|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
305
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
^^^ What about having 6 missile turrets or 6 hybrids, ala the Typhoon?
And in regards to SCs... Maybe if there was an 'Auxiliary' drone bay of 125 meters for storing 'utility' drones? Lights, sentries or RR drones? The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
332
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 03:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Super carriers are way less versatile now, far less than a titan. I would say they are about the same level as dreads in terms of usefullness? Maybe slightly more...
Super Carriers need a proper, safe place to dock. I think a super carrier docking port should be able to be built onto an existing station with the Foundation, Pedestal and Monument platforms in place, and all other systems in the constellation have Sov Level 5 The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
332
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 06:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hmm... Comparing a BPO of a Nyx on the Test server Vs TQ... it appears the Nyx will be more expensive to build. Can anyone else confirm?
BP alterations are also for other SCs and the dreads The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
346
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 01:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
stagz wrote:Waukesha wrote:Roboticus420 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? Nyx is the only super able to have 35,so your quote is narrow minded just in those regards,as you would be refering to the other supers as 10Fighters GTFO of here troll 1stly Supers will have optimal amount of fighters due to being intercepted by Subcaps, it happens often enough now, but after the patch alot more Subcap fleets will have the ballz & new compositions to play with to go ballz deep on Supers. 2ndly Fighters are easy enough to take out in various ways. You your self should know that MM has a good bomber wing (the only good thing they have) and 1 of the focus's especially after the patch is going to be to take out Fighters. Alot of alliances if they havn't already are making bomber wings. At least with 20 Fighters you have the numbers out there for a majority to survive and still be somewhat effective. In the Original patch comments, when some clueless noobs posted about decreasing the drone bay, there wasn't any serious opposition to it. The reason for that is beacuse no1 thought that such stupid comments would be listened to by CCP so didn't think anything of it. Rediculious to think that it was changed & we are now trying to sort the mess out. Thats what happens when you listen to people who have no idea of the mechanics in question, but only wish to pass biased opinions of how they can make a super as useless as possible to benifit there particular aspect of game play. Listen to the Super pilots, they deserve the benifit of the doubt as alot of us experience every aspect subcap/capital & supercapital alike. A lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail, the snail has no experience or knowledge involving those regards. This analogy applys to Supers, why should those who have no experience or knowledge of mechanics in question have a resounding say over Super pilots. Doesn't make any sence! Need room for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters in drone bay CCP <-- plz read & plz do. Signed Signed signed
Signed.
I would also like to go forward and say that super carriers, due to their now diminished versatility with only fighters and FBs, needs to be able to dock and the pilot get out of the ship.
In fact, i would be happy to have ANY safe harbour that does not involve the following:
- A POS - CSMA - Safe Spot - SC sitting alts The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
347
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 23:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
I also had an idea of the station or docking facility for super carriers would be a destructable service. If incapped, then no carrier could dock or undock.
As with all station services they are not invulnerable, and this docking facility could have a low HP number due to it being large and complex?
And small docking ring as above. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
347
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 23:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Headerman wrote:I also had an idea of the station or docking facility for super carriers would be a destructable service. If incapped, then no carrier could dock or undock.
As with all station services they are not invulnerable, and this docking facility could have a low HP number due to it being large and complex?
And small docking ring as above. And what about NPC stations?
I think if there was going to be a station docking facility it would have to follow a pretty decent list of conditions: - Sov to 5 - needs to be built on top of a foundation, pedetal and monument add-ons - Very long construction time - limited number of docking slots - Timer for docking and undocking, about a minute each way or more - Possibility of offlining modules to dock - Only 1 SC allowed to dock/undock at a time
etc etc
Just an idea mind. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
353
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 08:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
In regards to shield amount, i can't remember what the base was before the patch, but when Crucible was beign tested, the Hel got the full 20% cut to shield amount. It was pretty damn horrible to see :S
They then raised the shield amount up to 891,000 HPs. For reference, the Wyvern has 900k.
I think for the next expansion in 6 months time, CCP would do well to alter the bonus to a 5% drone RoF on the test server to get some feedback, and compare it to the Hel usage that we will see on TQ until then The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
388
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 23:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Why are supercaps immune to warp scramblers/disruptors? Why do they deserve penalty-free, built-in warp core stabilisers? Are they supposed to be industrial ships or miners like the Mastodon or the Skiff?
Because, just like their uses, a Super cap's death has to be planned with cunning, not just a straight DPS fight. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
388
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:As for the proposed shield changes (instant fleet bonus application, deadspace invulns, etc) they were proposed in here fairly late on in the Cruicible development cycle, and as such probably haven't been started.
Was this proposed by players or CCP though? The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
388
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 10:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Headerman wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:As for the proposed shield changes (instant fleet bonus application, deadspace invulns, etc) they were proposed in here fairly late on in the Cruicible development cycle, and as such probably haven't been started. Was this proposed by players or CCP though? Proposed by players in this thread, then confirmed as planned by CCP here.
Thats awesome :) The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
529
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 07:13:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xtover wrote:So CCP... given that Titans now can lock (quickly) and alpha frigates moving at full transversal... even pods... thoughts?
Sounds awesome! The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
572
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 08:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Redon wrote:Easy fixes:
Naglfar - Remove missile launchers (make pure turret boat)
and add a 100% bonus to turret damage too?
Redon wrote:
Nidhoggur - Increase rr bonus to 25% per level, increase cap amount by an extra 5-10k
that would be BOSS. Too much boss cant be a good thing though, with a T2 triage the niddy could rep satan himself!
Redon wrote:Hel - EASY FIXES INC. 1. Armor instead of shield tank (7 lows, 5 mids or 6 lows, 6 mids) 2. Increase rr bonus to 25% per level, increase cap amount by an extra 5-10k
There is a reason why the Hel is the least used SuperCarrier, plain and simple worst tank and honestly brings nothing to the table. You want to treat it as a logistic boat? thats fine, make it so people would want to have it on field instead of it being completely overlooked for the aeon (superior tank) or nyx (superior damage and decent tank). Theres a reason why people fly Nidhoggur's but not Hel's, and that is you can armor tank one and not the other.
I agree with #2 there for sure, but not 1, not with CCPs changes coming up soon The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
582
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 07:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Redon wrote:what upcoming changes do you mean?
CCP are contemplating/testing/considering two big things:
1) A slave set for shields 2) Shield bonuses being applied the same as armour (so always 100%) The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
602
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 09:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
^^^ Agreed.
Please buff Titans to allow remote tracking links, and AOE DD's. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
602
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 07:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Hirana Yoshida wrote:What is the purpose of the Titan, answer that and the solution presents itself.
As I see them: Fleet vanguards bringing brawns in the form of dps/ehp and brains in the form of quite large gang bonuses, while the primary foodstuff of Titan's is other capitals/structures and supposedly balanced in their need for support. If above is accurate, then why can they even lock sub-caps?
Solution: - Give them back some drones (they were removed right?), for assigning to support and auto-aggression. - Tweak/refine their fleet bonuses upwards. - Remove ability to lock sub-caps entirely. There is no other way to prevent gun platforms from hitting things due to the way the tracking formula works. +1 to this. Remove the ability of super caps to target and or fire upon sub capital ships completely. Then remove the ability for sub caps to target supers and or deal any damage regardless of the sheer size of the sub cap blob that would be of any concern to the super cap ships. Boost caps to counter both groups and or be vulnerable to both groups accordingly. Add one or two more hulls with new roles and presto.
Honestly, as far as ideas go? This one is pretty ******* stupid.
Why in the name of His noodly appendage would CCP ever want to restrict super caps like that?? The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
603
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 07:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:well the csm minutes as well as the old ask us everything thread said you guys are thinking about letting supercarriers dock at outposts. Sounds fine to me, but in my opinion they should be able to dock at regular stations, too. The reason is that it would be an big advantage for alliances with sov. Make it even and allow supers to dock at npc stations as well or don't let them dock at all. We have been fine all these years, we'll be fine then. So all or no one !
Would be good to have as a monument achievement for an outpost thats for sure. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
603
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 07:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
stagz wrote:there is no reason for a super carrier to not be able to have a full set of bombers and fighters. its utterly ridiculous.
+1 for bringing back 20 and 20.
This.
20/20 for summer/winter The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
606
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:21:00 -
[18] - Quote
Klytior Am'jarhs wrote:Supers are to fight other capitals. That is what they need to do, no reason at all why they should have fighters.
If thats the case then sub caps are there to fight other subcaps, no reason at all they need to be able to target supers or caps. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
|
|
|