter bay should be, and how many waves of bombers/fighters a SC needs, I can say that any "carrier" needs to be able to field drones. A drone bay the size of a Dominix is not too much to ask for these ship types, and I'm sure others would say even that is too small. At the same time, we want to make sure we don't see a hornet's nest explode every time a small ship approaches a supercarrier. DRONE bandwidth should be limited to 125 mbit/s for a supercarrier, but let them have a damage bonus to drones (every race's Super carrier...they're all carriers!...maybe make it a racial bonus?). The DPS equivalent of 10 Heavy drones on a tackling Hictor will give the SC some leeway in not being pinned down by a single player for 23 hours. At the same time, it makes sure that the drone bay is not the "damage dealer" for that supercarrier. Fighter (Bombers) will retain their role in anti capital DPS, there will still be viable PvE options for (Super)carriers. Titans and Dreads need their drone bays as well and for the same reasons.
Regarding other changes; Disallowing SuperCarriers and Titans in Low-sec space is a stellar idea. This immediately removes the threat of a "hot drop" for those who are not associated with a large corp/alliance and don't have access to their own capital armadas. Low sec will be more open to those who choose to play there.
Creating a "spooling" mechanism for Cyno fields is another wonderful idea. Having several different cynos (a regular one for capitals, a new one specifically for supercapitals, the black ops one for blops gangs) each with a specific "spooling" rate (the faster the spool, the sooner ships can jump through and the larger the ship that can jump at a time) allows for more interesting fleet choices. This also opens up a reason to fit a cyno gen on a recon ship, change that bonus to "X% faster cyno spool per level."
Players are looking for a game where they are free to make choices, free to engage or disengage (depending on the situation ) and where the arbitrary limitations of systems MAKE SENSE and contribute to the decision making process in a meaningful way. Hacking away at SuperCapitals EHP (without a good reason) makes no sense and doesn't add meaning with the current context of the game and the other changes proposed (no logofski FTW). Hacking a dronebay off of a very expensive (ISK and skillwise) ship (without a good reason) makes no sense and doesn't add meaning.
I hope this finds receptive eyes and that the Dev's continue their (apparent) interest in what the community is hoping for and talking about.
Ced |
Anile8er
GR3Y N0MADS
71
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:58:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Galyrion wrote:The reasoning that a shiptype should be better because it takes allot of time to train for and is expensive to build is plain stupid. All shiptypes should fill a role but none should be able to do fill all. Right now supers are filling all roles and that is the reason why we see supercarriers and titan only fleets, there are absolutely no reason to bring anything else.
These changes makes supers have a specific role, anti capital and structure weapons and they will do it damn well also. If they are not worth fielding in a regular subcapital fight doesnt matter as its role is not to slaughter subcapitals with a click of a button. These changes makes for more diverse fleets and more interesting fights.
So Hurricanes and other battlecruisers should be changed too? Lets see they are great at killing smaller ships, other BC, sig/speed tanking BS, sig/speed tanking fighters, killing capital ships, killing supercapital ships, ratting, killing structures and killing POS's. That seems like it pretty much just covered every role in EVE.
Edit: Oh and they can be effective armor tankers or shield tankers. Two more roles they can cover. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Initiative Mercenaries
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:58:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Just going to restate it since it hasnt been said recently
Currently the most broken part of the game is Titan's being used to take out sub-capital fleets with their guns - not thier DD.
The current tactic is - go in with subcap fleet to bait out hostile subcap fleet, get them engaged / bubbled then drop in titans and support supercarriers, in most cases these support supercarriers do not even drop drones, they are boxed alts that bounce cap / rep and remote sensor boost and tracking enhance the titans. The Titans DD the FCs, Command Ships, and Logi. The titans then use their guns to kill the remaining fleet, and will usually alpha strike their target anyway, even if the logi was alive.
With the proposed changes the supercarriers will still support the titans in the same way, the titans will not be able to DD the support but they will be able to buffed and use their guns on sub-capitals.
Look at it this way - Dreads, Supercarriers, and Titans are the only DPS capitals.
Currently the Dread is much lower HP, Must siege to signifigant dps, and is otherwise useless(out of siege dps is less than a battleship and cannot hit subcaps worth anything). (siege stops movement, reduces to 2 locked targets, makes immune to ewar, disallows rr / cap / remote anythingbuff, reduces tracking)
The dreadnaught is the only one of the above 3 that has to siege to DPS, and its already disadvantaged in hitpoints. I believe they all need to siege to to dps. This will reduce the ability for supercarrier blobs to RR dps. they already have enough hp if they cant last 5 minutes they deserve to die. I believe fleet positioning is a valid mechanic in any fight, and capitals unable to move in siege is a bit boring, so allow capitals to move on the field while in siege. I believe the drones on capitals will not be an issue if they cannot launch them while in siege, this will maintain the ability for recreational supercarriers ratting to be caught and killed.
1) Only allow fighterbombers in a siege mode on supercarriers 2) Change Titan damage bonuses to where they were before dominion, enable siege modules on titans 3) allow movement in siege, but still disallow warping 4) balance capital weapons so movement is not an issue with sieged ships 5) leave drone bays on supercapitals, titans, and dreads, disallow launching of drones in siege on all vessels. 6) maintain proposed DD nerf or remove DD completely. DD's have been subject of broken mechanics since they were introduced, stop beating around the bush and just axe the damned thing.
-GeeBee |
RuriHoshino
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 22:07:00 -
[1858] - Quote
I am the troll of my userbase :words: are my body, and butthurt is my blood I have created over a thousand threads
Unknown to logic Nor known to our own GMs
Have withstood pain to create many n00b tears Yet these users will never know our Fearlessness
So as I pray, Unlimited CCP Devblogs
Kudos to the folk who are proposing solutions instead of crying that their shiny ships are being nerfed. Without a supercap fleet of my own I can't judge these changes except to say that it was getting boring just reading about all-super fleets being dropped on small gangs and owning sov warfare. That being said this thread has been such a fantastic bounty of tears, I don't know if any one person could have the constitution to harvest them all. If you think supers are the "endgame" of EVE then you need to seriously consider whether or not this is even the right game for you to be playing. |
Galyrion
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 22:16:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Anile8er wrote:Galyrion wrote:The reasoning that a shiptype should be better because it takes allot of time to train for and is expensive to build is plain stupid. All shiptypes should fill a role but none should be able to do fill all. Right now supers are filling all roles and that is the reason why we see supercarriers and titan only fleets, there are absolutely no reason to bring anything else.
These changes makes supers have a specific role, anti capital and structure weapons and they will do it damn well also. If they are not worth fielding in a regular subcapital fight doesnt matter as its role is not to slaughter subcapitals with a click of a button. These changes makes for more diverse fleets and more interesting fights. So Hurricanes and other battlecruisers should be changed too? Lets see they are great at killing smaller ships, other BC, sig/speed tanking BS, sig/speed tanking fighters, killing capital ships, killing supercapital ships, ratting, killing structures and killing POS's. That seems like it pretty much just covered every role in EVE. Edit: Oh and they can be effective armor tankers or shield tankers. Two more roles they can cover.
The big difference is that the hurricane (since u mentioned it) needs to make sacrifices to do any of those things. If u want to have a big tank u need to sacrifice offensive abilities/speed/range. If u want to form a fleet of only hurricanes (standard shieldbuffer, ac fit for example) u are weak against a number of fleetscomps (bombers, abaddons, drakes to name a few). The supers will never have to make those sacrifices and have no weakness at current state.
Edit: Also id like to see u kill a POS with your armor and shieldtanked hurricane with 1,5k ms speed, tia |
Anile8er
GR3Y N0MADS
71
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 23:12:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Galyrion wrote:
The big difference is that the hurricane (since u mentioned it) needs to make sacrifices to do any of those things. If u want to have a big tank u need to sacrifice offensive abilities/speed/range. If u want to form a fleet of only hurricanes (standard shieldbuffer, ac fit for example) u are weak against a number of fleetscomps (bombers, abaddons, drakes to name a few). The supers will never have to make those sacrifices and have no weakness at current state.
Right, supers arent vulnerable to being cap'd out, bumped, having all their drones bombed or being probed in a few seconds and de-cloaked in a "safe spot" because the can't dock. Right?
Galyrion wrote: Edit: Also id like to see u kill a POS with your armor and shieldtanked hurricane with 1,5k ms speed, tia
I would like to see my Nyx kill an online pos with 20 sentries before downtime hits.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |