Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
162
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 11:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greetings
Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest. |
|
Herpus McDerpus
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 11:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Moros just became OP, with it's new bonus plus that Siege Module II it will spit out nearly 14k dps with a simple T2 fit. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 12:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Herpus McDerpus wrote:Moros just became OP, with it's new bonus plus that Siege Module II it will spit out nearly 14k dps with a simple T2 fit.
i may not fly them, but i dont see a problem O_O being blasters and all :-P
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 13:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:Herpus McDerpus wrote:Moros just became OP, with it's new bonus plus that Siege Module II it will spit out nearly 14k dps with a simple T2 fit. i may not fly them, but i dont see a problem O_O being blasters and all :-P capital blaster are not THAT of a short range weapon capital blaster have a better range than capital projectile |
VeloxMors
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 14:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Can't get on sisi since nobody ever re-enables accounts, but my impressions based on what I've read:
Carriers are getting screwed. DDs not targeting subcaps and dreads getting buffed leave carriers with the short straw. T2 triage is nice, but triage continues to be a death sentence to a carrier in most situations and most carrier pilots will continue to not bother with the triage module at all. Moros getting buffed AND getting better hybrids? Seriously? The Naglfar seriously needs some love with its high slots, and the Phoenix just needs some serious professional help all around. The Moros was a solid dread before this, and could have definitely waited on getting the buff (especially with hybrids being tweaked). SCs are messed up. I agree the nerf on the Aeon and Nyx was a step in the right direction, but the Hel and Wyvern are just pathetic now.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
168
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 14:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Moros is completely out of line with the other dreads and needs a look. The last dread rebalance made them all quite similar in damage and range, which is good and bad (it's nice to have variety), but this new change simply makes the Moros "strictly better" than the other dreads in all roles. Not good.
I'd also ask you to have a closer look at carriers - they are completely out of balance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15674& |
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Supercarriers are too nerfed. Especially the shield carriers :(
They are going to diaf against tiny gangs now... Nerfing supers is not going to help the N+1/Blob problem. It will just mean that superpilots will be even more likely to want to blob. Think more creatively. Support the idea of a subcap "assault bomber." |
gfldex
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
I setup a CO and shot it a little with a Moros.
15:04:43 Combat Your group of Limited Mega Ion Siege Blaster I misses Customs Office (6-CZ49 VI) [Kabelkopp] completely.
You may want to increase the sig radius of those things. |
Vmir Gallahasen
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Err, how are you getting 14K DPS? I think you forgot to take RoF and guns into account because14k is pretty close to the damage volley per blaster (not dps).
Moros: 139.94 damage mod, 4.6695s RoF (all L5, 2 damage mods, t2 Siege Module). 105.6 total damage from Guristas Antimatter XL.
Volley: 139.94 * 105.6 = 14,777 @ max skills per blaster * 3 = 44,333 volley damage every 4.6695s = 9494 dps. 19km optimal 19km falloff
As a comparison: a revelation with 2 damage mods deals 7892 DPS @ 23+13 Nag deals 9103 @ 16 + 24 [cit torps: <59km] Phoenix deals 8036 @ < 59km
Gallente "we're the best at close range" Moros does 4% more DPS than a capless-weapon-using damage-type-selecting "we pew it at range" Nag at close range? WHOA COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE |
Arele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
gfldex wrote:I setup a CO and shot it a little with a Moros.
15:04:43 Combat Your group of Limited Mega Ion Siege Blaster I misses Customs Office (6-CZ49 VI) [Kabelkopp] completely.
You may want to increase the sig radius of those things. Maybe they don't want dreads used to kill customs offices? |
|
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
Any news on the Minie loving? And in the shield supers? |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 16:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Minor feedback, but the moros description should probably have its description updated to cut out the 'protean array of point-defense capabilities' line |
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 16:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
The SC drone bay is completely inadequate for them to actually be useful, if they could launch one set of each fighters (with nyx and hel having some additional space for spare drones ) it would actually make them more then glorified dreads. |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
168
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 16:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Vmir Gallahasen wrote:Err, how are you getting 14K DPS?
Base values:
Limited Mega Ion Siege Blaster I RoF: 10.632, DMod: 8.71 AM XL base damage: 96
Skills (at 5):
CHT +25% damage Gunnery: -10% RoF RF: -20% RoF Surgical Strike: +15% damage
Moros bonus: 5% damage, 5% RoF per level
Siege Module II: +840% damage
1st MFS II: +10% damage, -10.5% RoF 2nd MFS II: +8.7% damage, -9.13% RoF 3rd MFS II: +5.7% damage, -6% RoF
(8.71 * 96 * 1.25 * 1.15 * 1.25 * 9.4 * 1.1 * 1.087 * 1.057) / (10.632 * 0.9 * 0.8 * 0.75 * 0.913 * 0.943) = 3611 dps per gun Times 3 for the three guns, 10,833 dps.
So yeah, more like 11k than 14k. Still, almost 50% more dps than the other dreads at very similar ranges is a tad out of line.
Quote:a revelation with 2 damage mods deals 7892 DPS @ 23+13 I get 7,388 dps with three damage mods (and named pulses). How did you get that value? |
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 17:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Shield Super Capitals need some work... There is a thread about them in the Ship & modules forums; Please don't forget about it, because its really needed:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=20499&find=unread (shield recharge after bonus - shield / armor implants)
And yeah, what a lot of people were saying, No way a SC is able to defend its self now, with no drones and the new log of timer. one single schip that orbits at around 10km with some decent speed whould never die.. |
Kazanir
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
342
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 17:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Echoing this. Minmatar and shield capitals need a number of key changes:
- Shield tanks need an equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules added to the deadspace loot of their respective factions; in this case we would be talking about Pithum / Gistum modules dropping from 6/10s and Guristas/Angel Base escalations. Without this, shield tanks simply cannot be on par with armor tanks in terms of EHP, which is of ultimate importance to supercaps.
- Shield mechanics need to be changed so that gang bonuses are instantly applied. They don't right now because shield HP is measured as a positive value, while armor HP is measured as a negative "damage" value. This absolutely must be fixed or shield supercapitals will never be competitive -- it is a 30% EHP penalty in practice.
- The Hel needs a bonus that makes it competitive with 25% tank resistance (Wyvern/Aeon) or 25% damage (Nyx). Right now 25% repping power does not cut it. To be competitive with the other 3 supercarriers the Hel needs something like a 200% repping power bonus, or the ability to fit a Triage Module, or a completely reworked bonus that does something different.
This is all covered in massive detail in the thread linked above, but worth repeating in short form here. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
391
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 17:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dread pilots can afford Fed Navy MFS's, which brings Moros DPS to 12900. Throw on a 5% damage implant and you have 13,545 DPS, according to pyfa. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
168
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 17:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Oh, also on the topic of dreads: The massive difference of effectiveness between dread missiles and dread turrets against subcapitals needs to be addressed, either by making turrets equally useless or missiles as effective. Additionally, dreads should not have tracking/damage problems against simply moving supercarriers, especially as those can not be webbed/painted. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 18:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
1) Consider buffing dreads ehp a bit?
2) Fix dreads bumping issue. You are never gonna use those shiny blasters on your moros, because basically now after jump you are flying hundreds kilometers away
3) Consider nerfing capital guns tracking? 10 titans tearing apart subcapital fleet of any size...dunno
|
Fenix Zealot
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Here are my thoughts:
-- capital weapons need a nerf to tracking so that titans are still effective vs slow/webbed/tped/stopped subcapitals, but not the instapop everything monsters they are now. -- IF capital weapons get a nerf to tracking, the siege tracking/signature penalty needs to be seriously reduced or completely removed. again, dreads should be marginally effective vs slowed/stopped or over painted subcapitals, but very weak against subcaps that move around intelligently (but not helpless of course)
-- shield bonuses need to be applied immedietly. armor bonuses are applied instantly, why not shield? "shields recharge" excuses are clueless because the top 25% of shields recharge exponentially slower the closer you get to 100%
-- supercarriers should not be nerfed QUITE so harshly. I personally like the idea of the reduced drone bay to force supers to tactically choose between fighters or fighter bombers, however, if that is done, i completely disagree with nerfing their drone bay to be only capable of fielding fighters/bombers and nothing else. it goes against the role of any drone boat (not to mention nobody would be stupid enough to realistically design such a flawed ship characteristic.
Besides, a set of 20 or so sentry drones only provides the dps of 2 or 3 fully fit battleships, depending on skills. Heavy drones are a big joke for fleet fights anyways given their speed and how easily they can be bombed into dust. If a blob of supercarriers is fit with 20 fighter drones they AUGHT to shred appart battleship/battlecruiser fleets, but given their choice be completely countered by a bomber fitted enemy fleet. |
|
Ilarra
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
In addition to the issues surrounding shield tanking capitals in general, the leviathan could use some special attention. Not only does the leviathan immediately lose 40% of its primary tanking layer upon entering most engagements, and force the pilot to pay 10s of billions of isk for a comparable tank to an armor tanker that has paid 2-3b, but the primary weapons system on the lev is completely out of whack with the other titans.
Turret titans can be tracking boosted to be useful against battleship class vessels, assuming they are present in a properly outfitted fleet. As there is no tracking boost module for missiles, leviathan pilots are unable to enjoy such benefits. Its true that, on paper, the leviathan can output massive amounts of damage. However, due to the way missile damage is calculated, it is difficult, if not impossible to reach parity with turret titans in actual gameplay scenarios.
It can be argued that titans are primarily intended to be used for shooting structures and capital slugfests, and that the remote tracking boost use case is unintended. Even if we ignore the tracking boost case (even though that is primarily how turret titans are currently used), the leviathan still comes up short compared to its brothers when shooting structures and capitals. Turrets have two variables which are used to determine whether or not a shot will cleanly land: tracking speed and signature resolution. The tracking speed is compared to the transversal of the target, and the ratio of the target sig radius to the turret signature resolution is used as a modifier to this speed comparison to determine whether or not the shot is likely to land. What this means is that having a sufficiently high tracking speed can overcome a deficiency in a sig radius ratio. In other words, if you tracking boost a titan enough, you can still hit targets that are smaller than your guns signature resolution.
The missile damage formula however, is not so forgiving. Missile damage is reduced by three factors - the ratio of the target's velocity to the explosion velocity of the missile, the ratio of the targets sig radius to the explosion radius of the missile, and a constant factor dependent upon missile launcher size. (Damage = D * MIN(1, S/R, (vE/v * S/R)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) ) Unlike the turret damage formula, there is no way for the slow speed of a target to make up for the fact that the target is much smaller than what the missile is "intended" to hit. Even stationary POS mods and station services do not take full damage from citadel cruises, as cruises have an explosion radius of 1750 and station services a signature of 1000m. Although the explosion radius may be increased by skills, boosters, implants, and other factors, it is still not possible to deal full damage to these targets in the same way that turret dreads can.
Even if you could somehow overcome the explosion radius problem, the slow explosion velocity means that a ship can drastically reduce the damage they take from a citadel cruise by doing ANY movement at all. Even modified with maximum target navigation prediction skill, the explosion velocity of 36 m/s of citadel cruises ensures that anything moving faster than a freighter (even a carrier or dread, ostensibly what the titan class is intended to be a counter against) can reduce its incoming damage.
But wait, there's more! Why do you suppose I have been using the long range weapon system, cruise missiles, when turret titans regularly fit short range weapons such as pulses, autocannons, and blasters? That's because citadel torpedos travel so slowly that a few smartbombing carriers can almost entirely neuter incoming citadel torpedo damage, as proven out in testing on singularity. Obviously, none of the turret titans have this problem because you can't stop gunshots with smartbombs.
The upshot of all of this is that, unlike the other three titans, there are relatively few situations where you'd want to bring your leviathan out from the POS shields where it's giving gang bonuses and proving a jump bridge. Sure, once every 10 minutes it's useful to insta-pop a carrier or dread, but then it's a sitting duck for another 10 minutes while the other titans can be happily firing away at other capitals and battleships with their primary weapons systems. Of course, as stated above, your leviathan also loses 40% of its EHP on jump-in and requires tens of billions of isk investment in officer modules to achieve parity.
It should be noted that the phoenix has many of these issues as well, due to having a common weapon system with the leviathan. However, the phoenix is closer in parity and function with its brother dreads than the leviathan is with the other titans. Still, a balance pass on one would likely benefit the other. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
305
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:55:00 -
[22] - 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? |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:59:00 -
[23] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:The Moros is completely out of line with the other dreads and needs a look. The last dread rebalance made them all quite similar in damage and range, which is good and bad (it's nice to have variety), but this new change simply makes the Moros "strictly better" than the other dreads in all roles. Not good. I'd also ask you to have a closer look at carriers - they are completely out of balance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15674&
That would be terrible for a Gallente ship to be better than the others. What the hell was CCP thinking? Can't have that now can we. NERF it to obsolesce like the rest of their ships.
To be serious though, why not? sitting and pummeling POS's is boring. The faster that is accomplished the better. If the other races want more DPS on a dread, fine. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
In my opinion Super carriers should have a role bonus to give local reppers a 100% bonus to hitpoints repaired.
This should be done with a major overhaul to active tanking (+50% hitpoints pr cycle for all reps and having crystal implants giving a hitpoint bonus like slaves do to armor. This should make active tanks more viable in pvp and with a equal increase in NPC dps carebearing should remain similar to current status.
Also if we still have a difference between shield and armor CCP should nerf the armor capitals to match... Also when complaining about lack of EHP plz consider the multiple Triage carriers involved in bigger capital fights - There are lots of them usually. Making resistance the most important attribute to keep a super alive.
Sorry for bringing in the subject of active tanking, however I think it would really suit the game balance. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:Arkady Sadik wrote:The Moros is completely out of line with the other dreads and needs a look. The last dread rebalance made them all quite similar in damage and range, which is good and bad (it's nice to have variety), but this new change simply makes the Moros "strictly better" than the other dreads in all roles. Not good. I'd also ask you to have a closer look at carriers - they are completely out of balance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15674& That would be terrible for a Gallente ship to be better than the others. What the hell was CCP thinking? Can't have that now can we. NERF it to obsolesce like the rest of their ships. To be serious though, why not? sitting and pummeling POS's is boring. The faster that is accomplished the better. If the other races want more DPS on a dread, fine.
Its not like the Revelation was the go-to dread for the last, how many years?
My suggestion, remove changes to dread gun's capacitor usage. Make me, a Moros pilot, pay through the nose for that DPS. (Also, reduce the rail DPS or increase Capacitor usage)
Side note: The blaster Moros will not be OP, the rail Moros will be. (On a different note, up the fallof of ACs by 50%) |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:32:00 -
[26] - Quote
C/Ped from Min. Capital discussion
Gypsio III wrote:
Leave the Naglfar with the split weapon system ... but ensure that the Naglfar has a significant DPS advantage over even the Moros in compensation.
No. The shortest range, heaviest cap usage weapon system in the game (already that way for a blaster moros, will get even worse fyi), should have a DPS advantage over a ship that can choose between an armor (matches capital meta-game) or shield (stronger (doubly so) burst active tank) tank easily and uses weapons that do not require capacitor while having good damage type selection. If anything, rework capital missiles because they are **** in general.
Capitals rails are about to be decent in comparison to beams, that may need to be reworked slightly (the beams will do less dps, have shorter range, and still use more capacitor than the rails... the only advantage beams will have is hitting shield em hole, instant range switching, better tracking, and about 20k EHP on the ship).
Copied from dev blog discussion, adding in Naglfar numbers for relevance to topic: . . . .
The following are comparisons of T2 fit Dreads (Moros, Revelation, and Naglfar):
All 5s, 3x damage (Gyros for Naglfar) mods for guns (no tracking mods in atm, using t1 ammo, though it is actually economical to use faction on rev) now:
Moros - 3483 at 60+30, 1451 at 192+30 +Potential 600 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 450 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Moros (1.47x) - 5120 at 50+30, 2132 at 192+30
Moros (Blasters) - 6866 at 19+19, 3123 at 60+19 +Potential 600 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 450 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs Moros New (Blasters) (1.47x) - 10,093 at 19+19, 4590 at 60+19
Rev (Beam) - 3743 at 50+40, 1560 at 160+40 +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Rev (Beam) (1.1x) - 4117 at 50+40, 1716 at 160+40
Rev (Pulse) - 6222 DPS at 23+13, 2592 at 75+13 +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Rev (Pulse) (1.1x) - 6844 at 23+13, 2851 at 75+13
Naglfar (Auto + Torp) - 6232 at 16+24 (<59.1), 3491 at 50+24 (<59.1) +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Naglfar (Auto + Torp) (1.1x) - 6876 at 16+24 (<59.1), 3852 at 50+24 (<59.1)
Naglfar (Arty + Cruise) - 3643 at 35+88 (<191.3), 2036 at 144+88 (<191.3) +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Naglfar (Arty + Cruise) - 4019 at 35+88 (<191.3), 2246 at 144+88 (<191.3)
Tracking Comparison (Sieged): Rail - 0.0012 Blaster - 0.00338 Beam - 0.0014 Pulse - 0.00253 Arty - 0.00118 Auto - 0.00319
Capacitor comparison:
Moros Base Cap - +57.5 3 Rails 3 Damage Mods - -77.5 3 Blasters 3 Damage Mods - -92.3 New: 3 Rails 3 Damage Mods - -103.3 3 Blasters 3 Damage Mods - -123.1
Revelation Base Cap - +57.5 3 Beams 3 Damage Mods - -105 3 Pulses 3 Damage Mods - -62.7
Naglfar Base Cap - +57.5 2 Arty 2 Cruise 3 Damage Mods - -0 2 Auto 2 Torp 3 Damage Mods - -0
ATM, the blasters use much more cap, and will use any more, the changes to long range weapons, however, put the rails using almost the same cap as the rev's guns use.
Armor EHP comparison(3x trimark Is, 2x EANM IIs, 1x DCU II) Moros - 2,049,789 Revelation - 2,058,336 Naglfar (remove one EANM because of low slots, you should really be shield tanking this ship anyway) - 1,635,112
Shield EHP (Nag only - 3x Large Core Defence Field Extender, 2x invul IIs, DCU II) Naglfar - 1,906,907 (Unaffected by compensation skills, does not require 5x lvl 5 skills to reach this level) Naglfar (+1 invul (3 total) because, lets face it, you should be replacing a TC with a TE if shield fitted...) - 2,112,473 I would say that the new rail Moros is clearly superior to the beam Revelation (which is fine by me, given the number of years in which the opposite was true...)
Other Relevant, not discussed benefits Lasers - Instant range selection Hybrids - ... Projectiles / Missiles - Damage Selection
Range Modifiers (Quick Reference): 1x T2 TC w/ Optimal: (1.15x)+(1.3x) 2x T2 TC w/ Optimal: (1.30x)+(1.64x)
. . . .
Food for thought. Remember, I am in no way saying that capital missiles do not need to be reworked (30% reduction in explosion radius and double explosion velocity would be a good start), but simply saying that the Naglfar HAD BETTER HAVE THE BEST DPS is foolish, given the benefits that the Naglfar has.
On the Shield EHP value, I suggest:
Slaves affect armor, shields, and hull (for all ships). Crystals affect armor tank, shield tank, and hull tank (for all ships).
(Assuming perfect Titan / T3 boosters): on jump in, shield Supers have ~70% of the EHP of equivalent armor ships (lets assume that the Hel gets a bonus to drone bay or something useful that makes it equivalent to the Nyx). After being repped up, shield supers have 120% of the EHP of equivalent armor ships. This means that shield supers, which are more vulnerable to neuts due to never fitting passive mods, would, unbonused or after reps post bonus, have higher EHP than armor supers. With preparation and coordination, shield supers will be superior, but for moving around the galaxy quickly, armor supers will take the day (the exact opposite of, say, subcaps, but it at least sounds somewhat balanced as compared to, say, the current situation).
The Nid could use an EHP buff in both armor and shields, but should otherwise remain as is. At the moment, it is one of the most interesting of the carriers to use, if only because a remote shield nid must run self armor reps, while a remote armor nid must run self shield reps... EDIT: Referring to fitting triage on it, remember that module when suggesting ways to balance it. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 00:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Vmir Gallahasen wrote:Err, how are you getting 14K DPS? I think you forgot to take RoF and guns into account because14k is pretty close to the damage volley per blaster (not dps).
Moros: 139.94 damage mod, 4.6695s RoF (all L5, 2 damage mods, t2 Siege Module). 105.6 total damage from Guristas Antimatter XL.
Volley: 139.94 * 105.6 = 14,777 @ max skills per blaster * 3 = 44,333 volley damage every 4.6695s = 9494 dps. 19km optimal 19km falloff
As a comparison: a revelation with 2 damage mods deals 7892 DPS @ 23+13 Nag deals 9103 @ 16 + 24 [cit torps: <59km] Phoenix deals 8036 @ < 59km
Gallente "we're the best at close range" Moros does 4% more DPS than a capless-weapon-using damage-type-selecting Minmatar "we pew it at range" Nag at close range? WHOA COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE
yeah sure and how many damage mods have that nag compared to the 2 of your moros?
not to mention the nag is the only dread with 4 weapons so it should be the one that do more damage compared to all the others |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 01:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
WHY DOES THE AEON HAVE MORE EHP THAN ANY TITAN!!!!! <---- capital letters let you know i'm yelling |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 01:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
To mare wrote:Vmir Gallahasen wrote:Err, how are you getting 14K DPS? I think you forgot to take RoF and guns into account because14k is pretty close to the damage volley per blaster (not dps).
Moros: 139.94 damage mod, 4.6695s RoF (all L5, 2 damage mods, t2 Siege Module). 105.6 total damage from Guristas Antimatter XL.
Volley: 139.94 * 105.6 = 14,777 @ max skills per blaster * 3 = 44,333 volley damage every 4.6695s = 9494 dps. 19km optimal 19km falloff
As a comparison: a revelation with 2 damage mods deals 7892 DPS @ 23+13 Nag deals 9103 @ 16 + 24 [cit torps: <59km] Phoenix deals 8036 @ < 59km
Gallente "we're the best at close range" Moros does 4% more DPS than a capless-weapon-using damage-type-selecting Minmatar "we pew it at range" Nag at close range? WHOA COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE yeah sure and how many damage mods have that nag compared to the 2 of your moros? not to mention the nag is the only dread with 4 weapons so it should be the one that do more damage compared to all the others
Yeah...no. Just no.
You are arguing that A dread with more flexibility, ZERO CAPACITOR USAGE, damage selection, and more EHP (see my post) should out-dps a Moros? At any range? Really?
This is the same **** as how a cane can out-dps a Brutix: complete bullshit.
Also, APOC HAS MOAR GUNS THAN A MEGATHRON OR A GEDDON OR A TREMPEST, IT SHOULD DO MOAR DPS!11!!11111!!!!!
Now, this is not to say that Capital Missiles need to be reworked and that capital autocannons do not need a 50%-100% falloff boost; they do. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 01:58:00 -
[30] - Quote
Woot Woot \o/ Hel is still a pile of **** |
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 11:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:C/Ped from Min. Capital discussion Gypsio III wrote:
Leave the Naglfar with the split weapon system ... but ensure that the Naglfar has a significant DPS advantage over even the Moros in compensation.
No. The shortest range, heaviest cap usage weapon system in the game (already that way for a blaster moros, will get even worse fyi), should have a DPS advantage over a ship that can choose between an armor (matches capital meta-game) or shield (stronger (doubly so) burst active tank) tank easily and uses weapons that do not require capacitor while having good damage type selection. If anything, rework capital missiles because they are **** in general.
He's right you know. |
Murtific
Snuff Box
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 13:05:00 -
[32] - Quote
Give the nidhoggur:
8% bonus to armor and shield transfer ammount per carrier level instead of the 5%.
Increase it's agility as well.
Increase the repping transfer ammount to make it more of a viable use for triage operations. It may not be as robust as the Archon, but it will put some reps in before the duct tape melts.
Give it an agility bonus to allow it to be more versatile as a combat support carrier that is able to align with a fleet that may be moving around in system. May give way for more tactical uses of carriers.
|
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 14:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
Murtific wrote:Give the nidhoggur:
8% bonus to armor and shield transfer ammount per carrier level instead of the 5%.
Increase it's agility as well.
Increase the repping transfer ammount to make it more of a viable use for triage operations. It may not be as robust as the Archon, but it will put some reps in before the duct tape melts.
Give it an agility bonus to allow it to be more versatile as a combat support carrier that is able to align with a fleet that may be moving around in system. May give way for more tactical uses of carriers.
The nidhoggur is fine the hel is broken |
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 14:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
I dislike that I have invested a lot of time into training drone skills for my character that are now redundant in capital ships.
I would at least appreciate the ability to continue using maintenance drones on carriers.
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 17:41:00 -
[35] - Quote
I cannot repeat that often enough, the Cimera needs a serious bonus for fitting capital shield transfers and the capital shield booster needs to be looked at. All the other carriers can be fitted with 2 capital armor reppers + their remote reppers they are supposed to fit. Even with having the highest amount of cpu of all carriers the cimera can simply not fit what she is supposed to fit in case of logistics. Go ahead and fit a chimera with the follwing, High: 2x capital shield transfer I, 2x captial energy transfer I, (triage for some cases) Med: 1x capital shield booster I, 1x shield boost amp II, 4x cap recharge II Low: 3x capacitor flux coil II, 1x power diagnostic system II (for the powergrid) Now 350 cpu for 2 shield modules is somewhat insane in comparison to the 75 cpu a capital armor repper needs, don't you think? |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 19:50:00 -
[36] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I cannot repeat that often enough, the Cimera needs a serious bonus for fitting capital shield transfers and the capital shield booster needs to be looked at. All the other carriers can be fitted with 2 capital armor reppers + their remote reppers they are supposed to fit. Even with having the highest amount of cpu of all carriers the cimera can simply not fit what she is supposed to fit in case of logistics. Go ahead and fit a chimera with the follwing, High: 2x capital shield transfer I, 2x captial energy transfer I, (triage for some cases) Med: 1x capital shield booster I, 1x shield boost amp II, 4x cap recharge II Low: 3x capacitor flux coil II, 1x power diagnostic system II (for the powergrid) Now 350 cpu for 2 shield modules is somewhat insane in comparison to the 75 cpu a capital armor repper needs, don't you think?
Chimera needs significantly more CPU, it can Triage decently (3x shield rr, 1x cap transfer), but CPU makes it a pain in the ass, especially as you fit more expensive, high-cpu shield boost amps (also there is an issue if you do not fit the meta 2 capital modules for reduced CPU usage). Having said that, it fits decently if you throw in a 5% CPU implant, for what its worth. Look at it compared to the Archon + thanny, CPU is never an issue for those two.
Having said that, if you toss some isk in, the Chimera does get a beastly tank out of the deal.
BTW, Nid cannot fit self armor and remote armor decently; it has to have one tank shield and the other armor(self armor and remote shield or self shield and remote armor).
TLDR: Give Chimera more CPU, maybe some PG as well |
cpu939
OffBeat Creations
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 21:09:00 -
[37] - Quote
1st i hope when you remove the drones on tq you don't remove all the fighters/bombers like you did with mine on sisi and placed them in high sec 20 odd jumps away
shield capitals need so more love, after all its a bonus not an ohh look i have to rep/be reped the extra hp.
also change crystal implants to work on a hp buff like slave sets do
drone changes super carriers/carriers i would make the 2 bays you talked before fighter/bombers ay able to hold 40 fighters/bombers (20 carriers) that is there main weapon drone bay just over the size of a domi's drone bay. part 2 of this change remove the bonus to drone ammont so only 5 drones can be luanched but replace the bonus with fighter/bomber bonus so the 20 (10 carriers) can be luanched
the other issue i keep hearing is spider tanking supers to fix this i would remove the bonus to remote reps and replace it with a bonus to nuet/nos and add capital nuets/nos modules (meta 2 under the lp store added bonus to incursions runners could also add to fw lp) this would make fleets have to bring logi/triage carriers and the other side could use there supers to cap them out. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 21:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:C/Ped from Min. Capital discussion Gypsio III wrote:
Leave the Naglfar with the split weapon system ... but ensure that the Naglfar has a significant DPS advantage over even the Moros in compensation.
No. The shortest range, heaviest cap usage weapon system in the game (already that way for a blaster moros, will get even worse fyi), should have a DPS advantage over a ship that can choose between an armor (matches capital meta-game) or shield (stronger (doubly so) burst active tank) tank easily and uses weapons that do not require capacitor while having good damage type selection. If anything, rework capital missiles because they are **** in general. He's right you know.
So a Nag pilot gets to train Projectile, Cruise skills and Torp skills to cover the required ranges and to be behind in DPS now eh? And to have that "flexible subpar" tanking that was talked about requires the need to train shield and armor skills up.
Given that case you won't see many new Nag pilots. They will just chose to train for the new easy mode Moros since it's the "best" dread now and easier to get in to.
|
Vaffel Junior
NorCorp Security
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:02:00 -
[39] - Quote
Leave supers as they was.
|
Aoa Lux
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
On the rare occasion that I actually log online, I typically dual or triple box naglfars for the sole reason that they look cool.
Please remove the "versatile" missile hardpoints. Versatility has absolutely zero purpose in something designed with singular intent - shooting immobile structures.
In order to fly minmatar capitals, an aspiring pilot must train capital projectiles, capital torpedos, capital cruise, capital armor, capital shield, and for this are rewarded with: a dread that has substandard tank and mediocre damage a carrier with a rep bonus that is ironically inferior to the amarr carrier as a triage platform |
|
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 22:49:00 -
[41] - Quote
Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
Top damage, worse tank.
Nid and hel are both shi* its bonus make them consume cap faster, they have worst cap and worst tank if they are going to be giant guardians give them a op repair bonus , something that can make a difference. |
Aoa Lux
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:14:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
m8 I don't want to call you out here but that is very dumb. It takes the art department like two years just to take an antenna off a ship model. There is no way they are going to redesign the naglfar.
%bonus increase to damage/rof. Far more simple solution. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
Top damage, worse tank.
Nid and hel are both shi* its bonus make them consume cap faster, they have worst cap and worst tank if they are going to be giant guardians give them a op repair bonus , something that can make a difference.
It does not have the worst tank unless you are armor tanking it. If you are saying that you need to balance the Naglfar based on its armor tank, then you should balance the phoenix the same way, on its armor tank. Insert OP phoenix here.
Relevant part of my first post
...
Armor EHP comparison(3x trimark Is, 2x EANM IIs, 1x DCU II) Moros - 2,049,789 Revelation - 2,058,336 Naglfar (remove one EANM because of low slots, you should really be shield tanking this ship anyway) - 1,635,112
Shield EHP (Nag only - 3x Large Core Defence Field Extender, 2x invul IIs, DCU II) Naglfar - 1,906,907 (Unaffected by compensation skills, does not require 5x lvl 5 skills to reach this level) Naglfar (+1 invul (3 total) because, lets face it, you should be replacing a TC with a TE if shield fitted...) - 2,112,473
...
"BUT WAIT!" you say. "You are using one more slot to get that higher EHP out of a Naglfar." "Yes, I am," I respond."However, the Moros has no ability to add a EHP slot without losing the third damage mod. On top of that, that capacitor you gain from that one cap mod the Moros gets is lost when you realize that the Moros's guns use capacitor."
But you still, despite the EHP, burst tank, capless weapons, damage selection, and versatility of the Naglfar, think that it should get more DPS than a Moros?
The Naglfar's issue is that the autocannons lack the significant falloff of their lesser cousins and the missiles are rather poor.
The issue of shield capital bonuses / slave implants on armor ships is an entirely separate issue and has not been addressed well enough by CCP.
Beyond those two issues, the Naglfar is not broken. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
Top damage, worse tank.
Nid and hel are both shi* its bonus make them consume cap faster, they have worst cap and worst tank if they are going to be giant guardians give them a op repair bonus , something that can make a difference. It does not have the worst tank unless you are armor tanking it. If you are saying that you need to balance the Naglfar based on its armor tank, then you should balance the phoenix the same way, on its armor tank. Insert OP phoenix here. Relevant part of my first post ... Armor EHP comparison(3x trimark Is, 2x EANM IIs, 1x DCU II) Moros - 2,049,789 Revelation - 2,058,336 Naglfar (remove one EANM because of low slots, you should really be shield tanking this ship anyway) - 1,635,112 Shield EHP (Nag only - 3x Large Core Defence Field Extender, 2x invul IIs, DCU II) Naglfar - 1,906,907 (Unaffected by compensation skills, does not require 5x lvl 5 skills to reach this level) Naglfar (+1 invul (3 total) because, lets face it, you should be replacing a TC with a TE if shield fitted...) - 2,112,473 ... "BUT WAIT!" you say. "You are using one more slot to get that higher EHP out of a Naglfar." "Yes, I am," I respond."However, the Moros has no ability to add a EHP slot without losing the third damage mod. On top of that, that capacitor you gain from that one cap mod the Moros gets is lost when you realize that the Moros's guns use capacitor." But you still, despite the EHP, burst tank, capless weapons, damage selection, and versatility of the Naglfar, think that it should get more DPS than a Moros? The Naglfar's issue is that the autocannons lack the significant falloff of their lesser cousins and the missiles are rather poor. The issue of shield capital bonuses / slave implants on armor ships is an entirely separate issue and has not been addressed well enough by CCP. Beyond those two issues, the Naglfar is not broken.
So in your example of the Moros tank having 3 dmg mods to keep it's EHP lower, when the Nag would have to use all 6 of it's lows in dmg mods to get the same percentage effect for it's split weapon systems. Go back and fit your moros with 2 dmg mods and and more tank and show those numbers. If you want to try to get your apples closer to oranges that is.
Also those two issues you listed are part of the game we play in and just ignoring them doesn't change them. You are also ignoring the fact a Moros pilot has quiet a bit less to train to get in to his dread than a Nag pilot.
|
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
Top damage, worse tank.
Nid and hel are both shi* its bonus make them consume cap faster, they have worst cap and worst tank if they are going to be giant guardians give them a op repair bonus , something that can make a difference. It does not have the worst tank unless you are armor tanking it. If you are saying that you need to balance the Naglfar based on its armor tank, then you should balance the phoenix the same way, on its armor tank. Insert OP phoenix here. Relevant part of my first post ... Armor EHP comparison(3x trimark Is, 2x EANM IIs, 1x DCU II) Moros - 2,049,789 Revelation - 2,058,336 Naglfar (remove one EANM because of low slots, you should really be shield tanking this ship anyway) - 1,635,112 Shield EHP (Nag only - 3x Large Core Defence Field Extender, 2x invul IIs, DCU II) Naglfar - 1,906,907 (Unaffected by compensation skills, does not require 5x lvl 5 skills to reach this level) Naglfar (+1 invul (3 total) because, lets face it, you should be replacing a TC with a TE if shield fitted...) - 2,112,473 ... "BUT WAIT!" you say. "You are using one more slot to get that higher EHP out of a Naglfar." "Yes, I am," I respond."However, the Moros has no ability to add a EHP slot without losing the third damage mod. On top of that, that capacitor you gain from that one cap mod the Moros gets is lost when you realize that the Moros's guns use capacitor." But you still, despite the EHP, burst tank, capless weapons, damage selection, and versatility of the Naglfar, think that it should get more DPS than a Moros? The Naglfar's issue is that the autocannons lack the significant falloff of their lesser cousins and the missiles are rather poor. The issue of shield capital bonuses / slave implants on armor ships is an entirely separate issue and has not been addressed well enough by CCP. Beyond those two issues, the Naglfar is not broken. So in your example of the Moros tank having 3 dmg mods to keep it's EHP lower, when the Nag would have to use all 6 of it's lows in dmg mods to get the same percentage effect for it's split weapon systems. Go back and fit your moros with 2 dmg mods and and more tank and show those numbers. If you want to try to get your apples closer to oranges that is. Also those two issues you listed are part of the game we play in and just ignoring them doesn't change them. You are also ignoring the fact a Moros pilot has quiet a bit less to train to get in to his dread than a Nag pilot.
The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 03:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Naglfar only needs one thing , give it back the third turret slot and remove 1 med from it.
Top damage, worse tank.
Nid and hel are both shi* its bonus make them consume cap faster, they have worst cap and worst tank if they are going to be giant guardians give them a op repair bonus , something that can make a difference. It does not have the worst tank unless you are armor tanking it. If you are saying that you need to balance the Naglfar based on its armor tank, then you should balance the phoenix the same way, on its armor tank. Insert OP phoenix here. Relevant part of my first post ... Armor EHP comparison(3x trimark Is, 2x EANM IIs, 1x DCU II) Moros - 2,049,789 Revelation - 2,058,336 Naglfar (remove one EANM because of low slots, you should really be shield tanking this ship anyway) - 1,635,112 Shield EHP (Nag only - 3x Large Core Defence Field Extender, 2x invul IIs, DCU II) Naglfar - 1,906,907 (Unaffected by compensation skills, does not require 5x lvl 5 skills to reach this level) Naglfar (+1 invul (3 total) because, lets face it, you should be replacing a TC with a TE if shield fitted...) - 2,112,473 ... "BUT WAIT!" you say. "You are using one more slot to get that higher EHP out of a Naglfar." "Yes, I am," I respond."However, the Moros has no ability to add a EHP slot without losing the third damage mod. On top of that, that capacitor you gain from that one cap mod the Moros gets is lost when you realize that the Moros's guns use capacitor." But you still, despite the EHP, burst tank, capless weapons, damage selection, and versatility of the Naglfar, think that it should get more DPS than a Moros? The Naglfar's issue is that the autocannons lack the significant falloff of their lesser cousins and the missiles are rather poor. The issue of shield capital bonuses / slave implants on armor ships is an entirely separate issue and has not been addressed well enough by CCP. Beyond those two issues, the Naglfar is not broken. So in your example of the Moros tank having 3 dmg mods to keep it's EHP lower, when the Nag would have to use all 6 of it's lows in dmg mods to get the same percentage effect for it's split weapon systems. Go back and fit your moros with 2 dmg mods and and more tank and show those numbers. If you want to try to get your apples closer to oranges that is. Also those two issues you listed are part of the game we play in and just ignoring them doesn't change them. You are also ignoring the fact a Moros pilot has quiet a bit less to train to get in to his dread than a Nag pilot.
Look at the ship as a whole, you bonus the better weapon system, otherwise you are asking for all four guns to each have an effect equal to the individual three guns of a moros. In a given class of ship, SP required should not have an effect on the ship's power (Or should a typhoon always have an advantage over a dominix, geddon, or scorpion?). You argue that because you had to train up those pesky citadel missiles, you should get better dps, good EHP, .
2x mag stabs tank - 2,225,871 New DPS current (blasters) - 5706 at 19+19, 2378 at 60+19 +Potential 600 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 450 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New DPS patched (blasters) (1.47x) - 8388 at 19+19, 3495 at 60+19
New DPS current (rails)- 3097 at 60+30, 1290at 192+30 +Potential 600 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 450 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New DPS Parched (rails) (1.47x) - 4552 at 50+30, 1896 at 192+30
C/Ped - 2,112,473 Naglfar (Auto + Torp) - 6232 at 16+24 (<59.1), 3491 at 50+24 (<59.1) +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Naglfar (Auto + Torp) (1.1x) - 6876 at 16+24 (<59.1), 3852 at 50+24 (<59.1)
Naglfar (Arty + Cruise) - 3643 at 35+88 (<191.3), 2036 at 144+88 (<191.3) +Potential 300 DPS from Garde IIs at 30+12 or 225 DPS at 75+30 with Warden IIs New Naglfar (Arty + Cruise) - 4019 at 35+88 (<191.3), 2246 at 144+88 (<191.3)
So, the damage came much more into line given that. Proving my point. The EHP is in fact somewhat worse for the Naglfar under these conditions, but the damages are actually not that far off. Remember, you are still choosing you damage and not using capacitor. |
VeloxMors
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 05:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine.
It also takes the most skill points to fly effectively, and by no small margin. They have to train 2 completely different weapon systems with 2 completely different sets of support skills and use 2 completely different sets of upgrade modules. Minmatar are known for projectiles, and only a select few of their ships are made for missiles; why in the world would CCP make the 1 Minmatar dreadnaught one of those missile ships, when most minmatar pilots have no significant use for missile skills?
Whine all you want about capacitor use and not being able to change damage types with the Revelation; that's the same with the majority of Amarr ships. If you don't like having weapon cap usage and damage type restrictions, don't fly Amarr (derp). If CCP had similarly made the Amarr dreadnaught a Khanid missile boat, then I'd fully support your argument about the Revelation being screwed up.
TL;DR: the Naglfar is definitely not fine. |
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
yesterday I tested my Nyx against Baddon and Tornado. It is a pain - fighter bomber against subcaps. The Tornado with 2 LSE and 3 medium CDFE has a signature radius of 266.
in short: the Tornado can sig/speed/shieldtanking my Nyx (FB 5) easily.
Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 7,5 damage (without 2 TP) Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 27,9 damage (with 2 TP)
And the Tornado was unbonused. With the new T2 Ganglinks (+35% Bonus) there is nearly no damage on the Tornado (300+ m/s speed without ab/mwd and <200 signature radius). But ok, you can refit your supercarrier for fighter (in before the fight and in your staging system of course)
Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 123,0 damage (without 2 TP) Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 126,2 damage (with 2 TP)
No changes in damage, but with 2 TP you got more hits, without TP more misses. But If you fit for fighter, the supercarrier is useless against structures and 2 sets (FB + F) are not avaiable.
The devblog from 2011-10-05 says, supercarrier are to powerfull against subcaps. Now, supercarrier are helpless against subcaps. The new T2 warp disruption field generator will bring heavy Interdictor out of neutralizer range (36km f++r the HIC-bubble?). Only 4 officer neutralizer can neut the HIC on a range above 34km+. So, the supercarrier can't kill and can't neut the HIC. Fine. OK, you say "bring more supportfleet". Supportfleet for what? For an expensive, bold tagged "X" on a shiphull, that can't doing anything better than other, more cheaper ships? Full insureable, dockable and cheap Dreadnoughts will bring almost the same DPS (bye bye DPS-star supercarrier) on a structures and can additional shooting a POS. For what I got a second char? For a nondockable ship, that is only immune against ewar and expensive, apart from that it's only useless?
The history of supercarrier is great. Introduction as an I-Win-ship, nerf to uselessness, buffing to a dps/ehp-monster, now nerfing to uselessness again. With this stats on sisi, please remove the supercarrier from the game, convert all fighter bomber to fighter, remove the fighter bomber skill und move the minerals and mods from the ex-supercarrier to a station. In this case, the ex-supercarrierpilots has got an adittional useable carriercharacter on their accounts.
summary supercarrier nerf: - nerf ehp (was ok) - removing of drones (why no separately drone bay?) - only fighter (useless against structures and almost useless against frig-/cruiser-/bc-sized ships) OR fighter bomber (useless against subcaps) - introduction of 36km T2-HIC-Bubble - No-introduction of new neutralizer to compensate the new hic-bubble - introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted) - dreadnought-buff (dockable, full insureable, cheap, nearly same dps) - logoffski-change (it's ok, but in addition to all other points it is a heavy nerf too)
only my opinion as a bittervet |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:59:00 -
[49] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:elitatwo wrote:I cannot repeat that often enough, the Cimera needs a serious bonus for fitting capital shield transfers and the capital shield booster needs to be looked at. All the other carriers can be fitted with 2 capital armor reppers + their remote reppers they are supposed to fit. Even with having the highest amount of cpu of all carriers the cimera can simply not fit what she is supposed to fit in case of logistics. Go ahead and fit a chimera with the follwing, High: 2x capital shield transfer I, 2x captial energy transfer I, (triage for some cases) Med: 1x capital shield booster I, 1x shield boost amp II, 4x cap recharge II Low: 3x capacitor flux coil II, 1x power diagnostic system II (for the powergrid) Now 350 cpu for 2 shield modules is somewhat insane in comparison to the 75 cpu a capital armor repper needs, don't you think? Chimera needs significantly more CPU, it can Triage decently (3x shield rr, 1x cap transfer), but CPU makes it a pain in the ass, especially as you fit more expensive, high-cpu shield boost amps (also there is an issue if you do not fit the meta 2 capital modules for reduced CPU usage). Having said that, it fits decently if you throw in a 5% CPU implant, for what its worth. Look at it compared to the Archon + thanny, CPU is never an issue for those two. Having said that, if you toss some isk in, the Chimera does get a beastly tank out of the deal. BTW, Nid cannot fit self armor and remote armor decently; it has to have one tank shield and the other armor(self armor and remote shield or self shield and remote armor). TLDR: Give Chimera more CPU, maybe some PG as well
confirming you cannot fit a local rep triage chimera due to lack of cpu |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 09:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
Super carriers now have no role except defanging poses and bashing sov structures while titans can still EASILY track battle cruiser and cruiser sized targets and 1 shot them. this is the worst planned fix I have ever seen. It abundantly clear the devs do not take part in the end game off eve. This is the equivalent of having a level 10 decide how end game pvp in wow should be. Balance the supers while you nerf them the hel has the lowest tank of any super a aeon has more than any titan how does this make any sense to you.
Also make the revenant not terrible it has the tank of a hel and its bonus is 10% bonus to fighter and fighter-bomber max velocity per level its wrong when people would rather have a nyx over a FACTION Super cap could you imagine if t1 battle ships were hands down better than faction battle ships its just stupid |
|
Dare Devel
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:19:00 -
[51] - Quote
VeloxMors wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine. It also takes the most skill points to fly effectively, and by no small margin. They have to train 2 completely different weapon systems with 2 completely different sets of support skills and use 2 completely different sets of upgrade modules. TL;DR: the Naglfar is definitely not fine.
Every pilot in all races do this. So you are not alone.
All this Minmatar tears here bitching about their Cap ship is not Op is ridiculous.
I think because their being op in each quarter of the game has made them think that simply being Minnie pilot would priviledge them with everything overpowered.
They cannot bear to think otherwise.
What they need is a nerfbat of reality to bring them down to earth. |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
Dare Devel wrote:VeloxMors wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine. It also takes the most skill points to fly effectively, and by no small margin. They have to train 2 completely different weapon systems with 2 completely different sets of support skills and use 2 completely different sets of upgrade modules. TL;DR: the Naglfar is definitely not fine. Every pilot in all races do this. So you are not alone. All this Minmatar tears here bitching about their Cap ship is not Op is ridiculous. I think because their being op in each quarter of the game has made them think that simply being Minnie pilot would priviledge them with everything overpowered. They cannot bear to think otherwise. What they need is a nerfbat of reality to bring them down to earth.
If minie dreadnougths were that op as you said you would have see them as much as a revelation or a moros the thing you dont , because they arent , i guess you EFT whores can say pretty much watever you want the fact remains that the minie dread and carrier and to an extent the Hel are broken .
But i guess you being in a noob corp know everything about dread fittings in eve universe and pos bashing and capital engagements , and you lack a comprehension in reading also because i said to give them 1 turret slot and remove a 1 mid to make them more squishy in returns .
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:
So a Nag pilot gets to train Projectile, Cruise skills and Torp skills to cover the required ranges and to be behind in DPS now eh? And to have that "flexible subpar" tanking that was talked about requires the need to train shield and armor skills up.
Given that case you won't see many new Nag pilots. They will just chose to train for the new easy mode Moros since it's the "best" dread now and easier to get in to.
At shortest-range, blasters need to be superior. ACs and missiles should have a range advantage, and do more DPS at somewhere in medium-ranges.
That said, the current Moros is silly. |
Ammath
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 13:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:yesterday I tested my Nyx against Baddon and Tornado. It is a pain - fighter bomber against subcaps. The
summary supercarrier nerf: - nerf ehp (was ok) - removing of drones (why no separately drone bay?) - only fighter (useless against structures and almost useless against frig-/cruiser-/bc-sized ships) OR fighter bomber (useless against subcaps) - introduction of 36km T2-HIC-Bubble - No-introduction of new neutralizer to compensate the new hic-bubble - introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted) - dreadnought-buff (dockable, full insureable, cheap, nearly same dps) - logoffski-change (it's ok, but in addition to all other points it is a heavy nerf too)
only my opinion as a bittervet
This is another case of CCP being reactionary and not visionary.
All you are doing by making these changes is making sure SC pilots consolidate into every larger SC focused corps and alliances and removing their use from any smaller capital deployments do to risk. Given that the majority of complaints come from alliances deploying 30-50+ on the field at once these changes actually ENCOURAGE that kind of behavior and really harm smaller entities who used to field a few SCs at a time. This is totally counterproductive.
If you think people will bring more carriers to support the Super fleets you are deluding yourself... as those 10 titans will gun down the enemy support carriers in under 1 minute making them more of a liability than a help.
If carriers are the support ships of the Capital and Super-Capital classes then they need to be versatile enough to actually SUPPORT those ships and help protect them against sub-capital ships but yet not be a liability on the field.
I have made this post before... should 100 Cap/Super fleet be able to defeat a 500 ships sub-cap fleet... YES, although they should take a beating doing so. Lets say that subcap fleet is hell-deathed they lose about 100m per ship so 50bn ... if they kill 1/3 of the caps/supers in the melee they will have destroyed about 60bn ISK in ships figure 2bn ISK per ship and far more if they bring down a SC or Titan in the mix.
So the argument is should 100 pilots "have more fun" than the 500? Well as a long time 0.0 pilot I will tell you I will gladly sacrifice my 100m Battleship to get on THIRTY capital ship killmails.... anyone else with me?
The problem is not SCs being "over powered" it is the disappearance of Dreads and Carriers from the battlefield and this is largely due to the focused Titan DD. Those ships die almost as quickly as a battleship to the DD but cost 20-30x as much!!! Do they do 20-30x the damage? hahahahahaha no. This makes the risk versus reward out of control.
Want to fix capitals.. here is the blueprint:
- Carriers and Dreads should not be able to be 1 or 2 shotted by DD. Or killed in 20 seconds by FBs
- Dreads need to be useful against MOVING battleships at hit at 3-5x BS firepower against them to cost justify use, although hopeless at hitting Cruisers and below making them vulnerable to tackle.
- Supercaps should not be nerfed AT ALL. FBs versus ships need tweaking.
- Make a "fighter bay" as a new bay for Carriers and SCs and allow both ships to use FBs and Fighters after all these are "not drones" according to the fiction next. This allows a more granular limiting of F/FB numbers on these ships.
- Keep drone bays on Carriers and SCs but adjust its size so they dont have silly numbers of drones.
- Triage carriers should be very hard for DD to kill, maybe reduce Sig?
- Dreads in siege should do terrifying damage against Titans, SCs, and Structures to compensate for no RR, no movement, no escape.
- Capital Energy Vamp/Neut, and Capital Smartbombs if the proposed changes go through are mandatory.
- Consider a "Point defense battery" module if proposed changes go through. This mounts say 6-8 cruiser sized guns in one module that can reach out 40-50km to provide some small-ship defense to caps/supers - this has been proposed before
In summary poor damage and poor survivability of Dreads and Carriers against Super/Titan fleets is the reason they don't come out to play. Nerfing Super-Carriers against sub-caps will not fix this problem. It will only encourage LARGER Super/Titan blobs. and LARGER support fleets coming with the capital blob. Given that CCP claims they want to discourage this, I don't see where this helps. |
Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 14:15:00 -
[55] - Quote
Lack of any fix for the massive disparity between shield and armor supers is kind of stunning. Slaves still work on armor supers with no shield equivalent AND shield supers still have to deal with poor application of shield bonuses? Meh. |
Ammath
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 15:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Vilgan Mazran wrote:Lack of any fix for the massive disparity between shield and armor supers is kind of stunning. Slaves still work on armor supers with no shield equivalent AND shield supers still have to deal with poor application of shield bonuses? Meh.
Agreed.. although id like to see an armor ship that works like the Drake Army :) until then i think we are square :) |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:25:00 -
[57] - Quote
Just something I threw together in EFT regarding dreads:
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-3-eccb.jpg
blue = Moros green = Revelation light blue = Naglfar red = Phoenix
All dreads with 3 (Naglfar 2+2) faction damagemods, shortrange weapons Moros with 2 T2 Tracking Computer Revelation and Naglfar with 1 T2 Tracking Computer
Nyx with x-type hardeners, a-type eanm, dcu and t2 trimarks
The Moros is just towering above the other dreads, which are more or less on the same level in terms of damage.
With applied resistances:
http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-2-c81e.jpg
Naglfar and Phoenix firing with explosive ammunition/missiles for best damage
The Moros is still outclassing the other dreads, despite not being able to utilize the target's explosive resistance hole. Naglfar has no problem to secure the second position, as it doesn't rely on missiles als the Phoenix does. Phoenix loses 96 DPS (abou 7%) as the Nyx simple outspeeds it's missiles. Poor Revelation does about 55% (!) less dps than a Moros, making it the worst dreadnought in this situation.
Against armor carriers in triage, the Moros beats the Naglfar/Phoenix, which are more or less identical in performance by about 1.1k DPS (4277 DPS total, Nag/Phoenix about 3170), while the Revelation is the least effective with 2837 DPS.
The same applies to sieged armor-dreads.
Against immobile shield carriers/dreads, the Moros (5244 DPS) beats the Naglfar (4243) and the Revelation (4109), while the Phoenix lacks good EM/therm-DPS (3654 with kinetic torps). (DPS against sieged Phoenix)
Against mobile carriers/dreads, the phoenix sucks badly, while the moros still delivers significant dps at optimal range.
Overall, when fighting capitals, the Moros delivers at least about 25% more dps than any other dread in any given situation. It just has the best tracking, damagemod and range of any turret-dread. |
Mongo Edwards
Royal Order of Security Specialists
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:33:00 -
[58] - Quote
The caldari capitals are still bad even after the proposed balancing. The Chimera is still light on CPU even with a CPU implant. The lolphoenix is still lol (citadel torps really really need some love). The Chimera is still has a rough time cap wise making it through a triage cycle and the lack of buffer means it is still very squishy.
On a side note (and potentially off topic) I still feel it was a huge mistake turning SC's into DPS boats. A normal carrier is a logistics boat (hauling, repairing, providing fitting service, etc.) so why would the "super" variant have as its primary role a damage dealer? I envisioned them as a carrier capable of fitting 6-8 bonused capital RR mods, sporting a tank in the realm of 5-10 times that of a normal carrier, and doubling (or more) its hauling capacity. |
Ammath
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:19:00 -
[59] - Quote
Mongo Edwards wrote:
On a side note (and potentially off topic) I still feel it was a huge mistake turning SC's into DPS boats. A normal carrier is a logistics boat (hauling, repairing, providing fitting service, etc.) so why would the "super" variant have as its primary role a damage dealer? I envisioned them as a carrier capable of fitting 6-8 bonused capital RR mods, sporting a tank in the realm of 5-10 times that of a normal carrier, and doubling (or more) its hauling capacity.
Yes but if the Carrier/Super-Carrier is supposed to be a jump-capable support ship for Dreads/Titans not only should it have RR bonuses, but it NEEDS those Fighters/Bombers and DRONES to actually provide support, support in killing enemy subcaps, support in breaking tackles, support in rep-drones, support in lots of ways.
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
VeloxMors wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine. It also takes the most skill points to fly effectively, and by no small margin. They have to train 2 completely different weapon systems with 2 completely different sets of support skills and use 2 completely different sets of upgrade modules. Minmatar are known for projectiles, and only a select few of their ships are made for missiles; why in the world would CCP make the 1 Minmatar dreadnaught one of those missile ships, when most minmatar pilots have no significant use for missile skills? Whine all you want about capacitor use and not being able to change damage types with the Revelation; that's the same with the majority of Amarr ships. If you don't like having weapon cap usage and damage type restrictions, don't fly Amarr (derp). If CCP had similarly made the Amarr dreadnaught a Khanid missile boat, then I'd fully support your argument about the Revelation being screwed up. TL;DR: the Naglfar is definitely not fine.
Nevertheless, arguing that the Naglfar should be better than all other dreads in all ways because it has to train those skills is silly.
The Naglfar has (and the Revelation and Moros lack): A better burst tank Damage Selection No capacitor usage for its guns
The Naglfar has: Similar EHP (with the ability to up that via overload) Similar DPS (see the 2x Mag stab comparison required for the argument that the Naglfar has less EHP)
The Revelation has (and the Naglfar lacks): Instant Range Selection
And you argue that the Naglfar needs the highest DPS as well, really?
The cost of flying a Moros or a Revelation is using cap and no damage selection. The benefit is that the guns (assuming omni resistances) should perform better.
Saying "Don't fly Amarr or Gallente if you do not like using cap" misses the point; we want advantages in exchange for our disadvantages. Plain and simple. Or should every race perform the exact same way in terms of DPS and EHP, with Minmatar being the only race that has damage selection and can still use its guns w/o capacitor? You are arguing that Minmatar should be the clearly superior race to fly, something that has been the way sub-capital for quite some time, with the exception of some Amarr ships (Abaddon, Zealot). |
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:50:00 -
[61] - Quote
Klingon Admiral wrote:Just something I threw together in EFT regarding dreads: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-3-eccb.jpgblue = Moros green = Revelation light blue = Naglfar red = Phoenix All dreads with 3 (Naglfar 2+2) faction damagemods, shortrange weapons Moros with 2 T2 Tracking Computer Revelation and Naglfar with 1 T2 Tracking Computer Nyx with x-type hardeners, a-type eanm, dcu and t2 trimarks The Moros is just towering above the other dreads, which are more or less on the same level in terms of damage. With applied resistances: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-2-c81e.jpgNaglfar and Phoenix firing with explosive ammunition/missiles for best damage The Moros is still outclassing the other dreads, despite not being able to utilize the target's explosive resistance hole. Naglfar has no problem to secure the second position, as it doesn't rely on missiles als the Phoenix does. Phoenix loses 96 DPS (abou 7%) as the Nyx simple outspeeds it's missiles. Poor Revelation does about 55% (!) less dps than a Moros, making it the worst dreadnought in this situation. Against armor carriers in triage, the Moros beats the Naglfar/Phoenix, which are more or less identical in performance by about 1.1k DPS (4277 DPS total, Nag/Phoenix about 3170), while the Revelation is the least effective with 2837 DPS. The same applies to sieged armor-dreads. Against immobile shield carriers/dreads, the Moros (5244 DPS) beats the Naglfar (4243) and the Revelation (4109), while the Phoenix lacks good EM/therm-DPS (3654 with kinetic torps). (DPS against sieged Phoenix) Against mobile carriers/dreads, the phoenix sucks badly, while the moros still delivers significant dps at optimal range. Overall, when fighting capitals, the Moros delivers at least about 25% more dps than any other dread in any given situation. It just has the best tracking, damagemod and range of any turret-dread.
Phoenix needs some love, more specifically, the citadel weapons need some love. Revelation could use some buffs, as the second image shows. Do you mind uploading a graph showing the effect of long range ammo or long range guns? I think that if you do, the Moros will show how others out-dps it at range with blasters and, instead reveal a larger (and, in the area of nullsec warfare in which making sure the dreads are properly placed within 20km of motherships that will probably fly straight at the dreads for a bit and then orbit anc cause issues; it is much easier to use longer ranged boats at 100k or so) problem; the rails out-dps everything by a large margin. If you think the Moros is OP, at least take into account the disadvantages and use the right guns to prove it.
Take into account range selection. Also remember that that graph is only valid up to the point at which the next damage ammo takes over. Ideally EFT would allow you to overlay all of the graphs of highest damage ammo at a given range. (AKA let you see at what point you should switch to plutonium / uranium / thorium / lead / etc.). Also, one large problem with nullsec capital warfare is that it is very hard to pin a SC down and keep it in blaster range. Especially given that there is only one dread that will hit for full damage if you drop a small dread fleet and do not wait a minute or so to siege after the cyno-bump (Phoenix).
The fact that the Naglfar takes second over a dread that uses capacitor is bothersome, especially given that that dread cannot choose its damage. Also, the Nyx is not the only target at which a dread will shoot.
Having said that, the Moros's guns should not be changed as CCP has suggested, make it use a shitton of capacitor to run those guns.
Mongo Edwards wrote:The caldari capitals are still bad even after the proposed balancing. The Chimera is still light on CPU even with a CPU implant. The lolphoenix is still lol (citadel torps really really need some love). The Chimera is still has a rough time cap wise making it through a triage cycle and the lack of buffer means it is still very squishy.
On a side note (and potentially off topic) I still feel it was a huge mistake turning SC's into DPS boats. A normal carrier is a logistics boat (hauling, repairing, providing fitting service, etc.) so why would the "super" variant have as its primary role a damage dealer? I envisioned them as a carrier capable of fitting 6-8 bonused capital RR mods, sporting a tank in the realm of 5-10 times that of a normal carrier, and doubling (or more) its hauling capacity.
Aside from those extra high-slots and somewhat less than 5x EHP, that is what the SCs used to be. People whined, and they got to be DPS boats. Now, people will whine if you take away the DPS, smaller drones, repping ability, or light drones. Yet, something has to be done about these ships that really qualify as master of all trades. |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:26:00 -
[62] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with the nidhogger it actually one of the better carriers so stop with that bs the hel & the revenant are completely BROKEN!! |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Do you mind uploading a graph showing the effect of long range ammo or long range guns?
Here we go.
Lets begin with some stats:
Moros @ Plutonium XL (97+49km) w/ 3x FN Magnetic Field Stabilizer / 2x Tracking Computer - 5825 DPS, 34557 Volley, 2mio eHP, 5067 peak tank, 4m57sec capacitor
Revelation @ Xray XL (86+52km) w/ 3x IN Heat Sink / 1x Tracking Computer - 4276 DPS, 23833 Volley, 2,25mio eHP, 5910 peak tank, 5m12sec capacitor
Naglfar @ Fusion XL/Catastrophe CM (52+114km/191.3km) w/ 3x RF Gyro, 1x CN BCS / 1x Tracking Enhancer - 3776+1448DPS, 55249+43662 Volley, 1,65mio eHP, 8932 peak tank, 2m31sec cap (fitting might need some work tank/cap-wise)
Phoenix @ Rajas CM (191.3km) w/ 3x CN BCS - 5033 DPS, 97144 volley, 2mio eHP, 12104 peak tank, 2m54sec cap
In terms of raw DPS the Moros wins at 100km, as Naglfar dps are reduced by falloff (it's still better than that of a naglfar with medrange ammo).
Now lets put this dps to work! As egligible targets for sniper-dreads I have identified carriers (both in triage and mobile), supercarriers, titans and of course other dreads (battles between two dreadfleets will probably be insane dpsraces, as their tank isn't that impressive if you consider 20 dreads or something shooting at you).
In the following graphs the Moros is red, the Revelation green, the Naglfar blue and the Phoenix light blue.
Lets start with the Nyx: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-4-a87f.jpg
At about 100km, the Naglfar and Moros are nearly identical in terms of damage-output. Revelation still sucks. bring the Dreads in at about 60km and the Naglfar will outdamage all of them.
Now the Pantheon-Archon: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-5-e4da.jpg
Not even a competition...
Triage-Archon: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-6-1679.jpg
Moros still secures first place. And to underline why CItadel missiles suck, the damage of the Phoenix is more than trippled (although a triage archon has weaker resists than a pantheon archon).
And against a Abaddon... http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-7-8f14.jpg
... just use a different ship.
Erebus isn't that interesting, it's just the dps-chart of a Nyx with higher numbers on the graphs.
Now lets shoot on a Revelation: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-8-c9f0.jpg
I see a trend here.
And last but not least a Phoenix: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-9-45c4.jpg
Poor Revelation doesn't even outdamage a Phoenix using kinetic missiles... |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:41:00 -
[64] - Quote
Klingon Admiral wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:Do you mind uploading a graph showing the effect of long range ammo or long range guns? Here we go. Lets begin with some stats: Moros @ Plutonium XL (97+49km) w/ 3x FN Magnetic Field Stabilizer / 2x Tracking Computer - 5825 DPS, 34557 Volley, 2mio eHP, 5067 peak tank, 4m57sec capacitor Revelation @ Xray XL (86+52km) w/ 3x IN Heat Sink / 1x Tracking Computer - 4276 DPS, 23833 Volley, 2,25mio eHP, 5910 peak tank, 5m12sec capacitor Naglfar @ Fusion XL/Catastrophe CM (52+114km/191.3km) w/ 3x RF Gyro, 1x CN BCS / 1x Tracking Enhancer - 3776+1448DPS, 55249+43662 Volley, 1,65mio eHP, 8932 peak tank, 2m31sec cap (fitting might need some work tank/cap-wise) Phoenix @ Rajas CM (191.3km) w/ 3x CN BCS - 5033 DPS, 97144 volley, 2mio eHP, 12104 peak tank, 2m54sec cap In terms of raw DPS the Moros wins at 100km, as Naglfar dps are reduced by falloff (it's still better than that of a naglfar with medrange ammo). Now lets put this dps to work! As egligible targets for sniper-dreads I have identified carriers (both in triage and mobile), supercarriers, titans and of course other dreads (battles between two dreadfleets will probably be insane dpsraces, as their tank isn't that impressive if you consider 20 dreads or something shooting at you). In the following graphs the Moros is red, the Revelation green, the Naglfar blue and the Phoenix light blue. Lets start with the Nyx: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-4-a87f.jpgAt about 100km, the Naglfar and Moros are nearly identical in terms of damage-output. Revelation still sucks. bring the Dreads in at about 60km and the Naglfar will outdamage all of them. Now the Pantheon-Archon: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-5-e4da.jpgNot even a competition... Triage-Archon: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-6-1679.jpgMoros still secures first place. And to underline why CItadel missiles suck, the damage of the Phoenix is more than trippled (although a triage archon has weaker resists than a pantheon archon). And against a Abaddon... http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-7-8f14.jpg... just use a different ship. Erebus isn't that interesting, it's just the dps-chart of a Nyx with higher numbers on the graphs. Now lets shoot on a Revelation: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-8-c9f0.jpgI see a trend here. And last but not least a Phoenix: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/iv0i-9-45c4.jpgPoor Revelation doesn't even outdamage a Phoenix using kinetic missiles...
From what I see, this shows that the Revelation (for a long time the go-to dread) is going to have some issues. Having said that, this supports the need for a higher explosion velocity (double or triple it, sig radius will still keep it from raping subcaps) for citadel weapons. As I said, the rails on a Moros are clearly going to be powerful. The Naglfar seems to have little to no issues, other than EHP. Having said that, what did you do to get such a low EHP on the Naglfar? 3x LCDFEs, 2x invul IIs, and a DCU give 1.9 mil EHP. Were you assuming different rigs, and, if so, what were your lows for the Moros and Revelation, given that you need 3x trimark is to get that 2m EHP? |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:52:00 -
[65] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:The Naglfar seems to have little to no issues, other than EHP. Having said that, what did you do to get such a low EHP on the Naglfar? 3x LCDFEs, 2x invul IIs, and a DCU give 1.9 mil EHP.
DCU, Invul II and 3x LCDFE. Put on a SBA for ... 8 more DPS tank. A Invul II seems to be preferable in any case. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:58:00 -
[66] - Quote
Klingon Admiral wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:The Naglfar seems to have little to no issues, other than EHP. Having said that, what did you do to get such a low EHP on the Naglfar? 3x LCDFEs, 2x invul IIs, and a DCU give 1.9 mil EHP. DCU, Invul II and 3x LCDFE. Put on a SBA for ... 8 more DPS tank. A Invul II seems to be preferable in any case. Invul II can also be overheated when you need it most in nullsec |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:30:00 -
[67] - Quote
Do something about the Hel. Update SISI with the change. My account will expire in a week, and there will be no coming back if nothing is done by then. Not paying 15$ for another month to remind you to do your jobs.
I don't pay a mechanic just to stand around and tell him what's wrong with my car and then help him fix it.
One can only hope that these knee-jerk nerfs and buffs are rectified, or you guys will have to start working on fishing trawlers instead of coding and designing games. ******* Iceland. Letting the only decent space game decay since 2007. |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:49:00 -
[68] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:VeloxMors wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The naglfar has an advantage in that you can change damage types and your guns and missiles use absolutely no cap. The Naglfar is fine. It also takes the most skill points to fly effectively, and by no small margin. They have to train 2 completely different weapon systems with 2 completely different sets of support skills and use 2 completely different sets of upgrade modules. Minmatar are known for projectiles, and only a select few of their ships are made for missiles; why in the world would CCP make the 1 Minmatar dreadnaught one of those missile ships, when most minmatar pilots have no significant use for missile skills? Whine all you want about capacitor use and not being able to change damage types with the Revelation; that's the same with the majority of Amarr ships. If you don't like having weapon cap usage and damage type restrictions, don't fly Amarr (derp). If CCP had similarly made the Amarr dreadnaught a Khanid missile boat, then I'd fully support your argument about the Revelation being screwed up. TL;DR: the Naglfar is definitely not fine. Nevertheless, arguing that the Naglfar should be better than all other dreads in all ways because it has to train those skills is silly. The Naglfar has (and the Revelation and Moros lack): A better burst tank Damage Selection No capacitor usage for its guns The Naglfar has: Similar EHP (with the ability to up that via overload) Similar DPS (see the 2x Mag stab comparison required for the argument that the Naglfar has less EHP) The Revelation has (and the Naglfar lacks): Instant Range Selection And you argue that the Naglfar needs the highest DPS as well, really? The cost of flying a Moros or a Revelation is using cap and no damage selection. The benefit is that the guns (assuming omni resistances) should perform better. Saying "Don't fly Amarr or Gallente if you do not like using cap" misses the point; we want advantages in exchange for our disadvantages. Plain and simple. Or should every race perform the exact same way in terms of DPS and EHP, with Minmatar being the only race that has damage selection and can still use its guns w/o capacitor? You are arguing that Minmatar should be the clearly superior race to fly, something that has been the way sub-capital for quite some time, with the exception of some Amarr ships (Abaddon, Zealot).
We aren't arguing to make the naglfar OP , we just are asking if CCP can put back the buff they already did like 2 years ago making the nag a pure artie/ac cannon boot , because you see training for 2 weapon systems while having the worst tank to be just second in dps in all races isnt really that much fun .
And your argument about changing ammo is really moot because in fleet fights you bring 2 ammo types one long range one short range, the rest we dont use, 100VS100 dreads we would be like changing ammo for every single primary , with lag factored in good luck doing any kind of damage to primary.
Not to mention that if naglfar is that op everyone should be flying it right?
|
VeloxMors
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote: Nevertheless, arguing that the Naglfar should be better than all other dreads in all ways because it has to train those skills is silly. ... And you argue that the Naglfar needs the highest DPS as well, really?
Learn to read. I never argued that; I was arguing the Naglfar shouldn't require a huge amount more SP to be on par with the other dreads. By making it fully turret, it would require a normal amount of SP to fly, and do a normal amount of DPS. I never once argued it should do any more DPS than the other dreads.
Demon Azrakel wrote: Saying "Don't fly Amarr or Gallente if you do not like using cap" misses the point; we want advantages in exchange for our disadvantages.
Amarr have no ammo requirement (ideal for w-space and people on a budget), can change ammo without reload time, and usually have better tanks. If you don't like those advantages, don't fly Amarr. Gallente are in the process of being reworked because they genuinely weren't balanced.
Demon Azrakel wrote: You are arguing that Minmatar should be the clearly superior race to fly, something that has been the way sub-capital for quite some time, with the exception of some Amarr ships (Abaddon, Zealot).
I never argued that the Nagflar should outclass the other dreads. As far as subcaps are concerned: read the thread title.
Next time you feel like making an argument, read and think before posting. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:43:00 -
[70] - Quote
VeloxMors wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote: Nevertheless, arguing that the Naglfar should be better than all other dreads in all ways because it has to train those skills is silly. ... And you argue that the Naglfar needs the highest DPS as well, really?
Learn to read. I never argued that; I was arguing the Naglfar shouldn't require a huge amount more SP to be on par with the other dreads. By making it fully turret, it would require a normal amount of SP to fly, and do a normal amount of DPS. I never once argued it should do any more DPS than the other dreads. Demon Azrakel wrote: Saying "Don't fly Amarr or Gallente if you do not like using cap" misses the point; we want advantages in exchange for our disadvantages.
Amarr have no ammo requirement (ideal for w-space and people on a budget), can change ammo without reload time, and usually have better tanks. If you don't like those advantages, don't fly Amarr. Gallente are in the process of being reworked because they genuinely weren't balanced. Demon Azrakel wrote: You are arguing that Minmatar should be the clearly superior race to fly, something that has been the way sub-capital for quite some time, with the exception of some Amarr ships (Abaddon, Zealot).
I never argued that the Nagflar should outclass the other dreads. As far as subcaps are concerned: read the thread title. Next time you feel like making an argument, read and think before posting.
A: The active tank is not the worst, it is the second best for burst B: The EHP is worst by a small margin (1.9 m vs the Moros's 2.05m). C: Bringing autocannons and torps to this capital blob is not going to happen, that only applies to long range warfare. D: At blaster range, the fact that you use cap is very important (w-space is full of bhaalgorns) E: We know not to expect CCP to change the Naglfar's slot layout. I would love to see this changed, but :CCP:. If we assume that CCP continues to refuse to redo the Naglfar's slot layout, your arguments suggest that it should out-dps a Moros, which uses capacitor and has only a little bit more EHP. F: The revelation shines in being cheap. Bashing a pos with faction ammo, no problem. However, in pvp, we can assume that both dreads have faction ammo, and it falls behind again.
Pesadel0 wrote:
We aren't arguing to make the naglfar OP , we just are asking if CCP can put back the buff they already did like 2 years ago making the nag a pure artie/ac cannon boot , because you see training for 2 weapon systems while having the worst tank to be just second in dps in all races isnt really that much fun .
And your argument about changing ammo is really moot because in fleet fights you bring 2 ammo types one long range one short range, the rest we dont use, 100VS100 dreads we would be like changing ammo for every single primary , with lag factored in good luck doing any kind of damage to primary.
Not to mention that if naglfar is that op everyone should be flying it right?
I assume that everyone would (given the current meta-game) bring the ammo that is highest in explosive (because of Nyx / Aeon / Avatar / Erebus) damage for nullsec warfare as well as enough other ammo to properly mess up your given choice of POS.
(Also, from above: E: We know not to expect CCP to change the Naglfar's slot layout. I would love to see this changed, but :CCP: If we assume that CCP continues to refuse to redo the Naglfar's slot layout, your arguments suggest that it should out-dps a Moros, which uses capacitor and has only a little bit more EHP.) |
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
I've tested the dread changes on the naglfar recently. The damage boost indeed seems nice, though from other players' reports I clearly see that now the moros is way overpowered compared to the other dreads.
What was surprising me, that I couldn't hit a paladin orbiting me at 40K, and CCP clearly stated in the devblogs, that they wish to bring the dreads into fleet fights. However, I see no reason why would anyone field a dread into a fleet fight.
With the current stats on SiSi, the naglfar was good on completely stationary targets, but nothing else. I've even experienced various carriers speedtanking me, that surprised me a bit. Also everything not completely stationary was impossible to hit. With these changes, sieged carriers are not even good for KM whoring in a fleet. And when a dread is not sieged, it's just an expensive BS. Well, a rather stupid and big BS.
At the end, I wasn't really using the citadel torps on the naglfar, because i couldn't hit anything with it. Not even a moving phoenix, it did only minor damage. seeing this, citadel missiles clearly need some love. Also, i'd be still a lot happier if the naglfar weren't this ugly dualweapon platform.
In bigger fleets, when the DPS exceeds a dread's sieged tanking ability (3+ dreads, or 20+ battleships), then it's again pointless to field a dread, because they can't receive logistics.
Though I'm unable to handle the T2 siege module, I strongly agree on the opinion to increase the scan resolution with T2 siege modules, that'd also be a nice step for getting dreads back into the game. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:46:00 -
[72] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:I've tested the dread changes on the naglfar recently. The damage boost indeed seems nice, though from other players' reports I clearly see that now the moros is way overpowered compared to the other dreads.
What was surprising me, that I couldn't hit a paladin orbiting me at 40K, and CCP clearly stated in the devblogs, that they wish to bring the dreads into fleet fights. However, I see no reason why would anyone field a dread into a fleet fight.
With the current stats on SiSi, the naglfar was good on completely stationary targets, but nothing else. I've even experienced various carriers speedtanking me, that surprised me a bit. Also everything not completely stationary was impossible to hit. With these changes, sieged carriers are not even good for KM whoring in a fleet. And when a dread is not sieged, it's just an expensive BS. Well, a rather stupid and big BS.
At the end, I wasn't really using the citadel torps on the naglfar, because i couldn't hit anything with it. Not even a moving phoenix, it did only minor damage. seeing this, citadel missiles clearly need some love. Also, i'd be still a lot happier if the naglfar weren't this ugly dualweapon platform.
In bigger fleets, when the DPS exceeds a dread's sieged tanking ability (3+ dreads, or 20+ battleships), then it's again pointless to field a dread, because they can't receive logistics.
Though I'm unable to handle the T2 siege module, I strongly agree on the opinion to increase the scan resolution with T2 siege modules, that'd also be a nice step for getting dreads back into the game.
Well the forums ate my longer post so here is a shorter version. Instead of nic picking which dread is better than another. Isn't more important to wonder if they are going to be used in any number for it to matter?
I am not sure myself, what is everyone else's opinions of the changes? Are they enough to cause a resurgence of dread use in fleets? Or no?
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
Shield supercarrier and especially the Hel are a joke. If it goes like that on tranquility I'll just unsub my 3 accounts as I won't have the possibility to use them anymore.
o/ |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:50:00 -
[74] - Quote
Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two.
Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win. Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same...
Naglfar: I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is. The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits).
Nidhoggur: I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time: - two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here. - the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that.
Hel: Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words. - the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx. - when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx). - all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless. - Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed. - EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator. - CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk..
It boils down to this: Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case.
Ragnarok: I haven't sat in one yet (), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate POD-SQUAD
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:56:00 -
[75] - Quote
I have recently aquired skilsl nessesary for flying a dread, and there is jsut no reason to fly it. There are two changed that would easilly make them viable:
Improve their damage outside of siege. Make them normally deal 1/2 or 1/3 of their sieged damage. Thar way they can be used as a mobile warfare platform, to hurt other capitals or battleships with a lot of webbing support. If you want maximum damage output, you still have to enter siege, but now there is the option of mobile warfare, and it's always more interesting than stationary one.
Second: increase minimum warp range to ~300 km or smth. Now you cannot instantly warp to sniping dreads or any other sniping ships for that matter. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
Please carve whatever space you need out of my cavernous cargo bay to give me back at least 50 cubic meters of drone space on my Erebus, thanks in advance |
Murtific
Snuff Box
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
Aoa Lux wrote:
nidhoggur
a carrier with a rep bonus that is ironically inferior to the amarr carrier as a triage platform
+1 |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:30:00 -
[78] - Quote
Murtific wrote:Aoa Lux wrote:
nidhoggur
a carrier with a rep bonus that is ironically inferior to the amarr carrier as a triage platform
+1
+2 and the galente preforms better also. |
Minerus Maximus
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 22:58:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP removed drone bay from dreads but their construction is still required capital drone bays! This is insanity. CCP cut Nyx's drone bay capacity by 40%, Hel's by 33,(3)%, Wyvern & Aeon by 37,5%, but their construction is still required same capital drone bays instead of same cut of required quantity. This is a trivial negligence |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
the super nerf is just far too ******** to be considered for rollout. testing has shown me everything that i feared to be true. there are many more resonable approaches to what is required in the dev-blog thread.
personally i'd be much better off with a removal of the corp hanger, inability to fit spider tanking/cap mods and a limit to the number operational in a fleet.
the real heart of the problem is not a single super-cap or even two - the new agression timers and tier3 bcs is good for a small numbers of SCs against fleets that "deserve" to kill them. The real issue is when we're talking about 10-20 or more of them in a fleet, in a system. you have to be kidding thinking that these changes address this fundamental issue - unfortunately the changes as proposed makes it impossible for a small corp to run SCs and will either force them (and their accounts) out of the game or merge them into super alliances - which magnifies the issue instead of correcting it.
the siege timer on the dreads seems to be working nicely, however the carrier as a class seems to suffer more as a result (more than i thought). again the removal of drone bays is a travesty for the dreads.
have been thinking that a new set of implants that provides either resistance or amount of shield would help drive the shield based capitals into consideration. this ofc would have to be balanced with perhaps a armour resist or cap recharge implant for armour tankers. the other alternative is to flip it and introduce a significant damage boost to the shield based caps, offering pilots the ability to train towards survivability OR max damage. again a range of implants aimed at decreasing siege/triage module timers would be interesting - giving pilots an opportunity to pick tank, resist, cap or time committed on field. |
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:15:00 -
[81] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:I've tested the dread changes on the naglfar recently. The damage boost indeed seems nice, though from other players' reports I clearly see that now the moros is way overpowered compared to the other dreads.
What was surprising me, that I couldn't hit a paladin orbiting me at 40K, and CCP clearly stated in the devblogs, that they wish to bring the dreads into fleet fights. However, I see no reason why would anyone field a dread into a fleet fight.
With the current stats on SiSi, the naglfar was good on completely stationary targets, but nothing else. I've even experienced various carriers speedtanking me, that surprised me a bit. Also everything not completely stationary was impossible to hit. With these changes, sieged carriers are not even good for KM whoring in a fleet. And when a dread is not sieged, it's just an expensive BS. Well, a rather stupid and big BS.
At the end, I wasn't really using the citadel torps on the naglfar, because i couldn't hit anything with it. Not even a moving phoenix, it did only minor damage. seeing this, citadel missiles clearly need some love. Also, i'd be still a lot happier if the naglfar weren't this ugly dualweapon platform.
In bigger fleets, when the DPS exceeds a dread's sieged tanking ability (3+ dreads, or 20+ battleships), then it's again pointless to field a dread, because they can't receive logistics.
Though I'm unable to handle the T2 siege module, I strongly agree on the opinion to increase the scan resolution with T2 siege modules, that'd also be a nice step for getting dreads back into the game.
As it stands now, an armor dread can barely tank one other dread, and often it cannot tank another dread at all.
Dreads are not intended to do that much damage out of siege. They are intended to shoot other capitals. Dreads are, and always have been, considered dead on cyno in. Free ship if it survives. Also, you can **** up subcaps with a dread if you have proper support on a smaller scale, though this is not terribly feasible outside of w-space.
I would like to repeat that CCP could double or tripple the explosion velocity on citadel weapons will little negative effect on the game. Also, capital autos need a bit of falloff. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two. Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win. Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same... Naglfar:I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is. The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits). Nidhoggur:I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time: - two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here. - the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that. Hel:Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words. - the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx. - when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx). - all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless. - Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed. - EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator. - CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk.. It boils down to this: Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case. Ragnarok:I haven't sat in one yet ( ), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell.
CCP read, read and reread please. This dude is nearly right on the whole line about Minmatar capital. I've a ******* Hel since a year, I haven't been able to field it once because I know I would have been primary or be useless. This ship is just a damn shame that no word can explain. The bonus is crap, the tank is crap, the over-speed is crap, the cap recharge is crap, everything is crap. Expect the price, the huge price as any supercarrier. The whole concept of shield supercarrier are fail, and the Hel is even worst since it's bonus is toward something no one give a **** about.
I'm expecting from you better than what you are currently doing. I'm considering unsubing if things don't change. |
Yvan Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:33:00 -
[83] - Quote
LOL have to say your right above except the frigging nidhoggur.... niddys are laughed out of carrier fits due to the fact there known as the "damage control for the fleet" .... AKA 1m EHP extra for the entire fleet as its GOING TO DIE FIRST, its local tank is one of the worst, its what 5m/s faster? lol seriously if your going to make the niddy the logistics ship, give it a bonus to reduce its signature radius at V to say slightly bigger than a bs to give it the ability to tank a bit more, that and maybe a little bit more speed, i'd love the idea of a "speed/sig tanked" carrier logistics ship well speed and sig is relative, but something or a small ehp buff to make my poor baby not ALWAYS the first to get primared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Siigari Kitawa
Ironclad Forge No Kings
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 07:08:00 -
[84] - Quote
http://m-devillers.ruhosting.nl/rmrnstuff.html |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 08:49:00 -
[85] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Magic Crisp wrote:I've tested the dread changes on the naglfar recently. The damage boost indeed seems nice, though from other players' reports I clearly see that now the moros is way overpowered compared to the other dreads.
What was surprising me, that I couldn't hit a paladin orbiting me at 40K, and CCP clearly stated in the devblogs, that they wish to bring the dreads into fleet fights. However, I see no reason why would anyone field a dread into a fleet fight.
With the current stats on SiSi, the naglfar was good on completely stationary targets, but nothing else. I've even experienced various carriers speedtanking me, that surprised me a bit. Also everything not completely stationary was impossible to hit. With these changes, sieged carriers are not even good for KM whoring in a fleet. And when a dread is not sieged, it's just an expensive BS. Well, a rather stupid and big BS.
At the end, I wasn't really using the citadel torps on the naglfar, because i couldn't hit anything with it. Not even a moving phoenix, it did only minor damage. seeing this, citadel missiles clearly need some love. Also, i'd be still a lot happier if the naglfar weren't this ugly dualweapon platform.
In bigger fleets, when the DPS exceeds a dread's sieged tanking ability (3+ dreads, or 20+ battleships), then it's again pointless to field a dread, because they can't receive logistics.
Though I'm unable to handle the T2 siege module, I strongly agree on the opinion to increase the scan resolution with T2 siege modules, that'd also be a nice step for getting dreads back into the game. As it stands now, an armor dread can barely tank one other dread, and often it cannot tank another dread at all. Dreads are not intended to do that much damage out of siege. They are intended to shoot other capitals. Dreads are, and always have been, considered dead on cyno in. Free ship if it survives. Also, you can **** up subcaps with a dread if you have proper support on a smaller scale, though this is not terribly feasible outside of w-space. I would like to repeat that CCP could double or tripple the explosion velocity on citadel weapons will little negative effect on the game. Also, capital autos need a bit of falloff.
I quite so agree on the falloff, it could definitely use some. I still feel bad about dreads and fleets. There should be something that makes dreads worthy for fielding in fleet fight. Like a scripted siege module, with reduced DPS, somewhat increased tracking, and the ability to receive logistics. I admit there has to be a price, but currently these ships are no good but for bashing structures. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
All supers on top of losing thei way overpowered amount of hitpoints deserve to lose a medslot for shield tankers and lowslot for armor tankers :-) Resistance is the real trouble behind the RR hell the super blobs go into. In regards to the fighter/drone issue I kind of like the proposed changes :-) |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
146
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:18:00 -
[87] - Quote
xxxak wrote:Supercarriers are too nerfed. Especially the shield carriers :(
They are going to diaf against tiny gangs now...
Just take it out on a patrol and your DPS per second should be enough. |
bornaa
GRiD.
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:23:00 -
[88] - Quote
can i ask you because I cant log in to SISI: is tracking for titans guns nerfed? whats with fighters, are they nerfed??? or their usage with SC??? |
Captain Alcatraz
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:46:00 -
[89] - Quote
I'm one happy dread pilot as I fly the moros, but with the changes its plain better than all other dreads
5 min siege cycle is an awesome change |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:34:00 -
[90] - Quote
I can understand why CCp did those changes to supers, but I have to say, for shield tanked supers these changes mean death ! Shield tanked Supers already suffer of the imbalance and would do even further with these changes to the HP. Don't get me wrong, I do think Suers were over powered and needed a HP nerf, but in the end, all supers should have about the same HP, wether it's a shield or armor tanked one. In regards to the drone bay change, I think supers should be able to field a full flight of fighters and bombers, especially when they have no other drones left. An option would be to apply the +3 per lvl bonus to fighters an fighter bombers only, not normal drones. The result would be that SC would at least be a little bit capable of fending of small tacklers and stuff.
|
|
Cain Leigh
Raptor Navy STR8NGE BREW
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:15:00 -
[91] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two. Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win. Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same... Naglfar:I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is. The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits). Nidhoggur:I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time: - two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here. - the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that. Hel:Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words. - the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx. - when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx). - all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless. - Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed. - EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator. - CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk.. It boils down to this: Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case. Ragnarok:I haven't sat in one yet ( ), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell.
Couldn't agree more..
|
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 11:58:00 -
[92] - Quote
Cain Leigh wrote:Mioelnir wrote:Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two. Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win. Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same... Naglfar:I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is. The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits). Nidhoggur:I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time: - two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here. - the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that. Hel:Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words. - the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx. - when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx). - all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless. - Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed. - EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator. - CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk.. It boils down to this: Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case. Ragnarok:I haven't sat in one yet ( ), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell. Couldn't agree more..
+1 , the man said everything it is meant to be said about shield supers and about minie supers.
The rag is actually fine .
|
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 11:58:00 -
[93] - Quote
Taking away the drones from an SC and reducing it's drone bay so it can only carry Bombers OR Fighters is too much. As fighters/Bombers are too easy to kill the second most powerful ship in the game can easily be de-fanged by 4 stealth bombers in a lag fest. at the absolute very least fighters orbit range needs to be increased to if they are attacking something they are not at 2Km range from it, that just means every fighter from every carrier/FC dies in one volley. Still as things stand my SC will not be logging on bar for skill changes till they are changed again, I'll probably just let the account lapse. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 14:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two. Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win. Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same... Naglfar:I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is. The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits). Nidhoggur:I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time: - two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here. - the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that. Hel:Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words. - the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx. - when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx). - all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless. - Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed. - EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator. - CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk.. It boils down to this: Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case. Ragnarok:I haven't sat in one yet ( ), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell.
Not empty quoting. Listen to this guy, so we don't have to unsub our multiple accounts. No idea why we even have to discuss this - is there a deficit of common sense on that island? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:18:00 -
[95] - Quote
Also, CCP, just to throw it out there for pondering:
All 4 Minmatar capitals were once shield tanks. All Hel pilots once were Nidhoggur pilots. Prior to the HP stats being swapped during the supercapital buff, Hels had - despite their slot layout - more armor than shield hp and were usually armor tanked.
The idea behind above average speed and below average signature for Minmatar is to take below average damage since they have below average tanks. This patch takes measures to ensure supercapitals can't avoid taking damage.
If you need to make a clean cut to save the ship, do it. Be bold.
And, before going on, I have to apologize. All dreads, carriers and supercarriers have actually the same peak cap recharge. The differences in practice come solely from their fittings. I never realized until now.
My personal wishlist:
Shield in general
- make bonus apply like armor bonus
- add shield-hp set that keeps peak shield recharge unaffected by increasing recharge time accordingly
Add a crystal-set equivalent for armor if needed. While diversity is good, diversity for the sake of diversity is bad. Shield and armor tanking will still have meaningful differences after that.
Naglfar It has split weapons and takes longer to train, yes. I see no reason why that warrants special treatment. Since all peak cap recharge levels are in fact equal, I can't in good conscience ask for a buff anymore.
Nidhoggur wrote:
- remove 12'500 HP from shield
- add 12'500 HP to armor
- increase remote-rep bonus to 7.5%
- move a medslot to a lowslot (Cap Power Relay > Cap Recharger)
This moves the "undecidedly equal" shield/armor/hull HP stats to "we realized we armor tank". The slot movement allows for better cap by different fitting. The increased bonus makes it the king of logistics. The archon still has the unpenalized resistance bonus and better base HP, so not stepping on toes there.
Hel wrote:
- increase remote-rep bonus to 7.5%
- swap shield and armor hp (= revert it back)
- move two medslots to lowslots
- reduce base speed to 70m/s
- decrease base align time to 75 seconds
- cut fighterbay to 125k m3
It still has the lowest EHP, but not by such a large margin. By being able to fit cap rechargers instead of power diagnostic systems the cap recharge issues should get better. Fitting armortank instead of shieldtank frees up some cpu. Fixes speed/agility. Moves minmatar caps from 1/3 armor/shield to 2/2 armor/shield for a clean divide. Adjust remote-repair efficiency. Emphasizes the nyx's role as attack supercarrier with offensive bonus by removing the extra spares.
Moros wrote:
- remove rof bonus
- add 5%tracking bonus (?)
A 5% RoF bonus adds 33% DPS. This is roughly what the moros is above the other dreads right now if I am correct. The tracking bonus is because I can't figure out any other even remotely useful bonus for it. If the RoF bonus removes too much DPS, bump the regular damage bonus to 7.5%.
Nyx wrote:
- increase fighterbay to 175k m3
Emphasize the nyx's role as attack supercarrier with offensive bonus and being gallente by giving it the extra spares removed from the hel.
Remote ECM Burst wrote:
- replace the tiny ball of tumbleweed effect
- decrease duration to 10 seconds
- increase base reactivation delay to 800 seconds
- decrease optimal to 100000
The current effect is embarrassing. The halfed duration from initiation to effect makes the module itself easier to apply. The reactivation delay pushes it up to 600 seconds at level 5, reducing ecm burst spam by large supercarrier groups by roughly 3.
Also, why are we limited to 5 quote boxes per post? |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
94
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:37:00 -
[96] - Quote
If you're going to keep the Nidhoggur as an armour tank, it would probably be a good idea to make the Chimera an armour tank too, to avoid it being a useless Billy-no-mates when it comes to carrier tanking style. Say, switch the shield resist bonus to armour, move three meds to lows and switch the shield RR bonus to armour. This should solve its CPU problems too. |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
Update:
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules |
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
197
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:14:00 -
[98] - Quote
Awesome, thank you!
CCP Tallest wrote:* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules One of the biggest problems here is that shield faction modules are exorbitantly more expensive than the corresponding armor modules. E.g. there is no "Imperial navy EANM" equivalent for shields for 30m, say. CN invuls are better, but they're also at 300m. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:15:00 -
[99] - Quote
Has there been any discussion as to nerfing remote tracking for Titans, to make sure they can't hit subcaps easily? |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:23:00 -
[100] - Quote
Wow; a few more steps towards sanity than i was expecting! Nice one!
I still think SC's need a 500-1000m3 regular drone bay, and that titans should have a 125m3 one (or at least let it field 5 light drones) though. |
|
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:25:00 -
[101] - Quote
When do Hels get to be not terrible? |
gfldex
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:28:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:* There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
I would really like to have a 2000dps passive tank of a drake. Before you open that can of worms you need to change the sig radius penalty for shield extenders to either a shield recharge penalty or a resi penalty (only for exp?).
Have a drake with a full passive tank and a tengu giving shield bonus (vulture with T2 WL does the same now) and shoot a station in highsec. Are you sure a T1 BC should be able to out tank that? Are you sure you want to improve passive shield tanks further? |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:29:00 -
[103] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Has there been any discussion as to nerfing remote tracking for Titans, to make sure they can't hit subcaps easily?
Actually, yes. I forgot to mention that. Added the following to my post:
Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters. |
|
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
89
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:33:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest.
Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
I guess that means, Titans can sill speedtank Dreads in Siege...
DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:36:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Has there been any discussion as to nerfing remote tracking for Titans, to make sure they can't hit subcaps easily? Actually, yes. I forgot to mention that. Added the following to my post: Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
Excuse me, I need to clean my keyboard.. I made a mess. |
Tropic9
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:43:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe?
|
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:44:00 -
[107] - Quote
Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. |
|
Tropic9
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. You Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:47:00 -
[109] - Quote
November? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:52:00 -
[110] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:November?
Well, it's on SISI in November.... |
|
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:52:00 -
[111] - Quote
Can you elaborate on the bumping issue?
Does this mean a fix to triage/siege (annoying as hell) bumping also? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
120
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced.
You know that's exclusively a Drake set that's going to make them even more silly, right? ;p
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
106
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:55:00 -
[113] - Quote
edit : damn 3mn too late |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:06:00 -
[114] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. You know that's exclusively a Drake set that's going to make them even more silly, right? ;p
It's really only the drake that would become redonkulous with the set. Drop basic shield resistance 5% across the board and bring down recharge time to compensate?
Really though it depends on cost of the sets and how often you see them.
( I hate drakes anyway) |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:10:00 -
[115] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. You know that's exclusively a Drake set that's going to make them even more silly, right? ;p
Don't be stupid/think about it. You may see a handful of people plugging in multibillion isk implant sets to make their drake 30-50% tougher. The drake should not be a concern re shield "slave" implants.
Also, CCP Tallest is the Tallest of my heart.
Tropic9 wrote:Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe?
You know Crystal sets don't work with capital modules, right? Otherwise, sure. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:19:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Has there been any discussion as to nerfing remote tracking for Titans, to make sure they can't hit subcaps easily? Actually, yes. I forgot to mention that. Added the following to my post: Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
I assume that will affect supercarriers as well, so they can't receive remote sensor boosting etc? Are any effects included aside from Remote Tracking Links and RSBs? |
gfldex
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:19:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced.
May I ask how a universe can be balanced that is leaning so hart over to the tank side that any attacker has to bring a super blob to destroy a ship before it can deaggress and dock/jump?
A proper balance would make gank fits viable at least in some situations. I never really liked the dmg mod nerf. Luckily Diablo III isn't to far away anymore. |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:22:00 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:[quote=Vincent Gaines]Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters. I love you and want to have your manbabies.
|
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:24:00 -
[119] - Quote
clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... |
Archetype 66
Pleasure and Pain Ares Protectiva
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:27:00 -
[120] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. You know that's exclusively a Drake set that's going to make them even more silly, right? ;p
Oh yeah and imagine what all Drakes pilots will do with a HG Shield's Slave set + 3 Estamel's Invul overheated = Damn CCP, you silly ?!?
If Drakes pilots start doing that, we will see nice Pod's Killmail soonGäó showing all those Set :)
|
|
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:28:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced. Strangely, I'd been pondering this for a while myself.
You know who needs to sell these new implant sets?
CONCORD
The biggest hassle with Concord LP is that they have such a limited set of items available and at HORRIBLE prices. These would improve things greatly.
I'll even give you names for the sets:
Justice - Shield HP Protector - Armor HP
Whaddaya think, sirs?
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:28:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Tropic9 wrote:CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Would this mean that there also will be an armor tank version of the crystal set? In order to preserve balance in the universe? That is entirely possible. I like my universe balanced.
Then remove the slave bonus to capitals then so an Aeon and Wyvern don't vastly overshadow the hel and NYX bonuses.-á
The fact is the Aeon and Wyvern have bonus to the tank and these sets bring HUGE increases to their Ehp. Where as a Nyx can do nothing to make its bonus better and the tanks of all 3 with the implants make the hel ****.-á
TL;DR You are going to make a ****** problem even more ****** if you let Crystal apply to shield tanks. -áIf you really want to balance out capital/supers remove the slaves. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:30:00 -
[123] - Quote
Adding those new implant sets would have to be carefully considered to make sure they don't break subcap balance.
You may want to consider just changing slaves so they no longer work on caps/supercaps. Would be another reasonable nerf to supercaps without creating overpowered rattlesnakes. |
Gramacy
Lazy.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:30:00 -
[124] - Quote
An alternative would be to disable Slave sets on capitals, that way you won't need to introduce extra implant sets. However I guess quite a lot of players would be upest about that...
I like the changes to supers but why does the Hel still have the RR bonus? It isn't really suited to that role, and it should have better offensive abilities as a compromise for its relatively weak local tank.
You could make the Angel shield resist mods equal in stats to Guristas then add deadspace invulerability mods to both factions. This should increase the supply signficantly (right now the only place to get good resist mods is in Guristas space). |
Archetype 66
Pleasure and Pain Ares Protectiva
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
Simple : shield recharge rate changed accordingly |
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:49:00 -
[126] - Quote
Just remove slave effects from supercapitals.
The last thing we need is for supercapitals to have their EHP back. |
Lightzy
Cult of the Spinning Meat
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:50:00 -
[127] - Quote
Dibsi Dei wrote:Just remove slave effects from supercapitals.
The last thing we need is for supercapitals to have their EHP back.
Yes please. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:53:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%.
I would prefer it if you changed the bonus to something else entirely and removed the range bonus for remote repair on all super carriers.
CCP Tallest wrote:* There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Passive Drakes will be even more stupidly OP and if you still decide to go with this, then I demand an armor repair implant set like the Crystal one.
The Economist wrote:I still think SC's need a 500-1000m3 regular drone bay, and that titans should have a 125m3 one (or at least let it field 5 light drones) though.
LEARN TO BRING SUPPORT!!! |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:53:00 -
[129] - Quote
damn double post |
Jyn Uin
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:58:00 -
[130] - Quote
Good changes, however I believe supers need more of an ehp nerf.
Capitals recieving an ehp buff to make them more viable against supers would be nice too. Or let dreads recieve RR in siege with t2 module that would be a good equalizer.
|
|
EmmerTemp
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:04:00 -
[131] - Quote
Very good to see that Titans get nerfed a little more, and shield (super) capitals are getting some love!
Thank, thank, thank you!!! |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:04:00 -
[132] - Quote
Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended.
Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:08:00 -
[133] - Quote
Jyn Uin wrote:Good changes, however I believe supers need more of an ehp nerf.
Capitals recieving an ehp buff to make them more viable against supers would be nice too. Or let dreads recieve RR in siege with t2 module that would be a good equalizer.
bump resists while in siege (not astronomically) just like I proposed with triage modules. They use stront... which reinforces POSs... would make sense that the stront makes a ship a little tougher. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:14:00 -
[134] - Quote
Just add the same penalty a dread receives while in siege mode to the titans. That way the guns and launchers shoot like they are in siege the entire time. |
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:24:00 -
[135] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended. Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem.
Yes the ad hominem argument, always leads to such a nice debate....
Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses.
Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure.
Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top. |
Cornette
Solar Revenue Service TAXU
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:38:00 -
[136] - Quote
Lightzy wrote:Dibsi Dei wrote:Just remove slave effects from supercapitals.
The last thing we need is for supercapitals to have their EHP back. Yes please.
So much this. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:38:00 -
[137] - Quote
No removal of the built-in Warp Core Stabilisers on supercapitals? I'm surprised, why do these ships need a bonus normally seen on non-combat vessels such as haulers?
Also, the new shield capacity implants - just make them increase shield recharge time by the same amount, so no change in passive tanks. It really is that simple. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:40:00 -
[138] - Quote
Aragote wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended. Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem. Yes the ad hominem argument, always leads to such a nice debate.... Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses. Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure. Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top.
I've been on both sides of this as a super pilot and now freed from being one.
With the changes, moms will be less effective on the front lines of the battlefield. But you can't look at them alone.
The dread buffs will make them more useful in combat- where you use them over a subcap/BC fleet that takes out a POS. In many retrospects, buffing POS guns on large towers might go a long way to helping with this. CCP has buffed the EHP on subcaps to where they can do a dread's job- take out fortifications.
Bring more dreads by buffing them and making them more viable, drop or reduce the negative effects of boosters, and you will also see carriers being used in a more offensive role as well (with the triage buff).
Your mom is still a cap killer. It's a damn good one at that, especially now it can still carry a healthy mix. It can still kill titans. And with the remote nerf to titans you will also live longer to kill more. With Titans and dreads unable to just log you will also be able to kill more with them.
Yes, you can no longer drop 5-20 moms on a subcap fleet and that sucks. But really they are overpowered and you know this. Of course the price is steep, and the drawbacks severe but you knew this coming in. you knew they were overpowered when Apocrypha was released, and you knew that eventually the prevailance of superblobs would become a game breaking issue.
Yes, I have a slight bias from being in MM. We could not match 200-300 supers on the field. You know.. you KNOW this was a problem. These super, super fleets could chew through POSs, iHubs, and stations in minutes.
Capital warfare should remain capital. It should involve a support fleet. And I'm sorry but some of these super alliances with hundreds of supers are going to hurt... just as much as they benefitted from them being overpowered.
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:44:00 -
[139] - Quote
Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go...
I think you mean
Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships blobs without proper support continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go...
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:52:00 -
[140] - Quote
Aragote wrote:Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses.
Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure.
Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top.
Considering scaps can't be even be webbed to into a seiged dread's 0.00000001 or whatever tracking that's a pretty big advantage over them (not to mention that you're not bolted to the floor for 5 minute intervals unable to receive RR support when you want to apply your damage). They can still quite effectively kill capitals and a bombing run every 2 minutes has always and will always be a way to remove drones/fighters/bomber dps from the field. Even if you had a second wave of fighter bombers in this hypothetical situation they would still fall victim to the same bombers two minutes later when their launchers reset. v0v
Admittedly, I'm quite enjoying this supercapital buyers remorse thing. Good stuff. Yay! |
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:01:00 -
[141] - Quote
Also, the Hel's remote repair bonuses are just silly. Fighterbombers aside, why even use a Hel in lieu of a Nidhoggur at a tenth of the cost (I guess it can't be jammed or whatever but yeah it's still pretty dumb) |
Seeme Not
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:06:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCPtallest wrote: Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
This must be a farce, a mean spirited jape. PL's ability to successfully camp Amamake or win subcap engagements by cheating with super caps would vanish in the blink of an eye.
Local chat will be a dry, desolate wasteland if this change is put into effect. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:06:00 -
[143] - Quote
The hel looks mostly like **** cause of slaves on an aeon. You take slaves out of the picture and you get a much more interesting mix of super capitals. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:07:00 -
[144] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hi Tallest,
Love to see that the nid (and minmatar caps in general) are getting some love. However, the nid still needs some help above and beyond what you've posted above.
The reppyest carrier around can't fit anywhere near a full triage rack. The archon can easily fit 4 capital remote armor reps and the triage module, with no fitting mods, and it's got that 5% bonus per level to resists and a massive capacitor. 81k GJ compared to 68k GJ of the Nid after your buff.
In comparison, a four-armor-rep triage nid is at 132% powergrid. If we completely gimp the carrier and drop a rep, we're at 111% of powergrid (800kMW, more than 80MW over and therefore still more than your buff).
A four-shield-rep triage nid is at 127% CPU. And that hasn't recieved a bonus at all. The only way that it fits is if you drop two reps.
And, what's worse, is that even without triage, it can't fit a full rack of either armor or shield reps. For the reppyest carrier in the game to be so terrible at repping purely because of fitting issues is disappointing. |
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:12:00 -
[145] - Quote
EDIT: Double post |
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:13:00 -
[146] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended. Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem. Yes the ad hominem argument, always leads to such a nice debate.... Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses. Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure. Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top. I've been on both sides of this as a super pilot and now freed from being one. With the changes, moms will be less effective on the front lines of the battlefield. But you can't look at them alone. The dread buffs will make them more useful in combat- where you use them over a subcap/BC fleet that takes out a POS. In many retrospects, buffing POS guns on large towers might go a long way to helping with this. CCP has buffed the EHP on subcaps to where they can do a dread's job- take out fortifications. Bring more dreads by buffing them and making them more viable, drop or reduce the negative effects of boosters, and you will also see carriers being used in a more offensive role as well (with the triage buff). Your mom is still a cap killer. It's a damn good one at that, especially now it can still carry a healthy mix. It can still kill titans. And with the remote nerf to titans you will also live longer to kill more. With Titans and dreads unable to just log you will also be able to kill more with them. Yes, you can no longer drop 5-20 moms on a subcap fleet and that sucks. But really they are overpowered and you know this. Of course the price is steep, and the drawbacks severe but you knew this coming in. you knew they were overpowered when Apocrypha was released, and you knew that eventually the prevailance of superblobs would become a game breaking issue. Yes, I have a slight bias from being in MM. We could not match 200-300 supers on the field. You know.. you KNOW this was a problem. These super, super fleets could chew through POSs, iHubs, and stations in minutes. Capital warfare should remain capital. It should involve a support fleet. And I'm sorry but some of these super alliances with hundreds of supers are going to hurt... just as much as they benefitted from them being overpowered.
Oh i perfectly agree with that. I have been a loud supporter of the supercapital nerf. I agree with the ehp removal. And i agree with the removal of classical drone bay. What i dont agree with is the reducing the drone bay size so much that you can only field 20 + some little spare amount of drones. Increase the drone bay amount so the scs can carry 40 drones so they can chose between utility or at least SOME versatility if they want to risk having their entire dps removed by a single bombing run.
And their dps role is vastly overshadowed by titans. It always was. What supercarriers were good for is larger force projection which they will lose now. (NOT A BAD THING!) But they still need another role then just pure anti capital dps platform. You have dreads and titans for that. Titans have other perks while dreads can dock. Supercarriers get all of the - but none of the +. Giving them the ability to carry 40 fighters/fighter bombers would at least give them something. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:19:00 -
[147] - Quote
If only they could do something with clone vat bays and their SMA that didn't totally blow ass or make them ******** overpowered.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:19:00 -
[148] - Quote
Svennig wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hi Tallest, Love to see that the nid (and minmatar caps in general) are getting some love. However, the nid still needs some help above and beyond what you've posted above. The reppyest carrier around can't fit anywhere near a full triage rack. The archon can easily fit 4 capital remote armor reps and the triage module, with no fitting mods, and it's got that 5% bonus per level to resists and a massive capacitor. 81k GJ compared to 68k GJ of the Nid after your buff. In comparison, a four-armor-rep triage nid is at 132% powergrid. If we completely gimp the carrier and drop a rep, we're at 111% of powergrid (800kMW, more than 80MW over and therefore still more than your buff). A four-shield-rep triage nid is at 127% CPU. And that hasn't recieved a bonus at all. The only way that it fits is if you drop two reps. And, what's worse, is that even without triage, it can't fit a full rack of either armor or shield reps. For the reppyest carrier in the game to be so terrible at repping purely because of fitting issues is disappointing.
I don't have a way to check this fit, but how does a triage mix fit work out? (2 shield, 2 armor)
|
ATTAKowl
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:28:00 -
[149] - Quote
They should give carriers and SCs two unbonused turret hardpoints just for fun, whats the worst that could happen? |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:29:00 -
[150] - Quote
Aragote wrote: Oh i perfectly agree with that. I have been a loud supporter of the supercapital nerf. I agree with the ehp removal. And i agree with the removal of classical drone bay. What i dont agree with is the reducing the drone bay size so much that you can only field 20 + some little spare amount of drones. Increase the drone bay amount so the scs can carry 40 drones so they can chose between utility or at least SOME versatility if they want to risk having their entire dps removed by a single bombing run.
And their dps role is vastly overshadowed by titans. It always was. What supercarriers were good for is larger force projection which they will lose now. (NOT A BAD THING!) But they still need another role then just pure anti capital dps platform. You have dreads and titans for that. Titans have other perks while dreads can dock. Supercarriers get all of the - but none of the +. Giving them the ability to carry 40 fighters/fighter bombers would at least give them something.
I want to address your wording of "force projection" because it is vital. the fact that one could jump tens of these onto any size fleet, including small gangs, is what you are referring to. They are high mobility, EW-immune, massive damage hellbeast killers that are untouchable without another fleet of them. As such there is no counter other than outblob the blob, ad infinitum.
They did raise the drone bay capacity although not by as much:
Quote:All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Throw some in your corp hanger (you can fit 10 max in a Wyvern) so now you have a full drone bay +5 and 10 in a corp hanger. Other drones, like sentries/ECM/logistics? That's what carrier support is for. Titans will of course out DPS a mom, they're titans.
In all honesty, your scenarios list things that a proper subcap fleet can work with. bombers in the area? Have dictors 30km from the area of attack with bubbles.
At the end of the day, your support is your versatility. |
|
Oberus MacKenzie
Nagrom Security Syndicate Flatline.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:32:00 -
[151] - Quote
I agree with Aragote. If you're going to restrict SC's to 2 types of drones at least give them room for spares. I wouldn't want to pay 15+ billion ISK for something that a bomber/cynabal/anything can easily neuter. At that point, who cares if they are immune to ewar? That being said, I love the SC nerf. The tears from SC pilots over having their "one ship armada" title stripped away are understandable but way overdue. Enjoy the memories and learn to fit RR.
As for the "implants would make Drakes super powerful" complaints, please ignore them. If someone wants to drop that much money on implants for a 60m ISK ship then it deserves to be hard to kill. The drake is one of a very few number of Caldari ships that can actually go toe-to-toe with other races and that is due entirely to its heavy tank. Stripping its shield resist bonus and nerfing its regen rate would relegate it to the same trash pile that the Moa and Rokh have been confined to. |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:36:00 -
[152] - Quote
No, blowing up FB cause you don't have the support to stop them should be an option. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:47:00 -
[153] - Quote
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:I agree with Aragote. If you're going to restrict SC's to 2 types of drones at least give them room for spares. I wouldn't want to pay 15+ billion ISK for something that a bomber/cynabal/anything can easily neuter. At that point, who cares if they are immune to ewar? That being said, I love the SC nerf. The tears from SC pilots over having their "one ship armada" title stripped away are understandable but way overdue. Enjoy the memories and learn to fit RR.
As for the "implants would make Drakes super powerful" complaints, please ignore them. If someone wants to drop that much money on implants for a 60m ISK ship then it deserves to be hard to kill. The drake is one of a very few number of Caldari ships that can actually go toe-to-toe with other races and that is due entirely to its heavy tank. Stripping its shield resist bonus and nerfing its regen rate would relegate it to the same trash pile that the Moa and Rokh have been confined to.
What's a cynabal/anything going to do to a super? Nothing.
Even a single bomber can't take out a FB or fighter unless it's being recalled and MWDs.
If you are ANYWHERE near where there is a fleet of those subcaps- even 8-10 of them, you should not be alone in your super or yes, you will die.
Saying it's not fair to pay 15b ISK for them to be vulnerable to losing offensive capibilities is stupid. It's scalable to saying you shouldn't lose a Vindicator to a Dramiel but you still can if you fly it like an idiot.
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:50:00 -
[154] - Quote
I largely don't have a problem with limiting SC to F/FB; my main concern over this was just addressed with the additional space--that is, adjusting your loadout is a PITA since you can't exactly dock and swap out drones in the bay, so being able to carry full flights+spares is a good thing.
Really looking forward to this update!
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:54:00 -
[155] - Quote
The bonus for the Hel is still crap and should be changed to something else. No one ever used his Hel as a remote reping battery which cost 20bil. If you really wish to apply this bonus, then also add a bonus toward cap regen.
After this patch a fitted Hel should have equal EHP as Nyx with fit and implants (both ship price + fit will be similar or close). The Nyx bonus is toward DPS, the Hel bonus is toward remote repping (lol?). So both should have same fitted EHP. It's the same for Aeon and Wyvern especially since they both have the same bonus. |
Kazumi Amano
Red Mist Inc. Red Shift Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:56:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump.
Hopefully this will also fix the issue when entering a ship from an SMA and having it start at 30% shield. Pretty please?
Or how about when you enter a wormhole with shield hp buff? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1053
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:58:00 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
I am liking everything in this.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 19:03:00 -
[158] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Awesome, thank you! CCP Tallest wrote:* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules One of the biggest problems here is that shield faction modules are exorbitantly more expensive than the corresponding armor modules. E.g. there is no "Imperial navy EANM" equivalent for shields for 30m, say. CN invuls are better, but they're also at 300m. Consider why that is though. Lacking a deadspace level in between officer and faction, those that would have liked to buy a deadspace one but can't afford an officer one will instead be willing to pay close to the same for a faction invul. Adding deadspace invuls will make any shield supercap that is using faction right now get rid of their faction invuls and get those deadspace ones, and some will do the same for other ships, thus prices drop. The faction damage specific armor hardeners cost roughly as much as the shield equivalents, the invul is the only one that doesn't and it also happens to be the only one that lacks deadpsace versions. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 19:57:00 -
[159] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: I don't have a way to check this fit, but how does a triage mix fit work out? (2 shield, 2 armor)
Under on CPU (96.4%), 111% of powergrid. The powergrid is over by 81K MW.
But it's a fit that no-one's going to use on triage.
If you're doing a rooks'n'kings style support of subcaps, you want a full rack. No-one runs mixed gangs. If you're doing hail-mary rep of, say, a titan, you want a full rack. But you can drop the CARs so you're under. If you're repping POS shields, you want a full rack. And even without triage or CARs, you're over on cap. If you're repping station shields, you want a full rack. And even without triage or CARs, you're over on cap.
Look at it this way.
Non-triaged, a 4x CRAR fit works fine without the powergrid buff, and that's with a heavy neut or smartie. Non-triaged, a 4x CST fit is at 107% CPU with an empty highslot.
The Nid's problem isn't the powergrid , it's the CPU.
|
wanking monkey girl
Capital Maintenance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
@CCP Tallest
ewar inmune is a welcome change thank you
further add to the super carrier to allow them to have the 20 fb and 20 fighters,
chimera review and triage state boost the capacitor to allow it to run 4 reps in triage with a full cap fit, at the moment a thanatos is able to do this but the prime shield carrier can not.
Quote:Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.
can we have them all listed this is the first post in this thread but gives no info to the other changes.
with the changes to super carrier will we be able to see them dock at some point its makes no sense to not let them dock given their role in eve after the next expansion, unable to defend itself to a solo hic for a possible 23h if it has agro. |
|
SmarncaV2
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:29:00 -
[161] - Quote
Aragote wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended. Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem. Yes the ad hominem argument, always leads to such a nice debate.... Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses. Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure. Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top.
And when you're gonna see 150 man carrier/dread blob you will throw your precious motherships at them... |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:40:00 -
[162] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: I don't have a way to check this fit, but how does a triage mix fit work out? (2 shield, 2 armor)
Under on CPU (96.4%), 111% of powergrid. The powergrid is over by 81K MW. But it's a fit that no-one's going to use on triage. If you're doing a rooks'n'kings style support of subcaps, you want a full rack. No-one runs mixed gangs. If you're doing hail-mary rep of, say, a titan, you want a full rack. But you can drop the CARs so you're under. If you're repping POS shields, you want a full rack. And even without triage or CARs, you're over on cap. If you're repping station shields, you want a full rack. And even without triage or CARs, you're over on cap. Look at it this way. Non-triaged, a 4x CRAR fit works fine without the powergrid buff, and that's with a heavy neut or smartie. Non-triaged, a 4x CST fit is at 107% CPU with an empty highslot. The Nid's problem isn't the powergrid , it's the CPU.
I don't think I've ever ran a full rack on my Chimera. I've run 3 CSTs before and can run 2 stable 3 in triage stable (it's been a long time since I've done it). In reality, while the other 3 carriers can fit a full rack, they don't use it. In my highs I usually run 2x CST, CET, and a smartbomb. If I know I'm doing a POS rep even as a suicide I would still only run a max of 3x CSTs CET and triage.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:41:00 -
[163] - Quote
OK, glad to see the Nid's PG issues being addressed, now how about fixing the Chimera's epic CPU issues? Archor is the armour equivalent and it can fit local dual rep, triage, capital energy and 3 capital remote reps without even being close on cpu of pg. Try fitting an equivalent shield fit on a chimera and see what happens. Only way of doing it is by spending 2bil on CN invulns and meta 2 cap mods which just isnt viable. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:45:00 -
[164] - Quote
I like what I see.
Would still prefer the hel to switch to armor, since a logistics-hub supercarrier using a different tanking type than nearly everyone around it is such an obvious, expensive lynchpin. |
Aragote
Skropec Raiden.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:04:00 -
[165] - Quote
SmarncaV2 wrote:Aragote wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go... less of a supercap blob to destroy subcap fleets = working as intended. Your alliance's modus operandi was limited to one trick, sounds like a personal problem. Yes the ad hominem argument, always leads to such a nice debate.... Please tell me with the current changes in mind why would any body fly a supercarrier in the form they will be after the patch? They are going to be massive slow bricks with dps comparable / worse then that of a dread. Dps that is removable with a single decent bombing run and they can not even use that dps to reinforce poses. Changes in this form will make supercarriers like the motherships of the old. None existent and definitely not worth their price. But you will see the 150 man carrier/dread blobs with the titans put in the mix for good measure. Dreads do not need any more buffs then those that are incoming. Even those might be a bit over the top. And when you're gonna see 150 man carrier/dread blob you will throw your precious motherships at them...
And get countered by 10 bombers since one bombing run will wipe all of your dps... |
Jeffrey Powel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:08:00 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote: * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set.
Cool story, so there need to be a armor boost amount set as a counterbalance to the crystal set. |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:25:00 -
[167] - Quote
well, if supers are supposed to be ewar imune, maybe they shouln't be able to get neuted ;-P but I think that might be a little bit overpowerd |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:40:00 -
[168] - Quote
The Hel still sucks, and in general you need to reduce the EHP difference between the SCs a heck of a lot more incidentally. Look at the difference between a properly fit and bonused aeon/wyvern vs the nyx or the Hel - it is far far too much. Bring them more into line, and give the Hel an actually relevant bonus.
Rag could probably use a bit more EHP to be in line with other titans.
Also, if you are feeling like a pro, get the nagflar to be ambi dextrous. Double bonuses and room for 4 launchers OR 4 guns (or any mix of the 2...) so minmatar dudes don't need to train twice the skills for capital weapons and supports. You have done this with one of the new t3 BCs I believe, so it is doable!
Yes I will be annoyed if you render 1.6 bil worth of slave set completely useless on my supercap dude, but c'est la vie. It would be a better balance.
20 fighter bombers and 20 fighters seems like a fair limit for SCs? No reason to limit them below that tbh |
Lili Lu
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:53:00 -
[169] - Quote
Please do not introduce any new implant sets. This will unbalance everything about subcap tanks. The simple solution is to limit slave effects to subcaps, like crystals are limited to affecting smaller than capital shield boosters.
As to shield hp getting immediate command buffs after a jump it is a valid complaint of shield tanking. But messing with new implants is a very dangerous thing that could un balance the present tanking relationships. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:55:00 -
[170] - Quote
CCP if you really want to give the Hel the logistic role, then I suggest you : - Create a new type of fighter. This new type is the cruiser size drone armor/shield repair - Give the Hel a new Drones bay just for them, so a Hel could at least use regular bomber/fighters as currently and also been able to take 10-15-20 (?) cruiser size repairs drones.
|
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
198
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:05:00 -
[171] - Quote
Having played around with some Nidhoggur fits, I have to agree that powergrid does not seem to be an issue.
The only fit I ran out of pg with was trying a R&K style triple armor rep triage setup, and 30k pg won't allow that, either (Archon can do it handily, btw).
Fitting a triage shield tank is slightly above cpu. Fitting a full shield tank is easily above cpu (+75 cpu would be nice), but that also has the problem that the lows are mostly useless (either you have no cap to run the shield booster, or you gimp your shield boost amount; the cap amount bonus might fix the flux coils, dunno). |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
198
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:16:00 -
[172] - Quote
Shield resist mods being more expensive than armor ones:
steave435 wrote:Consider why that is though. Lacking a deadspace level in between officer and faction, those that would have liked to buy a deadspace one but can't afford an officer one will instead be willing to pay close to the same for a faction invul. I like that explanation and hadn't thought of it, but I also think one of the issues is that there is no invul field on the level of the IN EANMs (28% resists) available from empire faction LP stores. Something like the Domination invul field (25%), maybe slightly better, from something that's not just drop-based would be nice. |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:28:00 -
[173] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Shield resist mods being more expensive than armor ones: steave435 wrote:Consider why that is though. Lacking a deadspace level in between officer and faction, those that would have liked to buy a deadspace one but can't afford an officer one will instead be willing to pay close to the same for a faction invul. I like that explanation and hadn't thought of it, but I also think one of the issues is that there is no invul field on the level of the IN EANMs (28% resists) available from empire faction LP stores. Something like the Domination invul field (25%), maybe slightly better, from something that's not just drop-based would be nice.
T2 Invuls have 30 % Caldari/ DG Invuls have 37.5 %
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 23:10:00 -
[174] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Awesome, thank you! CCP Tallest wrote:* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules One of the biggest problems here is that shield faction modules are exorbitantly more expensive than the corresponding armor modules. E.g. there is no "Imperial navy EANM" equivalent for shields for 30m, say. CN invuls are better, but they're also at 300m. You clearly haven't checked prices lately. The last CN Invuln I sold went for about 570 million ISK, and that was just a couple weeks ago. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 23:14:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules My main thoughts upon seeing this:
Won't we need Armor Crystals? Or will Shield Slaves have a lesser effect than the current HG implant rings (currently about 51 percent) ? What factions would these implants come from?
What will the effect on current Faction Invulnerability Fields be? Will they be nerfed, will they become cheaper? As it is now (and has been for ages), they are a wildly powerful improvement over standard invulns, meriting costs in the half-billion-isk range. Will they nerf them down to 33-35 percent and decrease the price? What will be the drop rate on deadspace invulns? They could concievably drive the price down on, or even obsolete, Caldari Navy Invulns if the existing modules are not changed.
I know these are things that CCP themselves probably have not figured out yet, but it gives an idea of the challenges that are met with such a decision. Some of the choices were easy: Fix shield leadership bonuses. All you need to do is make the bonused person's shields stay at the same percent-level as they were at prior to bonuses being applied.
But deciding to add new things to the mix, particularly Shield Slaves, could change the balance of power between different races and fleet compositions forever. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 23:34:00 -
[176] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:What will the effect on current Faction Invulnerability Fields be? Will they be nerfed, will they become cheaper? As it is now (and has been for ages), they are a wildly powerful improvement over standard invulns, meriting costs in the half-billion-isk range. Will they nerf them down to 33-35 percent and decrease the price? What will be the drop rate on deadspace invulns? They could concievably drive the price down on, or even obsolete, Caldari Navy Invulns if the existing modules are not changed. Why would that incorporate any nerf? Did you not read what he wrote? C-Type Invuls = Kaikka's B-Type Invuls = Thon's A-Type Invuls = Vepas' (X-Type Invuls = Estamel's ... they do not exist, similar to X-Type EANMs which would correspond to Chelm/Draclira/Cormack EANMs and do not exist either).
Basically, like with EVERY OTHER MODULE IN EVE. And like every Medium sized deadspace module, they will drop from 4/10, 5/10 and 6/10 plex overseer rats.
And he already wrote that this could also mean the introduction of armor crystals.
Quote:But deciding to add new things to the mix, particularly Shield Slaves, could change the balance of power between different races and fleet compositions forever. Oh my, oh my, RUN FOR THE HILLS. And negligible compared to the gangbonus reload change. Shield fleets not losing massive HP amounts to travel and jumps during fluid engagements will have a much bigger impact. Oh, and a positive at that.
@CCP Tallest: btw, isn't it time for high-grade secondary faction sets? HG Nomad, Centurion, Harvest, Edge etc |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 23:51:00 -
[177] - Quote
And all this wankerizing about Motherships getting nerfed... get a grip.
Motherships will still be the equivalent of high-DPS dreads, with excellent damage projection (that even follows its targets in warp for Pete's sake), Remote ECM Burst, no siege mode to worry about, and 10-30x the EHP of a Dread (can't be DD'd in one shot by Titans) with massively improved resists.
Seriously. How is that in any way bad. |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 23:58:00 -
[178] - Quote
How can you even compare EANMs to invuls? They give the same bonus, but they differ in one very obvious thing: One of them is active, the other one is passive. One of them gets high bonuses from skills, the other one doesn't.
Just to make myself clear: While the A-Type EANM says it gives a 28% bonus to all resists, it actually gives a 35% bonus after skills. And that is being a passive module. A faction invulnerability field gives either +37.5% bonus, or it gives the +15% standard bonus when offline. Read: Neuted out, and neuting out a super isn't terribly hard considering you need a couple ten thousand DPS to kill it.
This is, implants aside, the one major reason for imbalance between shield and armor supers: Shield supers do not have a passive invulnerability field. They're factually required to run 7 active hardeners at once (invuls needing 2x the cap of the damage specifics too), while an armor super only needs to run 4 damage specific armor hardeners.
Add to this that shield supers have to sacrifice tank to fit shinies like sensor boosters and warp disruptors (which should not at all be shinies but required).
All we really need are passive invulnerability fields, balanced to not replace their active counterparts obviously. |
bornaa
GRiD.
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:02:00 -
[179] - Quote
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:How can you even compare EANMs to invuls? They give the same bonus, but they differ in one very obvious thing: One of them is active, the other one is passive. One of them gets high bonuses from skills, the other one doesn't.
Just to make myself clear: While the A-Type EANM says it gives a 28% bonus to all resists, it actually gives a 35% bonus after skills. And that is being a passive module. A faction invulnerability field gives either +37.5% bonus, or it gives the +15% standard bonus when offline. Read: Neuted out, and neuting out a super isn't terribly hard considering you need a couple ten thousand DPS to kill it.
This is, implants aside, the one major reason for imbalance between shield and armor supers: Shield supers do not have a passive invulnerability field. They're factually required to run 7 active hardeners at once (invuls needing 2x the cap of the damage specifics too), while an armor super only needs to run 4 damage specific armor hardeners.
Add to this that shield supers have to sacrifice tank to fit shinies like sensor boosters and warp disruptors (which should not at all be shinies but required).
All we really need are passive invulnerability fields, balanced to not replace their active counterparts obviously.
I like you man...
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:03:00 -
[180] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:What will the effect on current Faction Invulnerability Fields be? Will they be nerfed, will they become cheaper? As it is now (and has been for ages), they are a wildly powerful improvement over standard invulns, meriting costs in the half-billion-isk range. Will they nerf them down to 33-35 percent and decrease the price? What will be the drop rate on deadspace invulns? They could concievably drive the price down on, or even obsolete, Caldari Navy Invulns if the existing modules are not changed. Why would that incorporate any nerf? Did you not read what he wrote? C-Type Invuls = Kaikka's B-Type Invuls = Thon's A-Type Invuls = Vepas' (X-Type Invuls = Estamel's ... they do not exist, similar to X-Type EANMs which would correspond to Chelm/Draclira/Cormack EANMs and do not exist either). Basically, like with EVERY OTHER MODULE IN EVE. And like every Medium sized deadspace module, they will drop from 4/10, 5/10 and 6/10 plex overseer rats. And he already wrote that this could also mean the introduction of armor crystals. Quote:But deciding to add new things to the mix, particularly Shield Slaves, could change the balance of power between different races and fleet compositions forever. Oh my, oh my, RUN FOR THE HILLS. And negligible compared to the gangbonus reload change. Shield fleets not losing massive HP amounts to travel and jumps during fluid engagements will have a much bigger impact. Oh, and a positive at that. False. In after you are a ragey wanker and you don't even think things through before posting them.
Take note that active hardeners are Gist, Pith, etc. (large size) while passive hardeners are Gistum, Pithum etc. (medium size). Therefore they will obviously drop from 7-10/10 sites. Also, X-Types would exist, because as they are Large size they have four tiers of deadspace. I don't know if you noticed this, but the reason only Large modules (like Heavy Nos and X-Large Shield Boosters) have X-Type variations is because Smalls drop from 1, 2, and 3/10, Mediums drop from 4, 5, and 6/10, while Larges drop from 7, 8, 9, and 10/10 sites: thus, having one more meta level available.
And, no, the gang bonus change doesn't make that huge a difference; unless you are bringing a Leviathan with you every single jump (I wouldn't be surprised lolol) it's 15% at most, which isn't THAT huge of a difference. (It's nice, but it isn't world-changing.) The big change will be in where Drakes, Vultures, Tengus, and more importantly Caldari capital and super-capital ships will be able to have 30 to 50 percent greater buffer tank. In conjunction with the leadership bonus change, the Wyvern would become the uncontested Number-1 largest tank in the game, while Tengus, Broadswords, Onyxes, and Vultures would gain even more ridiculous buffer/recharge tanks than ever before.
Next time please think before you post. |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:06:00 -
[181] - Quote
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:All we really need are passive invulnerability fields, balanced to not replace their active counterparts obviously. Yes, and while we're at it, let's add active omni-hardeners for Armor too, and take away shield recharge, and we'll have successfully removed all interesting differences and trade-offs between shield and armor forever. Good plan. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:08:00 -
[182] - Quote
I think he might really believe that if CCP were to introduce Cormack's Modified Supercharged Adaptive Nano Membrane, an active and overheatable 50% omni-resist armor hardener it won't get fitted to supercaps because its active.
So sad. |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:09:00 -
[183] - Quote
And about the supercap "nerf".
Like posters said before, I don't see how this is much of a nerf. 20% HP nerf is nothing really. Badly fitted Aeons and Nyxes have 50m EHP, which is 30 times that of a dreadnought, while maintaining the same DPS with a better projectability (they can actually leave/reenter the field/enter a pos). They also have Ewar-immunity, which is a pretty big blow rendering them invulnerable against the majority of subcap fleets (as if EHP wasn't enough).
Basically we're still looking at a ship that has 30 times the tank of a dread (~15 times with T2 mods), the same DPS of a dread and Ewar immunity for only 5 times the cost.
It's ridiculous that people count in the price they pay for their supers. No, supers don't cost 15b hull, they cost 10b in minerals, plus a few hundred mil for POS fuel and BPCs. You paying 4b extra should not be a reason to make them stronger. You fitting 5b worth of deadspace mods and T2 rigs shouldn't make them stronger either - nor should a 3b slave set.
Want to balance supercarriers? They cost 5 times as much as a Dread, so give them 5 times the tank of a dread. Hell, even 10 times. That would be a proper fix. |
Amsterdam Conversations
Cheesecake Starshine
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:10:00 -
[184] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:I think he might really believe that if CCP were to introduce Cormack's Modified Supercharged Adaptive Nano Membrane, an active and overheatable 50% omni-resist armor hardener it won't get fitted to supercaps because its active.
So sad. You make no sense at all. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:12:00 -
[185] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:If you are ANYWHERE near where there is a fleet of those subcaps- even 8-10 of them, you should not be alone in your super or yes, you will die.
Saying it's not fair to pay 15b ISK for them to be vulnerable to losing offensive capibilities is stupid. It's scalable to saying you shouldn't lose a Vindicator to a Dramiel but you still can if you fly it like an idiot.
Just thought I'd drop by to point out that this is literally the worst analogy I've ever seen. Vindicators *can't* have their primary offensive capability blown up. Also, Vindicators carry 90% webs and have a big drone bay, both of which give them great potential to kill smaller, lesser ships (another thing supers can't do now). Vindicators are an awesome example of a ship that, in exchange for large sums of money, is extremely powerful and capable of handling a diverse set of combat situations. Other than that though, great analogy. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 00:46:00 -
[186] - Quote
What about instead of making a slave set for shields, why not just make the crystal set work for cap ships . . . It may make the chimera a bit crazy but think about it . . . |
Jazz Styles
Sileo In Pacis
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 01:02:00 -
[187] - Quote
The Hel has always suffered from the lowest EHP of the supers. How about not nerfing it's shield HP at all, and keep the wyvern at -10%?. Also, who puts a remote rep on a supercarrier... (perhaps change its bonus to something useful, like fighter/bomber speed).
My two cents on the super nerf: Reducing their hitpoints isn't really going to help much, since they roam around in massive blobs anyway, usually with triage carriers on support. The real issue was the amount of damage they can put out vs dreadnaughts that are stuck in siege mode (i.e. insta-popping them). If you want dreads to be used more, the DPS of supers needs to be reigned in a bit.
Consider, if you will, reducing the bonus from 3 extra fighters per carrier level to 2, which will also reduce lag issues as well.
Edit: I think it really comes down to how much power you want to put in the hands of one pilot. ISK is not a restriction on how many of these things can be fielded by an alliance, so reducing supers by a given percentage of their current strength is a good way to mitigate their power (reduction of hitpoints and dps would cover it). |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 02:49:00 -
[188] - Quote
If CCP goes ahead and gives shield supers everything:
- shield "slave" implants - instant full shield bonus from gangboost on session change - deadspace invulns
They will be absurdly overpowered compared to armor supers. Armor supers do not have the "active module" version of the invuln/eanm, and do not get passive regeneration to their tanking layer. The Caldari supers will combine HUGE EHP -- much larger than armor supers -- with incredible passive tank (even in a pure EHP tank fit).
CCP is in serious danger of swinging supercap desirability too far to the shield supers instead of striking a balance. |
Nightshade's Redux
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 03:25:00 -
[189] - Quote
Good step forward here, fixing the things we've been asking to be fixed for years.
Removing the drones from SC's, while it hurts, itsnt such a bad thing. Id wish you did the same to Carriers, or implemented Drone / Fighter only bays for them as well, and limit the massive number of drones they carry.
Love the Shield Slave set idea, as long as they make it exclusive to Capitals, and or nerf shield recharge to compensate for it so we dont end up with massive passive tanks on Drakes / Nighthawks etc. Add in the bonus' change, and the A-Type Invul fields, and we may see the tables turned, with armor falling out of favor for shiled SC's.
Removing the EW immunity is far too much of a nerf. You need to have to put in some effort to kill a SC, and not just let some T1 fit kestrel tackle you, and you being unable to do anything about it.
So, who's selling a Ragnarok? |
Ressiv Arac
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:27:00 -
[190] - Quote
With double digit super-captials and triage carriers on the field, dreads need to be able to lock up more capitals at once, and switch targets quickly.
The Moros used to have a 50% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per skill level, and in the time of Dragon dreads could dock in siege. This made the Moros a terror of lowsec station games. A Moros could lock up a half dozen aggressed subcaps, pick one, disrupt, web and kill it. All while being in siege with a rep running, and if things got too hairy they could just de-aggress and dock. Players called out for nerf . Dock in siege was fixed, and dreads in siege got nerfed to 2 targets in Revelations II.
With no doomsdays in lowsec, Neuts, sensor boosters, a damage control II and 6x Reinforced Bulkheads II things were still bad. 3.7M EHP is hard to chew through over an aggression timer. In Dominion the Moros' drone bonus was cut from 50% to 20% per level, a 57.1% drone DPS nerf.
However soon the Moros will no longer have drones at all. The days of 250% bonus-ed Orge IIs sitting on an undock are gone. All the reasons for the Max Target Siege Nerf are gone.
Buff max targets in siege. |
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:31:00 -
[191] - Quote
pmchem wrote:If CCP goes ahead and gives shield supers everything:
- shield "slave" implants - instant full shield bonus from gangboost on session change - deadspace invulns
They will be absurdly overpowered compared to armor supers. Armor supers do not have the "active module" version of the invuln/eanm, and do not get passive regeneration to their tanking layer. The Caldari supers will combine HUGE EHP -- much larger than armor supers -- with incredible passive tank (even in a pure EHP tank fit).
CCP is in serious danger of swinging supercap desirability too far to the shield supers instead of striking a balance.
Shield supers only need to be fixed once. Giving them a smaller nerf to make up for lacking these things, and then adding them anyways will lead to problems. I couldn't care less which option is chosen, but doubling them up is brain damaged.
|
Aequitas Veritas
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:35:00 -
[192] - Quote
How about letting the scs dock now? Theres absolutely no reason to force a character to be stuck in one any longer... |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 08:55:00 -
[193] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: I don't think I've ever ran a full rack on my Chimera. I've run 3 CSTs before and can run 2 stable 3 in triage stable (it's been a long time since I've done it). In reality, while the other 3 carriers can fit a full rack, they don't use it. In my highs I usually run 2x CST, CET, and a smartbomb. If I know I'm doing a POS rep even as a suicide I would still only run a max of 3x CSTs CET and triage.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Except for the fact that you SHOULD.
You're confusing cap stability and fitting issues. A four rep archon isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four rep chimera isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four shield rep nid, the reppiest of carriers, is impossible without fitting mods.
If a carrier fleet is repping armor (incapped mods say, or the armor cycle of a sov structure) then the archons SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the chimeras can transfer cap to them to do so.
If a carrier fleet is repping shield (POS say, or shield cycle of a sov structure) then the chimeras SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the archons can transfer cap to them to do so.
Now, we bring in the nidhoggur. It's not the chimera or the archon - it has no bonus to tank. It's more vulnerable on the field. But it's got a super rep bonus. It should be the king of reps. It should be better than either the archon or the chimera at repping, right? I mean that's what it's for? But while a four armor rep nid is possible with no fitting issues, a four shield rep chimera needs TWO CO-PROCESSOR IIs to do it. Two fitting mods.
This is just wrong. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:20:00 -
[194] - Quote
#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . . #2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup
That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:21:00 -
[195] - Quote
Aequitas Veritas wrote:How about letting the scs dock now? Theres absolutely no reason to force a character to be stuck in one any longer... #1 youre not stuck in it, you can dock it in a CSMA #2 no, because you can then use it to RR a station and let them get you to 50% hull, then dock, repair for free and undock again ready to go . . . . we dont need invulnerable supercarriers RRing a station that they can just dock in. |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:36:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
97
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:45:00 -
[197] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:I like what I see.
Would still prefer the hel to switch to armor, since a logistics-hub supercarrier using a different tanking type than nearly everyone around it is such an obvious, expensive lynchpin.
Similarly, it would make sense to switch the Chimera, Phoenix, Wyvern and Leviathan to armour tanking, because of the lack of shield capitals and shield RR. This would also solve the entire shield-regen and Crystals/Slaves problems.
Or, maybe, you could actually solve the absurdity of three armour carriers and one shield one, by switching the Nidhoggur back to shield. It was a pretty stupid change to make in the first place and was significantly contributed to the dominance of armour on the capital level |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
Sigras wrote:#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . . #2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup
That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU
Yeah, but the thanatos doesn't have a rep bonus. It's like if the thanatos had a bonus to fighter damage but not enough bandwidth to fly all 10.
The other carriers don't need fitting mods to function in their role. The archon doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The chimera doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The thanatos doesn't need a fitting mod to be able to utilise its fighter bonus. Why are you saying it's OK for the nidhoggur to need TWO fitting mods to utilize its bonus in shield, when it's already able to do it in armor without ANY? |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:00:00 -
[199] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: I don't think I've ever ran a full rack on my Chimera. I've run 3 CSTs before and can run 2 stable 3 in triage stable (it's been a long time since I've done it). In reality, while the other 3 carriers can fit a full rack, they don't use it. In my highs I usually run 2x CST, CET, and a smartbomb. If I know I'm doing a POS rep even as a suicide I would still only run a max of 3x CSTs CET and triage.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Except for the fact that you SHOULD. You're confusing cap stability and fitting issues. A four rep archon isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four rep chimera isn't stable, but it's a possible fit. A four shield rep nid, the reppiest of carriers, is impossible without fitting mods. If a carrier fleet is repping armor (incapped mods say, or the armor cycle of a sov structure) then the archons SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the chimeras can transfer cap to them to do so. If a carrier fleet is repping shield (POS say, or shield cycle of a sov structure) then the chimeras SHOULD be able to (and can) fit 4 reps, and the archons can transfer cap to them to do so. Now, we bring in the nidhoggur. It's not the chimera or the archon - it has no bonus to tank. It's more vulnerable on the field. But it's got a super rep bonus. It should be the king of reps. It should be better than either the archon or the chimera at repping, right? I mean that's what it's for? But while a four armor rep nid is possible with no fitting issues, a four shield rep chimera needs TWO CO-PROCESSOR IIs to do it. Two fitting mods. This is just wrong.
Well I've to agree here.. because fitting 2 Co-Processors is not an option that amount of tank or cap you lose while doing that is absurd! This talk about the nidhoggur having 2 extra lowslots anyways is stupid because you can not compare chimera with nidhoggur thats plain stupid. +10% CPU is what would make the nidhoggur work in most cases sure a few will still need a Co-processor but thats okey because in some cases even a chimera needs one.. so its only fair! |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:19:00 -
[200] - Quote
local and remote shield reps have BROKEN cpu requirements
if you want to fit a full rack of remote shield reps & a local rep it would take 1175 cpu and 450,000 power grid
142% of the chimera base cpu and 100% of the chimera base power grid
if you want to fit a full rack of remote armor reps & a local rep it would take 275 cpu and 875,000 power grid
44% of the archons base cpu and 112% of the archons base power grid
|
|
Caneb
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:21:00 -
[201] - Quote
Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.
We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants. |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:33:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update: * Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ? After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp. If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.
2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ? Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V. Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)
You should try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.
|
freed0m rus
Brotherhood. Death or Glory
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:36:00 -
[203] - Quote
shields slaves, as well as a-type invuls is a bad idea. just deny slaves for capitals, just like crystals. thinner supers = more kills = more fun, amirite? :) |
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:43:00 -
[204] - Quote
Aragote wrote:clap clap, motherships continue on the path of uselessnes go ccp go...
Poor babbi Raidendot a bloo bloo bloo |
LacLongQuan
Deep Space Expedition.
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:48:00 -
[205] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote: 1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ? After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp. If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.
2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ? Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V. Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)
You should try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.
^this
dont give shield slave, dont make deadspace invul. shield and armor are fine as it is. remove the passive recharge on shield, make invul passive, then we'll talk about shield slave |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:12:00 -
[206] - Quote
LacLongQuan wrote:Akara Ito wrote: 1. You do realise that a shield slave set would boost to Wyvern to EHP levels even the Aeon couldnt get before the nerf ? After the nerf a decent fit Wyvern with fulll tank setup should have about 40m ehp. If the shield slave set would be similar to the armor one Wyvern would end up with 60m ehp before any kind of fleet bonus.
2. Why is there a need for deadspace Invuls if the current faction ones are already hell of a lot better than faction EANMs ? Even the T2 Invuls have a better bonus than a Navy EANM with all V. Caldari Navy/DG Invuls have 37.5 % bonus, thats more than a-type EANM with all V (35,3906%)
You should try to make Shield and armor equal at all cost.
^this dont give shield slave, dont make deadspace invul. shield and armor are fine as it is. remove the passive recharge on shield, make invul passive, then we'll talk about shield slave
and why not? why should only armor tanks have a implant set that gives them a MASSIV boost in ehp while shield tanker only get a implant set that is useless in pvp.. and a shield slave set will not break shield tank supers because their hardners (invus) need cap its impossible to fit a shield super passiv the same way you do with armor so dont complain.. also trying to compare faction invus with eanm's is retraded! why? one needs capacitor to work the other not.. plus the bonus res passiv armor hardner and eanm's get from skills do not stake so if you take staking into account right now Faction invu vs A-Type EANM should be about equal with the differnce that invu will need cap to work.. |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:22:00 -
[207] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:and why not? why should only armor tanks have a implant set that gives them a MASSIV boost in ehp while shield tanker only get a implant set that is useless in pvp.. and a shield slave set will not break shield tank supers because their hardners (invus) need cap its impossible to fit a shield super passiv the same way you do with armor so dont complain.. also trying to compare faction invus with eanm's is retraded! why? one needs capacitor to work the other not.. plus the bonus res passiv armor hardner and eanm's get from skills do not stake so if you take staking into account right now Faction invu vs A-Type EANM should be about equal with the differnce that invu will need cap to work..
The problem is that a shield slave set and deadspace invuls would kill the effect from the nerf. You'd end up with Wyvern with 70m or 80m ehp when even the 55m EHP of an Aeon where already considered too much...
The stats we have now are about 43m ehp for Wyvern and 53m ehp for Aeons. If you increase the Wyvern ehp by 56 percent as the slave does you end up with a Wyvern thats soo much better than the other SCs that its absurd.
A high grade shield slave would kill the balance more than the current armor slave sets do. And it would be just another boost for Supers.
And seriously, Capacitor might be a consideration for Invuls on Drakes, but not on Supers. And since you'd fit 500m+ Invuls only on large/expensive ships, capacitor is an inadequate balancing measure. |
Levistus Junior
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:25:00 -
[208] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:And all this wankerizing about Motherships getting nerfed... get a grip.
Motherships will still be the equivalent of high-DPS dreads, with excellent damage projection (that even follows its targets in warp for Pete's sake), Remote ECM Burst, no siege mode to worry about, and 10-30x the EHP of a Dread (can't be DD'd in one shot by Titans) with massively improved resists.
Seriously. How is that in any way bad.
Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve: -about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too) -about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP -you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers. -dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).
|
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:33:00 -
[209] - Quote
Levistus Junior wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:And all this wankerizing about Motherships getting nerfed... get a grip.
Motherships will still be the equivalent of high-DPS dreads, with excellent damage projection (that even follows its targets in warp for Pete's sake), Remote ECM Burst, no siege mode to worry about, and 10-30x the EHP of a Dread (can't be DD'd in one shot by Titans) with massively improved resists.
Seriously. How is that in any way bad. Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve: -about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too) -about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP -you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers. -dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).
All these things wont work because the limiting factor in EVE are people. If you have 100 Supers in Fleet you cant replace them with 1300 Dreads for Obvious reasons. |
ATTAKowl
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:27:00 -
[210] - Quote
Armor tanking capitals have already dominated for over 5 years right? Sorry, but I think you all had your fun, its time for this game to evolve. Stop being afraid.
Shield tank is the future! Bring on the 'crystalslave' implants! Time to collect the tears of Nyx and Aeon pilots.
PS, why do so many people in this thread think the Crystal set currently works on capitals? You are shting up the feedback. |
|
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:28:00 -
[211] - Quote
I think a nice ballance to the restartable 15 mins agro would be the same thing for people on gates and at stations.
The main reason the in space aggression was put in place was because supers could just log and had soo many hit pints in 99% of ocasions they could not be killed in time. Are people that play station games in 0.0 with the knowledge that they can just dock up again not doing exactly the same thing. Now I'm not suggesting that if you are shot but do not shoot back you should be stuck in space, BUT if you shoot at a hostile you should not only be stuck with a 30 second aggresion timer. This times should be increased to a value that almost garuntees your death if you are caught. something like 120 seconds. possibly even up to 300 seconds. This should also be the case on Gates, if you choose to engage that should be it. You win or Die, no more jumping through gates all the time to get to safety. If the vast majority wanted no way for supers to disengage it should be the same for all.
Sub cap pilots shouldn'y be able to have their cake AND eat it. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:42:00 -
[212] - Quote
I have a list of additional cap mods I'd like to see added to round them off.
Cap Armor plates/Shield Extenders Cap Scram/Disruptor (I know officer ones have cap fitting requirements but I want regular T1 versions) Cap Vamp/Energy disruptor. Cap smart bomb Cap Cap injector Cap Stassis webifier. Cap AB and MWD
Battle ship fleets have all these modules available to them to assist with engaging HAC fleets, why dont caps have the same modules to enable them to engage smaller ships. Before you go saying that this will make them overpowered as they can instantly cap out HACs but cant BS already do that to frigates.
|
wanking monkey girl
Capital Maintenance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 15:05:00 -
[213] - Quote
so lets move away from implants and look at the doomsday after CRUCIBLE can we have the DD mod change so its a 5m cool down time and needs less fuel to fire it 50k is still a lot so a 50% cut will be welcomed.
|
Axexut
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 16:15:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
Finally!!!!!!
Thank you for finally putting shield supers on par with their armor cousins!!!!!!!!!!!!
To those complaining about the deadspace invuls: You armor guys have the deadspace meta 13 EANMs. We should have a meta 13 Invul. Now, if they were doing a meta 14 and didn't give you guys one . . . . THAT would be unfair.
To those suggesting that instead of shield-equivalents to slaves that CCP should just remove slaves or make them sub-cap-only: Have you seen the damage boosts on dreads and the new Tier 3 BCs????? Still have to log my dread on SISI, but hearing reports of 10k dps on a Moros.
Finally, to those suggesting that someone is going to be dumb enough to stick multi-billion Isk implants into their drake pilot: You do know we are get to see implants on pod KMs now right?
Now just please give us T2 capital weapons and ammo and all wiill be right with the world! |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:29:00 -
[215] - Quote
Caneb wrote:Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.
We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants.
I came here to post this.
There's no point taking away 10% of shield hitpoints for the shield supercaps if you're just going to give it straight back (and more!) in the form of a new implant set (which every pilot will have, because when you're spending 10s of billions on a hull you're not going to hold back on a couple of extra billion to massively boost your hitpoint total). Instead, go for parity by changing slaves from armour hitpoint bonuses to active tank bonuses. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 18:59:00 -
[216] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Sigras wrote:#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . . #2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup
That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU Yeah, but the thanatos doesn't have a rep bonus. It's like if the thanatos had a bonus to fighter damage but not enough bandwidth to fly all 10. The other carriers don't need fitting mods to function in their role. The archon doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The chimera doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The thanatos doesn't need a fitting mod to be able to utilise its fighter bonus. Why are you saying it's OK for the nidhoggur to need TWO fitting mods to utilize its bonus in shield, when it's already able to do it in armor without ANY? im saying that because it has more low slots . . . it has the low slots to waste on co-processors . . . . what else are you going to put in those slots? PDS?
I know its kinda strange that they dont have a problem fitting armor tanking mods, but thats because you cant use fitting mods when armor tanking, youre already using the low slots! when shield tanking, youre not using all those low slots so you can afford to put some co-processors on there. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 19:24:00 -
[217] - Quote
are we going to get some form of super cap gift package like last time so we can get some real tests going on these ships, or is it just all going to be lip service till the nerfs are just rammed down our throat any way? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:16:00 -
[218] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Svennig wrote:Sigras wrote:#1 i think youre forgetting that the nidhogger has the extra lows to fit those co-processors . . . in fact, coincidentally, it has exactly two extra low slots over the chimera to fit those two extra co-processors . . . #2 lets not forget that the thanatos has the same problem, it doesnt really totally fit in a shield or an armor setup
That being said, I wouldnt mind loosening up the fitting on the nidhogger a bit maybe +50 CPU Yeah, but the thanatos doesn't have a rep bonus. It's like if the thanatos had a bonus to fighter damage but not enough bandwidth to fly all 10. The other carriers don't need fitting mods to function in their role. The archon doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The chimera doesn't need a fitting mod to capitalize on its tank bonus. The thanatos doesn't need a fitting mod to be able to utilise its fighter bonus. Why are you saying it's OK for the nidhoggur to need TWO fitting mods to utilize its bonus in shield, when it's already able to do it in armor without ANY? im saying that because it has more low slots . . . it has the low slots to waste on co-processors . . . . what else are you going to put in those slots? PDS? I know its kinda strange that they dont have a problem fitting armor tanking mods, but thats because you cant use fitting mods when armor tanking, youre already using the low slots! when shield tanking, youre not using all those low slots so you can afford to put some co-processors on there.
"To waste" on co-processors?? PDS?!? Sorry, it's becoming abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. In the lows go the armor tank and capacitor power relays. It's a capital ship, cap is life. You need it as quick as you can to jump out, or as quick as you can to run the reps as often as possible. Losing two cap mods for fitting mods is an abomination. And PDS?!?? The nid doesn't shield tank.
If you're shield tanking (as if you would with a nid) you need those low slots for Capacitor Power Relays IIs to replace the Cap Recharger IIs you lost in the midslots to the shield tank. They are never "OK" to lose, they are needed for cap mods at all times. Especially on the nid, which doesn't have the insane natural cap battery that the archon does.
Now to re-iterate: the nid doesn't shield tank.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:37:00 -
[219] - Quote
if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:42:00 -
[220] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Caneb wrote:Instead of adding shield slaves, change the current slaves to the equivalent of armor crystals.
We don't need more ridiculus supercap-only implants. I came here to post this. There's no point taking away 10% of shield hitpoints for the shield supercaps if you're just going to give it straight back (and more!) in the form of a new implant set (which every pilot will have, because when you're spending 10s of billions on a hull you're not going to hold back on a couple of extra billion to massively boost your hitpoint total). Instead, go for parity by changing slaves from armour hitpoint bonuses to active tank bonuses. Better yet, don't change anything at all. I think changing Slaves to active tank is a terrible idea. |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:44:00 -
[221] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:Levistus Junior wrote:Thinking at alliance level, putting the ISk equivalent of a supercarrier in dreads on the filed (that;s 13 at roughly 20 bil a fitted SC vs. 1.5 bil a fitted dread) you achieve: -about 10 times more DPS (that can shoot POSes too) -about 2/3 EHP (13x2 mil EHP=26 bil EHP -you can only reduce the incoming DPS by killing dreads, which is more difficult than killing bombers. -dreads are insurable (meaning you can probably lose 2-3x the equivalent ISK value in dreads before you get the same net loss as for a supercap).
All these things wont work because the limiting factor in EVE are people. If you have 100 Supers in Fleet you cant replace them with 1300 Dreads for Obvious reasons. No, it does work, because the original complaint was "BAWWW MOTHERSHIPS ARE NO GOOD ANY MORE"
Besides, on an alliance level, ISK barely even matters for this kind of thing.
Addendum: The point is, at least now dreads and moms each have a role that they can fill; Motherships don't take away the role of Dreads, and vice versa. Throughout this argument the only point that has been nailed home is that CCP achieved what they wanted with these changes. |
Cheekything
Black Lance Executive Outcomes
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 00:07:00 -
[222] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Awesome, thank you! CCP Tallest wrote:* There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules One of the biggest problems here is that shield faction modules are exorbitantly more expensive than the corresponding armor modules. E.g. there is no "Imperial navy EANM" equivalent for shields for 30m, say. CN invuls are better, but they're also at 300m.
At the same time armour needs an active ENAM version too :P |
LORD DRAGUIL
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 01:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
Based on feedback, the following changes have been made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They will most likely come to SISI on Monday or Tuesday.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Thanks for the bone but the proposed changes are way too much , 1) log off tactic fixed (only one really needed to kill a supercarrier). 2) No drones other than fighter or fighter bomber, Woot cant defend itself against fast moving BS and lower. 3) hit point nerf see above statement
Wanna throw a bone try letting them carry full set 20/20 fighters and bombers, and dockable..
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 02:35:00 -
[224] - Quote
Sigras wrote:if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier?
Actually, if you are running a triage carrier on a Nid atm, and the fleet you are repping is fit with shields, you need to run an armor tank. If, however, the fleet is armor tanked, you need to run a shield tank. This is all due to CPU and PG considerations. This makes the ship interesting to fly (I am actually training a character right now for that purpose).
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest.
Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Stupid Quote limit
Supercarriers: Makes sense, what you proposed was kinda an over-nerf. I could even understand upping them to take 20/20 or 25/20 for the nyx. Also, if you want to consider there to be a tradeoff between fighters and fighter bombers, make sure that (all) fighters can *actually* hit a battleship sitting still properly.
Shield Supers: Meh, does not fix the basic issues. Be very careful when introducing deadspace invuls and shield slave equivalents as well as fixing boosters. Do not forget that, if you do, armor needs a crystal equivalent.
Naglfar: Was not aware of an issue, I doubt this will have a significant effect
Nid: Looks fine, nice that it will not get screwed over by neuts quite so much. You may be able to run a self rep + remote rep armor carrier now. Not sure if I am happy about that, was kinda looking forward to running the Nid with self shield and remote armor reps, but w/e. Was part of what made the ship unique.
CCP Tallest wrote:Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Still Terrible, try giving it room for 50 fighters + fighter-bombers. People may have a reason to use them. Maybe give it a bonus to fighter damage and change nyx to only give a bonus to fb damage. Be creative.
CCP Tallest wrote:XL autocannons: * +50% falloff
Was needed to keep them more like their smaller cousins.
CCP Tallest wrote:Titan tracking issue: * "Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare" will also make you immune to remote "electronic assistance", that is: remote tracking enhancers and remote sensor boosters.
About time.
EDIT: Did I miss the bit where you gave the Chimera another 20% CPU? |
Nuskoginus
PPN United Pure Madness.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 05:07:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Maybe the shield buff is a bit too heavy. Just some numbers for you:
Situation now on Tranquility:
[Aeon, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Energized Regenerative Membrane II Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Thermic Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Kinetic Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Explosive Hardener
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II
[Wyvern, New Setup 1] Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Damage Control II
Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Core Defence Field Extender II Large Core Defence Field Extender II Large Core Defence Field Extender II
Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls. If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps. And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well. This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime. So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet. |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 06:19:00 -
[226] - Quote
Nuskoginus wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Shield supercapitals * Shield nerf changed from -20% to -10% (shield recharge rate also changed accordingly) ** New values should be 90% of current TQ value
Naglfar * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Maybe the shield buff is a bit too heavy. Just some numbers for you: Situation now on Tranquility: [Aeon, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Energized Regenerative Membrane II Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Centum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Corpus X-Type Armor EM Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Thermic Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Kinetic Hardener Corpus X-Type Armor Explosive Hardener [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II [Wyvern, New Setup 1] Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Brokara's Modified Power Diagnostic System Damage Control II Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Core Defence Field Extender II Large Core Defence Field Extender II Large Core Defence Field Extender II Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls. If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps. And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well. This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime. So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet.
so as they currently are Aeon 54m ehp with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor Wyvern 43m kva3000 6% shield
-20% & 10%
Aeon 43.2 Wyvern 38.7
Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile
Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so
10% leadership bonus Aeon 47.52' Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57
Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 06:30:00 -
[227] - Quote
Sigras wrote:if the nid doesnt shield tank, why are you complaining about not being able to fit shield mods . . . I only assumed if you were using shield mods, youd want a shield tank so you could spider tank if you got attacked . . . can you please tell me the practicality of using shield transporters on an armor tanking carrier?
Repping POS. Repping stations. Repping iHubs. Repping the shield-based subcap support fleet if needed. Repping chimeras in the gang (if you have any). Repping any nags or phoenixes. Repping any whyverns or rags or levis. But mostly, repping structures. That most-boring of tasks which you need to go as quickly as humanly possible.
And you need to do this from a capfleet that is overwhelmingly armor. Archon is armor. Thanatos is armor. That's the two most popular carriers. Aeon is armor. Nyx is armor. That's the two most popular SCs. Erebus is armor. Avatar is armor. That's the two most popular titans.
The Nid's bonuses make it explicit: It's the carrier with the best reps and can be used to rep "outside the gang", i.e. repping shield from an armor gang, or repping armor from a shield gang (for incapped POS mods say, or an armor cycle of a sov timer). The thing is, while you can do a "shield gang repping armor" nid fit quite easily without any buff from tallest (although your EHP is significantly lower), you cannot do an "armor gang repping shield" nid fit without completely compromising the ft by utilising two fitting mods.
And it's not due to powergrid issues, it's due to CPU.
|
LacLongQuan
Deep Space Expedition.
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 11:44:00 -
[228] - Quote
Nuskoginus wrote: Both setups have no Implants and as you can see I have fitted only Dread Guristas Invuls and no Offices Invuls. If you compare the EHP it is 33.8 mil (Wyvern) vs. 34.6 mil (Aeon). Now lets take into account that you reduce 20% armor, 20% structure and 10% shield. The situation is that the Aeon falls below 29 mil EHP and the Wyvern stays at 31 mio EHP. But there are two big differences. 1. the Wyvern has better resists than the Aeon which means it can be easier supported and it has their passive tanking abilities because of the passive shield recharge that stays at 3300dps. And now lets say that the effect of slave sets will work for shields as well. This would push the Aeon to a maximum of 43 mil EHP and the Wyvern to 46,5 Mio. Again lets take a look at the the passive shield recharge and it has increased to 5000 DPS. This means that nearly 10 Battleships can open fire on this new designed Wyvern forever without having any chance to kill until the next downtime. So my suggestion would be that the shield supers need some love but not that much. Probably just drastic minimize the shield recharge rate for Wyverns, Hels, Leviathans and Ragnaroks and remove this crap that the shield needs to load up again if you have shield boni from gang and you jump into another system or join a fleet.
this is the problem if shield has slave. plus woth a cap pool of SC, stop complaining you dont have enough cap to run a few hardener |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 11:58:00 -
[229] - Quote
SuperBeastie wrote: so as they currently are Aeon 54m ehp with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor Wyvern 43m kva3000 6% shield
-20% & 10%
Aeon 43.2 Wyvern 38.7
Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile
Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so
10% leadership bonus Aeon 47.52' Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57
Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense.
So, the Aeon has 10 % more ehp now. Its an Armot Tank its supposed to have more EHP in general and the advatage here is only 10%. If shield slaves would be used for the Wyvern it would get 56% more ehp, thats means about 65m compared to 47.5m for the Aeon. That would kill the balancing a lot more than those 10% difference we have now.
|
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:26:00 -
[230] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:SuperBeastie wrote: so as they currently are Aeon 54m ehp with slaves and zet 5000 10% armor Wyvern 43m kva3000 6% shield
-20% & 10%
Aeon 43.2 Wyvern 38.7
Also if you think passive recharge matters when it comes to a super capital fight you are sadly mistaken I'd rather have ehp Also if you take into account these energy neut fleets people fly with now days can neut out you titan or super carrier in under a minute making all the hardeners on shield supers turn off while A aeon eanm are just as effective and it also has all kinds of free mid slots that make it more versatile
Now on top of all that the way that shield bonuses are applied is broke so
10% leadership bonus Aeon 47.52' Wyvern 38.7 of 42.57
Than because the Wyvern does have better resists it get less of a bonus from the siege warfare link shield harmonizing due to diminishing returns than a aeon would from a armored warfare link passive defense.
So, the Aeon has 10 % more ehp now. Its an Armot Tank its supposed to have more EHP in general and the advatage here is only 10%. If shield slaves would be used for the Wyvern it would get 56% more ehp, thats means about 65m compared to 47.5m for the Aeon. That would kill the balancing a lot more than those 10% difference we have now.
No it would not because you can kill the tank of any shield tanked cap/super with neuting quiet fast. But you cant do this against a aeon because of the nature of her tank being passiv (no cap consumed). All it would mean is that you'd need to apply different tactics against shield tanked supers if you want to take them down fast.. if you do you will kill them faster then aeons and nyx's if you dont it will take longer and you suffer heavier losses seems fair to me. Different ships and design different tactics. |
|
Nuskoginus
PPN United Pure Madness.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 15:09:00 -
[231] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote: No it would not because you can kill the tank of any shield tanked cap/super with neuting quiet fast. But you cant do this against a aeon because of the nature of her tank being passiv (no cap consumed). All it would mean is that you'd need to apply different tactics against shield tanked supers if you want to take them down fast.. if you do you will kill them faster then aeons and nyx's if you dont it will take longer and you suffer heavier losses seems fair to me. Different ships and design different tactics.
The tactic is always the same. You neut the super, their hardeners go offline and you kill it. There is no difference between shield tanked and armor tanked ships. |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 15:57:00 -
[232] - Quote
1-. Dont allow BuffFleets and hp-implants effects apply on Supers and Titan. Them you can easy rebalance SC Hp with no risk to affect subcaps tank performance..
2-. Remove the possibility to fit remote repairs on Supers. Keep RR task only for carriers.
Proposed Hel bonus have no future in blobs-warfare based on massive Hp and dps.
S! |
Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics K162
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 15:59:00 -
[233] - Quote
As many have already stated, I think removing the effectiveness of slaves on supercaps is a better change than adding a shield equivalent to the slaves. That creates problems with stuff like bait drakes in low sec (where you aren't worried about your clone) getting even more silly. Maybe reduce the armor EHP nerf to 10% as well if you remove slaves for supers.
Lots of complaints about nid capacitor compared to archon. Given their significantly better rep ability, the new ratio suggested seems to make sense. Doesn't seem to be a need to boost it further.
Triage II module remains underwhelming. Lots of places to boost it a bit further imo, just pick one and go with it. Minor bonus to local rep duration or amount or remote duration or amount, boost scan res further, etc. Not suggesting all of the above, just a bit more of a boost. 20% lock range bonus just seems confusing because it isn't terribly relevant.
edit> oh yeah, please no passive shield invuln. Armor/Shield having differences is a good thing imo. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 22:45:00 -
[234] - Quote
PhunnestyleSchool of Applied KnowledgeCaldari StateLikes received: 25 #2421 Posted: 2011.11.06 20:08 | Edited by: Phunnestyle
Limiting SCs to only being able to take 20-25 fighters/fighter bombers is totally fail,what idiot thought of that really, Some1 with no idea of how Supers will actually be used after the patch. Alot of out of touch people obviously had these half arsed idea's. With only enough room for 20-25 Supers will only have fighters,they will have no fighter bombers, this is reality & fact. Fighters will be ONLY used as manditory with target painters in the mids. So why CCP did you create Fighter bombers if there not going to be used due to this failure of sight. Need enough room for 20fighters & 20fighter bombers OR if drone hold capacity is going to be half it is now, then you should be able to deploy 10fighters or 10fighter bombers & double up the damage. Honestly so fail...... Listen to the the Pilots that actually fly the ships day in day out, We want a nerf also, but 1 wich will refine down supers not make certian niche aspects such as fighter bombers a no go area. (sigh)
If slaves where going to be taken away (IF) then supers should damn well get that 20% overall natural EHP back. |
Demitrios
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 03:29:00 -
[235] - Quote
Well i was going to have a play with the new settings, but then kenzoku decided to ruin that when i logged out.
fun. |
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 16:04:00 -
[236] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: Addendum: The point is, at least now dreads and moms each have a role that they can fill; Motherships don't take away the role of Dreads, and vice versa. Throughout this argument the only point that has been nailed home is that CCP achieved what they wanted with these changes.
so, what is "the" role for the supercarrier after this patch?
damagedealing? it's should be the role of the boostet dread (the moros can field more dps than a nyx)
capital fights? yes, but with some restrictions. You can field 6-8 dockable + insureable dreads for one supercarrier -> 60-80k dps or 10k dps. And before "Apogrypha" there were full capital fleets. So, the supercapblob will be relieve by the possible much bigger dreadnoughtblob.
capital support? it's the role of the carrier.
logistic? yes, the supercarrier has got 2,5M m-¦ shiphangar and 50k m-¦ corporate, but you need a dockable carrier also. And a carrier can jump more farther than the supercarrier. One idea: can we switch the jump range of carrier and super carrier? So, the sc can be the long range corp/alliance-logistics at least.
@ CCP Tallest, 150k or 25k more drone bay is'nt enough. With carrier 5 you can field 20 fighter or fighter bomber. 150k are only 30 fighter or fighter bomber. So you can split to 15/15 (reduce structuregrinding-ability, increased defence-ability). Or you decide before the jump for damage or for defence. You don't have enough corporate hangar to refit on the battlefield. 20/20 for two full squads without any reserve should be the minimum. Is there a plan to rebuild the ship-blueprints or to implement capital energy neutralizer to compensate the new t2-hic-bubble?
---
Too all the sc-nerfer (remove ecm-invulnerability, nerf more ehp, remove fighters too, that's not going too far ect.) in this threat: what bonus should be avaiable for a ship, that can't dock? A ship, that cost five times of the 3rd expensive ship (jump freighter). An honest answer would be nice. |
Fenix Zealot
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 17:03:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Please post your feedback about capital ship balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest.
Update (10/11/11): Based on feedback, the following changes will be made in addition to the previously proposed changes. They should hit SISI on Monday November 14th or Tuesday the 15th.
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
This is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. its stupid and pointless
It also fails to address the problem with supers to begin with.
Let me help you out ccp:
The problem with supercarriers was that they had rediculous ehp, and in large blobs, they could not be killed quickly enough. Additionally, they could drop out 20 bombers and crush capitals, then turn around and drop 20 fighters and dice apart support. NEVER WAS THERE AN ISSUE WITH SUBCAPITAL DRONES beyond maybe a little lag. subcapital drones are only marginally effective in fleet fights. enough to be noticed but not to wtfbbq stuff. they are too slow and/or too easily killed. which is fine really. subcap drones are also countered by smartbombs here or there or bombs (which are present in almost every fleet fight now)
leave the drone bays at 125000 m3 and give supercarriers subcapital drones again.... giving them another 5 fighters (wyvern/aeon 30 and nyx/hel 35) just gives them 20 fighter bombers again, plus 10-15 fighters. It makes them less effective in blob fights, but 50 supercarriers will still create issues in the same way as before, ESPECIALLY IF YOU KEEP ADDING MORE DRONE BAY SIZE
Seriously why is this not obvious? this is a clear example of ccp panicing about supers and just tripping over themselves to correct an issue they obviously didn't understand. Again let me reiterate. normal drones had nothing to do with why supercarriers were overpowered!...
one more time. NORMAL DRONES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPERCARRIERS BEING OVER POWERED. it was the ability to field fighters AND fighter bombers plus way too much ehp.
so why now are ccp scaling back the drone bay nerf and adding more fighters to the mix...?
Just put the drone bays back at 125000 (maybe more for the nyx/hel) and just give them subcapital drones again.....
Picture this scenerio:
- 2 massive fleets engage in an epic battle. one side starts to lose stamina so they deploy 20 supercarriers fit with fighter drones. The other side wavers slightly but with some observation and confidence deploys their 10 supercarriers with fighter bombers fit. - Now we have 2 fleets engaged, one with 20 supers fielding fighters and a slightly weaker subcap fleet, vs a slightly stronger subcap fleet sporting 10 supers and FB. Who will win? - The 10 fb supers have to race against time to destroy or force away the 20 fighter supers which are making mincemeat of their support fleet. If the 10 fb supers fail to be effective in time, their support dies and they die to the blob. if they do enough damage quickly enough, the 20 hostile supers go down, and their sentry/heavy drones rebolster their mangled support fleet for the rest of the fight.
**(keep in mind that 20 t2 sentry drones and near perfect skills only brings 2 ish battleships worth of dps. vs 20 fighters which brings 4-5 battleships worth of dps) **(also keep in mind that sentry/heavy drones are extreemly vulnerable to being alpha'd and bombed in laggy slow to react environments whereas fighters are not so vulnerable) |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 18:32:00 -
[238] - Quote
Fenix Zealot wrote:
**(keep in mind that 20 t2 sentry drones and near perfect skills only brings 2 ish battleships worth of dps. vs 20 fighters which brings 4-5 battleships worth of dps)
I see what you mean that's so broken!!! Why would people ever think that a ship that costs 363 times as much as a scorpion should be able to do four times as much damage ccp please lower their damage back to battleship levels!
but not vidi levels because they can hit 2500 overheated and that is more than a super carriers fighters |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 19:01:00 -
[239] - Quote
What exactly is the CCP vision for SC's with these changes?
How do you see them fitting into eve and the general capital/alliance playing field?
I'm assuming there must be a coherent plan and general concept of their role and useage post patch, beyond "they're too good, let's neuter them".
Given the dread changes coming, where do you expect we'll see SC's and doing what?
My guesses would be: "on the forums" and "being sold".
I could of course be talking out of my arse and missing some crucial point; but what advantages will such expensive un-dockable ships confer after the nerfs? What's their new raison d'etre? |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 19:32:00 -
[240] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:yesterday I tested my Nyx against Baddon and Tornado. It is a pain - fighter bomber against subcaps. The Tornado with 2 LSE and 3 medium CDFE has a signature radius of 266.
in short: the Tornado can sig/speed/shieldtanking my Nyx (FB 5) easily.
Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 7,5 damage (without 2 TP) Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 27,9 damage (with 2 TP)
And the Tornado was unbonused. With the new T2 Ganglinks (+35% Bonus) there is nearly no damage on the Tornado (300+ m/s speed without ab/mwd and <200 signature radius). But ok, you can refit your supercarrier for fighter (in before the fight and in your staging system of course)
Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 123,0 damage (without 2 TP) Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 126,2 damage (with 2 TP)
No changes in damage, but with 2 TP you got more hits, without TP more misses. But If you fit for fighter, the supercarrier is useless against structures and 2 sets (FB + F) are not avaiable.
The devblog from 2011-10-05 says, supercarrier are to powerfull against subcaps. Now, supercarrier are helpless against subcaps. The new T2 warp disruption field generator will bring heavy Interdictor out of neutralizer range (36km f++r the HIC-bubble?). Only 4 officer neutralizer can neut the HIC on a range above 34km+. So, the supercarrier can't kill and can't neut the HIC. Fine. OK, you say "bring more supportfleet". Supportfleet for what? For an expensive, bold tagged "X" on a shiphull, that can't doing anything better than other, more cheaper ships? Full insureable, dockable and cheap Dreadnoughts will bring almost the same DPS (bye bye DPS-star supercarrier) on a structures and can additional shooting a POS. For what I got a second char? For a nondockable ship, that is only immune against ewar and expensive, apart from that it's only useless?
The history of supercarrier is great. Introduction as an I-Win-ship, nerf to uselessness, buffing to a dps/ehp-monster, now nerfing to uselessness again. With this stats on sisi, please remove the supercarrier from the game, convert all fighter bomber to fighter, remove the fighter bomber skill und move the minerals and mods from the ex-supercarrier to a station. In this case, the ex-supercarrierpilots has got an adittional useable carriercharacter on their accounts.
summary supercarrier nerf: - nerf ehp (was ok) - removing of drones (why no separately drone bay?) - only fighter (useless against structures and almost useless against frig-/cruiser-/bc-sized ships) OR fighter bomber (useless against subcaps) - introduction of 36km T2-HIC-Bubble - No-introduction of new neutralizer to compensate the new hic-bubble - introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted) - dreadnought-buff (dockable, full insureable, cheap, nearly same dps) - logoffski-change (it's ok, but in addition to all other points it is a heavy nerf too)
only my opinion as a bittervet
^^ Agree |
|
Kern Walzky
x13 Raiden.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 19:44:00 -
[241] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Gol'dar wrote:yesterday I tested my Nyx against Baddon and Tornado. It is a pain - fighter bomber against subcaps. The Tornado with 2 LSE and 3 medium CDFE has a signature radius of 266.
in short: the Tornado can sig/speed/shieldtanking my Nyx (FB 5) easily.
Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 7,5 damage (without 2 TP) Your Tyrfing hits (Tornado), doing 27,9 damage (with 2 TP)
And the Tornado was unbonused. With the new T2 Ganglinks (+35% Bonus) there is nearly no damage on the Tornado (300+ m/s speed without ab/mwd and <200 signature radius). But ok, you can refit your supercarrier for fighter (in before the fight and in your staging system of course)
Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 123,0 damage (without 2 TP) Your Einherji is well aimed at (Tornado), inflicting 126,2 damage (with 2 TP)
No changes in damage, but with 2 TP you got more hits, without TP more misses. But If you fit for fighter, the supercarrier is useless against structures and 2 sets (FB + F) are not avaiable.
The devblog from 2011-10-05 says, supercarrier are to powerfull against subcaps. Now, supercarrier are helpless against subcaps. The new T2 warp disruption field generator will bring heavy Interdictor out of neutralizer range (36km f++r the HIC-bubble?). Only 4 officer neutralizer can neut the HIC on a range above 34km+. So, the supercarrier can't kill and can't neut the HIC. Fine. OK, you say "bring more supportfleet". Supportfleet for what? For an expensive, bold tagged "X" on a shiphull, that can't doing anything better than other, more cheaper ships? Full insureable, dockable and cheap Dreadnoughts will bring almost the same DPS (bye bye DPS-star supercarrier) on a structures and can additional shooting a POS. For what I got a second char? For a nondockable ship, that is only immune against ewar and expensive, apart from that it's only useless?
The history of supercarrier is great. Introduction as an I-Win-ship, nerf to uselessness, buffing to a dps/ehp-monster, now nerfing to uselessness again. With this stats on sisi, please remove the supercarrier from the game, convert all fighter bomber to fighter, remove the fighter bomber skill und move the minerals and mods from the ex-supercarrier to a station. In this case, the ex-supercarrierpilots has got an adittional useable carriercharacter on their accounts.
summary supercarrier nerf: - nerf ehp (was ok) - removing of drones (why no separately drone bay?) - only fighter (useless against structures and almost useless against frig-/cruiser-/bc-sized ships) OR fighter bomber (useless against subcaps) - introduction of 36km T2-HIC-Bubble - No-introduction of new neutralizer to compensate the new hic-bubble - introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted) - dreadnought-buff (dockable, full insureable, cheap, nearly same dps) - logoffski-change (it's ok, but in addition to all other points it is a heavy nerf too)
only my opinion as a bittervet ^^ Agree
Yes i think you hit it right on the spot. i agree. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 20:29:00 -
[242] - Quote
I agree too, im sorry that you lost your solo pwnmobile but it needed to happen you actually need a support fleet now as it should have been all along. |
Oljud Zork
Evolution The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 00:14:00 -
[243] - Quote
Well, without any Sentry drones is it kind of hard to hit a POS tower, since as far as I know neither Fighters nor Fighter Bombers can hit the tower...
Any changes on that?
// Zork |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
218
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 00:26:00 -
[244] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: Addendum: The point is, at least now dreads and moms each have a role that they can fill; Motherships don't take away the role of Dreads, and vice versa. Throughout this argument the only point that has been nailed home is that CCP achieved what they wanted with these changes.
so, what is "the" role for the supercarrier after this patch? The same as it was supposed to be originally: A huge anti-capital DPS machine. You do the same DPS as or more than most Dreads (seriously, they aren't all going to be gank fit) without the requirement to enter siege mode or worry about range; your damage follows targets in warp, you can't be pointed by conventional disruptors, and you always have the same immunity to Ewar that Dreadnoughts only get in siege, while simultaneously being able to receive remote repair at any time (which Dreads cannot do in siege). You still can't be killed by doomsdays (an awful lot of them are needed to do the trick), and you still fit a beastly deadspace resist-tank on every single one because the hull is worth the expense.
Basically, in a straight up brawl, SC will still vastly overpower dreads in much the same way as Titans do, with some minor differences in application and advantages/disadvantages. |
Alkina
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 00:51:00 -
[245] - Quote
The change for Shield capitals is ok, but if you add a Slave set for shields, its going to ruin all your balancing you've just done. Either leave them without an implant set (Nomads work amazingly well here), or nerf them in line with, or moreso than the others along wiht the set. And please, if your going to do that, make the penaly for using them a 30-50% reduction in shield recharge to discourage sub-caps from them for a rediculous passive tank.
Oljud Zork wrote:Well, without any Sentry drones is it kind of hard to hit a POS tower, since as far as I know neither Fighters nor Fighter Bombers can hit the tower...
Any changes on that?
// Zork
You've got a anti-capital ship that can hit Battleships reasonably well, thats its role. Dont try to get it to do more than what it excells at.
Everyone in this thread is bitter than you've lost your clearly overpowered jack of all trades, and keep wanting life to go back to the way it was. No, you dont need a ship that can hit PoS's, thats a Dreadnaught / Titan's job, so why do you ask to do so? Even if you got the ability to shoot towers with sentries, what is the point? Let the ships designed for the job do it, and use your ship for what it does well, killing and incapping the Mods, or defending them from Capital / BS sized targets.
Your Mothership isnt a swiss army knife anymore, get over it.
And for those using Bombers to hit subcaps, its maybe time for Darwin's Theory to smite you from on high...
|
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 02:16:00 -
[246] - Quote
Alkina wrote:The change for Shield capitals is ok, but if you add a Slave set for shields, its going to ruin all your balancing you've just done. Either leave them without an implant set (Nomads work amazingly well here), or nerf them in line with, or moreso than the others along wiht the set. And please, if your going to do that, make the penaly for using them a 30-50% reduction in shield recharge to discourage sub-caps from them for a rediculous passive tank. Oljud Zork wrote:Well, without any Sentry drones is it kind of hard to hit a POS tower, since as far as I know neither Fighters nor Fighter Bombers can hit the tower...
Any changes on that?
// Zork You've got a anti-capital ship that can hit Battleships reasonably well, thats its role. Dont try to get it to do more than what it excells at. Everyone in this thread is bitter than you've lost your clearly overpowered jack of all trades, and keep wanting life to go back to the way it was. No, you dont need a ship that can hit PoS's, thats a Dreadnaught / Titan's job, so why do you ask to do so? Even if you got the ability to shoot towers with sentries, what is the point? Let the ships designed for the job do it, and use your ship for what it does well, killing and incapping the Mods, or defending them from Capital / BS sized targets. Your Mothership isnt a swiss army knife anymore, get over it. And for those using Bombers to hit subcaps, its maybe time for Darwin's Theory to smite you from on high...
after the patch you would have to be nuts or have OVERWHELMING sub cap numbers to deploy titans on tower shoots 80b isk to do the damage of 1.5 dreads 40 dreads easily out damage one titan and dreads have insurance!!!!!
allow fighters and bombers to hit the shields why are you shooting at the tower when the shields are 30k away from it anyway |
Floydd Heywood
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:39:00 -
[247] - Quote
The revised changes are nice as far as they go. It's very sad however that nothing is being done to fix the issue of normal capitals being useless. I have been a dread and carrier pilot for almost a year and not once used my carrier except as a hauler. And why would I?
A carrier is meant to be used in triage mode. Without triage, a triple-RR Archon delivers less RR than three guardians, with vastly inferior range and mobility, and vastly higher price. There's simply no reason to bring my Archon to a fight instead of a Guardian.
And triage is not an option outside of wormholes because a single titan pilot would be a death sentence to my carrier. The enemy does not need superior numbers. He doesn't need to do good recon. He doesn't need to do anything except opening a cyno and doomsdaying my sitting duck. Every activation of a triage module is a flip of the coin: Heads, the enemy has no titan pilot waiting to jump in and I may survive, tails: a titan jumps in and I'm 100% dead no matter what.
Supercaps are the weapon of the major alliances, fine. But there needs to be a way for smaller entities that don't have nor want supercaps to evade them. It should involve effort, but it should be possible. Make normal capitals a viable weapon of small and medium alliances. |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:53:00 -
[248] - Quote
Alkina wrote:And for those using Bombers to hit subcaps, its maybe time for Darwin's Theory to smite you from on high...
Guys my anti-capital drones can't kill battlecruisers, CCP must do something to fix this!
If this guy is typical of Raiden's supercarrier pilots then the expansion can't come soon enough.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:06:00 -
[249] - Quote
Why do supercaps still have built-in warp core stabilisers? Say no to carebear modules on PVP ships! |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
222
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:11:00 -
[250] - Quote
Just noticed this:
Gol'dar wrote:- introduction of Tier3-BC (with t2 ganklinks very low sigradius, but battleship-DPS for 60M fullfitted)
Everything has very low sig radius with T2 gang links, and they are going to cost more like 55m for the hull all on its own; fully fit they will run about 80 million isk, give or take. They will be slightly cheaper than 1st tier Battleships, mostly due to the rigs being medium and thus less expensive. |
|
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:56:00 -
[251] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Alkina wrote:And for those using Bombers to hit subcaps, its maybe time for Darwin's Theory to smite you from on high... Guys my anti-capital drones can't kill battlecruisers, CCP must do something to fix this! If this guy is typical of Raiden's supercarrier pilots then the expansion can't come soon enough.
Our "anti-capital" *super* capital ships are still getting shafted. We don't expect to be the destroyer-of-worlds, we just want a place in the fleet. Especially those of us who spent considerable time and energy earning bounties and grinding plexes for 20bil isk.
This thread is headed dangerously into the territory of a mentally-handicapped driver at the wheel with 2 people in the back who have never driven a car, an experienced driver who can't be heard over the screaming of 6 goons in the trunk with a megaphone smug-whining about how people need to just sell their supers and HTFU. Because apparently, no one at the company is capable of driving the critical-thinking-mobile, so a ragtag group of players have to offer up their half-baked observations of equally half-baked CCP proposed changes.
SOLUTION:
Put seven CCP employees who have flown supercaps in fleet before (do that many exist?), and do not let them out until the *Supercap pilots of the Eve community* approve of the seven's brainstorm that results. Why must Tallest and whichever loudest voices spam the forums be the deciding factor on how a (more than most) serious business ship and character will either become useful or thrown to the gutter? Still demanding satisfaction, my ship is a joke. Not training for any other supers, especially after my drone skills are wasted sub money at this point.
If CCP wants to offer an amnesty program for all of us 'evil, overpowered' supercap pilots, give us an exchange of 10 dreads for our supercap. I'd hate to see mine go, but there's this desire i have to actually log my pilot in and play eve again.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Where to even start? some are good ideas on their face, but would fail in balance. CCP employees should recognize these before even mentioning them. Dialogue is good, yes, but common sense and knowledge of the game mechanics is more important when making one's thoughts public while representing CCP.
Nothing I've seen so far makes the Hel something an alliance would use in a fight. The wyvern / implants suggestion is interesting because it's a paradigm shift for the time-honored tradition of armor being OP from the beginning. Why can't we explore this further? So many are used to shield being a joke, that even SC pilots scoff at boosting it, only because they're in their comfortable bubble of armor superiority. We should ask ourselves: what is the nature of a shield-tanked cap/supercap, and what deficiencies could be remedied without upsetting a true balance (eve hasn't been reasonably balanced regarding the two tanking types since caps were introduced)?
What would happen if we had shield supers with 20k more ehp than armor? We experienced this with Aeons - they were not the first primary as a general rule. Now, if a Hel (with properly applied repping bonuses/fitting fixes) were to have more ehp than the other SC"s on field, there could possibly be a role for it (the triage archon for SC fleets, with the ability to use FB's as a small bonus). Prove that to be an unbalanced idea in the scope of fleet warfare.
I almost understand the smugness of goons et al. who would prefer there were no supers, and we could all just have fun fleet engagements with subcaps and endless paper/rock/scissors/flamethrower/water counters to FOTM fits. This, however, is a game with players many of whom have been around for approaching a decade, and they deserve a reasonable justification for logging-in their super account. These changes proposed by Tallest *must* be tested, then the collective super community must provide feedback in order to move on to a proper set of tweaks.
The fact that the 'nerf-to-uselessness' is actually being given a reconsideration is a shining light in all of this. Such acts by CCP must continue until we reach the balance that benefits the game, not just one powerbloc or group of anti-cap fanatics. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:00:00 -
[252] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote: This, however, is a game with players many of whom have been around for approaching a decade, and they deserve a reasonable justification for logging-in their super account.
lol
The fact that its assumed that every single old-school veteran must have a supercap account sums up everything that is wrong with the post-Dominion state of supercaps. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:15:00 -
[253] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:HelPilot of20Years wrote: This, however, is a game with players many of whom have been around for approaching a decade, and they deserve a reasonable justification for logging-in their super account. lol The fact that its assumed that every single old-school veteran must have a supercap account sums up everything that is wrong with the post-Dominion state of supercaps.
That's not the implication. It's a choice to fly supercaps, and the pilots who choose to do so shouldn't be negated simply because your power bloc is afraid to divert isk to capital fleets instead of whatever you're doing with it now. CFC/whomever else is afraid of SC-heavy alliances shouldn't be the loudest voice simply because you have a CSM member bent on re-balancing the nullsec game in the favor of your powerbloc only. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
58
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:51:00 -
[254] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:StukaBee wrote:HelPilot of20Years wrote: This, however, is a game with players many of whom have been around for approaching a decade, and they deserve a reasonable justification for logging-in their super account. lol The fact that its assumed that every single old-school veteran must have a supercap account sums up everything that is wrong with the post-Dominion state of supercaps. That's not the implication. It's a choice to fly supercaps, and the pilots who choose to do so shouldn't be negated simply because your power bloc is afraid to divert isk to capital fleets instead of whatever you're doing with it now. CFC/whomever else is afraid of SC-heavy alliances shouldn't be the loudest voice simply because you have a CSM member bent on re-balancing the nullsec game in the favor of your powerbloc only.
This whole CSM/goons nonsense doesn't belong here and frankly, it's irritating to read.
I've been in a super, and out of one. I'll probably get back into one even after these changes.
The thing is that super pilots want justification for spending what they did on a ship. Losing a super is a hell of a loss, more so than even a dread or carrier which might cost about 300mil in lost mods but the hull is for the most part insured completely.
The problem is that with the proliferation of supers they have become the "end all" to any fleet. They can do EVERYTHING, and can do it better. They can engage towers, they can engage subcaps, they can engage caps, and other supers. They do so while being EW immune (save for a HIC) and put out tremendous DPS.
While great for a super pilot, it is not great for the ship classes it invalidates. A dread is a gun platform and should out DPS a mom while in siege against a titan or a mothership. Carriers should be logistics backbones, where in fleets of 100-300 there should be a DESIRE to take carriers.
When shooting a large POS, there should be a DESIRE to take dreads. Right now, you can use a fleet of drakes to take out just about any tower. The DPS of large POS batteries needs to be increased to match the EHP buff given to ships over the years.
Titans are just fine, perfect now with the nerf to remote links.
Moms are an anti-capital platform. That's it. They have anti-capital fighter bombers and should be deployed to be used as such.
So, here's how it pans out (in theory)
boost POS guns -> need for dreads -> need for moms and titans to take out capital fleet boost carriers -> more lucritive in subcap fleets -> need for moms and titans to take out capital fleet |
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:52:00 -
[255] - Quote
SUPERCARRIERS ARE NO ANTI CAPITAL PLATTFORM!!! And we (the pilots) dont want them in that role.
Get this in your head FFS.
When i started training for my Aeon 2 years ago they where ANTI SUBCAP!!! (Read again: SUBCAP!!!) Ships.
CCP in all its idioty made a big mistake when they introduced the Fighterbombers and now they follow the same path again.
I didnt train the SC to shoot dreads, because even back than Dreads where used so rarely that if my Rev would have been real it would have looked more rusty than a Naglfar does in between times i actually did fly it.
Remember, no one of us ever asked for the Fighter Bombers. I wanted the Aeon even long before.
If you want to balance them, remove Fighterbombers, keep current EHP, keep drones, keep changes to logoff mechanics and keep the dread buff + keep Dread Drones.
Than you will have a weapon against them (->Dreadnoughts), while they will still have the type of functionality for the pilots.
MOTHERSHIPS ( i had the SC term btw) where perfectly fine back than, expect that they where too thin for larger engagments. The only thing they needed was a EHP buff so they get somewhat resistent against the new DD (which is the next dumb thing CCP did). If CCP would have listened to others than the Gooncrybabies, they would have simply limited the amounts of AoE DDs per Grid per hour to 1 or 2 and than a well placed Titan could clean house with a Fighterswarm pretty fast.
But no, those Goonpets at CCP (and everyone that thinks this was not influenced by Goonswarm is either blind, uninformed or simply stupid) would never admit that they made a mistake. And we, that did spend years and a shitton of money (2 year in subscription is 360Gé¼) now have to pay the price for it.
Oh and btw.: Everyone who has no SuperCapital GTFO of this thread. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:01:00 -
[256] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:SUPERCARRIERS ARE NO ANTI CAPITAL PLATTFORM!!! And we (the pilots) dont want them in that role.
Get this in your head FFS.
When i started training for my Aeon 2 years ago they where ANTI SUBCAP!!! (Read again: SUBCAP!!!) Ships.
CCP in all its idioty made a big mistake when they introduced the Fighterbombers and now they follow the same path again.
I didnt train the SC to shoot dreads, because even back than Dreads where used so rarely that if my Rev would have been real it would have looked more rusty than a Naglfar does in between times i actually did fly it.
Remember, no one of us ever asked for the Fighter Bombers. I wanted the Aeon even long before.
If you want to balance them, remove Fighterbombers, keep current EHP, keep drones, keep changes to logoff mechanics and keep the dread buff + keep Dread Drones.
Than you will have a weapon against them (->Dreadnoughts), while they will still have the type of functionality for the pilots.
MOTHERSHIPS ( i had the SC term btw) where perfectly fine back than, expect that they where too thin for larger engagments. The only thing they needed was a EHP buff so they get somewhat resistent against the new DD (which is the next dumb thing CCP did). If CCP would have listened to others than the Gooncrybabies, they would have simply limited the amounts of AoE DDs per Grid per hour to 1 or 2 and than a well placed Titan could clean house with a Fighterswarm pretty fast.
But no, those Goonpets at CCP (and everyone that thinks this was not influenced by Goonswarm is either blind, uninformed or simply stupid) would never admit that they made a mistake. And we, that did spend years and a shitton of money (2 year in subscription is 360Gé¼) now have to pay the price for it.
Oh and btw.: Everyone who has no SuperCapital GTFO of this thread.
Shut up with your crappy elitism. They were never an "anti-subcap" they never had a role to begin with. They had a clone vat bay FFS.
Even back in the days of The Establishment's Nyx, Hera, it became apparent that a subcap fleet would have trouble engaging one.
I know you're hurt. Your alliance has built itself around supercap proliferation as well as a few others. Get over it, things change.
RIGHT NOW, As in right now and since you probably could fly one they became an anti-capital ship through the induction of Fighter Bombers. I'm willing to bet you got your mom AFTER Apocrypha.
Your comment about titans and DDs is irrelevant... even now you have people here whining how a bomb can take out a fighter bomber, which it can only if you're an idiot and try to recall them when you see a bomb.
Untwist your panties and contribute something other than whining like a baby who had his bottle taken away. |
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:30:00 -
[257] - Quote
A SupCap Fleet should pretty damn well have trouble scratching a SuperCap. And btw.: I didnt add the term *Super* to the whole thing.
If you want to engage Caps, bring other Caps. You dont fight Tanks with Martial Arts attacks, you take another tank.
As we dont have urban warfare in Eve, just *open field*, *Infantry* (SubCaps) should pretty damn well have hard time taking on the Armored Cavalery (Capitals).
Oh and btw.: I would be the first one to give the Aeon back to CCP if they would offer me a compensation for it. But they refuse even that.
And just to make one point clear: When i joined WN i brought the Aeon with me. Just look at my employment history andf check some Killboards.
And yes, i got the Aeon pretty late. But that is because it was a huge inventement in both time and ISK (and i had to pay it all alone).
If CCP wants SCs out of the game, fine. But than offer us at least something for the money and time we invested until this point into the SuperCaps.
The Aeon is worth around 2000Gé¼ (calculated with 350 Mio./Plex). If you have 2000Gé¼ to throw out of the window, you can send them to CCP so they convert them to ISK and i'll be happy to use that selfdestruct button once i recieve them.
But nerfing the ship into oblivion while not even making it dockable is a slap in the face of the people who worked for it (both in RL and Ingame) to afford such a vessel.
EDIT: Oh and btw.: There are actually people out there who play the game because they want to fly huge, powerfull ships. Not everyone wants to fly rifters all day long. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:49:00 -
[258] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:A SupCap Fleet should pretty damn well have trouble scratching a SuperCap. And btw.: I didnt add the term *Super* to the whole thing.
If you want to engage Caps, bring other Caps. You dont fight Tanks with Martial Arts attacks, you take another tank.
As we dont have urban warfare in Eve, just *open field*, *Infantry* (SubCaps) should pretty damn well have hard time taking on the Armored Cavalery (Capitals).
Oh and btw.: I would be the first one to give the Aeon back to CCP if they would offer me a compensation for it. But they refuse even that.
And just to make one point clear: When i joined WN i brought the Aeon with me. Just look at my employment history andf check some Killboards.
And yes, i got the Aeon pretty late. But that is because it was a huge inventement in both time and ISK (and i had to pay it all alone).
If CCP wants SCs out of the game, fine. But than offer us at least something for the money and time we invested until this point into the SuperCaps.
The Aeon is worth around 2000Gé¼ (calculated with 350 Mio./Plex). If you have 2000Gé¼ to throw out of the window, you can send them to CCP so they convert them to ISK and i'll be happy to use that selfdestruct button once i recieve them.
But nerfing the ship into oblivion while not even making it dockable is a slap in the face of the people who worked for it (both in RL and Ingame) to afford such a vessel.
EDIT: Oh and btw.: There are actually people out there who play the game because they want to fly huge, powerfull ships. Not everyone wants to fly rifters all day long.
The problem is that if you drop 50 moms on 100 dreads, you will lose maybe 1 or 2 moms but all the dreads. If you throw in titans with the moms it's even worse. You've been in those fleets, you've done it.
If you drop 3-4 moms on a subcap fleet of 100, you will do the same.
While force projection is ok, having the ability to push an average of 20-50 supers (200+ when really desired) can counter any fleet that is not similiar in nature. this is contrary to the nature of this game- The goals of this game are not to only be effective by getting into a specific ship. In addition, a single class of ship should not invalidate others of their intended roles.
Moms have done this, and done it well.
I love flying caps, I enjoyed flying my mom/supercarrier. I enjoy flying my capitals still. I can't say I always wanted one, because when I first started there were none in the game.
But that doesn't mean I am ok if a ship is glaringly overpowered and needs tweaking to have a more defined role other than "king of everything"
It's a similiar concept with the dramiel- hey it is a FANTASTIC frigate. The problem is that it became the only frigate worth flying, anything else for the most part couldn't hold up to it. Yes, that is a bad thing.
TL;DR SCs are so powerful that they remove the roles of several other classes of ships. They need a role and the classes they eclipse need to have their role regained.
EDIT to your edit: I moved to 0.0 for the same reason. I left a fun and awesome corp a few years ago to do it but I don't regret it. If your only reason to play the game is to dominate everything with almost no chance at a counter, to have a "solo pwn ship," then I don't know what to tell you other than to remember that no ship is ever supposed to be one.
This nerf will not invalidate your Aeon. It will make its role more focused. It will make you think before dropping it on a small roaming gang. It makes it so that other cap pilots, who don't have a SC, will rely on you to protect them. |
Altolinchen
Sternenschauer AG Smacked Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:16:00 -
[259] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:A SupCap Fleet should pretty damn well have trouble scratching a SuperCap. And btw.: I didnt add the term *Super* to the whole thing. ... Oh and btw.: I would be the first one to give the Aeon back to CCP if they would offer me a compensation for it. But they refuse even that. ... If CCP wants SCs out of the game, fine. But than offer us at least something for the money and time we invested until this point into the SuperCaps. The Aeon is worth around 2000Gé¼ (calculated with 350 Mio./Plex). If you have 2000Gé¼ to throw out of the window, you can send them to CCP so they convert them to ISK and i'll be happy to use that selfdestruct button once i recieve them. But nerfing the ship into oblivion while not even making it dockable is a slap in the face of the people who worked for it (both in RL and Ingame) to afford such a vessel. ...
I Think Leave Scaps how they are.. that's what I would love. Maybe buffing the Hel and the Shields ( IMPS/deadspace invul etc. ) They are easy to kill. You need to now what you're doing.
Those ship's are damn expensive.. I've used mine the last week so often that the bill for fuel is right now at about 500m ISK... And they cost much as you buy them. That's pretty fine. They should be a massive DPS and Tank platform like they are today. I compare Scaps with normal navy carriers which we've got on earth... They have the option to take out other carriers - with bombers like scaps in eve with fighterbombers.. they can take out other any other mid and large ship or large planes with fighters - like scaps they can engage nearly everything small but not with kind of power like other navy ship cause they only got defensive weapons and that's the job of the drones in EvE and on earth of the small gun's and rockets mounted on them.. If you shot down every plane of a carrier on earth they only have a little defense like in eve a Scap without fighters and fighter bombers - fine. And the aircraft carriers can send out support like in EvE with remote repair drones etc. And in EvE and at earth they cost really much to keep them usable ( buying new fighters / fuel etc. etc. etc. )
Well this is a Sci-Fi Game.. so we have HIC's.. they're getting new T2 modules.. this ship is defense less - introduce capital neuts.. or give them the old drone bay at the old size back.
I see tree options for how to deal with Scaps or the changes:
1. Give every player a choice after login in after the downgrade for moving his clone into a station give them all thier assets in the hanger and the isk for the super. modules and even imps etc. at the hanger and give them back every skillpoint they spend for this ship so they can skill a different way. So they are free of you're horrible changes. Remember many of the scap pilots spent years in grinding ISK and SP for this ship which is now total useless and even the Gé¼/$ etc. you CCP received from us over all those day's / months and years..
2. Leave them how they are, maybe reduce the eHP like you wanted with 20/20/20 and 20/20/20 ( after the shield buff this would be fine + the deadspace shield items and the shield slave set you want to introduce..). They could be now blow apart from the new Tier 3 BC's those ships cost nothing even a 250 man fleet ( ~15bil and they will get pretty much anything back from the insurance.. )is cheaper than a SINGEL proper fitted Scap ( 22-30bil). And rember again most of the SCAPs were paid by the pilot a single PERSON who have spent really much time and real money ( payment for the account ) for this kind of ship and if you spend so much money you are allow to estimate that it could to pretty anything. Do you think if a nation buy's a aircraft carrier they would by it if such nerf like now happens to to scaps would happend to them. Those got damn ship are you're number one in bombing other countries in eve corps / alliances back to stone age. That's fine.
3.If you really want to nerf them to 15/15 for hel/nyx... WTF - give them a role again.. give fighterbombers much more dps and allow them to hit towers etc. but I think this isn't a choice. and If you really continue like you've posted give them at least a role in a forcefield with clone vat etc... and a bigger corp and ship hanger.. and maybe a bigger and better ganklink boni. So you can use them as bonus in a FF an people can reship faster etc. and clonejump.. and then give the old name Motership back. Or consider to let them dock and be insured so pilots would get at least 15bil out of the ship if it's blows up. And make a long term insurance .. for 6 or 12 month.
Anyway I can't understand all those dread pilots you're getting a new role once Dust 514 is introduced to EvE.. and Scap are getting no role... even worse their role is take away..
I don't know why so many people are crying because of the overpowered scaps.. now we've got a part of eve which is compared to earth the US the military overpower which nobody can attack without heavy losses themself or even die.. At the old day's it was the old NC with all their blue friends.. but caused of political fails and not having the will to spend that much or even more ISK in defending them self the ( I call them "red" blob) blow them up - fine. The old NC hat more pilotes etc. and had even the money to fight back but their was no will.. now everybody is crying - but wha ? CCP you don't need to play god at all... I think now more and more alliances have to form up together and fight them if they want to take down their military power and stop crying at your like a little children to nerf them..At least I've to say their is something you have to change and that are the minmatar scap and titan and carrier as well. Give the Hel and Ragnarok more chance to come home from a battle specially the Hel. sry for my bad english |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:51:00 -
[260] - Quote
Stupid forums ate my long post so here's a TL;DR
1) That HIC? You rely on your support to kill it
2) That Tornado you can't kill with fighters in your carrier? Sic heavy drones on it you genius!
3) Even US carriers are part of a CARRIER GROUP flanked by cruisers and destroyers (battleships are mostly retired)
4) Don't like it, sell it. Yes you'll lose ISK it is called market PvP and it's part of eve. 100 ISK or 20 billion ISK it doesn't matter. |
|
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:55:00 -
[261] - Quote
The problem never lied in the SuperCarriers in the first place.
If u take the ISK for 100 SCs and invest them into Maelstroms, boy you could massacre them in seconds.
The problem is that the server will not support such numbers (25.000.000.000 / 250.000.000 = 100 * 100 = 10.000).
10.000 x 11.302 Damage per Volley (EFT, All Level V, Maelstrom with 8x 1400 T2 + RF EMP + 3 Gyros) = 113.020.000 Alpha Damage.
=> I need MORE EHP on that Aeon tbh. because they could insta it.
The numbers (on paper) are pretty ok for SCs. The problem is that the game mechanics and current technological level for servers and internet do not allow for a balanced game play in that regard.
************
I allready offered you a solution to most of the problems: REMOVE FIGHTER BOMBERS.
That way dreadnoughts will again be able to stand up against them as the Fighters DPS wont be enough to grind through their HP fast enough, while i will be able to protect my own dread fleet from subcaps with my drone swarm.
After patch i wont be able to protect anyone with my Aeon while i will need all protection i can get, thus forcing me into the biggest of blobbs to make sure i wont lose it.
Also, the Aeon will be limited to one role, and one role only. Currently if i wish it, i can go run (some of the) Level 5s with it, i can run anomalies, i can even mine with Mining Drones (think of it, whatever you want, but having something to do while you wait for the next deployment is nice).
I can use it to actually get some ISK back out of it.
If the patch goes through, i will end up with a useless charackter in a useless ship.
This all would not be as much of a problem if we could dock. When SCs got OP, i thought *meh*, stored the Dread in a save place and went over to fly whatever else was needed. But storing the Aeon in a save place and use the char for something else is not possible ATM.
Leaving only one choice to me, stop playing with this char (and stop paying for the account it is on).
To be realy honest: I want the good old times back.
Times where it was fun flying Sniper BS. Times when 0.0 looked like an old rag rug and i almost did **** my pants when someone screamed *TITAN ON GRID* in TS.
Now when i hear titan on grid i think *Yay, Big KM to get!!* This shouldnt be case. 0.0 warfare was way more fun before dominion. At least POS Ping Pong gave you plenty of oportunities for fights at all day and night times. Although we lost it, i had plenty of fun during Delve II and the first weeks of the Fountain Invasion. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:57:00 -
[262] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:A SupCap Fleet should pretty damn well have trouble scratching a SuperCap. And btw.: I didnt add the term *Super* to the whole thing.
Why?
(If you reply "because it cost a lot of isk" I'm going to laugh at you)
Quote:If you want to engage Caps, bring other Caps. You dont fight Tanks with Martial Arts attacks, you take another tank.
As we dont have urban warfare in Eve, just *open field*, *Infantry* (SubCaps) should pretty damn well have hard time taking on the Armored Cavalery (Capitals). Since the last 65 years or so the optimal method of destroying tanks has been with an airstrike.
If the supercap is Eve's tank, what is Eve's airstrike?
Quote:And just to make one point clear: When i joined WN i brought the Aeon with me. Just look at my employment history andf check some Killboards. So you bandwagoned into the Supercap blob for easy ganks and low-risk wins and now you're upset because the easy ganks and low risk wins won't be quite so easy or low risk. Gotcha.
lol
Quote:And yes, i got the Aeon pretty late. But that is because it was a huge inventement in both time and ISK (and i had to pay it all alone).
If CCP wants SCs out of the game, fine. But than offer us at least something for the money and time we invested until this point into the SuperCaps.
The Aeon is worth around 2000Gé¼ (calculated with 350 Mio./Plex). If you have 2000Gé¼ to throw out of the window, you can send them to CCP so they convert them to ISK and i'll be happy to use that selfdestruct button once i recieve them. The value of your investments may fall as well as rise.
Should have read the small print.
Quote:EDIT: Oh and btw.: There are actually people out there who play the game because they want to fly huge, powerfull ships. Not everyone wants to fly rifters all day long.
EDIT2: And the next question for you: Why should i bother with 0.0 at all in the first place if the reason for me to be there is removed? I moved out to 0.0 to fly caps. If caps and supercaps are changed in the current proposed way there will be one less reason to move out to 0.0. I dont say its the only reason to be there, but at least it is one. And i am pretty sure that i am not the only one who flys Caps because he likes to fly Caps. Your supercap is still a huge powerful ship. But if you're so risk averse, and so untrusting in the abilities of your alliance mates to field a subcap fleet that can keep your supercaps safe, maybe 0.0 isn't for you after all.
Bye. |
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 18:16:00 -
[263] - Quote
Erm.. sry to correct you Gooncrybaby, but i never joined WN.
I joined FALG, where i had friends since my time in Skunk Works and the times of the first MAX Campaign. Tbh.: As long as the Alliance i am in is shooting Goonswarm, it is a good alliance.
Oh, and just btw.: I know that goonswarm did lobby a lot to get this nerf through in hopes it will prevent them from their fate of again being thrown out of 0.0. Because this time there is no NC to give you some space for nothing. But it wont change the outcome. I wonder if we go again against you, if you will actually at least try to put up a fight or again run as fast as you can like you did when we came back to take Delve. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:02:00 -
[264] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:Erm.. sry to correct you Gooncrybaby, but i never joined WN. I joined FALG, where i had friends since my time in Skunk Works and the times of the first MAX Campaign. Tbh.: As long as the Alliance i am in is shooting Goonswarm, it is a good alliance. Oh, and just btw.: I know that goonswarm did lobby a lot to get this nerf through in hopes it will prevent them from their fate of again being thrown out of 0.0. Because this time there is no NC to give you some space for nothing. But it wont change the outcome. I wonder if we go again against you, if you will actually at least try to put up a fight or again run as fast as you can like you did when we came back to take Delve. EDIT: Btw.: Someone mentioned US Carriers: The Carrier can deploy its own awacs, its fighters can attack any air, ground or sea target, it carries marines for land raids or capture operations and helicopters for anti submarine warfare. In fact, i think you should give my aeon the abilities of a US Nimitz Class Carrier and i would be pretty damn happy. Start with adding enough room on my mutiple kilometers ship for 90 Fighters that double as Bombers. Oh, and not to forget the Missile Launcher Tubes and CIWS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrierAnd btw.: i never took part in a fleet where SuperCaps where deployed without any kind of support fleet around. Most of the time the Subcaps do most of the fighting while the SCs are on standby.
Dude, WN was just a small group in NPC space dwellers until they decided to hop on the supercap train with the rest of the DRF.
Skipping over your goon crying (as a MM member I'm sick of the goon cries.. get over the conspiracy crap) you failed to mention:
Carrier Battle Group
Quote:CSG or CVBG normally consist of 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Guided Missile Cruisers, 2 Anti Aircraft Warships, and 1-2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.[
A carrier has limited resources while the aircraft (i.e. fighters/bombers) provide the offensive capibility. The groups support and enhance the group's mission as a whole.
You are debating that the supercarrier should be a solo ship.... this is against what ANY capship is supposed to be. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:35:00 -
[265] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:The problem never lied in the SuperCarriers in the first place.
If u take the ISK for 100 SCs and invest them into Maelstroms, boy you could massacre them in seconds.
The problem is that the server will not support such numbers (25.000.000.000 / 250.000.000 = 100 * 100 = 10.000).
10.000 x 11.302 Damage per Volley (EFT, All Level V, Maelstrom with 8x 1400 T2 + RF EMP + 3 Gyros) = 113.020.000 Alpha Damage.
In other news, a hurricane (lets say 50M) cant kill 50M of t1 rifters! (Thats 100 rifters, doing about 10000 dps).
A maelstrom dies to its own worth in frigates AND in cruisers! A thanatos dies to its own worth in frigates, cruisers AND battlecruisers!
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:39:00 -
[266] - Quote
As long as Dreadnought mechanics are balanced against RMR Deathstar POSes with near-infinite tracking guns inside forcefields, no capital ship vs ship balance will ever be achieved. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:21:00 -
[267] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:Oh, and just btw.: I know that goonswarm did lobby a lot to get this nerf through in hopes it will prevent them from their fate of again being thrown out of 0.0. Because this time there is no NC to give you some space for nothing. But it wont change the outcome. I wonder if we go again against you, if you will actually at least try to put up a fight or again run as fast as you can like you did when we came back to take Delve.
Just fyi, the last time an elite supercap blobbing alliance tried to kick us out of Deklein, long after the NC had lost their space and scattered, we cockpunched them so hard that the campaign leader sold all his accounts and quit Eve in humiliation. |
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:33:00 -
[268] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:Lucius Razor wrote:Oh, and just btw.: I know that goonswarm did lobby a lot to get this nerf through in hopes it will prevent them from their fate of again being thrown out of 0.0. Because this time there is no NC to give you some space for nothing. But it wont change the outcome. I wonder if we go again against you, if you will actually at least try to put up a fight or again run as fast as you can like you did when we came back to take Delve. Just fyi, the last time an elite supercap blobbing alliance tried to kick us out of Deklein, long after the NC had lost their space and scattered, we cockpunched them so hard that the campaign leader sold all his accounts and quit Eve in humiliation.
Pardon me to correct you again, but crashing the server is not the same as actually fighting. |
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:36:00 -
[269] - Quote
@Iam Widdershins
Role: "The same as it was supposed to be originally: A huge anti-capital DPS machine. You do the same DPS as or more than most Dreads (seriously, they aren't all going to be gank fit) without the requirement to enter siege mode or worry about range"
ok, in my history there were only alliances with fleetfittings - all off them with 3 damagemods on dreadnoughts, one alliance with an additional range rig. Faction damagemods were optional in all alliances. But, maybe other alliances fly other setups. 3 damage mods + t2 siege (this will be a "nice to have" for the first time, but later?) = more dps as the (same race) supercarrier with carrier 5 + fighter bomber 5. And don't forget: a) fighter/fighter bomber can be killed, the moros' siege blaster cannon can't; b) you have only 30 carrier drones in your bay. But you are right, this is one role for the supercarrier. the other one is structure grinding. Field one supercarrier or 6-8 dreadnoughts (or maybe 12 after insurance) - the choice is yours. And fielding a decent capfleet is not the problem for a nullsec-alliance.
cost of tier3-bc: my last check of the tornado-bpo says: 40M hullcost with me0 and TQ Jita sellorder. It should be possible to buy a fittet tier 3 for 60M - of course not in the first days after this patch.
@Vincent Gaines,
you are right with some things, you say. But: I can't see a great problem fielding 50x20B vs fielding 100x0,3B - the difference of fielded isk is to big (20 carriers vs 200 frigates would be the same). 50 supercarriers on one side and 100 dreads on the other side is not the problem of the supercarrier. In my opinion, 25+50 vs 25+50 would be better. But this is politic and not game machanics and not ship balancing.
You say: bring support. Ok, how many support is necessary to protect this helpless group of, hmm, 20 supercarrier? 100 subcaps? 200? If you can field 200+ ships, it would be better to field 80 dreadnoughts with an limited support. Same or more damage, but lesser isk-risk.
As I said in my first post - the sc-nerf was necessary. You are right with "they remove the roles of several other classes of ships". But a nerf to make them not better in ANY role? Where is the "Super"? Super, You can't dock? Not really! In one role they must be superior. They are also "super"carrier. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:53:00 -
[270] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote: @Vincent Gaines,
you are right with some things, you say. But: I can't see a great problem fielding 50x20B vs fielding 100x0,3B - the difference of fielded isk is to big (20 carriers vs 200 frigates would be the same). 50 supercarriers on one side and 100 dreads on the other side is not the problem of the supercarrier. In my opinion, 25+50 vs 25+50 would be better. But this is politic and not game machanics and not ship balancing.
I'm not sure I follow. You can't compare numbers vs numbers to determine balance. Either way, no dread can stand up to a supercarrier with fighterbombers.
Quote:You say: bring support. Ok, how many support is necessary to protect this helpless group of, hmm, 20 supercarrier? 100 subcaps? 200? If you can field 200+ ships, it would be better to field 80 dreadnoughts with an limited support. Same or more damage, but lesser isk-risk.
How much would I bring? For ever 2-3 supers at least 1 dedicated carrier to support.
Depends on the size. I can't give you numbers unless you give me a situation. Provide me an example of what I'd be going up against (either actual or projected)
Quote: As I said in my first post - the sc-nerf was necessary. You are right with "they remove the roles of several other classes of ships". But a nerf to make them not better in ANY role? Where is the "Super"? Super, You can't dock? Not really! In one role they must be superior. They are also "super"carrier.
They are super. They can rip capital ships (dreads, carriers, rorqs, titans, other SCs) to shreads. I mean, tear through them like butter.
Dreads are not an anti ship DPS platform. They can't hit a target smaller than a tower and some even have trouble doing that. They can't put out any damage without entering siege in which the ship is stuck for 10 minutes and cannot be repped. And on top of that no tank can survive a DD.
|
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:22:00 -
[271] - Quote
So, just toyed a bit on Sisi.
- the -10% shield HP instead of -20%, which I assume to have been balanced around the wyvern, did very little for the Hel. - the cap situation got a bit better assuming you start the fight with full cap - Hel vs 2 "regular (t2)" TQ Naglfars, all 3 ships with regular +10% gangbonus and starting at full shields, the Hel was at 61% shields after both Nagls were down (Hel doing bugger all, Nagls boosting and overheating hardeners). So, extrapolating from that, Hel vs 3 of them would have ended with the Hel at 22% shields, and Hel vs 4 of them with 3 dead dreads and a dead Hel (Hel fitting was 7 hardeners, dc II, t2 rigs and 4 PDU). Not sure what I expected, but considering dreads are easily replaceable due to station manufacturing and well below a billion in cost after insurance, a bit more / something else / not 4. This is, after all, the weightclass it is now supposed to fight in.
So, my resume, after creating and dedicating an account to a Hel pilot purpose-skilled from day 1 for over 3.5 years now, I am happy with my decision from a few weeks ago to move the better parts of the hel's fitting to highsec for sale and train a parking-char to store the ship until there is a market for it again. It's just not worth wasting a 70m SP character on it.
Apart from the new builtin breakage points, the crotches may have gotten overall better, but the three primary roles of a hel on the field - meatshield, good looks and enemy confusion (why did they bring a hel?) - remain unchanged. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:43:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP, my solo carrier can only take on 4 dreadnoughts at once. It's so underpowered!
Take 2 supers, throw in a RR module between them, and see how many dreads you go through.
Comparing ISK values as a means to balance is stupid.
4 rifters can take out an Abaddon, which has more than a 200x cost multiplier. Hell, talking about T2 how about 5 rifters vs a Loki? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:14:00 -
[273] - Quote
Yes, when in doubt, bring more numbers. Best base for balancing ever.
Also, it is not a carrier. Carriers I have a few lying around all over eve, produce at will, and switch ships if I don't like it anymore.
Also, which one is T2? The rifter or the loki? You have me confused there.
And, final note, it may be a strange concept to you, but not everybody has enough accounts to simulate an entire fleetfight, so yes, testing with 3 caps is the best I could do. Which, last time I checked, was a lot more than you - if we ignore the wild frothing. All the while; my conclusions that with the +51.2% rep amount of Carrier 5 + Meta Reps over unbonused t1 reps, its tanking type, comparatively low ehp and general state of nullsec pvp it is even more of a priority target that can not be kept even remotely alive are founded on the facts I presented so everyone can weigh them and draw their own conclusions. Your so called "argument" has yet to exceed the "envy" mark.
PS: first time someone publicly called a hel overpowered. |
SykWit It
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:28:00 -
[274] - Quote
as a ex hel pilot i have to say that the current buffs to the hel do jack all to help it in any way.
Hels will always be primaried first in a cap fight before any others because they are shield tanked and have the weakest tank/ buffer of all supers by quite a bit. So with that being said. how dose it help to have a super that gets a bonus to reping when its the first cap dead in a slug fest.
in a fleet of say 30 supers there are probably no more then 2-3 caps with shield transfers. No one flys shild caps b/c they have always been way to week to be worth it. the new nerf to supers makes it so the hel can carry more fighters/ bombers but i still wouldn't get one b/c i would just die in a fight when no one has shield reps. also we loose up to 37% of our tank every time we jump somewhere our resists can be taken out in a matter of a minute by neuts and there aren't enough of us to warrant people fitting shield transfers on there supers/ carriers.
Now you may say that its the fleets falt for not supporting there caps but think about it... currently the shild supers suck so bad that even receiving reps wont help a whyvern or Hel survive when its neuted. where as a aeon or even a nyx has at least 2 A-type Enams that enable it to have decent resists even when its got no cap. as a side note even wth a full passive fit on a aeon it still has more ehp then a hel with a full x-type fit.
if you where to make the Hel have more desirable bonuses then maybe more people would get one. but as it stand when a super is the first to die in a fight and it cant use its bonus b/c of that.... it makes it a bit useless. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:30:00 -
[275] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:So, just toyed a bit on Sisi.
- the -10% shield HP instead of -20%, which I assume to have been balanced around the wyvern, did very little for the Hel. - the cap situation got a bit better assuming you start the fight with full cap - Hel vs 2 "regular (t2)" TQ Naglfars, all 3 ships with regular +10% gangbonus and starting at full shields, the Hel was at 61% shields after both Nagls were down (Hel doing bugger all, Nagls boosting and overheating hardeners). So, extrapolating from that, Hel vs 3 of them would have ended with the Hel at 22% shields, and Hel vs 4 of them with 3 dead dreads and a dead Hel (Hel fitting was 7 hardeners, dc II, t2 rigs and 4 PDU). Not sure what I expected, but considering dreads are easily replaceable due to station manufacturing and well below a billion in cost after insurance, a bit more / something else / not 4. This is, after all, the weightclass it is now supposed to fight in.
So, my resume, after creating and dedicating an account to a Hel pilot purpose-skilled from day 1 for over 3.5 years now, I am happy with my decision from a few weeks ago to move the better parts of the hel's fitting to highsec for sale and train a parking-char to store the ship until there is a market for it again. It's just not worth wasting a 70m SP character on it.
Apart from the new builtin breakage points, the crotches may have gotten overall better, but the three primary roles of a hel on the field - meatshield, good looks and enemy confusion (why did they bring a hel?) - remain unchanged.
Great, so you proved that the supercarrier isnt able to solo multiple dreadnaughts. Now take into account actual fleet conditions, where the dreadnaughts cant get any RR and the supercarrier can be repped all day long. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
228
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:30:00 -
[276] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:You say: bring support. Ok, how many support is necessary to protect this helpless group of, hmm, 20 supercarrier? 100 subcaps? 200? If you can field 200+ ships, it would be better to field 80 dreadnoughts with an limited support. Same or more damage, but lesser isk-risk.
As I said in my first post - the sc-nerf was necessary. You are right with "they remove the roles of several other classes of ships". But a nerf to make them not better in ANY role? Where is the "Super"? Super, You can't dock? Not really! In one role they must be superior. They are also "super"carrier. I know you're a reasonable guy for the most part but, TBH, cry me a river. If you want to fly one of the biggest most badass DPS machines with awesome built-in ECM burst and Ewar immunity, but can't accept any drawbacks or inconveniences (needing to have support with you, being unable to dock, can't alpha Frigates with light scout drones any more boo hoo) -- cry me a river bro.
If I were actually interested in capital warfare and was willing to slaughter a fatted toon to keep it piloted, I'd actually train for one even now. They're great.
I'm not trying to make you mad or insult you, I'm just saying, complaints are hardly warranted. |
Oljud Zork
Evolution The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:45:00 -
[277] - Quote
Alkina wrote:The change for Shield capitals is ok, but if you add a Slave set for shields, its going to ruin all your balancing you've just done. Either leave them without an implant set (Nomads work amazingly well here), or nerf them in line with, or moreso than the others along wiht the set. And please, if your going to do that, make the penaly for using them a 30-50% reduction in shield recharge to discourage sub-caps from them for a rediculous passive tank. Oljud Zork wrote:Well, without any Sentry drones is it kind of hard to hit a POS tower, since as far as I know neither Fighters nor Fighter Bombers can hit the tower...
Any changes on that?
// Zork You've got a anti-capital ship that can hit Battleships reasonably well, thats its role. Dont try to get it to do more than what it excells at. Everyone in this thread is bitter than you've lost your clearly overpowered jack of all trades, and keep wanting life to go back to the way it was. No, you dont need a ship that can hit PoS's, thats a Dreadnaught / Titan's job, so why do you ask to do so? Even if you got the ability to shoot towers with sentries, what is the point? Let the ships designed for the job do it, and use your ship for what it does well, killing and incapping the Mods, or defending them from Capital / BS sized targets. Your Mothership isnt a swiss army knife anymore, get over it. And for those using Bombers to hit subcaps, its maybe time for Darwin's Theory to smite you from on high...
Yes I want it to go back to what it once was, before the introduction of the Fighter Bombers. IMO the major flaw with Super Carriers are their insane DPS against capitals and structures (except POS towers) when deploying Fighter Bombers.
By removing Fighter Bombers will Super Carriers only deal 2k dps with Fighters and that are the same dps as fielding two regular carriers...
what's the point with fielding Dreads that just gets torn to shreds when the hostile Super Carrier's are fielded??
The Dreads should IMO be the major damage dealing ship in a Capital fight, not Super Carriers. Super Carriers should be the endgame for carrier pilots.
Suggested Fix:
Bring on the intended change to LoggOff timer! Tweak the eHP as intended for fixing the shield supers. Remove the Fighter Bombers entirely from the game and reimburse the SP trained in FB's. Keep the ability to field 20 vanilla drones or Fighters. Keep the EWAR immunity and the ability to remote repair.
No, I am not going to cry over that all the "overpowered jack of all trades" SC's will be nerfed in some way this winter. It is simply back to the basic of Darwin's theory "Evolve or die, those who refuse will be victims of evolution"
Flame on!
// Zork |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:50:00 -
[278] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Great, so you proved that the supercarrier isnt able to solo multiple dreadnaughts. Now take into account actual fleet conditions, where the dreadnaughts cant get any RR and the supercarrier can be repped all day long.
Considering that's a game mechanic, it doesn't need to be proven. With the current mechanics, where dread tanks are balanced against RMR POS weapons, dreads will die when engaging supercaps. Just like jsut about every other active tanked gang versus a remote-rep gang. And just like a small group of capitals/supercapitals will always melt if you throw 150+ of basically whatever on top.
Balancing is about the ratios of involved ships at which point a fight ensues that is engaging for both parties. And single-ship performance is a valid metric for that. How many dreads die per super, so that both sides consider the fight winnable / worth their while and stay on field. If 20 dreads pop per super, the dread fleet will leave as soon as siege allows. If it's a one dread for one super exchange, the supers will leave as soon as the bubbles allow. The dreads trying to apply as much dps at the beginning of the engagement as possible, when they still pack the heaviest punch. And the RR-caps trying to draw the fight out to reach the point where their RR cannot be broken anymore. Both are boring scenarios with very little entropy since their results are known. The middle of the fight is the engaging part.
From your point of view, trading 3 dreads for a mom may be a lot. From my point of view, it's nothing. And a rifter is expensive for a rookie. Perception is subjective. Get used to it.
We had the old moms that favored the initial burst dps due to even trade numbers, when moms folded in seconds to bad cough and never had any chance to draw the fight into the rr-war. Now we have the supercarriers that can ride into that rr stage too easily bringing us to the point where it is impossible to field the proper counter ratio. And that was generally the right idea given the goal of making supercapitals more viable, since an imbalance at that end of the spektrum is easier to manage.
A 1:2 ratio might seem prudent for 200 supercarriers vs 400 dreads leading to mutually assured destruction. But should 20 dreads wipe 10 supers? Similarly, a 1:6 ratio might look good for 10 supers vs 60 dreads to some, since these are everyday fleetsizes. But how about 200 supers vs 1200 dreads? Personally, I consider 3 dead dreads too low, and 6 too high. 4.5 dead dreads to dead supers might, or might not, be a good number based on that.
"Fairness" will never scale linearly (unless eve introduces instanced fight areas with fixed participants per side). This is all about the placement of the turning points, where unfair to A turns into fair, and fair turns into unfair to B. The envelope in which a fight is created, that players fight to determine the winner. And not threadnought the forums. The current whine-noughts are about making nearly everything unfair to supers, a few spots that were forgotten to whine about fair, and nothing unfair to non-supers. That is not balancing, so stop calling it that.
"Iam Widdershins" wrote:If you want to fly one of the biggest most badass DPS machines with awesome built-in ECM burst and Ewar immunity, but can't accept any drawbacks or inconveniences But let's be fair here, most supercarrier pilots that exposed themselves as such in all the threads leading up to this were pretty unanimous in that the remote ecm burst needed rebalancing more direly than supercapital EHP since it creates a much bigger problem in large groups, especially now that it does not affect supercap logistic anymore. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:18:00 -
[279] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:. And single-ship performance is a valid metric for that.
No, its not. Supercarriers scale much better than dreadnaughts, since they can get RR and sieged dreads cannot. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:51:00 -
[280] - Quote
and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
|
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:59:00 -
[281] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 03:16:00 -
[282] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore.
I am actually kind of lucky in that regard, i was just getting an alt toon trained up for holding a supercarrier, and setting the isk aside, now i can stop that account before i spent any large amount of money and spend it on something else. I am just getting tired of the nerfs just before i reach a ship. I bought my first carrier right after the original carrier cargo nerf hit, now i was about to buy a supercarrier, now this, guess i will just keep my isk to myself till something else becomes the fotm and see where that goes. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 04:55:00 -
[283] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore. I am actually kind of lucky in that regard, i was just getting an alt toon trained up for holding a supercarrier, and setting the isk aside, now i can stop that account before i spent any large amount of money and spend it on something else. I am just getting tired of the nerfs just before i reach a ship. I bought my first carrier right after the original carrier cargo nerf hit, now i was about to buy a supercarrier, now this, guess i will just keep my isk to myself till something else becomes the fotm and see where that goes. Quit chasing the fotm and fly what you want to. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
45
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 09:47:00 -
[284] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Mioelnir wrote:So, just toyed a bit on Sisi.
- the -10% shield HP instead of -20%, which I assume to have been balanced around the wyvern, did very little for the Hel. - the cap situation got a bit better assuming you start the fight with full cap - Hel vs 2 "regular (t2)" TQ Naglfars, all 3 ships with regular +10% gangbonus and starting at full shields, the Hel was at 61% shields after both Nagls were down (Hel doing bugger all, Nagls boosting and overheating hardeners). So, extrapolating from that, Hel vs 3 of them would have ended with the Hel at 22% shields, and Hel vs 4 of them with 3 dead dreads and a dead Hel (Hel fitting was 7 hardeners, dc II, t2 rigs and 4 PDU). Not sure what I expected, but considering dreads are easily replaceable due to station manufacturing and well below a billion in cost after insurance, a bit more / something else / not 4. This is, after all, the weightclass it is now supposed to fight in.
So, my resume, after creating and dedicating an account to a Hel pilot purpose-skilled from day 1 for over 3.5 years now, I am happy with my decision from a few weeks ago to move the better parts of the hel's fitting to highsec for sale and train a parking-char to store the ship until there is a market for it again. It's just not worth wasting a 70m SP character on it.
Apart from the new builtin breakage points, the crotches may have gotten overall better, but the three primary roles of a hel on the field - meatshield, good looks and enemy confusion (why did they bring a hel?) - remain unchanged. Great, so you proved that the supercarrier isnt able to solo multiple dreadnaughts. Now take into account actual fleet conditions, where the dreadnaughts cant get any RR and the supercarrier can be repped all day long. exactly . . . run that same fight but now with three Hels RRing eachother and doing DPS, how many nags does it take to kill them now?
see the problem is that the nag's tank doesnt get any better, so where one super carrier is only just able to break its tank, two supers take it down > 2x as fast and can still provide unjammable RR support to eachother. what about 2 Hels and 5 carriers RRing eachother? i'd bet it would take more than 20 dreads to take them out . . . especially considering that in the amount of time it would take them to down that kind of tank, they could probably just slow boat out of range anyway.
The point is that supercarriers scale better than dreads because they can receive RR support while they do damage and dreads cant. |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 12:36:00 -
[285] - Quote
I do my work and try new Hel bonus on SISI...
-With combat Fit (2 RR, 2 invu caldari +5 pithx+4 caldari diag + dmgII+energy implants) + energy tranfer net I can operate both reps, 4k hp each 5 sec.
-With suicide Fit (only 2 invus caldaris) + energy tranfer net you can fit 4 RR but you lost any chance to be cap estable, 8k Hp transfered x 5 sec. Probably with Avatar bonus you can optimice recharge.
In both case you never have the chance to keep reserve cap for jump or continue use of ECM and ignore Neutralizers on you, low caps when you jump in combat, etc.
The questions are:
-Its the HP tranfered suficient for heavy Sc-blob enviroment whit a decent tank??
If we see how logistic work in subcaps fleet, any scimitar/guardian can repair at least near 50% BS dps x sec and have good tank.
Hel cannot do the same work in superfleets, because your tank limited capacitor recharge dutys, and need to bring 2 types of RR, armor and shield.
If you are a Hel pilot, with new bonus, you still are useless vs Nyxs DPS ands MegatankedAeons.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 13:55:00 -
[286] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Yes, when in doubt, bring more numbers. Best base for balancing ever.
Also, it is not a carrier. Carriers I have a few lying around all over eve, produce at will, and switch ships if I don't like it anymore.
Sir, it is a carrier. A tier 2 carrier, but a carrier nonetheless.
Quote:Also, which one is T2? The rifter or the loki? You have me confused there.
that's what happens when you change your mind halfway through a sentence. But red herring aside my point stands that comparing ship cost to effectiveness in every situation is just stupid.
Quote: And, final note, it may be a strange concept to you, but not everybody has enough accounts to simulate an entire fleetfight, so yes, testing with 3 caps is the best I could do. Which, last time I checked, was a lot more than you - if we ignore the wild frothing. All the while; my conclusions that with the +51.2% rep amount of Carrier 5 + Meta Reps over unbonused t1 reps, its tanking type, comparatively low ehp and general state of nullsec pvp it is even more of a priority target that can not be kept even remotely alive are founded on the facts I presented so everyone can weigh them and draw their own conclusions. Your so called "argument" has yet to exceed the "envy" mark.
PS: first time someone publicly called a hel overpowered.
More than me? How do you know?
I tested my Wyvern against dreads, and before that I tested dreads against SCs. Always the same result.
Yes, overpowered against any other ship in the game. Not compared to other ships in its class. 2 Hels, or even a Hel and a chimera/nid would take roughly 20 dreads to even have a CHANCE.
Solo, a couple dreads could take one out but throw in RR situations in every SMART fleet and your test fight becomes moot. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 16:11:00 -
[287] - Quote
Post eaten.
TL;DR -
No one is arguing that a Hel or Wyvern be solo platforms. Dreads finally got their boost, and that's great - I'd love to see them back in a useful role.
But the fact of the matter remains:
Hel/Nid still have no role. Two weeks until the patch goes live and those of us who heard the words "supercapital rebalance" assumed that the consideration of role and stats of our ships would finally see the use of a brain for more than two minutes, ended up with CCP Tallest acknowledging the deficits and then the sudden appearance of two changes recommended by a single Hel pilot.
Now, no word. As a player with two subcap accounts, I'd like to come back for the winter expansion, but not until we've either seen a serious move towards making shield caps relevant, or a reimbursement is offered.
The only reason there isn't enough noise about the shield SC issue, is that very few of us have actually refused to stop flying our preferred ship. With all that has happened in the last 8 months, I expect more. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
81
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 16:29:00 -
[288] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Post eaten.
TL;DR -
No one is arguing that a Hel or Wyvern be solo platforms. Dreads finally got their boost, and that's great - I'd love to see them back in a useful role.
But the fact of the matter remains:
Hel/Nid still have no role. Two weeks until the patch goes live and those of us who heard the words "supercapital rebalance" assumed that the consideration of role and stats of our ships would finally see the use of a brain for more than two minutes, ended up with CCP Tallest acknowledging the deficits and then the sudden appearance of two changes recommended by a single Hel pilot.
Now, no word. As a player with two subcap accounts, I'd like to come back for the winter expansion, but not until we've either seen a serious move towards making shield caps relevant, or a reimbursement is offered.
The only reason there isn't enough noise about the shield SC issue, is that very few of us have actually refused to stop flying our preferred ship. With all that has happened in the last 8 months, I expect more.
I understand your plight, mind you I was a Wyvern pilot and if I go back into a super it'll be a Nyx instead. I know the pain of flying shield caps in general.
Hey look a cap fleet... I'll bring my chimera... nope, only wanted for POS/station repairs. Remember the Phoenix before *finally* getting citadel cruise?
The Hel/Nid need work. But that's a different issue. Right now CCP is looking to balance SCs in general, not the specifics. They've thrown out changes but I believe first on their mind is to stop the proliferation and use in EVERYTHING.
And to be honest, if you're a minnie specced subcap pilot you should be happy as hell right now... |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 17:45:00 -
[289] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: ...I understand your plight, mind you I was a Wyvern pilot and if I go back into a super it'll be a Nyx instead. I know the pain of flying shield caps in general. (.....) And to be honest, if you're a minnie specced subcap pilot you should be happy as hell right now...
Feedback Thread: "Capital Ships": thats the topic. I dont care about happy subcaps Minnmatar pilots.
If one use years of skills to fligh a Hel, now its time to rework useless bonus... |
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 19:07:00 -
[290] - Quote
@Vincent Gaines,
why this nerf? people say, supers are overpowered. in many things, there are right. but they are overpowered only because there were in supercarrierfleets. Why is it that supers are concentrate in (more or less) one big powerblock and not evenly distributed over the universe. Does this the problem of this shiptype or the people/politics/fleetdoctrines
You need an example for fielding supers? Ok, RF-time of an i-hub (pos-shooting isn't avaiable without fielding dreads *g*). Bring 20 supers, how many support you would field? You can't not only field carriers for support. You need massive support from subcaps. In my opinion you need way more support fielding 20 supers than fielding 40 dreadnoughts (cheaper, insurable, ect.). but you make more damage with your 40 dreadnoughts.
Dreads are not anti-ship dps platforms? You are right with anti subcap, but there works fine against capitals. Can you remember DK-FXK? Yes, it was a funny old capital battle (before apogrypha I think). http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=3637346 (oh and I miss this time). This battle was last man standing and pure fun. I hope, after this patch there will be some battles like that.
@Iam Widdershins,
I try to understand the opposing position. With some arguments I can agree, with some I can't. I'm ok with -20% ehp, with logoffski, with some t2-modules such like the siege and also the warp disruption field generator with now 24km. There are a lot of changes with this patch. They will replace old fleetdoctrines, of course. But I don't want chars with useless ships like pre-apogrypha.
And NO, I don't want to fly an "I-Win-Button"-ship. With Titans there are unique in usability. You can't dock them, you are ecm-invulnerable and in price there are exobitant (in relation to all other ships). I don't want the actually supercarrier back, a nerf was neseccary. But I don't want the pre-apogrypha supercarrier too. Today you can carry 48 fighter/fighter bomber (Nyx) with a decent count of standard drones, After this nerf you can carry 30 fighter/fighter bomber without any standard drones. Fighter bomber are complete useless against subcaps, fighter are useless against frig/cruiser and nearly useless against bc. What do You carry in Your supercarrier? Without DCU you can field 20 drones. Some player ask for an separatly dronebay of 125-150 m-¦ for a slightly defence against subcaps. Is this a I-Win-Button? Is it a I-Win-Button asking for an role there are slightly better than other ships in this one role? Is it a I-Win-button asking for an jumprange-change between carrier and supercarrier? Going for more logistics |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
90
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 20:24:00 -
[291] - Quote
oh my god.
Forget this bullshit.
I had a huge post showing killboard examples and everything and it just vanished.
I hate, HATE these forums.
Just search Raiden on killboards. Search by towers. See how many are taken down by supers. see how many logis (subcaps) are taken out by supers. Just look.
I'm too pissed to hold anyone's hand and go again on eve kill which is slow as balls right now. |
Drakko Mussua
Tormentum Insomniae Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 20:54:00 -
[292] - Quote
Any chance we get Supercarriers dockable until you guys buff them against sicne at this time they lack any kind of rol or effective/cost use?
Wish CCP developers had a clue what they are doing, and didnt do stupid sweeping balance changes every 2 years in roder to say hey we got the XXth's FREE (you wish) expansion!! You dont do 2 years balance you do very small tweaks eveyr month instead tos ee how the game evovle instead of putting everything into chaos because Mittani tells you what to do.
Thank you |
ogletorp
Surrender Dorothy Bipolar Stability
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 21:21:00 -
[293] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore.
Well trying to get fair value for them at this time might prevent selling. Let them dock! |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 21:41:00 -
[294] - Quote
ogletorp wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore. Well trying to get fair value for them at this time might prevent selling. Let them dock! Fair value as determined by the market. I see many in denial trying to sell them for several billion more than they are worth. |
ogletorp
Surrender Dorothy Bipolar Stability
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 22:12:00 -
[295] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:ogletorp wrote:Michael Harari wrote:[quote=Draconus Lofwyr]and now the "final" changes are on SISI for testing with narry a word in the last few weeks about any further changes or something to compensate the super pilots for the now practically worthless E-Peen they are permanently stuck in again. The sup[per buff was meant as a way to make these ships useful, and now this is returning them to worthlessness. If the updates go through as currently on SISI, can they all be allowed to dock once so they can be permanently mothballed?
Nothing prevents you from selling your supercarrier if you dont want it anymore. Well trying to get fair value for them at this time might prevent selling. Let them dock! [/ quote] Fair value as determined by the market. I see many in denial trying to sell them for several billion more than they are worth. Yet another reason to let them dock so they can be bought and sold in an environment in game rather than the forums! Also then those that keep them aren't stuck having to haul fighters/fighter bombers back out to them. I see no valid reason they should not ne allowed to dock. |
John Hand
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 22:44:00 -
[296] - Quote
ok so here is a few things CCP needs to do with this nerf while still adding it to the game.
1. Launch the expansion WITHOUT the nerf at first, with all these new ships and T2 mods coming to the game the super will have some real fights on there hands. Many supers will die not knowing how to handle themselves against the new Tier 3's and the new T2 siege modes for dreads and new T2 triage for carriers. If all of that doesn't prove to be enough in killing sufficient numbers of supers, after 2 mos, then you move on to stage 2.
2. At stage 2 you put in the first nerf, the drone bay size nerf and EHP nerf but you still allow normal drones to be used, just make the bay smaller and increase the corp hanger or ship hanger to compensate (or even the cargo hold itself *GASP*). With less HP supers should die a bit faster, if they aren't dieing fast enough already that is. After a month, if this again doesn't seem to be enough, move on to stage 3.
3. At stage 3 the final nerf is added. The bonus to deploying additional drones per a level is limited to Fighters and Fighter bombers ONLY. This makes the super able to only put out 5 normal drones (or 10 if fitted with DCU's). This brings a fitting delema to super pilots, do you fit yourself for spider-tanking or do you fit no RR and go with a more generalized fit?
If CCP adds in the nerf SLOWLY and not all at once, people can digest and swallow it better then taking it all in one big gulp. With the new ships and mods coming to this expansion, the options for super killing will open more so then any nerf ever could do. |
Sir HappyPants
Caldari Innovations and Research Telcondar Sean Intergalactic Fan Syndicate
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 00:19:00 -
[297] - Quote
If I remove all but fighters and bombers from my Nyx's drone bay before xpac hits in a couple weeks, will my drone bay still be cleaned out? On SiSi my entire dronebay was dumped into hisec. -_- Member of the #TweetFleet@thisurlnotfound |
Altolinchen
Sternenschauer AG Smacked Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 00:58:00 -
[298] - Quote
John Hand wrote:ok so here is a few things CCP needs to do with this nerf while still adding it to the game.
1. Launch the expansion WITHOUT the nerf at first, with all these new ships and T2 mods coming to the game the super will have some real fights on there hands. Many supers will die not knowing how to handle themselves against the new Tier 3's and the new T2 siege modes for dreads and new T2 triage for carriers. If all of that doesn't prove to be enough in killing sufficient numbers of supers, after 2 mos, then you move on to stage 2.
2. At stage 2 you put in the first nerf, the drone bay size nerf and EHP nerf but you still allow normal drones to be used, just make the bay smaller and increase the corp hanger or ship hanger to compensate (or even the cargo hold itself *GASP*). With less HP supers should die a bit faster, if they aren't dieing fast enough already that is. After a month, if this again doesn't seem to be enough, move on to stage 3.
3. At stage 3 the final nerf is added. The bonus to deploying additional drones per a level is limited to Fighters and Fighter bombers ONLY. This makes the super able to only put out 5 normal drones (or 10 if fitted with DCU's). This brings a fitting delema to super pilots, do you fit yourself for spider-tanking or do you fit no RR and go with a more generalized fit?
If CCP adds in the nerf SLOWLY and not all at once, people can digest and swallow it better then taking it all in one big gulp. With the new ships and mods coming to this expansion, the options for super killing will open more so then any nerf ever could do.
Or stop the nerf after step 1 / 2 / 3 if you think and we say it's enough and you will see it on the killboards.. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
239
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 04:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:@Iam Widdershins,
I try to understand the opposing position. With some arguments I can agree, with some I can't. I'm ok with -20% ehp, with logoffski, with some t2-modules such like the siege and also the warp disruption field generator with now 24km. There are a lot of changes with this patch. They will replace old fleetdoctrines, of course. But I don't want chars with useless ships like pre-apogrypha.
And NO, I don't want to fly an "I-Win-Button"-ship. With Titans there are unique in usability. You can't dock them, you are ecm-invulnerable and in price there are exobitant (in relation to all other ships). I don't want the actually supercarrier back, a nerf was neseccary. But I don't want the pre-apogrypha supercarrier too. Today you can carry 48 fighter/fighter bomber (Nyx) with a decent count of standard drones, After this nerf you can carry 30 fighter/fighter bomber without any standard drones. Fighter bomber are complete useless against subcaps, fighter are useless against frig/cruiser and nearly useless against bc. What do You carry in Your supercarrier? Without DCU you can field 20 drones. Some player ask for an separatly dronebay of 125-150 m-¦ for a slightly defence against subcaps. Is this a I-Win-Button? Is it a I-Win-Button asking for an role there are slightly better than other ships in this one role? Is it a I-Win-button asking for an jumprange-change between carrier and supercarrier? Going for more logistics ITT people ask for a 100% bonus to Small weapons on their Abaddons because currently they are almost completely defenseless against frigates.
If you want to kill frigates, cruisers, and BCs... maybe you should fly something else. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 04:53:00 -
[300] - Quote
Has anyone tested sieging dreads against supers yet? I'll try to tomorrow but I have a feeling they are still able to be speedtanked. |
|
John Hand
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 05:08:00 -
[301] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Gol'dar wrote:@Iam Widdershins,
I try to understand the opposing position. With some arguments I can agree, with some I can't. I'm ok with -20% ehp, with logoffski, with some t2-modules such like the siege and also the warp disruption field generator with now 24km. There are a lot of changes with this patch. They will replace old fleetdoctrines, of course. But I don't want chars with useless ships like pre-apogrypha.
And NO, I don't want to fly an "I-Win-Button"-ship. With Titans there are unique in usability. You can't dock them, you are ecm-invulnerable and in price there are exobitant (in relation to all other ships). I don't want the actually supercarrier back, a nerf was neseccary. But I don't want the pre-apogrypha supercarrier too. Today you can carry 48 fighter/fighter bomber (Nyx) with a decent count of standard drones, After this nerf you can carry 30 fighter/fighter bomber without any standard drones. Fighter bomber are complete useless against subcaps, fighter are useless against frig/cruiser and nearly useless against bc. What do You carry in Your supercarrier? Without DCU you can field 20 drones. Some player ask for an separatly dronebay of 125-150 m-¦ for a slightly defence against subcaps. Is this a I-Win-Button? Is it a I-Win-Button asking for an role there are slightly better than other ships in this one role? Is it a I-Win-button asking for an jumprange-change between carrier and supercarrier? Going for more logistics ITT people ask for a 100% bonus to Small weapons on their Abaddons because currently they are almost completely defenseless against frigates. If you want to kill frigates, cruisers, and BCs... maybe you should fly something else.
ever hear of drones? Every ship is able to deal with classes smaller then itself because every cruiser class hull or bigger has a drone bay. After the nerf there will be a wide range of ships without drone bays that are very large and VERY VERY expansive. Drones really are the "I win" button people are crying about, yet everyone can use them. It just so happens that supers can put out more then the standard 5, and even normal carriers can take on decent sized fleets on there own as well. [sarcasm]So if you want to nerf supers, nerf carriers too since they apparently are so OP because they too can carry 400+ drones [/sarcasm]. |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 07:07:00 -
[302] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Has anyone tested sieging dreads against supers yet? I'll try to tomorrow but I have a feeling they are still able to be speedtanked.
Yes they speedtank its so ******** I'm at loss of words for it.. Naglfar with Autos will only hit for 50% of its damage against moving supers while being in optimal range. Yeah these -50% tracking on siege are still there so what did you expect.. I'd love to see them gone I mean CCP made the tracking/max target change back in the day against lowsec station camping dreads but with supers in the game nobody is doing that anymore anyways.. Kill the tracking penalty and boost the locking speed a bit cuz even a super takes a long time to log in siege which sucks.. and dreads will do damage against carriers and supers:) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 07:38:00 -
[303] - Quote
Mauryce wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: ...I understand your plight, mind you I was a Wyvern pilot and if I go back into a super it'll be a Nyx instead. I know the pain of flying shield caps in general. (.....) And to be honest, if you're a minnie specced subcap pilot you should be happy as hell right now... Feedback Thread: "Capital Ships": thats the topic. I dont care about happy subcaps Minnmatar pilots. If one use years of skills to fligh a Hel, now its time to rework useless bonus... so, wait . . . this person trained for a Hel knowing that it had a less than optimal stat setup then bought one, and now wants them to buff his ship? Ok, maybe the Hel needs a buff, maybe not, but I really hope for that moron it stays just the way it is. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 07:48:00 -
[304] - Quote
John Hand wrote:ever hear of drones? Every ship is able to deal with classes smaller then itself because every cruiser class hull or bigger has a drone bay. After the nerf there will be a wide range of ships without drone bays that are very large and VERY VERY expansive. Drones really are the "I win" button people are crying about, yet everyone can use them. It just so happens that supers can put out more then the standard 5, and even normal carriers can take on decent sized fleets on there own as well. [sarcasm]So if you want to nerf supers, nerf carriers too since they apparently are so OP because they too can carry 400+ drones [/sarcasm]. clearly youre having a problem understanding the issues at hand.
The problem is not that supercarriers are able to launch drones . . . the problem is that supercarriers are able to effectively engage every ship of every size in the game . . .
Now I realize that all drone ships are able to do this, but usually the answer is "just bring a bigger ship" which is absolutely fine for every ship up to and including a carrier, but the issue with the supercarrier is that there is no bigger ship! Its as big as it gets and can even take on Titans at the correct range!
This could have been fixed in a number of ways, but the way they chose to do it was to reduce/eliminate its damage to smaller ships. This was accomplished by removing its drones.
TL;DR With all other drone ships, you can just escalate and bring a bigger ship, but with the supercarrier you cant because it IS the biggest ship. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 10:30:00 -
[305] - Quote
The drone bays on the supers are now too small. no other ship in the game relies 100% on Drones for 100% of it's offensive capabilities. So now SC cant even tage fighters and FIghter bombers, That's like forcing a BS fleet to only take long or short range ammo when they undock.
They should make the game like WOW and do RP resets at every update. Because at the moment the vet players are a smaller number but have soo many more RP that they can wipe the floor with newbies. There are a lot more newbies/low skill players. the masses ***** and whine more, more importantly they give CCP a lot more money.
EVE is not a game it is a business. CCP do what ever makes them the most money. That is catering for the low skill masses.
That's the painfull cold hard truth of things, I'm expecting patricide to be the next big thing in next years summer expansion. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 11:40:00 -
[306] - Quote
I disagree . . . its like forcing battleships to choose between short or long range guns when they undock . . . oh wait . . . |
Ammath
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 12:32:00 -
[307] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:
Capital warfare should remain capital. It should involve a support fleet. And I'm sorry but some of these super alliances with hundreds of supers are going to hurt... just as much as they benefitted from them being overpowered.
Actually it means smaller alliances who field less supercaps will now field zero, those pilots likely in time will get angry and migrate to the already super-cap blobby mega alliances so they can use their ships they worked so hard to get instead of pissing $15/mo down a hole... which will..
a) make mega super blobs more mega
b) make smaller alliances weaker (again)
c) do nothing to stop the 300+ super blobs from coming to rip up your fleet
Good job CCP.
|
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 12:44:00 -
[308] - Quote
forum ate my beautiful post - not going to write it again.
the short version however is that this is the worst thought through change from a company with a history of rolling out ill thought through changes. this does not address the fundamentals that we need fixed. we want super capitals in space so that pilots can enjoy using them and we can enjoy shooting at them. but we do not want them to be in super blobs the only time we see them. there's 2 sides to this coin - there's the use in low sec and skirmishes and the 0.0 moon goo wars. the proposed changed will completely remove the use of super caps by low resource entities and hence remove them from consideration for small corps/alliances. this also means that they will be removed from the field and not able to be shot at by the opposing forces to these smal corp/alliances. in 0.0 the nerf doesn't do anything. either the resource rich just bring more of them with more support, or they change the resource allocation to the next "best platform" - the net result is status quo except you upset almost every pilot who already has one and force the same players to join the super blobs (or firesale and unsub).
as a low sec player it's going to be sad that the only time i will ever see a super from now on will be when we get lol'd by PL or whoever with 40 supers, or we happen to catch sight of the same blob moving through low sec with travel fits. we'll probably never again be able to shoot one or two and there will be no "dream" of getting one or two for our corp. thanks ccp. btw xmas is coming ccp, so you could shoot down santa just to ruin that too.
|
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 12:53:00 -
[309] - Quote
Supers are op because there is too many of them, boost their price and manufacturing time to a level that a big alliance like red or goons whould efford only a small fleet of them like 2-3 titan and 10-15 moms problem solved. Also insert a price check on them if the level of incomes a big alliance can have become to big rise the supers price even more. A single player should never be allowed to buy such a thing without being in a big ally. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 13:16:00 -
[310] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:The drone bays on the supers are now too small. no other ship in the game relies 100% on Drones for 100% of it's offensive capabilities. So now SC cant even tage fighters and FIghter bombers, That's like forcing a BS fleet to only take long or short range ammo when they undock.
They should make the game like WOW and do RP resets at every update. Because at the moment the vet players are a smaller number but have soo many more RP that they can wipe the floor with newbies. There are a lot more newbies/low skill players. the masses ***** and whine more, more importantly they give CCP a lot more money.
EVE is not a game it is a business. CCP do what ever makes them the most money. That is catering for the low skill masses.
That's the painfull cold hard truth of things, I'm expecting patricide to be the next big thing in next years summer expansion.
Bring a carrier with you to carry the other type of drones. WTF do you think fleet logistics are for?
This isn't WoW, it's a big boy game, you have to think a bit. Try it sometime. |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 13:20:00 -
[311] - Quote
Ammath wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:
Capital warfare should remain capital. It should involve a support fleet. And I'm sorry but some of these super alliances with hundreds of supers are going to hurt... just as much as they benefitted from them being overpowered.
Actually it means smaller alliances who field less supercaps will now field zero, those pilots likely in time will get angry and migrate to the already super-cap blobby mega alliances so they can use their ships they worked so hard to get instead of pissing $15/mo down a hole... which will.. a) make mega super blobs more mega b) make smaller alliances weaker (again) c) do nothing to stop the 300+ super blobs from coming to rip up your fleet Good job CCP.
ok Mr soothsayer.
tbh any "small" alliance that uses supers usually does it to hot drop subcaps, and not for capital warfare. As such were part of the problem to begin with.
And given the number of SCs being put up for sale, I think that they will be used with more restraint and purpose other than an i-win button.
|
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 13:27:00 -
[312] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Nidhoggur: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +30000 PG * +2500 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
Hel: * 7,5% bonus to armor and shield transfer amount per carrier level instead of 5%. * +5000 capacitor capacity (recharge time will be changed to have same base recharge.)
I don't like those bonuses. Not because they aren't good, but because there's already too much remote in Eve. The supercap blob became a huge issue in big part because of too much remote. Soon you'll have fleets comparing their number of logistic cruisers and refusing to engage if they don't have more of them.
Quote: * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
There's laways been a trade-off between armor taning and shield tanking: Armor tankers have their passive omni-resist module, shield tankers have their omni-resist module, too, that is more efficient, but use cap.
If you want to release shield EANM mods, then it would only be fair to also release an active armor invulnerability module as well.
The rest I agree with. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 13:30:00 -
[313] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Has anyone tested sieging dreads against supers yet? I'll try to tomorrow but I have a feeling they are still able to be speedtanked. Yes they speedtank its so ******** I'm at loss of words for it.. Naglfar with Autos will only hit for 50% of its damage against moving supers while being in optimal range. Yeah these -50% tracking on siege are still there so what did you expect.. I'd love to see them gone I mean CCP made the tracking/max target change back in the day against lowsec station camping dreads but with supers in the game nobody is doing that anymore anyways.. Kill the tracking penalty and boost the locking speed a bit cuz even a super takes a long time to log in siege which sucks.. and dreads will do damage against carriers and supers:)
I would like to see both halved:
tracking penalty -25% explosion velocity -30% max locked targets: 5
Citadel cruise missiles right now have an explosion velocity of 50m/s
(I'm not sure on turret based platforms when it comes to dreads, someone work with me here) |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 14:14:00 -
[314] - Quote
Roger Soros wrote:Supers are op because there is too many of them, boost their price and manufacturing time to a level that a big alliance like red or goons whould efford only a small fleet of them like 2-3 titan and 10-15 moms problem solved.
We, and every other major alliance have that amount of supercaps several times over, so all your suggestion does is hinder other, newer alliances from building their own supercap fleet to catch up. |
DavidJayder
modro ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 14:38:00 -
[315] - Quote
Please remove the missile slots on the Naglfar. It is a bad idea and like all the other Minmatar split missile/gun ships it makes it bad. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
97
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 14:44:00 -
[316] - Quote
DavidJayder wrote:Please remove the missile slots on the Naglfar. It is a bad idea and like all the other Minmatar split missile/gun ships it makes it bad.
Agreed
drop both missile slots and add a turret... the missile bay doesn't even have a bonus applied to it, what's the point of it being there? |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:08:00 -
[317] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote:The drone bays on the supers are now too small. no other ship in the game relies 100% on Drones for 100% of it's offensive capabilities. So now SC cant even tage fighters and FIghter bombers, That's like forcing a BS fleet to only take long or short range ammo when they undock.
They should make the game like WOW and do RP resets at every update. Because at the moment the vet players are a smaller number but have soo many more RP that they can wipe the floor with newbies. There are a lot more newbies/low skill players. the masses ***** and whine more, more importantly they give CCP a lot more money.
EVE is not a game it is a business. CCP do what ever makes them the most money. That is catering for the low skill masses.
That's the painfull cold hard truth of things, I'm expecting patricide to be the next big thing in next years summer expansion. Bring a carrier with you to carry the other type of drones. WTF do you think fleet logistics are for? This isn't WoW, it's a big boy game, you have to think a bit. Try it sometime.
My appologies. I must have missed the carrier Buff that lets it carry 20 FIghter bombers.
Doesn't really matter the update is fixed bar bug fixing so I've suspended repayment on my SC toon.
|
DavidJayder
modro ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:14:00 -
[318] - Quote
If I was gonna make a suggestion I know wouldn't be followed but would be good in general it would be to remove siege altogether. It is a useless mechanic that forces a much larger negative on dreads compared to any other capital ship. Dreads already are missing a role. Since the sov mechanics have changed the chief role of the dread, pos shooting has become more and more unnecessary as its much easier just to bring a fleet of battleships to do it then dreads(mainly due to no one wanting to fly dreads). Shooting other caps with dreads is useless unless that ship is another sieged dread as anything can speed tank them. Even cutting the siege timer is useless as every time you siege up your basically assuming if anyone shows up your dead. There is no requirement of any effort for the opponent to catch a dread either when its sieged. Carriers have other options then triage give dreads the same. Get rid of the siege module and give dreads either more guns or a damage boost. Lower their ehp if you have to but give them more of a use then just taking down a pos a couple minutes faster. This would ensure more mixed fleets imo as you would need tacklers to kill dreads instead of just dropping a super on them. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:27:00 -
[319] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: Bring a carrier with you to carry the other type of drones. WTF do you think fleet logistics are for?
This isn't WoW, it's a big boy game, you have to think a bit. Try it sometime.
My appologies. I must have missed the carrier Buff that lets it carry 20 FIghter bombers. Doesn't really matter the update is fixed bar bug fixing so I've suspended repayment on my SC toon.
It can carry fighters for you. You carry the bombers.
If anything, I'd support a stealth buff by allowing carriers to HOLD fighter bombers in their drone bay but not fly them. (that gives you 80,000m3 which can hold 16) + 2 in corp hanger giving you 18 total. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:37:00 -
[320] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:DavidJayder wrote:Please remove the missile slots on the Naglfar. It is a bad idea and like all the other Minmatar split missile/gun ships it makes it bad. Agreed drop both missile slots and add a turret... the missile bay doesn't even have a bonus applied to it, what's the point of it being there?
Please also replace the launcher slots on the Phoenix with turret slots (and its shield tank with an armour tank) to prevent it being the only missile-using dread, making it hated and useless and its pilots told to train a proper dread to simplify dread DPS application, removing the missile flight time issue. |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:40:00 -
[321] - Quote
DavidJayder wrote:If I was gonna make a suggestion I know wouldn't be followed but would be good in general it would be to remove siege altogether. It is a useless mechanic that forces a much larger negative on dreads compared to any other capital ship. Dreads already are missing a role. Since the sov mechanics have changed the chief role of the dread, pos shooting has become more and more unnecessary as its much easier just to bring a fleet of battleships to do it then dreads(mainly due to no one wanting to fly dreads). Shooting other caps with dreads is useless unless that ship is another sieged dread as anything can speed tank them. Even cutting the siege timer is useless as every time you siege up your basically assuming if anyone shows up your dead. There is no requirement of any effort for the opponent to catch a dread either when its sieged. Carriers have other options then triage give dreads the same. Get rid of the siege module and give dreads either more guns or a damage boost. Lower their ehp if you have to but give them more of a use then just taking down a pos a couple minutes faster. This would ensure more mixed fleets imo as you would need tacklers to kill dreads instead of just dropping a super on them.
If you remove siege you'd need to bump the base damage up to compensate for the DPS.
I feel that siege should be used for 2 things - structures and supers, while OOS should be used for regular capitals.
The problem with dreads not being on POS bashes isn't because nobody wants to fly them, but as you said what happens is:
1) dreads drop into siege
2) lone hostile recon decloaks and pops cyno
3) 20 supers jump in
4) dreads are stuck for an agonizing time and begin popping
It's safer and easier to bring in battleships or even BCs with proper logi.
I proposed buffing tracking and explosion velocity while in siege, and in addition to those:
Buff POS guns
Small - typical damage of large batteries (~87% for Arty for example) Medium - increase damage modifier from ~67% to about ~100% Large - increase damage modifier from ~87% to about ~150 to 170%
This means a POS gunner at a large POS can instapop battleships before logi can rep. It also means unsieged dreads can take a little hurt and would utilize carrier logistics.
Allow remote rep from carriers to dreads in siege, and drop the local tank bonus.
keep the siege timer at the reduced duration.
This does a few things, it forces dreads on POS towers again thus giving supers more to do now that thy are geared to OS bashing.
It puts the smaller ships back on SBUs and TCUs. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:44:00 -
[322] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: Please also replace the launcher slots on the Phoenix with turret slots (and its shield tank with an armour tank) to prevent it being the only missile-using dread, making it hated and useless and its pilots told to train a proper dread to simplify dread DPS application, removing the missile flight time issue.
let the haters hate... I'll bring my delayed-DPS phoenix anyway.
|
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:47:00 -
[323] - Quote
What everyone here is failing to realize is the fact that those changes wont change anything on Alliance Warfare Level. They just ruin the ships for the personal player.
After this patch Capital warfare as a whole will die out. Maybee not right on patchday, but i dont give it 3 months until seeing deployed capitals will become something you only see n00bs doing. And even that only that one time while they get droped by a BS Gang with RR support.
Dreads are still just a bunch of big unmovable targets if deployed, carriers are way to thin for bigger fleet fights (a decent sized Alpha Fleet can instapop one without hazzle) and SCs will simply lack something to shoot at (remember, Fighters + Fighter Bombers can not even shoot POSes) .
The only worthy Caps to use will be Titans, because of their still awesome DPS and EHP without Tracking penality and their ability to even bring their own support fleet right with them through the bridge. Especially, if u have mutliple of them.
Than Goons will cry some more, Titans will be nerfed into oblivion and that was it for Eve Online and Cap warfare.
I dont know, but i stil think the dumbest thing they ever did was to remove the AoE DD. With the AoE DD and the old Sov Structure, Dreads would still be the Nr.1 Cap with a Role and the Bonus, that their Damage could not be taken without destroying the actuall ship.
Oh and btw.: To comment that supers need to be nerfed, because their is no bigger ship: Ever thought that this will always be the case? I mean, tell me what bigger ship to bring in highsec than a BS? What is the solution to that?
Let me tell you: BRING MOAR
So if u want to beat 100 SCs, than BRING MOAR.
There will always be *the biggest ship*. The problem with SCs is simply that some where wise enough to get them and some where not and now are crying.
Oh and btw.: To all people telling us to stop whining and swallow it, why didnt u do that in the first place and swallowed the fact that our ships are better than the crap you fly and just shut up? Seems you cryed loud and long enough so that CCP had to feel sorry for you and your incompetence. Because everyone can get into a SC, even if he does only Level 4s in Highsec. It just takes some time and dedication and the ability to motivate yourself over an extended periode of time.
But no, putting effort into something should never pay out. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
106
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:28:00 -
[324] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:What everyone here is failing to realize is the fact that those changes wont change anything on Alliance Warfare Level. They just ruin the ships for the personal player.
After this patch Capital warfare as a whole will die out. Maybee not right on patchday, but i dont give it 3 months until seeing deployed capitals will become something you only see n00bs doing. And even that only that one time while they get droped by a BS Gang with RR support.
The only worthy Caps to use will be Titans, because of their still awesome DPS and EHP without Tracking penality and their ability to even bring their own support fleet right with them through the bridge. Especially, if u have mutliple of them.
Than Goons will cry some more, Titans will be nerfed into oblivion and that was it for Eve Online and Cap warfare.
Dreads are still just a bunch of big unmovable targets if deployed, carriers are way to thin for bigger fleet fights (a decent sized Alpha Fleet can instapop one without hazzle) and SCs will simply lack something to shoot at (remember, Fighters + Fighter Bombers can not even shoot POSes) .
Add in the above buff to POS guns and dreads will be REQUIRED to take out large POSs just as they were before the subcap EHP buff (anyone remember that?). It's why dreads were put in, because BS fleets couldn't live long enough.
I'm not a Goon but I agree that super proliferation was getting out of hand.
Quote:I dont know, but i stil think the dumbest thing they ever did was to remove the AoE DD. With the AoE DD and the old Sov Structure, Dreads would still be the Nr.1 Cap with a Role and the Bonus, that their Damage could not be taken without destroying the actuall ship.
Slight problem. I've seen upwards of 10-20 Titans on grid before. With the AoE doomsday that is enough to DD any dread/carrier, and would bring us back to the "i win" button when subcap fleets were dropped with an AoE.
Hell, when I was in DNS we had RA try to DD our recon gang.
Quote:Oh and btw.: To comment that supers need to be nerfed, because their is no bigger ship: Ever thought that this will always be the case? I mean, tell me what bigger ship to bring in highsec than a BS? What is the solution to that?
Let me tell you: BRING MOAR
So if u want to beat 100 SCs, than BRING MOAR.
And what happens when you bring 200? what happens when you blue half of nullsec including the alliances with the majority of supers? Then there is nothing to prevent a steamroll.
I'm going to bring up Vale and Tribute.. you realize that there is no way the NC or any other alliance (or coalition) could have matched the numbers of DRF? And you're STILL blue to each other. Yes this is less about mechanics and more about the social aspect, but addressing your comment- What do you do when you can't? You lose because you have no chance so why bother?
Do you remember how you got JZV? How many supers did you bring when the station came out of RF? How about ZLZ?
Quote:There will always be *the biggest ship*. The problem with SCs is simply that some where wise enough to get them and some where not and now are crying.
I think you have it backwards. It's not about being wise enough, it is saying, "we can win easily let's get together every single group that has them or every pilot and we can't be stopped"
If you're playing basketball, and you have only 3 guys over 6' tall vs a whole team reaching 7', explain the motivation when it comes to playing against them?
Quote:Oh and btw.: To all people telling us to stop whining and swallow it, why didnt u do that in the first place and swallowed the fact that our ships are better than the crap you fly and just shut up? Seems you cryed loud and long enough so that CCP had to feel sorry for you and your incompetence. Because everyone can get into a SC, even if he does only Level 4s in Highsec. It just takes some time and dedication and the ability to motivate yourself over an extended periode of time.
But no, putting effort into something should never pay out.
You sound like a kid who had his candy taken away. You're right, let's ALL get into supers. Every single person. Then what, it's supercarriers online and nothing more. |
vurdosek
Entropy Tech. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:31:00 -
[325] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote:The drone bays on the supers are now too small. no other ship in the game relies 100% on Drones for 100% of it's offensive capabilities. So now SC cant even tage fighters and FIghter bombers, That's like forcing a BS fleet to only take long or short range ammo when they undock.
They should make the game like WOW and do RP resets at every update. Because at the moment the vet players are a smaller number but have soo many more RP that they can wipe the floor with newbies. There are a lot more newbies/low skill players. the masses ***** and whine more, more importantly they give CCP a lot more money.
EVE is not a game it is a business. CCP do what ever makes them the most money. That is catering for the low skill masses.
That's the painfull cold hard truth of things, I'm expecting patricide to be the next big thing in next years summer expansion. Bring a carrier with you to carry the other type of drones. WTF do you think fleet logistics are for? This isn't WoW, it's a big boy game, you have to think a bit. Try it sometime.
U can't be serious. Wtf is the purpose of a supercarrier if a carrier has to bring its drones for the supercarrier to use? |
vurdosek
Entropy Tech. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:35:00 -
[326] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: If you're playing basketball, and you have only 3 guys over 6' tall vs a whole team reaching 7', explain the motivation when it comes to playing against them?
U have mj, dr.j, magic johnson, allen iverson, and Damon Stoudamire and they have shawn bradley, nazr mohammed, Gheorghe Muresan, Manute Bol, and Chuck Nevitt |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
107
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:39:00 -
[327] - Quote
vurdosek wrote: U can't be serious. Wtf is the purpose of a supercarrier if a carrier has to bring its drones for the supercarrier to use?
If you want to have your choice on deployment
|
vurdosek
Entropy Tech. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:42:00 -
[328] - Quote
they need to remove the word super |
DeadDuck
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:52:00 -
[329] - Quote
Simple solution for the super cap issue:
a) Remove them from game; b) Return their isk mineral cost to their owners; c) Return the isks spent in skills to the pilots; d) Return the isks that were invested by corporations/pilots on modules that can only be used by super caps; e) Return to the current owners the isks spent on BPO/BPC's Super Caps; f) Return to the corps/pilots/owners the isks invested in CSAA's out there; g) Return their SP's invested in the proper skils to a pool where the pilots can reassigne them; ... f) Everybody happy.
|
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:54:00 -
[330] - Quote
The new supercarriers are totally nerfed to Hell.
They are actually worse than the old Motherships.
Honestly, F you CCP. You, like all other modern game developers, have no finesse, no concept of elegance.
You are a stupid, blunt, brute, who is only able to swing a axe. Eventually, you will rip your own leg off and bleed to death. I will already be playing something else. Nerfing supers is not going to help the N+1/Blob problem. It will just mean that superpilots will be even more likely to want to blob. Think more creatively. Support the idea of a subcap "assault bomber." |
|
John Hand
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:04:00 -
[331] - Quote
xxxak wrote:The new supercarriers are totally nerfed to Hell.
They are actually worse than the old Motherships.
Honestly, F you CCP. You, like all other modern game developers, have no finesse, no concept of elegance.
You are a stupid, blunt, brute, who is only able to swing a axe. Eventually, you will rip your own leg off and bleed to death. I will already be playing something else.
Here is a prime example CCP of whats going to happen with the expansion. You are going to maybe get some old players back with that but at the same time be losing hundreds more of accounts because of this nerf.
Crucible is going to be a good expansion but it has its grain of salt, and depending on what you fly that grain of salt might be a boulder instead. Case in point, delay the nerf, wait for people to get used to the NEW ships that were MADE to kill supers, you might then not even need to do it. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:16:00 -
[332] - Quote
While i do see some of the concerns for you Kspacers, I am pleased as punch about the regaular capital changes and module changes. They will be of great use in Wspace. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
246
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:04:00 -
[333] - Quote
xxxak wrote:The new supercarriers are totally nerfed to Hell.
They are actually worse than the old Motherships.
Honestly, F you CCP. You, like all other modern game developers, have no finesse, no concept of elegance.
You are a stupid, blunt, brute, who is only able to swing a axe. Eventually, you will rip your own leg off and bleed to death. I will already be playing something else. Hahahaha, might it be that you are mad, perchance? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
246
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:12:00 -
[334] - Quote
John Hand wrote:ever hear of drones? Every ship is able to deal with classes smaller then itself because every cruiser class hull or bigger has a drone bay. After the nerf there will be a wide range of ships without drone bays that are very large and VERY VERY expansive. Drones really are the "I win" button people are crying about, yet everyone can use them. It just so happens that supers can put out more then the standard 5, and even normal carriers can take on decent sized fleets on there own as well. [sarcasm]So if you want to nerf supers, nerf carriers too since they apparently are so OP because they too can carry 400+ drones [/sarcasm]. This is a bad argument and you should feel bad. Current Supercarriers are the best thing in the game for killing frigates once they have attained target lock: 20-25 Warrior II drones are pretty ridiculously powerful. The point isn't that they can use drones, the point is that they can use drones to be better at killing small ships than other ships that were DESIGNED to do this.
And saying that this confers the same OP to carriers is... shall we say, potentially indicative of mental deficiency. Not only will carriers die quickly and easily to a mere 10 battlecruisers while 100 of the same would take much longer to kill a supercarrier (and need T2 support just to tackle it in the first place), but they can only deploy half as many drones... implying that Carriers could possibly in any way have OP damage, even for the sake of argument, is laughable. They are huge, glorified Logistics ships, little more.
Admit that you just want to be able to alpha Dramiels with your Warrior Cloud and we can have done with this silly argument. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:15:00 -
[335] - Quote
here here lol |
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:26:00 -
[336] - Quote
What's the reason about the remote rep bonus on the supercarriers being left as is? If the goal with these changes are to make the supercarriers (and to an extent titans) rely on support fleets wouldn't it make sense that carriers would be the "logistic" ships for such a fleet?
Think, remote repair battleships with repair bonuses. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:27:00 -
[337] - Quote
Never before realised how whiny some supercaps pilots are. Jesus, anyone would think that they turned them into caracals. They still **** out dps to titans, supers, carriers and dreads. They are still somewhat useful against BS. They still have stupid tanks. They are simply more vulnerable to smaller fleets. You need support.
So much qq because you might actually lose your ship now. Time for you to be reminded of he number one rule of Eve:don't fly what you can't afford to lose. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:31:00 -
[338] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: This is a bad argument and you should feel bad. Current Supercarriers are the best thing in the game for killing frigates once they have attained target lock: 20-25 Warrior II drones are pretty ridiculously powerful. The point isn't that they can use drones, the point is that they can use drones to be better at killing small ships than other ships that were DESIGNED to do this.
And saying that this confers the same OP to carriers is... shall we say, potentially indicative of mental deficiency. Not only will carriers die quickly and easily to a mere 10 battlecruisers while 100 of the same would take much longer to kill a supercarrier (and need T2 support just to tackle it in the first place), but they can only deploy half as many drones... implying that Carriers could possibly in any way have OP damage, even for the sake of argument, is laughable. They are huge, glorified Logistics ships, little more.
Admit that you just want to be able to alpha Dramiels with your Warrior Cloud and we can have done with this silly argument.
highlighted the important part for you, just how long does it take for the little frigate to warp out? So an oil tanker can crush a canoe under its prow, but how long does it take to turn around to try and make another run? should we make oil tankers smaller?
just because you cant fight it with what you have is no reason to nerf it, just get bigger ships, imagine where we would be if everyone felt the same way about battleships when they were the pinnacle of the game? Battleships not allowed in high sec, and the large turrets couldn't target anything under a battle cruiser? and they couldnt dock? no, the whole restrictions and nerfs are wrong. its time to escalate the war, not constrain it to a shoebox instead of the sandbox.
|
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:33:00 -
[339] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Never before realised how whiny some supercaps pilots are. Jesus, anyone would think that they turned them into caracals. They still **** out dps to titans, supers, carriers and dreads. They are still somewhat useful against BS. They still have stupid tanks. They are simply more vulnerable to smaller fleets. You need support.
So much qq because you might actually lose your ship now. Time for you to be reminded of he number one rule of Eve:don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
well, after watching everyone else wine and ***** and moan and get what they wanted, its obvious thats the only way to get anything done in eve so we joined the mASSes.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
108
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:39:00 -
[340] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:highlighted the important part for you, just how long does it take for the little frigate to warp out? So an oil tanker can crush a canoe under its prow, but how long does it take to turn around to try and make another run? should we make oil tankers smaller?
just because you cant fight it with what you have is no reason to nerf it, just get bigger ships, imagine where we would be if everyone felt the same way about battleships when they were the pinnacle of the game? Battleships not allowed in high sec, and the large turrets couldn't target anything under a battle cruiser? and they couldnt dock? no, the whole restrictions and nerfs are wrong. its time to escalate the war, not constrain it to a shoebox instead of the sandbox.
Highlighted the important part for you. I don't think you understand the concept of balance.
See, in hisec when you have a battleship, 2 cruisers can take one out. hell, 2 frigates can if they have good pilots.
My first ship loss was a Ferox to a single Retri.... why? Because I couldn't hit him and he could whittle away at my tank. It wasn't unfair.. I could have had someone in a frigate with me. |
|
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:47:00 -
[341] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:highlighted the important part for you, just how long does it take for the little frigate to warp out? So an oil tanker can crush a canoe under its prow, but how long does it take to turn around to try and make another run? should we make oil tankers smaller?
just because you cant fight it with what you have is no reason to nerf it, just get bigger ships, imagine where we would be if everyone felt the same way about battleships when they were the pinnacle of the game? Battleships not allowed in high sec, and the large turrets couldn't target anything under a battle cruiser? and they couldnt dock? no, the whole restrictions and nerfs are wrong. its time to escalate the war, not constrain it to a shoebox instead of the sandbox.
Highlighted the important part for you. I don't think you understand the concept of balance. See, in hisec when you have a battleship, 2 cruisers can take one out. hell, 2 frigates can if they have good pilots. My first ship loss was a Ferox to a single Retri.... why? Because I couldn't hit him and he could whittle away at my tank. It wasn't unfair.. I could have had someone in a frigate with me.
i understand balance, and in some of my posts you will find a much better balance approach to the supercarriers that wont make them sitting ducks while truly balancing their abilities. incuding something as simple as removing the bonus to deployed drones other than fighters and FB's. if you cant handle 5 med drones or out distance 5 heavy drones, you should not be flying against a dedicated DRONE boat.
its bad enough drone boats are the only ships in game that can have their entire DPS destroyed permanently, but to remove the chance of replacing them is like not allowing projectile ships to fit more than loads of ammo. the problem is the super blob, not the supers themselves. the drastic buff and now the drastic nerf is no more than chainsaw surgery and is bound to be just as successful. in other words, not very.
another change that would make supers better and usefull without being overpowered would be to let them provide a fleet command role, give them similar bonuses as the command ship with command ships limited to the grid and supers covering the entire system. or something different. let them have specialized offensive capital gang links that improve DPS rate of fire and things like that. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
247
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:00:00 -
[342] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: This is a bad argument and you should feel bad. Current Supercarriers are the best thing in the game for killing frigates once they have attained target lock: 20-25 Warrior II drones are pretty ridiculously powerful. The point isn't that they can use drones, the point is that they can use drones to be better at killing small ships than other ships that were DESIGNED to do this.
And saying that this confers the same OP to carriers is... shall we say, potentially indicative of mental deficiency. Not only will carriers die quickly and easily to a mere 10 battlecruisers while 100 of the same would take much longer to kill a supercarrier (and need T2 support just to tackle it in the first place), but they can only deploy half as many drones... implying that Carriers could possibly in any way have OP damage, even for the sake of argument, is laughable. They are huge, glorified Logistics ships, little more.
Admit that you just want to be able to alpha Dramiels with your Warrior Cloud and we can have done with this silly argument.
highlighted the important part for you, just how long does it take for the little frigate to warp out? So an oil tanker can crush a canoe under its prow, but how long does it take to turn around to try and make another run? should we make oil tankers smaller? just because you cant fight it with what you have is no reason to nerf it, just get bigger ships, imagine where we would be if everyone felt the same way about battleships when they were the pinnacle of the game? Battleships not allowed in high sec, and the large turrets couldn't target anything under a battle cruiser? and they couldnt dock? no, the whole restrictions and nerfs are wrong. its time to escalate the war, not constrain it to a shoebox instead of the sandbox. So let me get this straight: You think that Supercarriers should be the absolute best at killing every size of ship in the game (bar the application of Titan Doomsdays), as well as the largest tanks in EVE, with supercapital Ewar and tackle invulnerability... with the sole disadvantage that they have relatively low scan resolution.
I have your number, sir.
Edit: seriously dude, what is missing in that head of yours. Supercarriers are the second largest ship class in the game. You should have known what you were getting into. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:00:00 -
[343] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: This is a bad argument and you should feel bad. Current Supercarriers are the best thing in the game for killing frigates once they have attained target lock: 20-25 Warrior II drones are pretty ridiculously powerful. The point isn't that they can use drones, the point is that they can use drones to be better at killing small ships than other ships that were DESIGNED to do this.
highlighted the important part for you, just how long does it take for the little frigate to warp out?
Lock time is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that frigates respond to a supercarrier on the field by warping in and out literally every 20 seconds.
(hint, the frigate pilot doesn't know whether the supercarrier is locking them until the lock is completed).
|
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:56:00 -
[344] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Never before realised how whiny some supercaps pilots are. Jesus, anyone would think that they turned them into caracals. They still **** out dps to titans, supers, carriers and dreads. They are still somewhat useful against BS. They still have stupid tanks. They are simply more vulnerable to smaller fleets. You need support.
So much qq because you might actually lose your ship now. Time for you to be reminded of he number one rule of Eve:don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Spacefriend, you're from reddit. Frankly, you wouldn't know a thing about nulsec or supercarriers. Now, off to your ~animal pictures~, "my mom made a meme", and police state circlejerks: leave the space game stuff to those of us who are actually invested in a years-old MMO.
"stupid tanks"? nope.
"useful against BS"? BS' won't be our problem. Reading comprehension level V, then see the dev blogs from the last few months.
"You need support"? No ****. No one's arguing against that, have you even read this thread?
At this point, so far in the development process, it appears that we've been beaten by CCP. There is no help for some of the many SC pilots whose UNDOCKABLE ships are now brokedick, and we've got pilots stuck in them who could be used for other roles if this nerf goes through...sadly we won't be able to. I, for instance, would like to dock my laughingstock Hel (since CCP refuses to comment on a bridge-to-nowhere ship), and make myself useful again with these t2 siege/triage/command modules. Have plenty of SP, but I'm stuck in CCP's joke. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:57:00 -
[345] - Quote
Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:05:00 -
[346] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Svennig wrote:Never before realised how whiny some supercaps pilots are. Jesus, anyone would think that they turned them into caracals. They still **** out dps to titans, supers, carriers and dreads. They are still somewhat useful against BS. They still have stupid tanks. They are simply more vulnerable to smaller fleets. You need support.
So much qq because you might actually lose your ship now. Time for you to be reminded of he number one rule of Eve:don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Spacefriend, you're from reddit. Frankly, you wouldn't know a thing about nulsec or supercarriers. Now, off to your ~animal pictures~, "my mom made a meme", and police state circlejerks: leave the space game stuff to those of us who are actually invested in a years-old MMO. "stupid tanks"? nope. "useful against BS"? BS' won't be our problem. Reading comprehension level V, then see the dev blogs from the last few months. "You need support"? No ****. No one's arguing against that, have you even read this thread? At this point, so far in the development process, it appears that we've been beaten by CCP. There is no help for some of the many SC pilots whose UNDOCKABLE ships are now brokedick, and we've got pilots stuck in them who could be used for other roles if this nerf goes through...sadly we won't be able to. I, for instance, would like to dock my laughingstock Hel (since CCP refuses to comment on a bridge-to-nowhere ship), and make myself useful again with these t2 siege/triage/command modules. Have plenty of SP, but I'm stuck in CCP's joke.
Oh god, these tears are delicious. So much anger, and yet so devoid of a coherent argument.
I'm going to ignore the bits where you make yourself look stupid (for example by stating that their tanks aren't insane) and thoroughly address the cogent parts of your post.
.... and I'm done. |
Anile8er
Origin. Black Legion.
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 23:53:00 -
[347] - Quote
I like the progress this is making.
I 100% agree with a set of shield implants that are similar to slaves, I do think a drawback of the set should be reduced passive recharge.
The nerf to remote Titan tracking is a great change, thank you.
Changes to Niddy and Hel are looking good.
CCP Tallest I think you really need to consider allowing supercarriers to have a full flight of 20 bombers AND 20 fighters, so 200000m3 bomber/fighter bay. It makes sense.
Also I think giving fighter bombers the range to hit a large POS with force field up should be considered, or allow drones to pass through the force field. |
Captain Alcatraz
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 04:27:00 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules
Shield HP implants are a BAD idea. Armor would need active tanking implants to balance with shield in that case, and it's already a pain having to chose between jumpclones with snakes, slaves and crystals dependings which ship you plan to use, locked in it for 24h. Some people hate to fly a ship with the wrong pirate implants for it, adding shield resist sets will only make that worse |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 05:04:00 -
[349] - Quote
Captain Alcatraz wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules Shield HP implants are a BAD idea. Armor would need active tanking implants to balance with shield in that case, and it's already a pain having to chose between jumpclones with snakes, slaves and crystals dependings which ship you plan to use, locked in it for 24h. Some people hate to fly a ship with the wrong pirate implants for it, adding shield resist sets will only make that worse
there is 3 character slots on each account. i suggest you train up more toons if you find it annoying to have to switch up implant sets so frequently.
also, from the discussions i've heard on the subject the reason the shield buffer set is needed so badly is because 1.5bil in implants makes the 4 armor supers take way more damage than their shield counterparts. you are probably right that their needs to be some sort of active armor implants.
I wish they would make it so there was an active implant set for both and that they worked on capital ships. maybe not supers but at least the carriers and dreadnaughts. it probably wouldnt be op in kspace since supers **** dps like its the day after thanksgiving. but, wormhole space would get pretty interesting thats for damn sure. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 07:23:00 -
[350] - Quote
Anile8er wrote:I like the progress this is making.
I 100% agree with a set of shield implants that are similar to slaves, I do think a drawback of the set should be reduced passive recharge.
The nerf to remote Titan tracking is a great change, thank you.
Changes to Niddy and Hel are looking good.
CCP Tallest I think you really need to consider allowing supercarriers to have a full flight of 20 bombers AND 20 fighters, so 200000m3 bomber/fighter bay. It makes sense.
Also I think giving fighter bombers the range to hit a large POS with force field up should be considered, or allow drones to pass through the force field. I would only support this if it were not possible to fit 40 fighter bombers . . . .
Also I dislike being able to use supercarriers to RF a POS. It makes POS defenses trivial because POS guns/neuts dont do anything to supercarriers which are able to receive RR/cap support, wheras with a good POS gunner and a few defenders, a POS can assist in the defense against dreads. |
|
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 07:56:00 -
[351] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Svennig wrote:Never before realised how whiny some supercaps pilots are. Jesus, anyone would think that they turned them into caracals. They still **** out dps to titans, supers, carriers and dreads. They are still somewhat useful against BS. They still have stupid tanks. They are simply more vulnerable to smaller fleets. You need support.
So much qq because you might actually lose your ship now. Time for you to be reminded of he number one rule of Eve:don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Spacefriend, you're from reddit. Frankly, you wouldn't know a thing about nulsec or supercarriers. Now, off to your ~animal pictures~, "my mom made a meme", and police state circlejerks: leave the space game stuff to those of us who are actually invested in a years-old MMO. "stupid tanks"? nope. "useful against BS"? BS' won't be our problem. Reading comprehension level V, then see the dev blogs from the last few months. "You need support"? No ****. No one's arguing against that, have you even read this thread? At this point, so far in the development process, it appears that we've been beaten by CCP. There is no help for some of the many SC pilots whose UNDOCKABLE ships are now brokedick, and we've got pilots stuck in them who could be used for other roles if this nerf goes through...sadly we won't be able to. I, for instance, would like to dock my laughingstock Hel (since CCP refuses to comment on a bridge-to-nowhere ship), and make myself useful again with these t2 siege/triage/command modules. Have plenty of SP, but I'm stuck in CCP's joke.
Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
|
Captain Alcatraz
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 11:39:00 -
[352] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:Captain Alcatraz wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
I also want to tell you that there are other very valid concerns that we will be looking into, but they will not make it into the November release. We don't have the solutions to all of these, but as I said, we will to try to find solutions to these issues after the November release.
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump. * Capital ships cyno bumping/bouncing issue * XL missiles explosion radius and explosion velocity * There needs to be a shield HP implant set as a counterbalance to the Slave set. * There needs to be a remote shield boost implant like the 'Gentry' ZEX2000 is for armor * There need to be deadspace shield invulnerability fields equivalent to the A-Type EANM modules Shield HP implants are a BAD idea. Armor would need active tanking implants to balance with shield in that case, and it's already a pain having to chose between jumpclones with snakes, slaves and crystals dependings which ship you plan to use, locked in it for 24h. Some people hate to fly a ship with the wrong pirate implants for it, adding shield resist sets will only make that worse there is 3 character slots on each account. i suggest you train up more toons if you find it annoying to have to switch up implant sets so frequently. also, from the discussions i've heard on the subject the reason the shield buffer set is needed so badly is because 1.5bil in implants makes the 4 armor supers take way more damage than their shield counterparts. you are probably right that their needs to be some sort of active armor implants. I wish they would make it so there was an active implant set for both and that they worked on capital ships. maybe not supers but at least the carriers and dreadnaughts. it probably wouldnt be op in kspace since supers **** dps like its the day after thanksgiving. but, wormhole space would get pretty interesting thats for damn sure.
Right now we have to chose between a big armor buffer with terrible speed, great speed with little shield buffer, and insane active tanking, it's fine. Shield buffer implants + nano ships = good speed and good buffer, yuk. If they introduce shield HP implants they need to make them affect caps only, last thing we need in small scale pvp is 60k ehp vagabonds & tornados and 130k ehp drakes |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:59:00 -
[353] - Quote
assuming they will wind up costing the same or more than slaves. i'm fine with a bc pilot sticking that much loot in their head. it will take a couple more volleys to get to the chocolaty nougat center is all |
Keen Fallsword
Billionaires Club C0VEN
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 14:22:00 -
[354] - Quote
WINMATTAR FOR THE WIN !!!
Dear CCP please remove others races from EVE :) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:37:00 -
[355] - Quote
Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:39:00 -
[356] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:assuming they will wind up costing the same or more than slaves. i'm fine with a bc pilot sticking that much loot in their head. it will take a couple more volleys to get to the chocolaty nougat center is all except for the fact that they'll only ever use them in low sec/high sec where only morons get podded.
No 60,000 EHP vagabonds please Oh also no 20,000 DPS passive tanks on the Wyvern either please |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
118
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:45:00 -
[357] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA?
You would have to be a complete moron to park your super in a CSMA.
Do you have any faction ships, like a Baalghorn or Nightmare? Maybe a nice officer fitted Machariel? You do? Good! Now put 10 of them in your corp's SMA and go do your own thing for a while.
Don't worry, they'll be ~just fine~ there.
CSMAs are about as juicy to pop as a CSAA. |
ogletorp
Surrender Dorothy Bipolar Stability
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 21:45:00 -
[358] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sigras wrote:Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA? You would have to be a complete moron to park your super in a CSMA. Do you have any faction ships, like a Baalghorn or Nightmare? Maybe a nice officer fitted Machariel? You do? Good! Now put 10 of them in your corp's SMA and go do your own thing for a while. Don't worry, they'll be ~just fine~ there. CSMAs are about as juicy to pop as a CSAA.
That and you can't have CSMA's in non-sov systems. |
Nizzotch
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 22:15:00 -
[359] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Update:
Supercarriers * All supercarriers: dronebay +25000 (5 extra fighters/fb)
Is this not happening anymore as per http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4796&tid=1
|
Prandax Xeon
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 22:34:00 -
[360] - Quote
Since you can't have a subcap fleet with you 24/7 to protect you now that you don't have drones, can we now make supers able to dock? How is a Wyvern like an Ibis?-á Neither have a drone bay!-á-á |
|
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 23:12:00 -
[361] - Quote
In Sisi you dump my dronebay in a high sec station, 45 jumps.....another smartidea perhaps or negligent planing?
|
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 23:13:00 -
[362] - Quote
I have a solution,
I'm not going to fire sale my super so I just suspended the count, RL money is the only think CCP listen to as it's what pays their wages. Yes they were over powered and needed reducing BUT only one or two of the things CCP have done. They hit them with the nerf bat, then hit them again and again and again and again.
It's a shame, I know CCP wont listen to SC pilots as there are only a few thousand of them as opposed to the 10's or 100's of thousands of subscribers that donGÇÖt have them. We all pay the same for the sub so they listen to the masses. It's a populist philosophy. Why not just label the oldest richest members something horrible (***) and kill them and take all their property. ***** ****, ***** ****.
It's ALL about the money. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 00:18:00 -
[363] - Quote
Would like an Update on this too.
Transparent attempt to trigger wordfilters: CCP Tallest, GM Grimmi |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 00:45:00 -
[364] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sigras wrote:Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA? You would have to be a complete moron to park your super in a CSMA. Do you have any faction ships, like a Baalghorn or Nightmare? Maybe a nice officer fitted Machariel? You do? Good! Now put 10 of them in your corp's SMA and go do your own thing for a while. Don't worry, they'll be ~just fine~ there. CSMAs are about as juicy to pop as a CSAA. #1 if youre really that worried about people in your corp stealing your stuff, you can just put up your own tower and uncheck that little "allow corp access" button then whoever wants in the tower needs the PW. #2 Theyre not the same as CSAAs at all because you can still get your stuff out after the tower has been RFed, then you just log off and since you're not aggressed, poof you disappear in 1 minute. #3 you can get a holding alt and log him off if youre really that worried about it . . . there are several for sale in the character bazaar ======> that way #4 the problem with docking supercarriers is that now you have a ship with a HUGE EHP buffer RRing a station after it comes out of reinforce that can simply dock, get free repair and undock again to resume RR . . . this may be a bit dangerous depending on the station, but the gallente and caldari ones have very large undock radii
Say no to free repairs on 3,000,000 armor HP |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 07:33:00 -
[365] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Sigras wrote:Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA? You would have to be a complete moron to park your super in a CSMA. Do you have any faction ships, like a Baalghorn or Nightmare? Maybe a nice officer fitted Machariel? You do? Good! Now put 10 of them in your corp's SMA and go do your own thing for a while. Don't worry, they'll be ~just fine~ there. CSMAs are about as juicy to pop as a CSAA. #1 if youre really that worried about people in your corp stealing your stuff, you can just put up your own tower and uncheck that little "allow corp access" button then whoever wants in the tower needs the PW. #2 Theyre not the same as CSAAs at all because you can still get your stuff out after the tower has been RFed, then you just log off and since you're not aggressed, poof you disappear in 1 minute. #3 you can get a holding alt and log him off if youre really that worried about it . . . there are several for sale in the character bazaar ======> that way #4 the problem with docking supercarriers is that now you have a ship with a HUGE EHP buffer RRing a station after it comes out of reinforce that can simply dock, get free repair and undock again to resume RR . . . this may be a bit dangerous depending on the station, but the gallente and caldari ones have very large undock radii Say no to free repairs on 3,000,000 armor HP
You know the tower thing's do able now that it should not be as big a pain in the ars with the fuel changes. You only have to pick up one thing to keep it running after set up and only once ever 29 days or so.
Edit: You can even off set some of the towers fuel cost by moon mining too. |
keuel
Crimoria Co Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 09:35:00 -
[366] - Quote
Moros just outDPS any other dread in game with the t2 siege, named guns and faction XL (even more if you can afford use imps, it doesn-¦t even need to be the 5% ones or 6%). So, how about change the other XL guns, like, increase more their dmg modifier, or lower their ROF, nerf their track to siege level, remove the Siege tracking penality and explosion radius, so titans won-¦t be doing any harm to any subcapital fleet.
Also, increase a bit more the EHP of dreads and carriers a bit. Also, make dreads the capital killers and Super killer, not inverse. SCs will still being OP even with the so called fighter/fighter bomber nerf. Anyway, let-¦s see what will happen when the patch hits TQ. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 10:06:00 -
[367] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:I have a solution,
I'm not going to fire sale my super so I just suspended the count, RL money is the only think CCP listen to as it's what pays their wages. Yes they were over powered and needed reducing BUT only one or two of the things CCP have done. They hit them with the nerf bat, then hit them again and again and again and again.
It's a shame, I know CCP wont listen to SC pilots as there are only a few thousand of them as opposed to the 10's or 100's of thousands of subscribers that donGÇÖt have them. We all pay the same for the sub so they listen to the masses. It's a populist philosophy. Why not just label the oldest richest members something horrible (***) and kill them and take all their property. ***** ****, ***** ****.
It's ALL about the money.
Can I have your super?
I can't comprehend of the mental deficiency required to see these changes and want to take your ball and go home. Still, I think of it as a darwinian thing. The people who stay will be the people who are intelligent enough to understand that they're still immensely powerful ships whose role and deployment scenario has now changed slightly, and aren't a bunch of whiny drama llamas.
When people like you quit, the quality of super pilots improves. Long may this continue.
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 10:19:00 -
[368] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
^ READ CCP AN DO...... Iv loyaly stayed with EVE for several years, correcting that 1 point above in Quote is fair,reasonable,logical, it makes sence,but unless this patch is sorted out then I will be Looking forward to STAR WARS THE OLD REPUBLIC MMO yay. ETA for all my accounts to run out of game time start of Febuary. Sort this mess out CCP or lose a huge amount of Money & huge amount of players in EVE. Docking Supers would be nice but for more reason than have been said. Now selling off & trading Supers is going to be a nightmare. Travel fitting them to transport them to seller destination is going to be a tricky art. For seeing many hularious Super deaths.... So being able to use station cyno's would make it that bit safer to transport them around space.
|
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 10:55:00 -
[369] - Quote
BTW: are Supers (Titans + MS) still able to speedtank Dreads in Siege? DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 11:16:00 -
[370] - Quote
Odd isn't it?
CCP Tallest does a minimal no-real-change to hybrids in the name of gradual balancing.
CCP Tallest goes overboard with the nerf bat to supers in the name of instant balancing.
I spot a slight discrepancy. |
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 11:59:00 -
[371] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Sort this mess out CCP or lose a huge amount of Money & huge amount of players in EVE.
Losing 1/3 supercapital pilots isn't "huge".
On the other side, the 15k peoples who used not to be able to do crap against supers is resubbing as we speak.
So, is this really a mess ?
Quote:CCP Tallest does a minimal no-real-change to hybrids in the name of gradual balancing.
Yeh right, because buffing EVERYTHING ABOUT HYBRIDS except range is definitely a "no-real-change".
Here's what's being buffed atm :
Gallente Speed (+ 10m/s on base speed for almost every ship) +5% agility on every blastership. Tracking (+20%) Cap usage (-30%) Blaster damage (+5%) Railgun damage (+10%) Ammo size (-50%, more ammo in cargohold) 5s reload on hybrids PWG/CPU needs (-15%)
Sure, that's a "no-real-change". You get bigger guns because of reduced fitting requirements. You get more tracking, more damage, 5s reloads so you can match to the situation, you're faster, you're more agile. What else would you want ? It's still bazillion times better than any hybrid/gallente buffs we've seen in the last 2 years. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 12:17:00 -
[372] - Quote
Svennig wrote:I can't comprehend of the mental deficiency required to see these changes and want to take your ball and go home. Still, I think of it as a darwinian thing. The people who stay will be the people who are intelligent enough to understand that they're still immensely powerful ships whose role and deployment scenario has now changed slightly, and aren't a bunch of whiny drama llamas.
When people like you quit, the quality of super pilots improves. Long may this continue. Its because they got used to having invulnerable totally overpowered pwnmobiles with a guaranteed loss of > 4 even if a battle goes bad and now they dont want to play without them.
The problem is that they want only whats good for them, and not whats good for the game . . . |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 12:27:00 -
[373] - Quote
Sigras wrote:#1 if youre really that worried about people in your corp stealing your stuff, you can just put up your own tower and uncheck that little "allow corp access" button then whoever wants in the tower needs the PW. #2 Theyre not the same as CSAAs at all because you can still get your stuff out after the tower has been RFed, then you just log off and since you're not aggressed, poof you disappear in 1 minute. #3 you can get a holding alt and log him off if youre really that worried about it . . . there are several for sale in the character bazaar ======> that way #4 the problem with docking supercarriers is that now you have a ship with a HUGE EHP buffer RRing a station after it comes out of reinforce that can simply dock, get free repair and undock again to resume RR . . . this may be a bit dangerous depending on the station, but the gallente and caldari ones have very large undock radii
Say no to free repairs on 3,000,000 armor HP
My idea was to add the ability to moor supers to towers. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 12:31:00 -
[374] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:BTW: are Supers (Titans + MS) still able to speedtank Dreads in Siege?
Citadel cruise expl. velocity: 25m/s Average Supercap top speed: 60 m/s
yep. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 12:53:00 -
[375] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Sort this mess out CCP or lose a huge amount of Money & huge amount of players in EVE. Losing 1/3 supercapital pilots isn't "huge". On the other side, the 15k peoples who used not to be able to do crap against supers is resubbing as we speak. So, is this really a mess ?
Yes completely & utterly a mess, What is failing to some degree to be understood is that a huge majority of the wealthiest, most experienced players in EVE in both assets & multiple accounts use Supers among everything else, so effectively those victims are not only cancelling at least a pair of accounts involved with owning a Super, will more than likely be cancelling dozens of accounts wich apply to there Sub cap toons,cyno toons,indy toons etc. Would expect within a few months to lose 10K active accounts within eve, wich is a big number considering EVE has been declining for a while now, should be paramount amoung all else for CCP to listen and act to what is right,maintain and improve, this is not being done effectively. Although alot of narrow minded people nod there heads an follow the sheep infront, this however does not make it right. Super pilots Know what is best for the particular nerf in question, what confuses me is why people who have only a narrow minded single aspect of experience & mechanics to do with the nerf in question, are being listened to over those who are knowledgeable in all aspects is beyond me. Super pilots can see it from all aspects as we fly Subcaps,capitals & Super Capitals, hence these are the pilots that should be listened to. Follow what was said in the Quote that I gave above DEAR GOD |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:08:00 -
[376] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: Yes completely & utterly a mess, What is failing to some degree to be understood is that a huge majority of the wealthiest, most experienced players in EVE in both assets & multiple accounts use Supers among everything else, so effectively those victims are not only cancelling at least a pair of accounts involved with owning a Super, will more than likely be cancelling dozens of accounts wich apply to there Sub cap toons,cyno toons,indy toons etc. Would expect within a few months to lose 10K active accounts within eve, wich is a big number considering EVE has been declining for a while now, should be paramount amoung all else for CCP to listen and act to what is right,maintain and improve, this is not being done effectively. Although alot of narrow minded people nod there heads an follow the sheep infront, this however does not make it right. Super pilots Know what is best for the particular nerf in question, what confuses me is why people who have only a narrow minded single aspect of experience & mechanics to do with the nerf in question, are being listened to over those who are knowledgeable in all aspects is beyond me. Super pilots can see it from all aspects as we fly Subcaps,capitals & Super Capitals, hence these are the pilots that should be listened to. Follow what was said in the Quote that I gave above DEAR GOD
That's a whole lot of words for "Oh god my car's ashtray is full, quick, let's sell the car and never buy one again !".
Why are supercapital pilots so narrowminded about what ship should they use in EVE ? I wanted to fly a Rokh since I subscribed. I saw that it's wasn't what I though it would be when I first boarded the ship (With all related skills to 4/5 ofc).
I though "Well, the Rokh isn't what I though it would be, let's fly something else".
And a nerf like the one that is happening right now to supers isn't a HARD nerf ( -20% EHP on armor supers, -10% on shield supers, still leaves you with 80% and 90% of your current, and I mean huge, EHP). Sure, you can't instapop dictors anymore, but you still have your fleetmates to do that, right ? You're an experienced, wealthy player, in an experienced alliance. You have friends, you can form fleets. And the supercarrier is still very effective at killing capitals (What it was designed for in the first place).
What you can't do anymore is solocamping a gate in lowsec, or soloengage a 15 man gang because you know they won't EVER break your tank (And you can still CTRL-Q if something goes wrong). Is that why you are crying ? |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:10:00 -
[377] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Svennig wrote:I can't comprehend of the mental deficiency required to see these changes and want to take your ball and go home. Still, I think of it as a darwinian thing. The people who stay will be the people who are intelligent enough to understand that they're still immensely powerful ships whose role and deployment scenario has now changed slightly, and aren't a bunch of whiny drama llamas.
When people like you quit, the quality of super pilots improves. Long may this continue. Its because they got used to having invulnerable totally overpowered pwnmobiles with a guaranteed loss of > 4 even if a battle goes bad and now they dont want to play without them. The problem is that they want only whats good for them, and not whats good for the game . . .
Wrong, I could live with and agree with the new agression mechanics(I actualy think these should be made harsher and the 30 agression timer on gates should be upped to 60 secs), the HP reduction is also ok, even the removal of the regular drones I can live with. The straw that broke the cammels back was the reduction in the drone bay size so you have to choose between Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Too many attributes of the ships were changed in one go. |
Shuut U
Prism Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:12:00 -
[378] - Quote
Why not make a separate drone bay for drones which are not fighters/fighter bombers?
There would be a limit to the amount of drones other than fighters which could be carried by supercarriers. Instead of making the ship almost useless, why not do something that will make it functional.
So do something like this:
Fighter Bay: Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers)
Drone Bay: 1000 m^3 = 40 large drones Limit the number of drones deployed to 10 at a time.
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:27:00 -
[379] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: Yes completely & utterly a mess, What is failing to some degree to be understood is that a huge majority of the wealthiest, most experienced players in EVE in both assets & multiple accounts use Supers among everything else, so effectively those victims are not only cancelling at least a pair of accounts involved with owning a Super, will more than likely be cancelling dozens of accounts wich apply to there Sub cap toons,cyno toons,indy toons etc. Would expect within a few months to lose 10K active accounts within eve, wich is a big number considering EVE has been declining for a while now, should be paramount amoung all else for CCP to listen and act to what is right,maintain and improve, this is not being done effectively. Although alot of narrow minded people nod there heads an follow the sheep infront, this however does not make it right. Super pilots Know what is best for the particular nerf in question, what confuses me is why people who have only a narrow minded single aspect of experience & mechanics to do with the nerf in question, are being listened to over those who are knowledgeable in all aspects is beyond me. Super pilots can see it from all aspects as we fly Subcaps,capitals & Super Capitals, hence these are the pilots that should be listened to. Follow what was said in the Quote that I gave above DEAR GOD
That's a whole lot of words for "Oh god my car's ashtray is full, quick, let's sell the car and never buy one again !". Why are supercapital pilots so narrowminded about what ship should they use in EVE ? I wanted to fly a Rokh since I subscribed. I saw that it's wasn't what I though it would be when I first boarded the ship (With all related skills to 4/5 ofc). I though "Well, the Rokh isn't what I though it would be, let's fly something else". And a nerf like the one that is happening right now to supers isn't a HARD nerf ( -20% EHP on armor supers, -10% on shield supers, still leaves you with 80% and 90% of your current, and I mean huge, EHP). Sure, you can't instapop dictors anymore, but you still have your fleetmates to do that, right ? You're an experienced, wealthy player, in an experienced alliance. You have friends, you can form fleets. And the supercarrier is still very effective at killing capitals (What it was designed for in the first place). What you can't do anymore is solocamping a gate in lowsec, or soloengage a 15 man gang because you know they won't EVER break your tank (And you can still CTRL-Q if something goes wrong). Is that why you are crying ?
Not to offend you, but this is a stark example of what iv been saying, people who don't have a clue giving there opinions, at least think & understand before you woffle.
I will make a simple analogy for you think apon, I understand that its hard if not impossible for alot of people to grasp but here we go:
A Lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail So why should some one who does not understand mechanics in question & have no more experience than "Ohhh they hotdropped me" have a viable resounding say in whats best for the Super nerf. I have given a quote above on this page, that is what needs to be done,black an white,easy do it. Listen to the Super Pilots. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:31:00 -
[380] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
Quote in question to sort this mess out. |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:41:00 -
[381] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:A Lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail So why should some one who does not understand mechanics in question & have no more experience than "Ohhh they hotdropped me" have a viable resounding say in whats best for the Super nerf. I have given a quote above on this page, that is what needs to be done,black an white,easy do it. Listen to the Super Pilots.
Get off your elitist shithole.
I agree with him.
Adapt or die.
The only issue I'm going back on is the inability to carry a full compliment of fighters and bombers, opposed to having to sacrifice several. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
232
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:54:00 -
[382] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Listen to the Super Pilots.
That looks like a good idea at first right ?
Let me put it that way :
Let politicians determinate their salary.
If you asked me how to nerf my Machariel, I would have told you "Reduce it's scan resolution, nerf the drone bandwidth to 50mb/s, remove the 8th utility slot and done :D"
I can understand that super pilots know how are their ships behaving. But you also have to be on the receiving end of a supercapital fleet to know what is the most handicapping feature (vs subcaps) supers have.
Usually, superpilots fly supers in a blob (With no risk of loosing anything), or solo (With no risk apart from being counterhotdrop, and it doesn't happen very often, or if a lone dictor manage to delay your "warp to safe and cloack" moment). Why ? Because you won't engage a 80 men fleet with 3 supercarriers. You'll either bring those 3 supercarriers with a full fleet at jump range, or you'll bring the usual 40 men supercap fleet to avoid any loss. Or you'll sologank a carrier with an awoxer/neutral alt. I'm not saying "You're dishonourable", I'm saying that it's the way supers are used, because there is no other "realistic" way to use them.
If you're one of those superpilots, then you don't fly subcaps anymore (For "serious business fleets", you'll fly subcaps for fun roams and all that ofc) because you can't loose your supercarrier (Except if you do a stupid mistake).
That means, you're not on the receiving end, and you can only imagine (Same goes for peoples on the receiving end, they don't fly supercaps, they can only imagine, right ?) how terrible and boring it is to try to fight supers. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 13:55:00 -
[383] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:A Lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail So why should some one who does not understand mechanics in question & have no more experience than "Ohhh they hotdropped me" have a viable resounding say in whats best for the Super nerf. I have given a quote above on this page, that is what needs to be done,black an white,easy do it. Listen to the Super Pilots. Get off your elitist shithole. I agree with him. Adapt or die. The only issue I'm going back on is the inability to carry a full compliment of fighters and bombers, opposed to having to sacrifice several.
Thank you dear Sir Logic is agreeable =)
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:06:00 -
[384] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Listen to the Super Pilots. That looks like a good idea at first right ? Let me put it that way : Let politicians determinate their salary. If you asked me how to nerf my Machariel, I would have told you "Reduce it's scan resolution, nerf the drone bandwidth to 50mb/s, remove the 8th utility slot and done :D" I can understand that super pilots know how are their ships behaving. But you also have to be on the receiving end of a supercapital fleet to know what is the most handicapping feature (vs subcaps) supers have. Usually, superpilots fly supers in a blob (With no risk of loosing anything), or solo (With no risk apart from being counterhotdrop, and it doesn't happen very often, or if a lone dictor manage to delay your "warp to safe and cloack" moment). Why ? Because you won't engage a 80 men fleet with 3 supercarriers. You'll either bring those 3 supercarriers with a full fleet at jump range, or you'll bring the usual 40 men supercap fleet to avoid any loss. Or you'll sologank a carrier with an awoxer/neutral alt. I'm not saying "You're dishonourable", I'm saying that it's the way supers are used, because there is no other "realistic" way to use them. If you're one of those superpilots, then you don't fly subcaps anymore (For "serious business fleets", you'll fly subcaps for fun roams and all that ofc) because you can't loose your supercarrier (Except if you do a stupid mistake). That means, you're not on the receiving end, and you can only imagine (Same goes for peoples on the receiving end, they don't fly supercaps, they can only imagine, right ?) how terrible and boring it is to try to fight supers.
Wrong wrong & wrong again. I would love to teach you, but a decent Super pilot does not use a single ship AKA Supercarrier, why should we be limited to waiting for a ping. I understand your confussion as you do come from Goons LOL, but we do have multiple accounts for specialized toons, so we expeierence & carry on unto this day exeperiencing all forms of pvp. & if you have trouble either fighting or getting past 1 Supercarrier camping a gate then you should quite EVE right now, Supers even now are relatively easy to kill. For example 40 canes would take a matter of several minutes to kill a wyvern, newt it out & it loses a huge chunk of EHP..
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
233
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:25:00 -
[385] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: Wrong wrong & wrong again. I would love to teach you, but a decent Super pilot does not use a single ship AKA Supercarrier, why should we be limited to waiting for a ping. I understand your confussion as you do come from Goons LOL, but we do have multiple accounts for specialized toons, so we expeierence & carry on unto this day exeperiencing all forms of pvp. & if you have trouble either fighting or getting past 1 Supercarrier camping a gate then you should quite EVE right now, Supers even now are relatively easy to kill. For example 40 canes would take a matter of several minutes to kill a wyvern, newt it out & it loses a huge chunk of EHP..
Dude, when you're in a supercarrier heavy alliance, like Pandemic Legion. What's the point of using 80 Tengus when you can roll around cruising with your 60 supers ? You can loose 80 Tengus. You can't really loose 60 supers. For serious business alliance stuff, supers will be preferred over everything else. Why would you use a rocket launcher against a building when you can unleash a nuclear strike on it ? Especially when the building is some sort of super important objective. You won't take a smaller ship "because it's funnier". You'll take the biggest, baddest warmachine you can find and throw it at the enemies.
That's for the first part.
No, I have no troubles getting past one supercarrier camping a gate, thank you for worrying.
And yes, killing one wyvern is quite easy right ?
Now, try to fight 50 supers.
You have 12 titans, 25 supercarriers and 13 carriers.
You can't neut, the neuted supercarrier/titan will receive cap from carriers. You can't kite, they use drones. You can't jam, they are invulnerable to that (And before you tell me this, you can't reliably jam 13 carriers and neut one supercarrier in the mean time. Other supercarriers can rep the neuted supercarrier too). You can't snipe them (What's the point ?). You can't keep them tackled because the hundreds of valkyries and such will wreck any heavy interdictor/dictor. You can't have logistics nor command ships in your fleet, they will be instantly popped by either Doomsday or regular drones.
A lone supercarrier isn't a problem (I mean, you can steamroll a single supercarrier with like 20 Tempest and a Sabre). A group of 40 supers is what doesn't have a counter apart than bringing more supercarrier and more subcap until the node crash.
Oh and supers are basicly invulnerable in lowsec, because you need an Hdictor with a focused point to keep them tackled. Dictors won't help.
And I forgot about Remote ECM bursts. You'll loose your lock every 20 seconds. Make it 1m30 with the lag (A huge subcapfleet, + hordes of drones from the supers). |
Lucius Razor
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:26:00 -
[386] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:SMT008 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Listen to the Super Pilots. That looks like a good idea at first right ? Let me put it that way : Let politicians determinate their salary. If you asked me how to nerf my Machariel, I would have told you "Reduce it's scan resolution, nerf the drone bandwidth to 50mb/s, remove the 8th utility slot and done :D" I can understand that super pilots know how are their ships behaving. But you also have to be on the receiving end of a supercapital fleet to know what is the most handicapping feature (vs subcaps) supers have. Usually, superpilots fly supers in a blob (With no risk of loosing anything), or solo (With no risk apart from being counterhotdrop, and it doesn't happen very often, or if a lone dictor manage to delay your "warp to safe and cloack" moment). Why ? Because you won't engage a 80 men fleet with 3 supercarriers. You'll either bring those 3 supercarriers with a full fleet at jump range, or you'll bring the usual 40 men supercap fleet to avoid any loss. Or you'll sologank a carrier with an awoxer/neutral alt. I'm not saying "You're dishonourable", I'm saying that it's the way supers are used, because there is no other "realistic" way to use them. If you're one of those superpilots, then you don't fly subcaps anymore (For "serious business fleets", you'll fly subcaps for fun roams and all that ofc) because you can't loose your supercarrier (Except if you do a stupid mistake). That means, you're not on the receiving end, and you can only imagine (Same goes for peoples on the receiving end, they don't fly supercaps, they can only imagine, right ?) how terrible and boring it is to try to fight supers. Wrong wrong & wrong again. I would love to teach you, but a decent Super pilot does not use a single ship AKA Supercarrier, why should we be limited to waiting for a ping. I understand your confussion as you do come from Goons LOL, but we do have multiple accounts for specialized toons, so we expeierence & carry on unto this day exeperiencing all forms of pvp. & if you have trouble either fighting or getting past 1 Supercarrier camping a gate then you should quite EVE right now, Supers even now are relatively easy to kill. For example 40 canes would take a matter of several minutes to kill a wyvern, newt it out & it loses a huge chunk of EHP..
If you dont belive this, just go to testserver. Even before the nerf a lone SC was killed in a matter of mins by a ragtag fleet.
The problem never ws the supers in the first place. And tbh.: I did use my other char with his normal fleet BS way more often than the super. Because most of the time supers simply stay on standby. The fights are done by battleships. This was so and will hardly ever change. What will change thou is the fact that in future people will simply stop using capitals, because there will be no point in using them. Risk VS Reward and Skilltime VS Advantage gained have allready been of for Caps. After this, no one sane will invest the time for caps, and expecially not for supercaps. |
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:29:00 -
[387] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:Roger Soros wrote:Supers are op because there is too many of them, boost their price and manufacturing time to a level that a big alliance like red or goons whould efford only a small fleet of them like 2-3 titan and 10-15 moms problem solved. We, and every other major alliance have that amount of supercaps several times over, so all your suggestion does is hinder other, newer alliances from building their own supercap fleet to catch up.
First supers are never intended to be small alliance, single corp or single player assets, they should belong only to those that have the resources and space to build them. Second you maybe right in the short period but if a titan cost 540b and take a whole year to be produced intested of 50b and 8 weaks and a mom 150b intested of 15b even an alliance as big as goons cannot have enought resource to massproduce them and more importantly if you loose them you cannot replace them as fast as it is now. The current nerf will only be effective until the number of supers reach another breakdown point, because there is no limit to how many ship you can bring in battle but the servers have a limit and goons have proved this many time. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:35:00 -
[388] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:What will change thou is the fact that in future people will simply stop using capitals, because there will be no point in using them. Risk VS Reward and Skilltime VS Advantage gained have allready been of for Caps. After this, no one sane will invest the time for caps, and expecially not for supercaps.
Caps were used before supers, they will be used again.
Supers were used before the buff, they will still be used.
The people you will not see using SCs are those that liked prodding around lowsec solo. You won't see 10-20 of them hotdropping a small fleet without support.
You will see more ratting SCs die. You will see more SCs dying in fleets to dreads and BS, as well as Tier 3 BC. You will see dread and carrier kills increase. You will see those dreads and carriers used even more than before.
You will see a thinning of the herd. |
Roboticus420
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 14:49:00 -
[389] - Quote
Lucius Razor wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:SMT008 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Listen to the Super Pilots. That looks like a good idea at first right ? Let me put it that way : Let politicians determinate their salary. If you asked me how to nerf my Machariel, I would have told you "Reduce it's scan resolution, nerf the drone bandwidth to 50mb/s, remove the 8th utility slot and done :D" I can understand that super pilots know how are their ships behaving. But you also have to be on the receiving end of a supercapital fleet to know what is the most handicapping feature (vs subcaps) supers have. Usually, superpilots fly supers in a blob (With no risk of loosing anything), or solo (With no risk apart from being counterhotdrop, and it doesn't happen very often, or if a lone dictor manage to delay your "warp to safe and cloack" moment). Why ? Because you won't engage a 80 men fleet with 3 supercarriers. You'll either bring those 3 supercarriers with a full fleet at jump range, or you'll bring the usual 40 men supercap fleet to avoid any loss. Or you'll sologank a carrier with an awoxer/neutral alt. I'm not saying "You're dishonourable", I'm saying that it's the way supers are used, because there is no other "realistic" way to use them. If you're one of those superpilots, then you don't fly subcaps anymore (For "serious business fleets", you'll fly subcaps for fun roams and all that ofc) because you can't loose your supercarrier (Except if you do a stupid mistake). That means, you're not on the receiving end, and you can only imagine (Same goes for peoples on the receiving end, they don't fly supercaps, they can only imagine, right ?) how terrible and boring it is to try to fight supers. Wrong wrong & wrong again. I would love to teach you, but a decent Super pilot does not use a single ship AKA Supercarrier, why should we be limited to waiting for a ping. I understand your confussion as you do come from Goons LOL, but we do have multiple accounts for specialized toons, so we expeierence & carry on unto this day exeperiencing all forms of pvp. & if you have trouble either fighting or getting past 1 Supercarrier camping a gate then you should quite EVE right now, Supers even now are relatively easy to kill. For example 40 canes would take a matter of several minutes to kill a wyvern, newt it out & it loses a huge chunk of EHP.. If you dont belive this, just go to testserver. Even before the nerf a lone SC was killed in a matter of mins by a ragtag fleet. The problem never ws the supers in the first place. And tbh.: I did use my other char with his normal fleet BS way more often than the super. Because most of the time supers simply stay on standby. The fights are done by battleships. This was so and will hardly ever change. What will change thou is the fact that in future people will simply stop using capitals, because there will be no point in using them. Risk VS Reward and Skilltime VS Advantage gained have allready been of for Caps. After this, no one sane will invest the time for caps, and expecially not for supercaps.
Here is some1 who understands, SMT008 LOL just stop showing how ignorant you are. You ask why would we roll around in 80 Tengus if we have 60Supers. Yes again this is obvious. Supers as have been idicated above by this jolly old chap, are on stand by, they are not used to roll around in lol, if people do that, then it is inevitable that they are predictable/stupid & with time they lose there Supers as they get baited and counter hotdropped becuase of there predictableness. These are ofc principles of why Goons do not use Supers/Titans and have sold off a huge majority of there Supercapital fleet, they do not understand how or when to Use them. Hence they just give us fun times and shiney killmails =)
|
Roboticus420
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:13:00 -
[390] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
This quote is what im refering to, plz listen to it & better still do it |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
125
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:28:00 -
[391] - Quote
Even Seleene, who made the current EHP buff while working for CCP, has stated the buff was too much of an increase. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
233
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:39:00 -
[392] - Quote
Roboticus420 wrote:they are not used to roll around in lol, if people do that, then it is inevitable that they are predictable/stupid & with time they lose there Supers as they get baited and counter hotdropped becuase of there predictableness.
I remember a time where the CFC had to literally choose which system to fight in (Read : choose which systems had cynojammers) in order to avoid being steamrolled by supercapitals.
Check PL's EVE kill page about ships & weapons used. I checked the last 6 months, there is at least the Nyx (With 500 to 1500 kills per month, usually) in the first 10 top used ships, sometimes the Aeon is 10th/9th.
Don't tell us this is only carrier/dread kills. It's clearly steamrolling on subcapfleets. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
125
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:55:00 -
[393] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Roboticus420 wrote:they are not used to roll around in lol, if people do that, then it is inevitable that they are predictable/stupid & with time they lose there Supers as they get baited and counter hotdropped becuase of there predictableness. I remember a time where the CFC had to literally choose which system to fight in (Read : choose which systems had cynojammers) in order to avoid being steamrolled by supercapitals. Check PL's EVE kill page about ships & weapons used. I checked the last 6 months, there is at least the Nyx (With 500 to 1500 kills per month, usually) in the first 10 top used ships, sometimes the Aeon is 10th/9th. Don't tell us this is only carrier/dread kills. It's clearly steamrolling on subcapfleets.
From a grunt in MM's perspective and not reflective of MV or MM:
We tried many times to bring subcap fleets into system engagements back in Tribute/Vale, only to face hundreds of supers instead of another subcap fleet. I can recall at least two times (JCV I believe and ZLZ... I suck at remembering system names) to where we had amassed a decent subcap fleet and even several supers ready on standby, only to be told to stand down and let it go- even with even numbers the ratio of supers to subcaps was so high that we couldn't stand a chance.
We lost the north, yes in part to becoming complacent and with many members inactive, but the largest factor was that even the "big and mighty NC" could not match the number of supers the DRF could muster.
Many just raised their hands in the air and said screw it... it's suicide to even bother. |
keuel
Crimoria Co Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 16:01:00 -
[394] - Quote
[Troll_mode_on] How about CCP just delete all Supers from game and reimbursse all pilots with SPs and ISK. Or we can just roll back supers to the EHP level they were before (Scs with the double of the EHP of a carrier and titans with the double of EHP of the Dreads), then keep the drones the way they are, FBs as well. Nerf the titan-¦s DD a bit more so it doesn-¦t instapop Supers or remove them completly from the game[/Troll_mode_off]
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 16:08:00 -
[395] - Quote
Quote:CCP Tallest does a minimal no-real-change to hybrids in the name of gradual balancing.
Yeh right, because buffing EVERYTHING ABOUT HYBRIDS except range is definitely a "no-real-change".
Here's what's being buffed atm :
Gallente Speed (+ 10m/s on base speed for almost every ship) +5% agility on every blastership. Tracking (+20%) Cap usage (-30%) Blaster damage (+5%) Railgun damage (+10%) Ammo size (-50%, more ammo in cargohold) 5s reload on hybrids PWG/CPU needs (-15%)
Sure, that's a "no-real-change". You get bigger guns because of reduced fitting requirements. You get more tracking, more damage, 5s reloads so you can match to the situation, you're faster, you're more agile. What else would you want ? It's still bazillion times better than any hybrid/gallente buffs we've seen in the last 2 years.[/quote]
A bazillion x zero is still zero. There's little to no hybrid use now, and there'll be the same after. |
Naughty Fox
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 16:31:00 -
[396] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:SMT008 wrote:Roboticus420 wrote:they are not used to roll around in lol, if people do that, then it is inevitable that they are predictable/stupid & with time they lose there Supers as they get baited and counter hotdropped becuase of there predictableness. I remember a time where the CFC had to literally choose which system to fight in (Read : choose which systems had cynojammers) in order to avoid being steamrolled by supercapitals. Check PL's EVE kill page about ships & weapons used. I checked the last 6 months, there is at least the Nyx (With 500 to 1500 kills per month, usually) in the first 10 top used ships, sometimes the Aeon is 10th/9th. Don't tell us this is only carrier/dread kills. It's clearly steamrolling on subcapfleets. From a grunt in MM's perspective and not reflective of MV or MM: We tried many times to bring subcap fleets into system engagements back in Tribute/Vale, only to face hundreds of supers instead of another subcap fleet. I can recall at least two times (JCV I believe and ZLZ... I suck at remembering system names) to where we had amassed a decent subcap fleet and even several supers ready on standby, only to be told to stand down and let it go- even with even numbers the ratio of supers to subcaps was so high that we couldn't stand a chance. We lost the north, yes in part to becoming complacent and with many members inactive, but the largest factor was that even the "big and mighty NC" could not match the number of supers the DRF could muster. Many just raised their hands in the air and said screw it... it's suicide to even bother.
Yup Original NC lost tribute due to being inactive, alot of the NC where selling there Supers off wich yet again allowed DRF to steamroller them, DRF attacked NC & friends for the GFs, hoping for good gritty,duke em out supercapital fights. As 1 power rises another falls. NC could not match Supercapital numbers, that is there own fualt for selling them off. The combination of having inactive & a small Supercapital fleet makes an alliance either unable to contend with the Big boys, or more often than not always on the defencive.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
125
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 16:57:00 -
[397] - Quote
Naughty Fox wrote: Yup Original NC lost tribute due to being inactive, alot of the NC where selling there Supers off wich yet again allowed DRF to steamroller them, DRF attacked NC & friends for the GFs, hoping for good gritty,duke em out supercapital fights. As 1 power rises another falls. NC could not match Supercapital numbers, that is there own fualt for selling them off. The combination of having inactive & a small Supercapital fleet makes an alliance either unable to contend with the Big boys, or more often than not always on the defencive.
I can't disagree with you much there.
Most of us weren't even in the loop on supercap production or what was happening. I know MM wanted good fights also, it started that way.
I wouldn't say WE were inactive. I can't speak for RAGE or anyone east of Tribute. But no we couldn't match them. MM had the largest number of supers in the old NC, I think that people's perception of how many the NC at a whole was wrong. I've come to believe we had about 20% of the supers that we were thought to have.
When you count in the number of PL, Raiden, Tri, xdeathx, and INIT supers there was nowhere near an even number.
As such there was no fight and that's why things went down as they did. To be honest I don't think anyone I know is bitter about it happening, as you said alliances rise and fall. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 17:55:00 -
[398] - Quote
When does the Hel will stop s u c k i n g balls, please CCP ? |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 18:46:00 -
[399] - Quote
Subcaps blobs will be extreme OP and versatile after 29/11.
With subcaps blob you can reinforce towers, sbus, stations, kill supers, dread and carriers in very stupid safe way, etc, and risking littles amounts of isk.
For balance and role task:
1-Make online towers (in low and 0.0, not in Imperio), sbus, tcus, hubs and station (sov stuff) only targeteable by caps and supers. 2-Keep Pos modules vulnerables for subcaps.
Little changes with biggest impact on sov-wars
S! |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 19:41:00 -
[400] - Quote
Getting slightly better with 30 and 35 but untill it's back to 40 and 45 fighter/bombers the nerf has gone too far.
You do realise just how simple it is for stealth bombers to totaly defang SC. AT the ABSOLUTE VERY least can you alter the tracking/optimal range of fighters having them orbit their target so closely just makes it far to easy to bombers to get a perfect strike.
The corp hangers arent even big enough to carry the second type of fighter/bomber so we cant re suply on the move.
I think CCP should offer a one time offer to put the ship in a highsec outpost with refining that you have best standings with so they can be reprocessed at the very least. |
|
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 19:52:00 -
[401] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Getting slightly better with 30 and 35 but untill it's back to 40 and 45 fighter/bombers the nerf has gone too far.
You do realise just how simple it is for stealth bombers to totaly defang SC.
The corp hangers arent even big enough to carry the second type of fighter/bomber so we cant re suply on the move.
I think CCP should offer a one time offer to put the ship in a highsec outpost with refining that you have best standings with so they can be reprocessed at the very least.
This really. The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run. |
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 19:53:00 -
[402] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Getting slightly better with 30 and 35 but untill it's back to 40 and 45 fighter/bombers the nerf has gone too far.
You do realise just how simple it is for stealth bombers to totaly defang SC.
The corp hangers arent even big enough to carry the second type of fighter/bomber so we cant re suply on the move.
I think CCP should offer a one time offer to put the ship in a highsec outpost with refining that you have best standings with so they can be reprocessed at the very least.
This really. The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:03:00 -
[403] - Quote
xxxak wrote:Charles Edisson wrote:Getting slightly better with 30 and 35 but untill it's back to 40 and 45 fighter/bombers the nerf has gone too far.
You do realise just how simple it is for stealth bombers to totaly defang SC.
The corp hangers arent even big enough to carry the second type of fighter/bomber so we cant re suply on the move.
I think CCP should offer a one time offer to put the ship in a highsec outpost with refining that you have best standings with so they can be reprocessed at the very least. This really.
To prove the point about just how many people thing the change has gone too far look to see how many SC BPOs are up on contract and the prices they are being sold for, most prices are at cost at best. I'd even be prepaired to loose another 10% HP to get the drone bay size back.
This patch feels very knee jerk, I imagine CCPs designers/Balancers are suffering with unrealistic delines that are being forced on them |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1680
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:18:00 -
[404] - Quote
SC bpos have been glutted for ages ever since nyx bpcs were going for 2b+ and EVERYONE bought a bpo |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1680
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:18:00 -
[405] - Quote
an ME2 nyx bpo couldn't be sold for NPC cost well before this was announced |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:20:00 -
[406] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:an ME2 nyx bpo couldn't be sold for NPC cost well before this was announced
Possibly but were they going for 2/3 NPC price ?
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:28:00 -
[407] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Getting slightly better with 30 and 35 but untill it's back to 40 and 45 fighter/bombers the nerf has gone too far.
You do realise just how simple it is for stealth bombers to totaly defang SC. AT the ABSOLUTE VERY least can you alter the tracking/optimal range of fighters having them orbit their target so closely just makes it far to easy to bombers to get a perfect strike.
The corp hangers arent even big enough to carry the second type of fighter/bomber so we cant re suply on the move.
I think CCP should offer a one time offer to put the ship in a highsec outpost with refining that you have best standings with so they can be reprocessed at the very least.
Here here give us a full compliment of Fighters & fighter bombers, this winter patch is insulting.CCP plz reply |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:31:00 -
[408] - Quote
Roboticus420 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Phunnestyle]Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
CCP PLZ READ ABOVE, LISTEN TO ABOVE & DO ABOVE
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1680
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:34:00 -
[409] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Weaselior wrote:an ME2 nyx bpo couldn't be sold for NPC cost well before this was announced Possibly but were they going for 2/3 NPC price ?
Probably. They were hideously overbought to satisfy a temporary surge in demand (from when they went to useless -> useful) that ended when the tons of people who could fly an SC and could afford one pre-dominion but wasn't going to waste their money on the pre-dominion piece of crap, got theirs. Now, there's a much lower level of demand as you've only got new people skilling into one rather than a huge amount of people trying to get one at once. Since people bought bpos to deal with the surge, there's now a huge glut.
Goonwaffe focused solely on SCs for a long time for our corp building program to catch up but we went all-titan a while ago because that's where the demand was once the SC surge was over. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:35:00 -
[410] - Quote
Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently.
It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous.
Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only? |
|
KuntaKinte Turbonigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:39:00 -
[411] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only?
I fully agree with this suggestion. The Nyx is ridiculously overpowered in its current rendition at this time. |
Venustas Blue
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:43:00 -
[412] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only?
Not intended to be offensive to you Goony,but CCP you cannot expect to calm peoples anger by eventually making room for a few more Fighters/fighter Bombers when you know your in the wrong,every Super Pilot out there knows your in the wrong, there should be a full compliment of 20 Fighters & 20 Fighter bombers anyway, do not think you can mess us about by thinking that this insult will sufice. Phunnestyle is right, listen to him and damn well do it,stop making such a hash of this. |
Terrorina
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:44:00 -
[413] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only?
Too lazy to do the math but if you're numbers are right, I very much agree that the difference in DPS is way too high. If Nyx's weren't already the super-carrier of choice they certainly will be now. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1680
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:47:00 -
[414] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote: Not intended to be offensive to you Goony,but CCP you cannot expect to calm peoples anger by eventually making room for a few more Fighters/fighter Bombers when you know your in the wrong,every Super Pilot out there knows your in the wrong, there should be a full compliment of 20 Fighters & 20 Fighter bombers anyway, do not think you can mess us about by thinking that this insult will sufice. Phunnestyle is right, listen to him and damn well do it,stop making such a hash of this.
we're interested in fixing an actual problem rather than listen to this bad whining please don't involve our point in your temper tantrum
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:50:00 -
[415] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only?
Looks like a CCP oversight, this imbalance is so bad. Nyx already gets a damagebonus and is most popular SC and will be even more imba if this change goes through. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 20:57:00 -
[416] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Venustas Blue wrote: Not intended to be offensive to you Goony,but CCP you cannot expect to calm peoples anger by eventually making room for a few more Fighters/fighter Bombers when you know your in the wrong,every Super Pilot out there knows your in the wrong, there should be a full compliment of 20 Fighters & 20 Fighter bombers anyway, do not think you can mess us about by thinking that this insult will sufice. Phunnestyle is right, listen to him and damn well do it,stop making such a hash of this.
we're interested in fixing an actual problem rather than listen to this bad whining please don't involve our point in your temper tantrum
This would be a signifficant change, Goons actually saying something constructive & not nonscence WOW FACTOR. People whine for a reason,Goons whined for ages & ages that Supers where OP & they couldn't effectively rule through lagg tactics & mass blobs,whine whine whine all the time,and yes they where right to whine about many of the aspects involved, every1 knows and agrees with that, so really you should stum your gob & stop telling others to stop whining about something that is clearly,totally & utterly wrong, you have no right. It seems to me to be lets say, slightly Ironic. (sarcasm) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1681
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 21:18:00 -
[417] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: This would be a signifficant change, Goons actually saying something constructive & not nonscence WOW FACTOR. People whine for a reason,Goons whined for ages & ages that Supers where OP & they couldn't effectively rule through lagg tactics & mass blobs,whine whine whine all the time,and yes they where right to whine about many of the aspects involved, every1 knows and agrees with that, so really you should stum your gob & stop telling others to stop whining about something that is clearly,totally & utterly wrong, you have no right. It seems to me to be lets say, slightly Ironic. (sarcasm)
yes, but our complaints are legible and well thought out rather than being something a third grader would be embarassed to have typed
i mean look at this man |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 21:50:00 -
[418] - Quote
I'm baffled as to why the drone bay has been increased by 5.
There were two possible oppinions on the drone bay, either 25 was enough to have a flight and some spares and it should have been left as was OR the drone bay was too small for the purpose of the ship and it should have been increased to accomodate a flight of each type of fighter/Bomber.
To increase the drone bay by enough to accomodate 5 more drones acnowledges that the drone bay was too small for the purpose of the ship but does not resolve the problem.
Fighters/Bombers need a massive buff so they cant be all killed in 15 seconds by half a dozen stealth bombers. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 21:50:00 -
[419] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: This would be a signifficant change, Goons actually saying something constructive & not nonscence WOW FACTOR. People whine for a reason,Goons whined for ages & ages that Supers where OP & they couldn't effectively rule through lagg tactics & mass blobs,whine whine whine all the time,and yes they where right to whine about many of the aspects involved, every1 knows and agrees with that, so really you should stum your gob & stop telling others to stop whining about something that is clearly,totally & utterly wrong, you have no right. It seems to me to be lets say, slightly Ironic. (sarcasm)
yes, but our complaints are legible and well thought out rather than being something a third grader would be embarassed to have typed i mean look at this man
I assumed you would have nothing that held water to say back, was correct ofc,but it surprised me that you tried to respond anyway. Yes some of what you had to say was legit,but an aweful lot & I mean soo much of what Goons cooked up was total and utter nonescence, Goons are well known for chatting absolute rubbish, never gets old. That quote is 100% true it astounds you to see facts infront of your very nose I know. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:01:00 -
[420] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only?
lol self quoting.
I feel the need to elaborate and point out that the nyx's doing 90% more fighter damage than the wyvern/aeon is not an issue of supercaps vs subcaps, or whether they're being nerfed too hard or not hard enough. This is purely an issue of the supercarriers balance among themselves.
The 5/10 fighters situation that existed prior to the current numbers is even worse, with the nyx getting 125% the fighter dps of the aeon/wyvern.
Whatever the nerf ends up being, the nyx doing 90%(or more) more fighter damage than the aeon/wyvern is broken. |
|
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:09:00 -
[421] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Sigras wrote:Rip Minner wrote:Yes you are right. CCP needs to make the things Dockable now that there nerfed into the ground as they needed to be but at the same time even Capital pilots need to be able to change ships now that it's not One ship to rule them all.
Ever hear of a CSMA? You would have to be a complete moron to park your super in a CSMA. Do you have any faction ships, like a Baalghorn or Nightmare? Maybe a nice officer fitted Machariel? You do? Good! Now put 10 of them in your corp's SMA and go do your own thing for a while. Don't worry, they'll be ~just fine~ there. CSMAs are about as juicy to pop as a CSAA. #1 if youre really that worried about people in your corp stealing your stuff, you can just put up your own tower and uncheck that little "allow corp access" button then whoever wants in the tower needs the PW. #2 Theyre not the same as CSAAs at all because you can still get your stuff out after the tower has been RFed, then you just log off and since you're not aggressed, poof you disappear in 1 minute. #3 you can get a holding alt and log him off if youre really that worried about it . . . there are several for sale in the character bazaar ======> that way #4 the problem with docking supercarriers is that now you have a ship with a HUGE EHP buffer RRing a station after it comes out of reinforce that can simply dock, get free repair and undock again to resume RR . . . this may be a bit dangerous depending on the station, but the gallente and caldari ones have very large undock radii Say no to free repairs on 3,000,000 armor HP
Can i join your corp with pos roles? |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:13:00 -
[422] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Innominate wrote:Quote: New drone bay capacities will be: 30 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern; 35 Fighters and/or Fighter Bombers for the Nyx and Hel.
So, take as a given that all supercarriers will carry 20 bombers. This leaves the Aeon/Wyvern room to carry 10 fighters, and the Nyx/Hel room for 15. The nyx gets a 25% damage bonus to fighters on top of that, fielding effectively 18.75 fighters. Under these changes the nyx is able to do 87.5% more damage with fighters than the Aeon/Wyvern, this is more fighter damage than the Aeon/Wyvern generally do currently. It makes sense for the lower EHP Nyx/Hel to do more damage than the Aeon/Wyvern. The 50% effective fighter damage bonus from the drone bay size seems more than enough for fighters. The Nyx doing nearly double the fighter damage of the Aeon/Wyvern is ridiculous. Perhaps modify the nyxes damage bonus to apply to fighter bombers only? lol self quoting. I feel the need to elaborate and point out that the nyx's doing 90% more fighter damage than the wyvern/aeon is not an issue of supercaps vs subcaps, or whether they're being nerfed too hard or not hard enough. This is purely an issue of the supercarriers balance among themselves. The 5/10 fighters situation that existed prior to the current numbers is even worse, with the nyx getting 125% the fighter dps of the aeon/wyvern. Whatever the nerf ends up being, the nyx doing 90%(or more) more fighter damage than the aeon/wyvern is broken.
Seems the update is being rushed out. With CCPs re-org and the people left being rushed I'm expecting a lot of issues with this update. |
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:38:00 -
[423] - Quote
I'm really sorry, but you are doing this wrong.
Nyx is too popular compared to Aeon/Wyvern and the Hel isn't popular enough. Its the bonuses.
Nerf the Nyx bonus as its too attractive. Scrap the Hel bonus as its irredeemable and just give it the same bonus as the nerfed Nyx.
Learn from the Revenant, i.e. +1/level of drones +1/level of carrier (fighters and bombers only) This has a knock on effect of making the DCU a +10% each bonus and a serious competitor for every high slot mod.
This would have restricted the supercarriers to launching five drones .. you could have given them the Rorqal double damage bonus and no one would have complained. The supercarrier could still be used to run anomalies (remember this character can no longer dock so letting it do other stuff is NOT wrong). It could still use five double damage sentries against POS. But the spam from it is massively reduced to the betterment of the game.
Make drone skills apply to fighters and bombers .. blancing on 5.5.5.5 skill levels making those skills we trained up STILL usable and giving us a reason to go from 4-5 even in our new permanent tomb.
The huge number of conventional drones being launched in waves would have ceased to be a problem as only five could launch at a time.
Limit the four racial supers to 15 fighters/bombers .. the max number at carrier 5 and with 5 DCUs fitted.
I really don't understand why you managed to screw this up so badly given how much time you had.
The tank stuff will do .. but making the Hel the shield tanked damage bonus super would have seen a lot more of them deployed over the year than the frankly terrible bonus it had, and still has. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 22:59:00 -
[424] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote: Seems the update is being rushed out. With CCPs re-org and the people left being rushed I'm expecting a lot of issues with this update.
I think you just hit the nail on the head of the problem. Short timers disease as we called it in the military. You know your leaving, so why give a rats a55 about what you do or who else it messes up. This more than any reason is why the super nerfs should be put off till after the rest of the patch gets released, there are already a ton of game changing fight breaking updates coming in this new patch. please put some sanity back in the super ships.
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 01:32:00 -
[425] - Quote
What about changing the Hel bonus please ? This ship is a ******* joke. Where is the supposed Minmatar capital rebalance ?! Boost or what ever you called it, CCP ? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 01:57:00 -
[426] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: Seems the update is being rushed out. With CCPs re-org and the people left being rushed I'm expecting a lot of issues with this update.
I think you just hit the nail on the head of the problem. Short timers disease as we called it in the military. You know your leaving, so why give a rats a55 about what you do or who else it messes up. This more than any reason is why the super nerfs should be put off till after the rest of the patch gets released, there are already a ton of game changing fight breaking updates coming in this new patch. please put some sanity back in the super ships.
Have either of you been on Sisi lately? Given this is, you know, the test server feedback forum that's kinda important?
If you had, you would know that this update is looking to be one of the easiest, simplest and best thought out updates in many many years. Tidi: an end to lag. New Nebulae. New skins for caldari and gallente. New T3 bcs. New T2 warfare links amongst other T2 goodies. Corp bookmarks. Changes to POS fuelling. Hybrid changes (need to go further, but it's a start) which have been the subject of iteration and discussion between the playerbase and CCP, a good precedent. The end to the logoffski. Warp and jump. Autopilot docks at stations. New session timer display. Engine Trails. Turret miss effects. So many UI changes I can't fuckin list them all, here's a few more: prerequisites show training time, ships show that they're uninsured, adding fitting to market quickbars, alliance jump bridges in in-game map, new warp effect, new cyno effect, new jump effect, stargates orientated as they should be.
They solved issues that have been bugging me about the UI for years, and issues that I didn't even know I found annoying. It's like BFF got a steroid injection to get DONE some of the stuff that the players want. And they did it all in a period of turmoil and upheaval at CCP.
But yeah, you're right, it definitely feels rushed out because they took your ******* cookie~ ******* ******. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 11:20:00 -
[427] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: Seems the update is being rushed out. With CCPs re-org and the people left being rushed I'm expecting a lot of issues with this update.
I think you just hit the nail on the head of the problem. Short timers disease as we called it in the military. You know your leaving, so why give a rats a55 about what you do or who else it messes up. This more than any reason is why the super nerfs should be put off till after the rest of the patch gets released, there are already a ton of game changing fight breaking updates coming in this new patch. please put some sanity back in the super ships. Have either of you been on Sisi lately? Given this is, you know, the test server feedback forum that's kinda important? If you had, you would know that this update is looking to be one of the easiest, simplest and best thought out updates in many many years. Tidi: an end to lag. New Nebulae. New skins for caldari and gallente. New T3 bcs. New T2 warfare links amongst other T2 goodies. Corp bookmarks. Changes to POS fuelling. Hybrid changes (need to go further, but it's a start) which have been the subject of iteration and discussion between the playerbase and CCP, a good precedent. The end to the logoffski. Warp and jump. Autopilot docks at stations. New session timer display. Engine Trails. Turret miss effects. So many UI changes I can't fuckin list them all, here's a few more: prerequisites show training time, ships show that they're uninsured, adding fitting to market quickbars, alliance jump bridges in in-game map, new warp effect, new cyno effect, new jump effect, stargates orientated as they should be. They solved issues that have been bugging me about the UI for years, and issues that I didn't even know I found annoying. It's like BFF got a steroid injection to get DONE some of the stuff that the players want. And they did it all in a period of turmoil and upheaval at CCP. But yeah, you're right, it definitely feels rushed out because they took your ******* cookie~ ******* ******.
Yes I've been on the test server, almost every day for the last 2 weeks. I know CCP are making a lot of changes/possible improvements to the game. What I was trying to get at is it's better to do say 8 things properly than have a shot at doing 12 things and get things wrong.
More haste, less speed
BTW in most instances people that resort to profanities are loosing the argument. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 14:02:00 -
[428] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Roboticus420 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Phunnestyle]Ok heres what CCP have done right & you should be commended for it:
+ Pinging aggro timers,yes commit to the fight. + Limit Supercarrier to Fighters/Fighter Bombers
This is what CCP have done wrong, but never the less it is a small price to pay in consideration to other mistakes & is there by aggreable to accept:
+/- Reduction of HP on suppercarriers is basically for the haters, all that needed changing for at least the time being was the above 2 + points.
Now this is what CCP have done drastically wrong & needs changing immediately:
-Drone bays on suppercarriers need to be able to carry an optimal amount of both Fighters & Fighter Bombers. So in other words at least 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. This is common sence & logical to all but the most stubborn of fools. While reducing Supers flexibility, you have overstepped your mark & made Supers limited in offencive ploys. For with this rediculious implimentation Supers will as has been said again & again, only be used after the winter patch with Fighters & target painters in the Mids. They will only use Fighters for the most obvious of reasons. If they are to be intercepted by a Subcap fleet, it is primary among all else that they be at least able to give a fight back. So Fighter Bombers take & indeffinate back seat due to this patch failure. CCP need to acknowledge this failure as soon as possible & as stubborn as we know you are,you need to sort it out & inform us that you wish to sort this stupidity out. This you MUST do as you obviously don't want to give back the skill points intwined with the learning of the Fighter Bombers skill.
As has been said why insult us by increasing the drone bay by 5 when you can do the job properly an give full compliments of 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers. Increasing the capacity by 5 does not in any way, shape or form resolve the problem, it only shows that you acknowledge that the drone bay is too small on supers, hence puts you in as bad if not worse position than before, as you have amitted to being foolish. You have half listened to what we are saying, now you need to stop being stubborn & do the job properly. Your making such a hard time of this, your trying peoples patience, listen to us & act upon it. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 14:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
supers are gay. ccp is doing you all a big favor by taking away your FABULOUS capabilities so you can see how poofty you have all truly have become. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 14:58:00 -
[430] - Quote
Indeed the super capitals don't need the RR bonus for the HEL... Thats what carriers are for. let it launch more fighters or something DOWN WITH THE NYX SUPPREMACY!!! |
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 15:05:00 -
[431] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Indeed the super capitals don't need the RR bonus for the HEL... Thats what carriers are for. let it launch more fighters or something DOWN WITH THE NYX SUPPREMACY!!!
why? gallente have 4 drone boats and not enough imo. you want to take away the one niche that gallente only are supposed to have?
if anything, supers should be allowed to fit triage modules and then that bonus all of the sudden makes way more sense then you think.
plus, it makes a supercarrier particuliarly vulnerable but have a monster of a local tank at the same time.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1681
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 16:21:00 -
[432] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:I assumed you would have nothing that held water to say back, was correct ofc,but it surprised me that you tried to respond anyway. Yes some of what you had to say was legit,but an aweful lot & I mean soo much of what Goons cooked up was total and utter nonescence, Goons are well known for chatting absolute rubbish, never gets old. That quote is 100% true it astounds you to see facts infront of your very nose I know.
i support you for the chief supporter of buffing supercaps you will do more for our cause than we ever could |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1681
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 16:22:00 -
[433] - Quote
the people demand more incoherent and self-entitled rants for supercap supremacy |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 16:47:00 -
[434] - Quote
I don't see the reason to nerf the dronebay with fighter limit down to 30-35 fighters. Most people will keep remaining fighters in corp hangar array and make changes acording to the needs, making this nerf a corp hangar nerf instead.
If you want supercarriers to use only fighter bombers, do it then. But removing regular drones it's more than enough in my opinion. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 17:33:00 -
[435] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote: What I was trying to get at is it's better to do say 8 things properly than have a shot at doing 12 things and get things wrong.
...
BTW in most instances people that resort to profanities are loosing the argument.
Your point is predicated on this being something that is being done wrong. It is not.
BTW In most instances, complaining about how a point is being made is the last line of defence of indefensible. |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:35:00 -
[436] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:Indeed the super capitals don't need the RR bonus for the HEL... Thats what carriers are for. let it launch more fighters or something DOWN WITH THE NYX SUPPREMACY!!! why? gallente have 4 drone boats and not enough imo. you want to take away the one niche that gallente only are supposed to have? if anything, supers should be allowed to fit triage modules and then that bonus all of the sudden makes way more sense then you think. plus, it makes a supercarrier particuliarly vulnerable but have a monster of a local tank at the same time.
LOL fitting a triage mod on a super would be the dumbest thing ever lets use a 20b isk ship to do what a 1b isk ship can do just as easily
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:43:00 -
[437] - Quote
SuperBeastie wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:Indeed the super capitals don't need the RR bonus for the HEL... Thats what carriers are for. let it launch more fighters or something DOWN WITH THE NYX SUPPREMACY!!! why? gallente have 4 drone boats and not enough imo. you want to take away the one niche that gallente only are supposed to have? if anything, supers should be allowed to fit triage modules and then that bonus all of the sudden makes way more sense then you think. plus, it makes a supercarrier particuliarly vulnerable but have a monster of a local tank at the same time. LOL fitting a triage mod on a super would be the dumbest thing ever lets use a 20b isk ship to do what a 1b isk ship can do just as easily
except you would have to sit still for 5 minutes and let people beat the living **** out of you and risk that 20bil while doing it. also, you can fit the things far easier than a regular carrier and could in fact fit more rep than the carrier so, it would be a challenge that most supercarrier pilots have never encountered and put them in a position where they could actually be taking massive damage from dreads instead of just titans and other supercarriers. it gives the ship another role besides launch drones engage target which is all it presently does. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 22:28:00 -
[438] - Quote
For manufacturing purposes, since the Dreadnaught is losing the Drones, will you remove the Drone bay component from manfuacturing them?!
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 23:26:00 -
[439] - Quote
A lot of super whining is overshadowing the fact that supercapitals can speedtank dreads.
There needs to be a buff to tracking and explosion velocity, and it should be done very soon.
do that and you will see a resurgence of dreads on the field, and carriers to support them. |
Waukesha
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 23:58:00 -
[440] - Quote
SCs needs 20 Fighters & 20 Fighterbombers otherwise there not worth the investment.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 23:59:00 -
[441] - Quote
Reduce super capital speed by 50% at least. This will ensure dreads can actually hit them instead of the super caps just loling at the ****** dread tracking while in siege mode. |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 00:06:00 -
[442] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Reduce super capital speed by 50% at least. This will ensure dreads can actually hit them instead of the super caps just loling at the ****** dread tracking while in siege mode.
In sisi, Hel with normal tank fit, cannot break traking of dreads in siege mode.
If you accept reduce Hp to get a fast Sc, your tank become very vulnerable vs hostile supers, titans and subcaps blobs. |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 00:43:00 -
[443] - Quote
Give HEl-¦s a bonus to mining drones , so that we can mine as much as 20 hulks and a bonus to cargo. |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 06:24:00 -
[444] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Give HEl-¦s a bonus to mining drones , so that we can mine as much as 20 hulks and a bonus to cargo.
This would actually get people to use it |
Constantinee
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 09:10:00 -
[445] - Quote
Sold all my SC's as of this week. CCP went a little to far with this nerf. Especially since the Hel and wyvern were already pre nerfed in a sense. they are useless in a cap battle and still will be, if anything theyll die faster than when their called primary for being the only shield ship in an armor fleet.
If you remove regular drones from our bays at least give us 20 FB 20 Fighters and boost fighter damage by 5%. the main reason supers got nerfed wasnt because they were raping everyone, no. it was because people failed at getting them pinned down enough to actually do something about it. hic bubbles should reduce super cap speed by 75%. If the bubble drops the SC needs to get back to full speed to warp out. gives the opposition enough time to get another bubble and or super point up to keep him there. Supers dead.
Hel needs a better bonus, 5% shield HP and resistances per lvl or give it an extra lowslot so its a decent armor tanker. Wyvern should have some other bonus to counter the shield on it. I would say slave shield implants but then everyone would whine for crystal armor implants. Maybe capital/sc specific implants?
idk... im ranting at 4am.
Rant over.
TLDR
SC's suck now, thank you ccp. Constantinee video archive. http://www.youtube.com/user/Constvids?feature=mhee
|
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 09:50:00 -
[446] - Quote
Even if I can't understand the changes (-+-+how many times have a supercarrier pilot used regular drones over fighters??) It would be nice if CCP reconsider the dronebay reduction because Supercarriers are ships that are HARD to refit because you can't dock with them.
With this changes, you are left with almost to NO spare offensive capabilities in an big and expensive ship. If you get your fighters destroyed, you are just a sitting duck. All Supercarriers should be able to hold at least 40 fighters of any type.
CCP should also remember that supercarrier pilots are stuck in a single ship...
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 17:31:00 -
[447] - Quote
Constantinee wrote:SC's suck now, thank you ccp.
good, they sucked 2 years ago when they were "motherships" and now they do again but not as hard.
can you honestly say the game in nullsec is healthier and more engaging today than it was Pre Dominion superbuff? |
Constantinee
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 19:17:00 -
[448] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:Constantinee wrote:SC's suck now, thank you ccp. good, they sucked 2 years ago when they were "motherships" and now they do again but not as hard. can you honestly say the game in nullsec is healthier and more engaging today than it was Pre Dominion superbuff?
hell no, pre dominion moms were much less used in combat, mainly because some alliances could barley afford 1.
I remember when i flew with MC people were dropping 50+ dreads on the field just to counter 4 supers. When fighterbombers were introduced, supers became the ideal ship to have regardless.
When they were mom's, they were mainly used to pretty much scare or bait opponents into the fight or off the field so we can take your space. Only few allianced like bob, d2, PL, ect ect, would actually stay and make a shot to kill them. it wasnt until one went down that the "buff the mom" whining began. This was when they were fit with active hardners and localized reps...
SC's suck not as hard now but are pretty damn close atm.
Constantinee video archive. http://www.youtube.com/user/Constvids?feature=mhee
|
Laveaolous
Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 20:34:00 -
[449] - Quote
So Nxx & Hel (lol) can still have 20FB and 15 F making the Nyx even more the only supercarrier you would want. I kept the Aeon because I figured I could live with the removal of drones and a HP nerf, silly me forgot that the nerf bat is not a surgical instrument.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 21:01:00 -
[450] - Quote
Look at all these super carrier pilot tears. lol
NOM, NOM, NOM!!! |
|
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 21:19:00 -
[451] - Quote
Laveaolous wrote:So Nxx & Hel (lol) can still have 20FB and 15 F making the Nyx even more the only supercarrier you would want. I kept the Aeon because I figured I could live with the removal of drones and a HP nerf, silly me forgot that the nerf bat is not a surgical instrument.
ummm aeon has 20million more ehp than the nyx 2000 extra dps does not make up for that |
Vaffel Junior
NorCorp Security
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 02:08:00 -
[452] - Quote
Nyx is a nice looking coffin |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
332
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 03:22:00 -
[453] - 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? |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 06:22:00 -
[454] - Quote
Headerman wrote:My super carrier is getting nerfed so now I want it buffed.
Is what I read.
|
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 07:51:00 -
[455] - Quote
I, too, would like to play docking games in lowsec with a 40m EHP hull. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 08:17:00 -
[456] - Quote
Give supercarriers the ability to repair items, so people in hostile space who damage their mods can drop the mods into the super and have them repaired in the MODULE REPAIR BAY.
Also add mini-manufacturing facilities that can be used to make things like nanite paste, ammos, drones, anchorable bubbles and other consumables.
Make supercarriers into support ships that can sustain a subcap gang in hostile territory for extended periods of time so I can live out my BSG fantasies. Do it CCP. Do it. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 09:04:00 -
[457] - Quote
Constantinee wrote:Sold all my SC's as of this week. CCP went a little to far with this nerf. Especially since the Hel and wyvern were already pre nerfed in a sense. they are useless in a cap battle and still will be, if anything theyll die faster than when their called primary for being the only shield ship in an armor fleet.
If you remove regular drones from our bays at least give us 20 FB 20 Fighters and boost fighter damage by 5%. the main reason supers got nerfed wasnt because they were raping everyone, no. it was because people failed at getting them pinned down enough to actually do something about it. hic bubbles should reduce super cap speed by 75%. If the bubble drops the SC needs to get back to full speed to warp out. gives the opposition enough time to get another bubble and or super point up to keep him there. Supers dead.
Hel needs a better bonus, 5% shield HP and resistances per lvl or give it an extra lowslot so its a decent armor tanker. Wyvern should have some other bonus to counter the shield on it. I would say slave shield implants but then everyone would whine for crystal armor implants. Maybe capital/sc specific implants?
idk... im ranting at 4am.
Rant over.
TLDR
SC's suck now, thank you ccp.
What he says is true, CCP give us our full compliment of 20Fighters & 20Fighter Bombers PLZZZZZZZ So currently atm Supers in Aeon/HEL/Wyverns case will have 20xFighters & 10xFighter Bombers, we have to have a spare capital armor & energy transfer in our cargo hold aswell as a huge chunk of Fuel. I am not going to give up room of these crutial items for the other 10x Fighter Bombers. So still Fighter Bombers are a skill wich takes a indeffinate back seat, you may aswell give us our Skillpoints back. It makes sence & logic to have room for 20 Fighters & 20 Fighter Bombers, so plz sort it out & do it. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 09:25:00 -
[458] - Quote
Or you could not be ********, pack a full compliment of fighter-bombers and do what your ship does best: mouth-grape other caps. You can bet it will be 20fb/15f in my Nyx.
I do think that supercarriers should get some fun new gimmick in exchange for their drones and EHP nerf though. |
SuperBeastie
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 09:42:00 -
[459] - Quote
my nyx can only do 10k dps with bombers and 1875 dps with fighters |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 13:06:00 -
[460] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: the Fighters take precidence over Fighter bombers since it is primary among all else that we be at least able to give a subcap fleet a fight .
Yep, you still don't get it. |
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 13:25:00 -
[461] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: the Fighters take precidence over Fighter bombers since it is primary among all else that we be at least able to give a subcap fleet a fight .
Yep, you still don't get it.
dont worry vincent, the fix is in. =) these attitudes will be essentially ignored by the devs. |
Kryder
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 14:19:00 -
[462] - Quote
If you are going to nerf the amount of Fighters/Fighter Bombers we carry then let us dock so it's not a PITA to change out drones. I can live with some of these changes if CCP would let me out of my coffin once in a while and make it a little easier to fit a super.
And before someone cries "station games", how hard would it be to up the session timer on docking a super? In WH if you jump between WH's too fast, you have a session timer to wait out before you can jump again. Code it so once you undock, you have to wait 10-15 minutes to dock again. That limits station games and makes some of these capital changes easier to handle. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 14:38:00 -
[463] - Quote
Tbh ALL docking and jumping after having agressed others should be way longer than 1 minute and providing remote linking or repairing shold count as aggression too. Shouldn't be too hard changing current mechanics to 3 or 5 minutes for subcapitals and 5-15 minutes for capitals/super capitals as... |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 15:07:00 -
[464] - Quote
Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
|
Kryder
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 15:17:00 -
[465] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
Makes our Epeen look bigger! |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 17:47:00 -
[466] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
To give you a reason to disagree with more oppinions. |
DavidJayder
modro ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 18:10:00 -
[467] - Quote
I super think the minmatar dread buff is great!!! More cap!! Exactly what was needed..... |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
137
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 18:28:00 -
[468] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
To give you a reason to disagree with more oppinions.
Well I was curious.
So far the only reason came from Mr. Genius up there who said it was to engage subcaps as a primary focus.
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 20:45:00 -
[469] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: the Fighters take precidence over Fighter bombers since it is primary among all else that we be at least able to give a subcap fleet a fight .
Yep, you still don't get it.
LOL fool, you don't get it, yes blah blah subcap pilots want supers to be only anticapital capable,blah blah blah,so supers can't scratch your shield tanked blaster fitted prophecy,yes I know blah blah blah, but coming back to reality......
Rarely has anything been used for a sole purpose & it is stupid to think of it in such a way. Alot of alliances that actually know what there talking about unlike you evidently, are making fighters primary over FBs,so 20xFighters & possibly 10x FBs in drone bay & make enough room in hagar for other 10xFBs,wich leaves littel room for spare capital remote rep & transfer aswell as fuel. This is fail, needs drone bay to have enough room for 20Fighters & 20Fighter Bombers.
Read carefully vincent, your bringing things out of context & letting your few braincells run away with you. You might find it hard to read,but ask mummy to spell the words out for you, Supers will take a full set of fighters over FBs due to the fact that if there (intercepted) by a Subcap fleet, they need to be able to at least give a fight back, although you ofc would rather they sit like lemmings whilst you & your shield tanked blaster prophecy of fail can safely plod away at it.
I LOL@U vincent,special kid. |
Vertumnus
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 20:48:00 -
[470] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: needs drone bay to have enough room for 20Fighters & 20Fighter Bombers.
Yes
It should be 20/20 and maybe a extra 5 fb or fighters. give the nyx/hel an extra 5 on top of that and call it a day.
Wake up CCP and start thinking.... |
|
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 20:58:00 -
[471] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
This must be a trollpost.
Why do You need 5 sentries on Your Dominix? With place for a second squad + other drones. Why do You need 10 drones on Your carrier? Subcaps can only launch 5 drones, why 10 on carrier? Why do You need x gun/missile launcher on Your "whatever"? 1 gun/missile launcher is acceptable.
/trollmode off
Carrier 5 = 20 fb/f, because CCP say so. Sure, CCP could castrate supers from 3fb/f to 2 fb/f per level. But this make no sence - if they should be capitalkillers furthermore. 15 fb on Aeon = 6K, on Nyx = 7,5K dps. Less than a dreadnought. With such stats (and no role) it would be better removing them from the database. |
Vertumnus
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 21:01:00 -
[472] - Quote
speaking of thinking...
If you are going to nurf the drone bay size, shouldn't you also adjust the amount of drone bay capital parts needed to build these ships?.... hell why stop there, how about the ammount of armor plates needed? 20% reduction would be nice :)
the biggest is this: are you still going to need drone bay capital parts for building dreads? if so LOL
Maybe they did think of this and changed this.... can someone confirm? |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 22:03:00 -
[473] - Quote
Vertumnus wrote:speaking of thinking...
Indeed.
People whined enough about 'super-carriers online'. In about 4-5 months, all of those MS pilots (who used to be carrier/dread pilots) are going to be titan pilots.
Titans. Everywhere.
Show's over people, time to go home and train doomsday to V. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 23:45:00 -
[474] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:People whined enough about 'super-carriers online'. In about 4-5 months, all of those MS pilots (who used to be carrier/dread pilots) are going to be titan pilots.
Titans. Everywhere.
Show's over people, time to go home and train doomsday to V.
And then titans will get nerfed further and they'll rage and shriek even louder, it'll be great |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
138
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 23:58:00 -
[475] - Quote
Gol'dar wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Why do you need more than 15 fighters?
This must be a trollpost. Why do You need 5 sentries on Your Dominix? With place for a second squad + other drones. Why do You need 10 drones on Your carrier? Subcaps can only launch 5 drones, why 10 on carrier? Why do You need x gun/missile launcher on Your "whatever"? 1 gun/missile launcher is acceptable. /trollmode off Carrier 5 = 20 fb/f, because CCP say so. Sure, CCP could castrate supers from 3fb/f to 2 fb/f per level. But this make no sence - if they should be capitalkillers furthermore. 15 fb on Aeon = 6K, on Nyx = 7,5K dps. Less than a dreadnought. With such stats (and no role) it would be better removing them from the database.
Why can't I put 5 sentries in my Gila? Why can't I put 5 heavies in my BS? Why do I have to reload, why can't I have infinite ammo?
CCP doesn't want you to have 20 -or- 20, they want you to choose. Sorry that's the way it is. They KNOW that you will have to mix. They know and that's the way it is.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
138
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:02:00 -
[476] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:LOL fool, you don't get it, yes blah blah subcap pilots want supers to be only anticapital capable,blah blah blah,so supers can't scratch your shield tanked blaster fitted prophecy,yes I know blah blah blah, but coming back to reality......
Rarely has anything been used for a sole purpose & it is stupid to think of it in such a way. Alot of alliances that actually know what there talking about unlike you evidently, are making fighters primary over FBs,so 20xFighters & possibly 10x FBs in drone bay & make enough room in hagar for other 10xFBs,wich leaves littel room for spare capital remote rep & transfer aswell as fuel. This is fail, needs drone bay to have enough room for 20Fighters & 20Fighter Bombers.
Read carefully vincent, your bringing things out of context & letting your few braincells run away with you. You might find it hard to read,but ask mummy to spell the words out for you, Supers will take a full set of fighters over FBs due to the fact that if there (intercepted) by a Subcap fleet, they need to be able to at least give a fight back, although you ofc would rather they sit like lemmings whilst you & your shield tanked blaster prophecy of fail can safely plod away at it.
I LOL@U vincent,special kid.
The minute one starts talking like an 11 year old the discussion has already ended.
You're mindlessly babbling now.
If you are "intercepted" by a subcap fleet, and yuo are alone, you deserve to die.
You should NOT be travelling without subcap support. You should NOT need to engage subcaps.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself to you. Stop thinking that your role is to engage subcaps because it is not. Keep thinking that and you will be one of the first to lose yours post patch. |
TinkerHell
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:20:00 -
[477] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: CCP doesn't want you to have 20 -or- 20, they want you to choose. Sorry that's the way it is. They KNOW that you will have to mix. They know and that's the way it is.
I wont be mixing, I will just have 20 fighters and 15 bombers in my Nyx, and when a capital shows up ill just switch 5 fighters out of my corp hanger for the 5 bombers ill have stored there and have 20 bombers and 15 fighters instead.....and it will take me a whole of 10 seconds to switch out my drones. God bless 50km3 corp hangers, which should be renamed to be Secondary Drone Bay. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
118
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:59:00 -
[478] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote: Indeed.
People whined enough about 'super-carriers online'. In about 4-5 months, all of those MS pilots (who used to be carrier/dread pilots) are going to be titan pilots.
Titans. Everywhere.
Show's over people, time to go home and train doomsday to V.
Well, I'm not sure what would be accomplished there when you take into account the changes to the DD's description on SISI.
Notes: This weapon can only fire on ships that are capital-sized or larger. After firing, you will be immobile for thirty seconds and will be unable to activate your jump drive or cloaking device for ten minutes.
If that makes it to Tranq I mean. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 03:33:00 -
[479] - Quote
Lol, there was a nice hurricanes vs 10 titans and a giant pile of nyxes fight today. Guess what killed all the hurricanes? Hint: it wasn't overpowered supercarrier drones. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 03:48:00 -
[480] - Quote
Chimera. CPU. +10%-20%. Now. |
|
Rubix Khamsi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 03:52:00 -
[481] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Lol, there was a nice hurricanes vs 10 titans and a giant pile of nyxes fight today. Guess what killed all the hurricanes? Hint: it wasn't overpowered supercarrier drones. Hint: They are nerfing that too... |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
141
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 04:10:00 -
[482] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Lol, there was a nice hurricanes vs 10 titans and a giant pile of nyxes fight today. Guess what killed all the hurricanes? Hint: it wasn't overpowered supercarrier drones. After the patch they can't DD subcaps, and can't be remotely boosted.
Many supercarrier pilots are going to stay, some might go for a Titan, a few will firesale. |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 04:16:00 -
[483] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Chimera. CPU. +10%-20%. Now.
Since it was not going to be read where I posted it.
[Archon, WH Triage] Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit Corpum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay
Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Standard WH fit, not too expensive, right? Fits easily. You do not even have to fit all of those expensive modules for the fit to work; full meta 0 t2 fit works just fine. Feel free to toss the new t2 triage module on there. For higher DPS pvp when the enemies don't bring Bhaalgorns (in someone elses wormhole, for instance, and when not engaging R&K, AHARM, or any other big WH groups), bring two B-type EANMs instead of the one A-type. Fitting how you want, you have the CPU and PG to do ANYTHING with the archon (other than shield tank it. I guess triple rep is out, but you were an idiot for expecting that...).
Now the Caldari Equivalent:
[Chimera, Triage WH] True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay
Capital Neutron Saturation Injector I Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger
Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Triage Module I Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Fits by 4.25 CPU. Note all of the faction / meta 2 modules on there that have lower fitting requirements. You need them to do this. You need 5 to fit the new t2 triage. Want to add something like a boost amp to that tank because no one is really neuting you? If you use a 5% CPU implant, you can fit a Pith C shield boost amp, and still not shoehorn that T2 triage module on there. You can do whatever you want with an archon, but hardly anything with a chimera.
5% CPU boost would make this ship less ******** to fit tbqfh. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 06:27:00 -
[484] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:Chimera. CPU. +10%-20%. Now. Since it was not going to be read where I posted it. [Archon, WH Triage] Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit Corpum A-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Triage Module I Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Standard WH fit, not too expensive, right? Fits easily. You do not even have to fit all of those expensive modules for the fit to work; full meta 0 t2 fit works just fine. Feel free to toss the new t2 triage module on there. For higher DPS pvp when the enemies don't bring Bhaalgorns (in someone elses wormhole, for instance, and when not engaging R&K, AHARM, or any other big WH groups), bring two B-type EANMs instead of the one A-type. Fitting how you want, you have the CPU and PG to do ANYTHING with the archon (other than shield tank it. I guess triple rep is out, but you were an idiot for expecting that...). Now the Caldari Equivalent: [Chimera, Triage WH] True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay Capital Neutron Saturation Injector I Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger True Sansha Cap Recharger Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Triage Module I Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Fits by 4.25 CPU. Note all of the faction / meta 2 modules on there that have lower fitting requirements. You need them to do this. You need 5 CPU to fit the new t2 triage. Want to add something like a boost amp to that tank because no one is really neuting you? If you use a 5% CPU implant, you can fit a Pith C shield boost amp, and still not shoehorn that T2 triage module on there. You can do whatever you want with an archon, but hardly anything with a chimera. 5% CPU boost would make this ship less ******** to fit tbqfh. EDIT: actually, shield Archon is not out of the question... As long as you run remote armor. Slightly less cap regen and base tank than the armor Archon, but the tank overheats for more. Also, it tanks more than the chimera with the fit posted above for slightly less (~20 or 30) cap regen. I would run it for ***** and giggles, but I have to choose either armor or shields boosts (this is a lie, my booster alt can run the resist bonus to shields and all three to armor at the same time; one would be less though because of which afk T3 i was in. I am also too lazy to grab my boost tengu given that I already have a properly fit 4 link nigh-unprobeable legion; the tengu is not that great.)
This is interesting. I didn't realise that the chimera had fitting problems with such a system. I've posted earlier in this thread about the difficulty running a four-rack shield setup with the nidhoggur due to CPU fitting issues.
So, I think I'm going to disagree with you slightly - the chimera doesn't need to change. The CPU requirements of capital shield mods need to be reduced by, say, 25 CPU to bring them to 150. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
332
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 06:43:00 -
[485] - 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? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 07:26:00 -
[486] - Quote
It's gonna take more than removing links from titans to keep their guns from blapping subcabs, hth. The patch is a step in the right direction but titans are still gonna rip BS gangs etc to shreds.
e: though I agree that the DD change has important ramifications for HICs in particular. |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 08:17:00 -
[487] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:It's gonna take more than removing links from titans to keep their guns from blapping subcabs, hth. The patch is a step in the right direction but titans are still gonna rip BS gangs etc to shreds.
e: though I agree that the DD change has important ramifications for HICs in particular.
You'll need a webber and a painter to pin down a bs for a titan to kill. You're gonna have to nerf webbers and painters more which will adversely affect many aspects of pvp.
If you nerf the tracking of capital guns even more then it will have trouble hitting moving supercaps.
When you're in a BS around a titan you better start moving. Pilots need to fly their ships. |
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 08:34:00 -
[488] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote: I wont be mixing, I will just have 20 fighters and 15 bombers in my Nyx, and when a capital shows up ill just switch 5 fighters out of my corp hanger for the 5 bombers ill have stored there and have 20 bombers and 15 fighters instead.....and it will take me a whole of 10 seconds to switch out my drones. God bless 50km3 corp hangers, which should be renamed to be Secondary Drone Bay.
This is the point. The nerf is only the CCP's response to whines, that only does SC pilots' life more tedious with absurd micromanaging. CCP invented the Drone Bandwidth to allow bigger dronebays in several ships and make more flexible gameplay, Why this nonsense changes with supercarriers then? looks like another punish to veteran players to satisfy the new playerbase... |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 11:55:00 -
[489] - Quote
Being forced to make a choice is exactly what Eve has always been about and for a few years players have been spoiled too much... Players expect to fit the largest guns with ease, expect to microwarp around constantly without cap mods fitted and permatanking the ratting ships has become the norm.
I blaim mostly rigs for powergrid and cap without consequences, but you guys shouldn't come crawling because you don't get your deepest fantasies fulfilled....
Pinky |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
141
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 12:10:00 -
[490] - Quote
So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? |
|
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 12:23:00 -
[491] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Being forced to make a choice is exactly what Eve has always been about and for a few years players have been spoiled too much... Players expect to fit the largest guns with ease, expect to microwarp around constantly without cap mods fitted and permatanking the ratting ships has become the norm.
I blaim mostly rigs for powergrid and cap without consequences, but you guys shouldn't come crawling because you don't get your deepest fantasies fulfilled....
Pinky
Don't compare regular ships with super capitals, they are very different. While you can make changes or restock a hurricane very easily, a supercarrier is a different story.
The new changes, renders supercarriers in an analog of dreadnoughts (only useful to deal high DPS at large targets). With a weapon limited by room and very easily destroyed, this nerf only makes more boring and time consuming the ship management.
Remember, a supercarrier have many drawbacks that are not being taken into account:
-Can't dock -Can be built in sov systems only -Vulnerable while being built -Expensive -No insurance -Character stuck
Simply removing stuff should not be a solution for balance. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 13:50:00 -
[492] - Quote
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.
P.S. vincent your either a troll or an absoulte joke, either way I like I think every1 else see no reason to reply to your rubbish again. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 14:07:00 -
[493] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? 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.
By that logic, dreadnaughts should fit battleship guns so that when they encounter a battleship fleet they can take them on.
Or you could realise that anti-subcap operations is not the role of either dreadnoughts OR supercarriers - it's something you should be leaving to your subcap fleet? |
Venustas Blue
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 14:20:00 -
[494] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? 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. By that logic, dreadnaughts should fit battleship guns so that when they encounter a battleship fleet they can take them on. Or you could realise that anti-subcap operations is not the role of either dreadnoughts OR supercarriers - it's something you should be leaving to your subcap fleet?
Well thats wrong, DC are about the only group of terrible players in EVE that this could really effectively apply to,as they are the only ones with such massive 1500-2000+ man blobs etc.
Every other alliance/coalitions would not just be able to rely on lets say there core function of MB 150-300 Subcap pilots in the majority of cases.
You cannot compare Dreads to Supers, you are trying to make chalk & cheese mix. Dreads are a fraction of the price and as it is they have been buffed to supply more oppertunitys and roles to these dread alts/pilots wich is good. But in no way should you try to make your self believe that becuase a 22bill+ ship has some capabilities to defend it self from Subcaps, that it gives the right for a dred of 2bill to have the same capabilities. But then again your insight is mildly amuzing & funny. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 15:07:00 -
[495] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: 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!
Will say it again :
It's like asking a guy what his salary should be. He'll tell you 12 bazillions because we all want our best toys buffed.
If you ask Superpilots how to nerf supers, they'll tell you how to nerf supers THE LEAST.
Because they own one, and they won't screw themselves up. |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 15:14:00 -
[496] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:
Will say it again :
It's like asking a guy what his salary should be. He'll tell you 12 bazillions because we all want our best toys buffed.
If you ask Superpilots how to nerf supers, they'll tell you how to nerf supers THE LEAST.
Because they own one, and they won't screw themselves up.
With that logic, if you as a guy who doesn't own a supercap how to nerf it, he will say: REMOVE IT. And if we look at the number of supercap pilots vs the number of non-supercap pilots (like yourself) it's easy to preview how CCP gonna behave...
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
141
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 15:17:00 -
[497] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: 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.
Holy ****.
Everyone read this. ""if it happens enough now, but after the patch alot [sic] more subcap fleets will have the ballz... to go ballz deep on supers"
No. Way. It's almost like that's what *should* happen.
Quote: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.
Grow some balls and post with your main. If you're going to mention any of MM's tactics or try to question what I know I want to know where you stand. If you're going to try to insult me or call me a troll when I'm posting AS ME, then man up and do the same.
No, Listen very closely. You are still stuck in the mindset that a mothership is a solopwnmobile. You want to have things to address EVERY SINGLE incident that puts you in danger. Well now you have that vulnerability. Just as regular caps can get neuted and find themselves dead you can now find your DPS bombed.
And again, all your hypothetical nonsense fails to include that you lack any support. If you are in a fleet of nothing but supercaps and a bomber fleet bombs all your drones, GOOD FOR THEM. You were stupid to not have dictors on the perimeter. You didn't have cruisers or even frigates to fastlock and get rid of the bombers.
Or you were too stupid and recalled them as soon as a bomber uncloaked.
Either way, you want CCP to keep you from having mistakes. You want CCP to bubblewrap you to keep your super being caught with its pants down when it does something ballsy and ********.
Quote: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!
You know you're losing an argument when you start with the logical fallacies.
\What makes you think I don't have a supercarrier, or never did? Because I don't agree with having it stupidly overpowered? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 19:17:00 -
[498] - Quote
Does anyone know if theyre removing the capital drone bays from the Titan and Dreadnaught BPOs? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 20:01:00 -
[499] - Quote
CCP should do something to make supercarriers more useful outside of direct combat since now more than ever they'll be relegated to unopposed structure shooting unless some new functionality is added.
I want them to make superscarriers into awesome combat logistics hubs-- triple the SMA / CHA / Fuel Bay capacities and add "facilities" that let them refine dropped loot (scrapmetal processing) and build combat consumables like ammo, paste, drones, anchorable bubbles, warp disrupt probes, scripts, etc. Also maybe a repair bay to rep burned-out modules or something... could give SCs a cool new role. |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 21:35:00 -
[500] - Quote
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. P.S. vincent your either a troll or an absoulte joke, either way I like I think every1 else see no reason to reply to your rubbish again.
PERFECTLY said mate, +100. |
|
Gnudrun
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:04:00 -
[501] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? Stuff PERFECTLY said mate, +100.
Signed!
|
Travis Musgrat
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:05:00 -
[502] - Quote
Confirming CCP is sh!t and there is no reason for supers not to be able to fit 20 Bombers and 20 Fighters in Drone Bay |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:10:00 -
[503] - Quote
Sameyaa 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 P.S. vincent your either a troll or an absoulte joke, either way I like I think every1 else see no reason to reply to your rubbish again.
I said 1 thing accidenlty wrong, Hel also have room for 35, not just Nyx, sorry my mistake. But as for everything else iv said, its accurate. And Mr special is still trolling, Sigh! |
SykWit It
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:18:00 -
[504] - Quote
Gnudrun wrote:Sameyaa wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters? Stuff PERFECTLY said mate, +100. Signed!
signed
|
Roboticus420
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:26:00 -
[505] - Quote
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 |
Waukesha
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:52:00 -
[506] - Quote
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
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 23:40:00 -
[507] - Quote
so everyone who is whining about having their drone bay size nerfed . . . what if they made it so you could carry 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers without the ability to mix and match?
IE a separate bay for fighters and fighter bombers.
TL;DR Do you really want to field a flight of fighters or are you using that as an excuse to field endless amounts of fighter bombers like you can now. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
271
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 23:58:00 -
[508] - Quote
Never stop poasting with alts so it adds more importance to something.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 00:04:00 -
[509] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so everyone who is whining about having their drone bay size nerfed . . . what if they made it so you could carry 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers without the ability to mix and match?
IE a separate bay for fighters and fighter bombers.
TL;DR Do you really want to field a flight of fighters or are you using that as an excuse to field endless amounts of fighter bombers like you can now.
God no! Not a ship made to do dps to other caps that could continue to do dps to other caps as long as it remains on the field! How imba is that!
Yes, people want to be able to carry fighters and bombers (a full compliment of both). No, they're not arguing for bigger bays so they could hold more bombers (35 bombers is already a lot of spares). Even if they did just want to carry more bombers, would anyone give a ****? The original INFINITE DRONES complaint was in regard to SCs ability to field effectively unlimited LIGHT (as in sub-fighter) drones. That is what people were bitching about, because it gave SCs the ability to kill off endless waves of subcaps (which was a valid complaint, though i think the right answer would have been to give SCs a normal drones bay capable of holding, say, 20 light drones, 20 meds, and 20 heavies/sentries rather than eliminating all regular drones entirely).
Noone cares if they can kill endless waves of dreads-- that's their job. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 02:22:00 -
[510] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Sigras wrote:so everyone who is whining about having their drone bay size nerfed . . . what if they made it so you could carry 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers without the ability to mix and match?
IE a separate bay for fighters and fighter bombers.
TL;DR Do you really want to field a flight of fighters or are you using that as an excuse to field endless amounts of fighter bombers like you can now. God no! Not a ship made to do dps to other caps that could continue to do dps to other caps as long as it remains on the field! How imba is that! Yes, people want to be able to carry fighters and bombers (a full compliment of both). No, they're not arguing for bigger bays so they could hold more bombers (35 bombers is already a lot of spares).
Is another good example of people who have no experience or knowledge of the mechanics in question, thinking we are giving such strong opposition to the current existing patch failure becuase we want to be able to have 2 sets of Fighter Bombers ROFL LMFAO god you guys suck, no hope for you honestly. Lame arguements you come up with hold no water & absolutely no truth, but they are hularious & are worthy of being troll posts however.
We do not say Supers need enough room in drone bay for nothing & especially not for spare Fighter Bombers LOL Fools making me LOL hahaa 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters is manditory, CCP plz read & PLZ do |
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 02:31:00 -
[511] - Quote
Also the HP nerf needed to be more particular to each of the Supers, the Hel bless its cotton socks needs a Buff of 10% Shield/Armor/Hull Get rid of the lame Remote repair bonus,does nothing for the Hel as its Primary on the field. Wyvern needs no HP nerf. The Aeon & Nyx would be better having a 10% nerf to Shield/Armor/Hull & Possibly cutting the drone damage bonus of the Nyx in half.
But these are More focused idea's each of the Supers needed particular attention, it wasn't accurate to generalize a vauge nerf for the sake of it.
Overall though the Nerf to HP is acceptable especially compared to the problem we need to resolve with the drone bay size.
CCP you need to give enough room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20 Fighters in Drone bay. You can even make a seperate drone bay for either of the types,a bay with enough room for only 20 Fighter Bombers & only enough room for 20 Fighters in another drone bay. CCP plz read & plz act upon. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 03:27:00 -
[512] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Also the HP nerf needed to be more particular to each of the Supers, the Hel bless its cotton socks needs a Buff of 10% Shield/Armor/Hull Get rid of the lame Remote repair bonus,does nothing for the Hel as its Primary on the field.
Does anyone out there seriously have an issue with this? I can't see one, and have no idea why Hel issues weren't "rebalanced" beyond the 7.5% kneejerk response to a single post.
If you'd like to make the Hel into king **** of reps mountain, raise resists or raw EHP to make it one of the last things enemy caps target, considering remote reps do have a breaking point with multiple hostile SC's primarying you. |
Waukesha
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 08:45:00 -
[513] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Never stop poasting with alts so it adds more importance to something.
Coming from the late 2010 char... an alt or a noob. Either way fairy but-hurt lol.
Keep posting against against SCs, it makes your argument more valid. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 13:51:00 -
[514] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Never stop poasting with alts so it adds more importance to something. same super-heavy alliance.
The only other is Phunnestyle who's to chickenshit to post with his main. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
149
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 13:53:00 -
[515] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Also the HP nerf needed to be more particular to each of the Supers, the Hel bless its cotton socks needs a Buff of 10% Shield/Armor/Hull Get rid of the lame Remote repair bonus,does nothing for the Hel as its Primary on the field.
Does anyone out there seriously have an issue with this? I can't see one, and have no idea why Hel issues weren't "rebalanced" beyond the 7.5% kneejerk response to a single post. If you'd like to make the Hel into king **** of reps mountain, raise resists or raw EHP to make it one of the last things enemy caps target, considering remote reps do have a breaking point with multiple hostile SC's primarying you.
This is a good change idea, there's no reason to give a SC a remote rep bonus when it's an offensive machine. Give it more of a damage bonus and buff the shields.
I don't see Hels on the field, and when I do they're not there as a logistics platform. |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 14:51:00 -
[516] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:HelPilot of20Years wrote:People whined enough about 'super-carriers online'. In about 4-5 months, all of those MS pilots (who used to be carrier/dread pilots) are going to be titan pilots.
Titans. Everywhere.
Show's over people, time to go home and train doomsday to V. And then titans will get nerfed further and they'll rage and shriek even louder, it'll be great
no they won't. Why? Because EVE is a product of CCP and CCP is a corporation in the business to make money and if you loss 4k+ of your customers of which most sink tons of money into your product (eve) then you are stupid. Well and I kinda doubt CCP is:) Or do you think that if you make these ppls toys in which some put several hundred dollar useless they will still play? Doubtful. Subcap Pilots will not leave the game because titans can kill them but if you make them useless the pilots that worked hard to get them or pay'd for them will leave so do the math. Its not that hard really.
Besides Titans arent overpower'd anymore without their ability to DD logistics/Commandships (FC's) off the field. As a Titan Pilot you fit for gank you're low on tank so in my opinion its quit alright.
also @CCP Tallest What about the CPU issues on the Nidhoggur? I mean the Nidhoggur didnt really need more Power Grid.. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:00:00 -
[517] - Quote
chimera needs 5 more cpu for the upcoming triage t2 modules |
Tover Chris
Suicide Kings
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:04:00 -
[518] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:chimera needs 5 more cpu for the upcoming triage t2 modules Shush you, this thread is for supercarrier pilots to complain. Take your "other" capital issues elsewhere. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:11:00 -
[519] - Quote
Underwhelming nature of the t2 traige module aside, the chimera will not be able to fit them without a slight increase in cpu to the ship. do the right thing and make it so CCP
just to get another jab in. Superz smell |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:13:00 -
[520] - Quote
haha, just realized tallest is on the job for capital balancing.
GG guys he is out of town till thanksgiving. changes are final for this patch |
|
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 18:44:00 -
[521] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Sigras wrote:so everyone who is whining about having their drone bay size nerfed . . . what if they made it so you could carry 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers without the ability to mix and match?
IE a separate bay for fighters and fighter bombers.
TL;DR Do you really want to field a flight of fighters or are you using that as an excuse to field endless amounts of fighter bombers like you can now. God no! Not a ship made to do dps to other caps that could continue to do dps to other caps as long as it remains on the field! How imba is that! Yes, people want to be able to carry fighters and bombers (a full compliment of both). No, they're not arguing for bigger bays so they could hold more bombers (35 bombers is already a lot of spares). Even if they did just want to carry more bombers, would anyone give a ****? The original INFINITE DRONES complaint was in regard to SCs ability to field effectively unlimited LIGHT (as in sub-fighter) drones. That is what people were bitching about, because it gave SCs the ability to kill off endless waves of subcaps (which was a valid complaint, though i think the right answer would have been to give SCs a normal drones bay capable of holding, say, 20 light drones, 20 meds, and 20 heavies/sentries rather than eliminating all regular drones entirely). Noone cares if they can kill endless waves of dreads-- that's their job.
sign |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 20:45:00 -
[522] - Quote
Wait I'm confused... are Supercarriers supposed to be offensive ships with better cap killing ability than dreads, a better logistical support ship than a carrier, or what exactly? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 20:56:00 -
[523] - Quote
I share the same thoughts Jaigar. The capabilities that make a carrier so great are not amplified by the mom hulls. Not being able to run triage makes absolutly no sense. they are just RR domi's on crack at the moment. |
Draconus Lofwyr
CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:29:00 -
[524] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:I share the same thoughts Jaigar. The capabilities that make a carrier so great are not amplified by the mom hulls. Not being able to run triage makes absolutly no sense. they are just RR domi's on crack at the moment.
more like on meth, toothless, harmless, anorexic shells of their former selves (at least domi's have the option to fit guns ). With this nerf to uselessness, does that mean they get named back to Motherships, because that's all Mom pilots are going to be able to do, cry to their mommies while twirling in the pos shields.. |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
84
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 07:19:00 -
[525] - Quote
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. |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 09:13:00 -
[526] - Quote
AnzacPaul 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, Supers need a larger Dronebay. They are renderd completly useless/helpless once the drones are destroyed, which is quite easy when you got a few smartboming ships. I think a good idea would be to leave the dronebay at 35 for all Supers, but change their stats and boni to the ones the revenant got, +1 fighter/fighter bomber but double the damage. That would leave us with more spare drones and the nodes would not overload that fast, as well as players pcs.
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 12:17:00 -
[527] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote: @CCP Tallest What about the CPU issues on the Nidhoggur? I mean the Nidhoggur didnt really need more Power Grid..
There are CPU issues with the chimera as well. It's a problem with the CPU load of the Capital Shield Transfers, they are simply too heavy.
Tallest: consider a 15-25 CPU reduction on these modules to ease the fitting issues on the nid and chimera. |
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 12:26:00 -
[528] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Baki Yuku wrote: @CCP Tallest What about the CPU issues on the Nidhoggur? I mean the Nidhoggur didnt really need more Power Grid..
There are CPU issues with the chimera as well. It's a problem with the CPU load of the Capital Shield Transfers, they are simply too heavy. Tallest: consider a 15-25 CPU reduction on these modules to ease the fitting issues on the nid and chimera.
CCP Tallest is no caring anymore. He heard all the whines he had to and applied the "rebalance" after a few minutes of playing in SISI.
They are now busy fixing the monocle textures, that is where the funny stuff is...
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 12:34:00 -
[529] - Quote
Shaak Ti wrote:
CCP Tallest is no caring anymore. He heard all the whines he had to and applied the "rebalance" after a few minutes of playing in SISI.
They are now busy fixing the monocle textures, that is where the funny stuff is...
Nah, he's here and he cares. You can never fix balancing, it's an ever shifting thing. So while there won't be any further changes for this round of Crucible, it's important that we make the point about CPU issues on carriers so that it's considered seriously when they are planning balancing changes for the next patch. Crucible II or whatever you want to call it. |
DaMiGe
FinFleet Raiden.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 18:10:00 -
[530] - Quote
AnzacPaul 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
from my account of this thread and the main announcement its plain to see ccp tallest have ignored what people have said, i have a hard time seeing any balance to this and the aim he has in mind will not only encourage more super to fleet together, but kill off any chance small alliance/corps have to develop their own fleets.
their has been several possible idea to come out that may have balance this far more then what have been implemented on sisi, give more evidence to the fact this thread is being largely ignored. |
|
Icantspellwell
Muppet Factory Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 19:16:00 -
[531] - Quote
AnzacPaul 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.
Absolutely no reason why a "supercarrier" shouldn't be able to hold a full set of fighters and fighterbombers. |
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 19:37:00 -
[532] - Quote
any news about the Shield Capital shield recharge thingy? |
Jax Blake
The Ankou Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 20:08:00 -
[533] - Quote
+1 for 20 and 20 for ALL supercapitals.
I'm not going to get into some endless debate like the others but I just want to know why the Supercarrier is the ONLY ship in the game that can now NOT reload their primary weapon system. EVERY other ship in the game can fully reload.
You can take the 20% hp, you can take out all the other drones, but please leave us room for 20 and 20.
Thanks |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 20:14:00 -
[534] - Quote
just say no to 20/20 supers
bend over and take it quietly |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 20:19:00 -
[535] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:just say no to 20/20 supers
bend over and take it quietly
For any reason or just because you say it so? Do you own a super to give proper feedback on why a supercarrier is overpowered if able to hold 20/20 fighters?
I mean, how overpowered can be if can have a SPARE flight of their ONLY offensive weapone (being a pure offensive ship BTW) |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 21:02:00 -
[536] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:just say no to 20/20 supers
bend over and take it quietly
Yup, I know supercarrier pilots don't like choosing between fighters for a sub-capital fleet or bombers for a capital fleet. Too much thinking and consideration.
And its laughable, after that CCP roam 2 days ago where PL hot dropped a bunch of titans & SCs on them, you think they're going to side with you? |
Gol'dar
Endstati0n Raiden.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 22:06:00 -
[537] - Quote
Jaigar wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:just say no to 20/20 supers
bend over and take it quietly Yup, I know supercarrier pilots don't like choosing between fighters for a sub-capital fleet or bombers for a capital fleet. Too much thinking and consideration.
ok, too short thinking for so much player, who doesn't fly caps. What means choosing between fighter and fighter bomber? Login a separatly needed carrierchar to refit your mom before a (possible) battle? And this alt must redock for reload more fighter or bomber (after this patch a carrier can carry only 20 per run)? And this alt must jump after his supercarrier to refit in space? For sake we can make the supercarrier' usage more uncomfortable.
20+20 (and this means no reserve!) is barely enough for a weapon system that can be eliminated. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 22:22:00 -
[538] - Quote
your english is horrible.
i do fly caps. i fly them in some of the harshest conditions EvE can generate.
your just a bad who spent 20+ bil and can't press engage target for maximum i win anymore.
memememememememememememememememememememe |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 01:06:00 -
[539] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:your english is horrible.
i do fly caps. i fly them in some of the harshest conditions EvE can generate.
your just a bad who spent 20+ bil and can't press engage target for maximum i win anymore.
memememememememememememememememememememe
I try not to rip on people for bad English, I know its not some people's first language. But I know Zarak, I know the conditions of W-Space Carriers; often you go with what you have: no backup, no cynos to pull more caps in. If the fight isn't in your home system, you can use only 1 carrier. You have to learn how to squeeze everything you can out of your carrier, and its not easy. Cap is a constant concern, and often fleets are small enough to where alpha can't punch through ships. This means the carrier is the centerpiece, and if that breaks, your fleet breaks. And during this whole fiasco you have to worry about your way back getting collapsed under your nose.
But yeah, I just don't see the same management required in combat for a SC: no triage commitment, eWAR immunity, etc. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 02:51:00 -
[540] - Quote
Someone tell me why we have a wormholer bitching and moaning in our thread, when he knows not of what he speaks? He speaks of capital balance, but his heart is far from us. And in fact, wasn't it your corp who made bills exploiting a wh mechanic and you have the gall to cast stones at super pilots who just got their collective balls chopped off? |
|
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 03:56:00 -
[541] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Someone tell me why we have a wormholer bitching and moaning in our thread, when he knows not of what he speaks? He speaks of capital balance, but his heart is far from us. And in fact, wasn't it your corp who made bills exploiting a wh mechanic and you have the gall to cast stones at super pilots who just got their collective balls chopped off?
Supers and hotdrops are the reason why a lot of PvPers are in wormholes... |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 05:49:00 -
[542] - Quote
aren't you that fagg0t who is trying to lobby CCP for nyx bonus' on a Hel? Seriously man if you want to race to the bottom i'll meet you there. |
Naughty Fox
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 11:01:00 -
[543] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Waukesha wrote:Roboticus420 wrote:[quote=Phunnestyle][quote=Vincent Gaines]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.
+100 Signed |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 11:29:00 -
[544] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Someone tell me why we have a wormholer bitching and moaning in our thread, when he knows not of what he speaks? He speaks of capital balance, but his heart is far from us. And in fact, wasn't it your corp who made bills exploiting a wh mechanic and you have the gall to cast stones at super pilots who just got their collective balls chopped off?
Tell me you're not THAT ignorant of how important triage carriers are in wormholes? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 11:34:00 -
[545] - Quote
AnzacPaul 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.
CCP we have spoken, we have explained & we have fought for what is right! Many vets lay low, rarely wishing to talk about there views & thoughts, but I am proud to say that many of us have showed profound support inface of this injustice. We have represented many, and represented ourselves well. To every nerf the end result is suppose to be positive to all aspects of the EVE community, subcap/capital & super capitals alike. The nerf to supers however left no positives to the super pilots.
We commend you for the some of the changes you have made wich benifits us all,and gives us better fights. These changes include
The pinging aggro timer, commit to the fight yes great. Limiting Supers to Fighters/ Fighter Bombers, again yes great move.
Your rebalancing of Supers HP is much to be desired, but we accept it as its a minor error in comparison to the Drone bay nerf you composed. Supers need individual attention really when it comes to HP balancing. Aeon possibly nerf Armor/Shield/Hull by 15% Nyx Nerf Armor/Shield/Hull by 10% & nerf drone damage bonus by half possibly. Wyvern Needs no HP change Hel needs a 10% buff Armor/Shield/Hull & no change to Remote Shield/Armor reps. The remote reps are really not important as a Hel WILL be primary. These are possible changes to look at for the future of rebalancing Supers HP.
Cannot stress enough, the patch needs to be changed to bring about justice in this ill thought through change. Supers need enough room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20 Fighters in there drone bay, its manditory!
CCP we have spoken, plz deliver justice. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 11:50:00 -
[546] - Quote
Also I would try to not associate yourselves with Goons/DC etc, does absolutely nothing good for you CCP at all. Sisi yea alryt fair enough, but surely should be impartial. http://northern-coalition.co.uk/?a=kill_related&kll_id=97560 <-- open in seperate window.
Makes people think,makes people wonder who you've been listening to, to have got some of the very bad idea's in the 1st place. |
whoyoulookingat
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 12:10:00 -
[547] - Quote
How to balance Capitals fairly? Simply:
- Capitals cannot target any Ship ship hull which is Battle Cruiser Size & under.
- Carriers & SC's Can target any ship but only defensive modules work on non Capital ships (i.e. Rem. AR, Rem. SR)
- Carrier & SC drones cannot be assigned to assist other players - this is their only true offensive/defensive measure against other Capitals and not other gang members WTFBBQ drone squad
- Carrier Class should allow players to dock into their ship bay & jump with the Ship
- Titan class Should allow players to dock into their ship bay & jump with the Ship
Frankly, what has happened now with capital vessels was voiced way back when they were originally released and CCP chose to ignore those concerns so the nerf bat was always incoming & fools to those that can't or wont see that.
Just because a ship costs 1bill, 20bill, 80bill, should not make it an "I Win" button. This is an MMO game so this class of vessel should rely heavily on the support of others if you want to go blowing stuff to smithereens! If you take them out without a support fleet, you deserve to watch them explode into a million pixels. If your support fleet dies, you either GTFO of dodge or Die with them.
Age old Eve saying:
"Don't Fly what you can't afford to lose" & "If it's too good to be true, expect the nerf bat to come out"
Simple. |
Millie Tard
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 12:21:00 -
[548] - Quote
whoyoulookingat wrote:How to balance Capitals fairly? Simply: - Capitals cannot target any Ship ship hull which is Battle Cruiser Size & under.
- Carriers & SC's Can target any ship but only defensive modules work on non Capital ships (i.e. Rem. AR, Rem. SR)
- Carrier & SC drones cannot be assigned to assist other players - this is their only true offensive/defensive measure against other Capitals and not other gang members WTFBBQ drone squad
- Carrier Class should allow players to dock into their ship bay & jump with the Ship
- Titan class Should allow players to dock into their ship bay & jump with the Ship
Frankly, what has happened now with capital vessels was voiced way back when they were originally released and CCP chose to ignore those concerns so the nerf bat was always incoming & fools to those that can't or wont see that. Just because a ship costs 1bill, 20bill, 80bill, should not make it an "I Win" button. This is an MMO game so this class of vessel should rely heavily on the support of others if you want to go blowing stuff to smithereens! If you take them out without a support fleet, you deserve to watch them explode into a million pixels. If your support fleet dies, you either GTFO of dodge or Die with them. Age old Eve saying: "Don't Fly what you can't afford to lose" & "If it's too good to be true, expect the nerf bat to come out" Simple.
Yes very simpley said as in, your balancing of capitals would be a disaster overall. You suffer from small world sindrome. In other words your not seeing the whole picture & implications of what would realistically happen if they where put into place, but only see what is important to the way you play. If you want to balance you have to think above yourself and your own wants, and think what is benificial to all groups of the EVE community. |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
174
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 12:31:00 -
[549] - Quote
The tears in this thread are hilarious. Please, carry on.
Good work, CCP. The supercapital changes are perfect. |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
231
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:03:00 -
[550] - Quote
I am still reading everything in this thread. I did go on vacation about a week ago. This was after the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion had passed.
Will we remove capital drone bay parts from Titans and Dreadnoughts? Yes, this was done for Crucible.
Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
I believe that the current set of changes will have an overall positive effect on fleet fights. It's entirely possible that they will not. But whatever the effect, I will be reading your feedback, balancing work will continue and things will change again. |
|
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:09:00 -
[551] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:I am still reading everything in this thread. I did go on vacation about a week ago. This was after the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion had passed.
Will we remove capital drone bay parts from Titans and Dreadnoughts? Yes, this was done for Crucible.
Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
I believe that the current set of changes will have an overall positive effect on fleet fights. It's entirely possible that they will not. But whatever the effect, I will be reading your feedback, balancing work will continue and things will change again.
Thanks for the changes thus far, they look good :)
Balancing changes never end, they are continuous and you can't use the nerf bat without offending someone. Don't worry about all the vitriol being cast in your direction. The changes are good, they are a good start, and they hold the promise of further good changes in the future.
|
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:11:00 -
[552] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:
CCP we have spoken, we have explained & we have fought for what is right! Many vets lay low, rarely wishing to talk about there views & thoughts, but I am proud to say that many of us from various alliances have showed profound support inface of this injustice. We have represented many, and represented ourselves well. To every nerf the end result is suppose to be positive to all aspects of the EVE community, subcap/capital & super capitals alike. The nerf to supers however left no positives to the super pilots.
We commend you for the some of the changes you have made wich benifits us all,and gives us better fights. These changes include
The pinging aggro timer, commit to the fight yes great. Limiting Supers to Fighters/ Fighter Bombers, again yes great move.
Your rebalancing of Supers HP is much to be desired, but we accept it as its a lesser error in comparison to the Drone bay nerf you composed. Supers need individual attention really when it comes to HP balancing. Aeon possibly nerf Armor/Shield/Hull by 15% Nyx Nerf Armor/Shield/Hull by 10% & nerf drone damage bonus by half possibly. Wyvern Needs no HP change Hel needs a 10% buff Armor/Shield/Hull & no change to Remote Shield/Armor reps. The remote reps are really not important as a Hel WILL be primary. These are possible changes to look at for the future of rebalancing Supers HP.
Cannot stress enough, the patch needs to be changed to bring about justice in this ill thought through change. Supers need enough room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20 Fighters in there drone bay, its manditory!
CCP we have spoken, plz deliver justice.
can sign this |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:20:00 -
[553] - Quote
I won't address the issue of triage in wormholes. We all know how they are used, and junior varsity ~leet pvp~ gangs use them to great effect.
The real issue at hand is supers. CCP miss a lot of things, and fail to correct them. Remember flying a dread for the first time? Then they were mothballed for months. We don't want to see that happen to a ship, especially one which has to be sold or put on a holding toon.
CCP logic: "Let's make a minmatar carrier with bonuses to repair. That will be the 'healing carrier', best for triage! We did it boys, now let's go get some beer and fish then call it a day"
Player logic: "Oh my, there sure is a lot of resistance/cap/fitting ability on this archon. This will be the new 'healing carrier', best for triage!"
Example of how the road to hell is paved with the bones and good intentions of Second Lieutenants.
Eve players let this game's developers ignore too much for too long. We're seeing an acknowledgement of that, which is a bit promising. However, make no mistake, this isn't COD. This game is more expensive regarding money, time, or both. Many players use critical thinking to solve hard-coded problems. Let's avoid the problem before it effects an entire population who may or may not have the ability to leave a broken hull.
We give CCP the benefit of the doubt every time we log into this game. Aside from minor re-skinning, shaders, updated nebulae, code fixes - one must admit that this is the clunkiest, most unintuitive UI ever made. Most people never even play 'Eve' before they quit out of boredom and frustration. Yet we carry on, because this is the closest thing to the ideal sandbox MMO that the industry sorely lacks. When the massive unsub event happened, CCP realized that we were paying attention, and diverted resources accordingly. Some changes/additions were useful and elegant. You'd have to be mentally disabled not to realize the need for a lot of these small fixes that have been mysteriously rolled out in just a couple of months. Yet it took years.
I don't have years to sit by and watch an entire class of 20bil-each ships just sit in space because of a vocal minority.
For example: these recent de-nerfs (7.5% rep bonus to hel, extra fighters) were a response to a nicely-written, respectful forum post. A single person posted, then a few agreed. Now, that's the bonus we're stuck with. Think about that for a minute. You're in an office, reading forums and come across what seems like a good fix. Call or email the guys down the hall, get the change in. Then clock out and go home.
Tell me I'm the only one who witnessed that.
|
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
174
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:39:00 -
[554] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
20/20 fighter bays would be a mistake. The size of the new bays is good, in that it forces SC pilots to balance their 'fits' for different scenarios. Are you expecting to fight large numbers of subcapitals? Full flight of fighters. Want to melt other capitals? Full flight of bombers. Not sure? Go half and half.
That element of forced choice is something that too many SC pilots have grown unfamiliar with, as they have been able to cater for all scenarios simultaneously for too long, hence the tears. But that forced choice is good. No other ship in EVE can be fit to deal with all circumstances and eventualities to maximum potential. There is always a trade-off, and so there should be for supercarriers.
So, by all means consider it, but please don't take the whines of the vocal minority of self-interested, iwinbutton bittervets as a solid argument for game balance. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:14:00 -
[555] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote: 20/20 fighter bays would be a mistake. The size of the new bays is good, in that it forces SC pilots to balance their 'fits' for different scenarios. Are you expecting to fight large numbers of subcapitals? Full flight of fighters. Want to melt other capitals? Full flight of bombers. Not sure? Go half and half.
Well maybe we should limit your ships to 4 large hardpoints and 4 mediums. Just in case, you know, a frig gang attacks you or something? |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:21:00 -
[556] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:Well maybe we should limit your ships to 4 large hardpoints and 4 mediums. Just in case, you know, a frig gang attacks you or something?
Nah. But maybe my Abaddon should be able to press a button to instantly swap its pulse lasers for tachyons? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:23:00 -
[557] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible. 20/20 fighter bays would be a mistake. The size of the new bays is good, in that it forces SC pilots to balance their 'fits' for different scenarios. Are you expecting to fight large numbers of subcapitals? Full flight of fighters. Want to melt other capitals? Full flight of bombers. Not sure? Go half and half. That element of forced choice is something that too many SC pilots have grown unfamiliar with, as they have been able to cater for all scenarios simultaneously for too long, hence the tears. But that forced choice is good. No other ship in EVE can be fit to deal with all circumstances and eventualities to maximum potential. There is always a trade-off, and so there should be for supercarriers. So, by all means consider it, but please don't take the whines of the vocal minority of self-interested, iwinbutton bittervets as a solid argument for game balance.
You sir are a fool, if you would like to enlighten yourself, please read the last several pages. We have explained again & again why room for 20Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters is a must, & I personally can't be bothered to take another self induced person through them, so as I said, read over the last several pages, you may notice that any arguments if they can be called arguements LOL given in place for defence of the decision not to increase the drone bay, have neither held any water at all and they have not been able to explain why this change should not be made, infact the huge majority of posts against are deemed no more preficient than being troll posts, as they are affectively only trying to pervert the course of justice. Your LOL arguement is no different. |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:33:00 -
[558] - Quote
Some people, maybe due to ignorance or simply "omgIhatesupers" can't understand that:
40 fighters are 200k m^3 (almost a Jump Freighter) & Supercarriers CAN'T dock
Yes, you already have a character "stuck" in a ship, we need another one to change fighters? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:36:00 -
[559] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:I am still reading everything in this thread. I did go on vacation about a week ago. This was after the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion had passed.
Will we remove capital drone bay parts from Titans and Dreadnoughts? Yes, this was done for Crucible.
Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
I believe that the current set of changes will have an overall positive effect on fleet fights. It's entirely possible that they will not. But whatever the effect, I will be reading your feedback, balancing work will continue and things will change again.
Bravo glad to hear you are seeing sence finally, TY tallest for your acknowledgement. We only ask for this one change, it is by no means too much to ask for, we accept other imperfections in the patch, but allowing room for 20Fighter Bombers & 20Fighters is manditory & justification for what is immediately wrong in the patch. We look forward to this this much needed change! |
Venustas Blue
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 14:47:00 -
[560] - Quote
What I would like to know is HOW SOON AFTER crucible is released will you be able to amend the change to Supers drone bay! As I think has been said once twice, a dozen, a hundred a 126742342 times in this threat & the original rebalancing thread ETC by actual knowledgeable Pilots that have experiece in all aspects of pvp, not just the original short sight of the mainstream subcap pilot.Supers need drone bay capacity for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters. Cannot come soon enough.......... |
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:36:00 -
[561] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote:What I would like to know is HOW SOON AFTER crucible is released will you be able to amend the change to Supers drone bay! As I think has been said once twice, a dozen, a hundred a 126742342 times in this threat & the original rebalancing thread ETC by actual knowledgeable Pilots that have experiece in all aspects of pvp, not just the original short sight of the mainstream subcap pilot.Supers need drone bay capacity for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters. Cannot come soon enough..........
Jesus. He's said he's going to consider it. Not that it's set-in-stone going to happen. Nor does it have a timescale. He's likely waiting to see how much effect the need to choose fighter/fb loadouts is going to have. Thats the way that it works, plan, deploy, assess, plan etc etc etc.
I don't care about whether it gets boosted to 20/20 or not. But it's fuckin hilarious all the super pilots here. "QQ, we need another ship to manage logistics of moving fighters". As if you don't have a buttload of alts for cynos, subcaps, industry, whatever the ****. If you don't, get the **** out of the super. Plus, you have to fuel it anyway, right? So you're used to moving around (or having moved around for you by your corp or alliance) fuel, XL ammo for titans + dreads (well soon anyway, I hope), drugs, stront, other drones that you might lose in the course of action, replacements for ships that you drop from you SMA for people to get back in the fight.
HTFU, christ. |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:42:00 -
[562] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Daedalus Arcova wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible. 20/20 fighter bays would be a mistake. The size of the new bays is good, in that it forces SC pilots to balance their 'fits' for different scenarios. Are you expecting to fight large numbers of subcapitals? Full flight of fighters. Want to melt other capitals? Full flight of bombers. Not sure? Go half and half. That element of forced choice is something that too many SC pilots have grown unfamiliar with, as they have been able to cater for all scenarios simultaneously for too long, hence the tears. But that forced choice is good. No other ship in EVE can be fit to deal with all circumstances and eventualities to maximum potential. There is always a trade-off, and so there should be for supercarriers. So, by all means consider it, but please don't take the whines of the vocal minority of self-interested, iwinbutton bittervets as a solid argument for game balance. You sir are a fool, if you would like to enlighten yourself, please read the last several pages. We have explained again & again why room for 20Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters is a must, & I personally can't be bothered to take another self induced person through them, so as I said, read over the last several pages, you may notice that any arguments if they can be called arguements LOL given in place for defence of the decision not to increase the drone bay, have neither held any water at all and they have not been able to explain why this change should not be made, infact the huge majority of posts against are deemed no more proficient than being troll posts, as they are affectively only trying to pervert the course of justice. Your LOL arguement is no different.
All I can see are 20+ pages of whining, screaming, foot-stomping, and general hurf-blurf from butt-hurt SC pilots. If somebody has a good argument as to why SCs should have a 20+20 capacity, I'd like to see it.
There was ONE salient point from the Boost Supers Brigade. That being that the Nyx's 15 bonused 'secondary' fighters (i.e. fighters when you have a full flight of 20 FBs) do 87.5% more dps than the 10 unbonused fighters of the Aeon and Wyvern. That seems like a pretty good reason to reduce the Nyx's capacity to 20+12, giving it equivalent DPS to the Hel when using fighters as a secondary weapon, or even just reduce it back to 20+10, which would give the Hel something really unique and useful. |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:52:00 -
[563] - Quote
Svennig wrote:it's fuckin hilarious all the super pilots here. "QQ, we need another ship to manage logistics of moving fighters"
Quite. An Iteron V can carry 6 fighters. Oh! The effort! |
Naughty Fox
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 16:11:00 -
[564] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:Svennig wrote:it's fuckin hilarious all the super pilots here. "QQ, we need another ship to manage logistics of moving fighters" Quite. An Iteron V can carry 6 fighters. Oh! The effort!
Your a terrible troll, I question myself why im even bothering to reply to you, only make yourself sound more ignorant than you originally sounded. +100 for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters,the change can't come soon enough. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 16:49:00 -
[565] - Quote
Just compared the build costs of the Aeon on Sisi to TQ. now correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like CCP are really taking the ****. You have reduced the drone bay size on SC BUT you are going to make the Aeon require MORE capital drone bay components to build the thing. FFS you cant nerf the things drone bays and at the same time make them require more of the things to build. |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:23:00 -
[566] - Quote
Naughty Fox wrote:Your a terrible troll, I question myself why im even bothering to reply to you, only make yourself sound more ignorant than you originally sounded. +100 for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters,the change can't come soon enough.
It's you're.
I'm not trolling at all. I sincerely want someone to present a reasoned argument as to why - within the context of balance and choice-driven gameplay - supercarriers should have a 20+20 fighter bay.
So far, all I've seen is lots of inchoate fury, but little in the way of constructive argument. |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:26:00 -
[567] - Quote
To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:30:00 -
[568] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting.
And how much time do you spend refuelling? And why dont you do both at the same time? |
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
175
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:31:00 -
[569] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting.
OK, that's a fair enough reason to be grumpy. But don't you think that SCs are such a powerful asset that they ought to require that much effort?
You already have to fuel it, and log it off at a POS with a dedicated holder character. Is moving a few fighters back and forth from a station really that big a deal?
Most SC pilots will likely never change their fighter complement anyway. It'll always be 20 bombers and the rest fighters, only restocking when some are lost. |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:35:00 -
[570] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Sameyaa wrote:To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting. And how much time do you spend refuelling? And why dont you do both at the same time?
Only refuel like once a month, all supers have spare fuel in corp hanger. |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
159
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:37:00 -
[571] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:Naughty Fox wrote:Your a terrible troll, I question myself why im even bothering to reply to you, only make yourself sound more ignorant than you originally sounded. +100 for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters,the change can't come soon enough. It's you're. I'm not trolling at all. I sincerely want someone to present a reasoned argument as to why - within the context of balance and choice-driven gameplay - supercarriers should have a 20+20 fighter bay. So far, all I've seen is lots of inchoate fury, but little in the way of constructive argument.
Want to know what's funny? It's a "full compliment" based on a specific bonus. If the bonus is nerfed, so is the "20 drone standard."
Give them 20/20 but drop it to +1 extra fighter/bomber per level.
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:38:00 -
[572] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Svennig wrote:Sameyaa wrote:To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting. And how much time do you spend refuelling? And why dont you do both at the same time? Only refuel like once a month, all supers have spare fuel in corp hanger.
So when you do, it's probably quite a large volume you move then... You see where I'm going with this? |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
159
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:41:00 -
[573] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting.
+1 for 20/20 drone bay.
1) yes, many bitched 2) you didn't train those drones for supers, with the exception of fighter bombers I 3) yes, many bitched 4) yes, many are 5) logoffski was a broken mechanic to begin with.
Everyone who was a competent super pilot knew this would eventually happen. Even a year ago, there was word that proliferation was getting out of hand and that a nerf was inbound.
It's hilarious to see people crying because a toy got nerfed that was clearly overpowered. Use it right and the ship is effective. Abuse it beyond what it was intended for and the nerfs will hurt.
Quote:We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting.
lol wow. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:43:00 -
[574] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Daedalus Arcova wrote:Naughty Fox wrote:Your a terrible troll, I question myself why im even bothering to reply to you, only make yourself sound more ignorant than you originally sounded. +100 for 20x FBs & 20x Fighters,the change can't come soon enough. It's you're. I'm not trolling at all. I sincerely want someone to present a reasoned argument as to why - within the context of balance and choice-driven gameplay - supercarriers should have a 20+20 fighter bay. So far, all I've seen is lots of inchoate fury, but little in the way of constructive argument. Want to know what's funny? It's a "full compliment" based on a specific bonus. If the bonus is nerfed, so is the "20 drone standard." Give them 20/20 but drop it to +1 extra fighter/bomber per level.
Dude, I'm not on high enough ground to survive the flooding that would be caused by the sheer volume of tears if this happened.
But, and as much as supers need nerfing, I'd have to be against it unless there was a commensurate increase in FB DPS. Now, if you did that together, it would be an interesting change. Same dps for supers, but now there are fewer fighter-bombers on-grid (less lag) and as the DPS is more concentrated it now becomes more viable to take them out with, say, destroyers. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:02:00 -
[575] - Quote
HelPilot of20Years wrote:I won't address the issue of triage in wormholes. We all know how they are used, and junior varsity ~leet pvp~ gangs use them to great effect.
The real issue at hand is supers. CCP miss a lot of things, and fail to correct them. Remember flying a dread for the first time? Then they were mothballed for months. We don't want to see that happen to a ship, especially one which has to be sold or put on a holding toon.
CCP logic: "Let's make a minmatar carrier with bonuses to repair. That will be the 'healing carrier', best for triage! We did it boys, now let's go get some beer and fish then call it a day"
Player logic: "Oh my, there sure is a lot of resistance/cap/fitting ability on this archon. This will be the new 'healing carrier', best for triage!"
Example of how the road to hell is paved with the bones and good intentions of Second Lieutenants.
Eve players let this game's developers ignore too much for too long. We're seeing an acknowledgement of that, which is a bit promising. However, make no mistake, this isn't COD. This game is more expensive regarding money, time, or both. Many players use critical thinking to solve hard-coded problems. Let's avoid the problem before it effects an entire population who may or may not have the ability to leave a broken hull.
We give CCP the benefit of the doubt every time we log into this game. Aside from minor re-skinning, shaders, updated nebulae, code fixes - one must admit that this is the clunkiest, most unintuitive UI ever made. Most people never even play 'Eve' before they quit out of boredom and frustration. Yet we carry on, because this is the closest thing to the ideal sandbox MMO that the industry sorely lacks. When the massive unsub event happened, CCP realized that we were paying attention, and diverted resources accordingly. Some changes/additions were useful and elegant. You'd have to be mentally disabled not to realize the need for a lot of these small fixes that have been mysteriously rolled out in just a couple of months. Yet it took years.
I don't have years to sit by and watch an entire class of 20bil-each ships just sit in space because of a vocal minority.
For example: these recent de-nerfs (7.5% rep bonus to hel, extra fighters) were a response to a nicely-written, respectful forum post. A single person posted, then a few agreed. Now, that's the bonus we're stuck with. Think about that for a minute. You're in an office, reading forums and come across what seems like a good fix. Call or email the guys down the hall, get the change in. Then clock out and go home.
Tell me I'm the only one who witnessed that.
You are not going to get the iwin button you are seeking. Train a new racial carrier bubba. Stop whining.
As far as carriers in wormholes your 1 line sentence says you really don't know a darn thing about them and you are just saying you do to launch yourself back into the topic of how ******** you have been and how you want CCP to give you a reason for buying the 20bil rustbucket known as the Hel.
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:14:00 -
[576] - Quote
CCP Tallest, can we get your feedback about the Hel been useless even after this patch ? As per the thread for Minmatar capitals re-balance, I'm still waiting for a real boost for the Hel. A boost that could make the ship useful in a fleet.
All Hel owners are feedup with the current situation of this ship been useless in everything. The ship as the weakest tank, the same DPS as others (Wyvern, Aeon), one of the highest sig radius due to fittings and the bonus is just useless (never really used)...
I invite all Hel owner to rise their voice so CCP can acknowledge us. This might be difficult since there is usually less than 1 Hel in fleet for 40-50 Supercarrier...
If you don't plan on changing anything and with the Supercarrier nerf coming, you could be kind to allow Hel pilots to get refunded for their ships that they'll never use.
Thanks in advance. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:52:00 -
[577] - Quote
there should be no changes made to the hel specifically. give supers a triage role so the bonus makes sense.
motherships should never have been platforms that do not have a triage role. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:58:00 -
[578] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: You are not going to get the iwin button you are seeking. Train a new racial carrier bubba. Stop whining.
... you want CCP to give you a reason for buying the 20bil rustbucket known as the Hel.
Former Wyvern pilot, triage Chimera blah blah, bubba. Shield caps are **** and everyone knows it. Now is the time to speak up, if there ever was. Also fly an Aeon w/my main, and I know the Archon very well. I don't think your crowd's "iwin button" is any more effective an argument than a 99%er's vague red herrings. All SC pilots understand the need for a nerf, but at the same time there are years-old issues that can enter into the discussion as these sweeping changes are being pushed. |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:59:00 -
[579] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Sameyaa wrote:Svennig wrote:Sameyaa wrote:To sum this up, i will re-post what i posted on my alliance thread:
Do you see super pilots bitching about loosing regular drones? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that their months of training for regular drones was a complete waste? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cant be a one man army any more? NO Do you see super pilots bitching about EHP nerf? NO Do you see super pilots bitching that we cannot logoffski anymore? NO
We are bitching because owning a super is turning into owning a POS (in terms of logistics) which we did not sign up for when we got it. We have better **** to do than waste 20mins of our lives before every fleet refitting. And how much time do you spend refuelling? And why dont you do both at the same time? Only refuel like once a month, all supers have spare fuel in corp hanger. So when you do, it's probably quite a large volume you move then... You see where I'm going with this?
Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.
To refit i need to: 1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around) 2) Login super (needs 30 secs) 3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs 4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super 5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups. 6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying) 7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.
You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 19:27:00 -
[580] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote: Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.
To refit i need to: 1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around) 2) Login super (needs 30 secs) 3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs 4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super 5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups. 6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying) 7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.
You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier.
hmm... let's compare things to a subcap pilot.
logs in spins ship oh look a fleet load new ship check fittings adjust and swap fittings as needed load ammo undock
your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. You are just lazy.
Your corp, your FLEET, should be there supporting your super. There are carrier pilots that would LOVE to do that. Why? because then they have a reason to use a carrier other than POS repping...hell, let a carrier pilot be your bish and haul your crap + keep you alive if needed. like a squire. heh. |
|
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 19:45:00 -
[581] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .
LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 20:22:00 -
[582] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote: Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.
To refit i need to: 1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around) 2) Login super (needs 30 secs) 3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs 4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super 5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups. 6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying) 7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.
You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier.
hmm... let's compare things to a subcap pilot. logs in spins ship oh look a fleet load new ship check fittings adjust and swap fittings as needed load ammo undock your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. You are just lazy. Your corp, your FLEET, should be there supporting your super. There are carrier pilots that would LOVE to do that. Why? because then they have a reason to use a carrier other than POS repping...hell, let a carrier pilot be your bish and haul your crap + keep you alive if needed. like a squire. heh.
so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 20:25:00 -
[583] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote: so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier.
You must have misread what you quoted. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 20:26:00 -
[584] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .
LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet.
Did you forget what it's like to fly a ship in PvP?
Here's a hint: It involves more than right click -> jump, right click -> launch drones -> ctrl+F. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 21:15:00 -
[585] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier. You must have misread what you quoted.
no a standard carrier can NOT fit FB in it's drone bay, a carrier can only hold two FB in it's corp hanger.
keep flaming and I'll keep pissing on them.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 21:28:00 -
[586] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier. You must have misread what you quoted. no a standard carrier can NOT fit FB in it's drone bay, a carrier can only hold two FB in it's corp hanger. keep flaming and I'll keep pissing on them. Corp hanger, genius. 5. |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 22:05:00 -
[587] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Corp hanger, genius. 5.
Only 2 FB in carrier hangars. 5.000m3 x 2 = full |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 22:37:00 -
[588] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .
LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet. Did you forget what it's like to fly a ship in PvP? Here's a hint: It involves more than right click -> jump, right click -> launch drones -> ctrl+F.
Nope, according to killboard i have almost 10 times more experience than you in fighting subcaps with subcaps. So your arguement is invalid. Try again. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 22:38:00 -
[589] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote: Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.
To refit i need to: 1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around) 2) Login super (needs 30 secs) 3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs 4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super 5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups. 6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying) 7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.
You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier.
hmm... let's compare things to a subcap pilot. logs in spins ship oh look a fleet load new ship check fittings adjust and swap fittings as needed load ammo undock your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. You are just lazy. Your corp, your FLEET, should be there supporting your super. There are carrier pilots that would LOVE to do that. Why? because then they have a reason to use a carrier other than POS repping...hell, let a carrier pilot be your bish and haul your crap + keep you alive if needed. like a squire. heh.
If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent.
Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP.
Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say. Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL
Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity. You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about. Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out! |
Kerdrak
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 23:04:00 -
[590] - Quote
This thread have lot of legit arguments against the dronebay capacity nerf, but trolls are doing a good job filling it with crap... |
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 23:48:00 -
[591] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:
Nope, according to killboard i have almost 10 times more experience than you in fighting subcaps with subcaps. So your arguement is invalid. Try again.
Because all my PvP is done with this character. Perfectly valid.
Your turn?
edit: I'm being sarcastic. You seem slow so I figured I'd point that out. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 00:02:00 -
[592] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:
If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent.
Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP.
I love getting your panties in a bunch. This isn't just my point of view, but hey keep making assumptions there buddy.
Quote: Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say. Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL
You still think you're going to fight solo. That's your problem. You still think you log in then jump right into combat. If you do, then you are stupid and with these changes you will die very, very fast.
Quote: Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity. You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about. Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out!
You are a complete and total idiot. You aren't bringing "either fighters or FBs"
You will have 15/15, ot 10/20, or 20/10. (for a Wyvern)
you act as though having 3 less of them will be your death knell. you act as though unless you have a full 20 of a particular drone than you are dead in the water.
By the way, your scenario is complete bullshit
what this boils down to is you want everything.
Hell, I want unlimited ammo on my arties, I want to be able to load 1000 missiles into my launchers.
I want my Vexor to carry 5 sentries. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 00:40:00 -
[593] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:
If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent.
Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP.
I love getting your panties in a bunch. This isn't just my point of view, but hey keep making assumptions there buddy. Quote: Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say. Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL
You still think you're going to fight solo. That's your problem. You still think you log in then jump right into combat. If you do, then you are stupid and with these changes you will die very, very fast. Quote: Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity. You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about. Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out!
You are a complete and total idiot. You aren't bringing "either fighters or FBs" You will have 15/15, ot 10/20, or 20/10. (for a Wyvern) you act as though having 3 less of them will be your death knell. you act as though unless you have a full 20 of a particular drone than you are dead in the water. By the way, your scenario is complete bullshit what this boils down to is you want everything. Hell, I want unlimited ammo on my arties, I want to be able to load 1000 missiles into my launchers. I want my Vexor to carry 5 sentries.
Exactly the scenario is bullshit, the scenario that you wished to force on us, at least your starting to see sence. Having 3 less what are you smoking dude, will be 10-5 less ROFL who didn't finish maths at school. As for you blindly saying Super pilots wish to use Supers as solo pawnmobiles, is your biased judgement really that far gone that you believe that. The pinging aggro timer on its own, makes sure that all supers but the most stupid will not be flying solo at all. Supers if you hadn't noticed won't be able to loggoffski. Pinging aggro timer dude. Supers can't afford after the patch to go gun ho soloing, coupled with only able to use Fighters as an offensive ploy against Subcaps, it makes soloing a very unadvisery thing to do. Its not like we can bail out sentrys an get rid of the HIC & a half drunk DIC pilot would be hardpressed to not be able to keep a Super pinned down. You really do have a huge lack of knowledge.
So you say we the Super pilots want everything, your own words. That ofc includes us wanting the pinging aggro timer, & the change to only Fighter Bombers & Fighters. We accept the HP nerfs although its not strickly an accurate nerf, so what your saying is we are wrong to want all this. This benifits us all, we want it as much as every other person, gives GFs and puts to rest solopawnmobile labels. Develops supers into more structured support reliant roles. You seem to have not understood or read that at all. Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20Fighter bombers & Fighters for all those reasons over the last several pages. More than enough to state the amendment, but absolutely nothing to explain why it should'nt be implimented back.
Ill tell you a fact, the reason it is so easy to reply to you is becuase im right & your wrong, doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't have to make anything up, whilst you evidently do, as has been said, it only makes you look more of a fool.
LOL&U again, loving your emo rage, but wish you could give a serious conversation rather than nonescence.
Edited -> P.S. read your post again & LOL@U again |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 01:28:00 -
[594] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote:
Nope, according to killboard i have almost 10 times more experience than you in fighting subcaps with subcaps. So your arguement is invalid. Try again.
Because all my PvP is done with this character. Perfectly valid. Your turn? edit: I'm being sarcastic. You seem slow so I figured I'd point that out.
Then man up and post with your main?
Also, stop posting stupid troll posts like:
Vincent Gaines wrote:Did you forget what it's like to fly a ship in PvP?
Here's a hint: It involves more than right click -> jump, right click -> launch drones -> ctrl+F.
Only makes you look like an idiot. But according to you, people with supers only pvp with their supers, amirite? |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
161
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 05:24:00 -
[595] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:
If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent.
Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP.
I love getting your panties in a bunch. This isn't just my point of view, but hey keep making assumptions there buddy. Quote: Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say. Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL
Ko You still think you're going to fight solo. That's your problem. You still think you log in then jump right into combat. If you do, then you are stupid and with these changes you will die very, very fast. Quote: Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity. You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about. Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out!
listen. Your 20/20 is based on the pre nerf bonus. The bonus was reduced. There's no entitlement, and that's why you keep getting butthurt. I keep thinking you'll get it but you still don't. You are a complete and total idiot. You aren't bringing "either fighters or FBs" You will have 15/15, ot 10/20, or 20/10. (for a Wyvern) you act as though having 3 less of them will be your death knell. you act as though unless you have a full 20 of a particular drone than you are dead in the water. By the way, your scenario is complete bullshit what this boils down to is you want everything. Hell, I want unlimited ammo on my arties, I want to be able to load 1000 missiles into my launchers. I want my Vexor to carry 5 sentries. Exactly the scenario is bullshit, the scenario that you wished to force on us, at least your starting to see sence. Having 3 less what are you smoking dude, will be 10-5 less ROFL who didn't finish maths at school. As for you blindly saying Super pilots wish to use Supers as solo pawnmobiles, is your biased judgement really that far gone that you believe that. The pinging aggro timer on its own, makes sure that all supers but the most stupid will not be flying solo at all. Supers if you hadn't noticed won't be able to loggoffski. Pinging aggro timer dude. Supers can't afford after the patch to go gun ho soloing, coupled with only able to use Fighters as an offensive ploy against Subcaps, it makes soloing a very unadvisery thing to do. Its not like we can bail out sentrys an get rid of the HIC/DIC.A half drunk DIC pilot would be hardpressed to not be able to keep a Super pinned down indeffinately. You really do have a huge lack of knowledge. So you say we the Super pilots want everything, your own words. That ofc includes us wanting the pinging aggro timer, & the change to only Fighter Bombers & Fighters. We accept the HP nerfs although its not strickly a good representation of what the nerf should be, the nerfs generalized rather than individually focused on each Super, so what your saying is we are wrong to want all this. Us wanting this is wrongly biased as it only benifits Super pilots does it?!?!? Think befor you speak. This benifits us all, we want it as much as every other person, gives GFs and puts to rest solopawnmobile labels. Develops supers into more structured support reliant roles. You seem to have not understood or read that at all. Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20Fighter bombers & Fighters for all those reasons over the last several pages have stated. More than enough to justify the ammendment, but absolutely nothing to explain why 20/20 should'nt be implimented. Ill tell you a fact, the reason it is so easy to reply to you is becuase im right & your wrong, doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't have to make anything up, whilst you evidently do, as has been said, it only makes you look more of a fool. LOL&U again, loving your emo rage, but wish you could give a serious conversation rather than nonescence. Edited -> P.S. read your post again & LOL@U again
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 06:22:00 -
[596] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:I am still reading everything in this thread. I did go on vacation about a week ago. This was after the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion had passed.
Will we remove capital drone bay parts from Titans and Dreadnoughts? Yes, this was done for Crucible.
Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
I believe that the current set of changes will have an overall positive effect on fleet fights. It's entirely possible that they will not. But whatever the effect, I will be reading your feedback, balancing work will continue and things will change again.
Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks).
This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon. [Chimera, T2] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II
Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%) |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 08:25:00 -
[597] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .
LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet. oh noo another butthurt sc owner , oh nooo ... lets help him out he is so pooor bruhuhu |
wanking monkey girl
Capital Maintenance
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:32:00 -
[598] - Quote
ccp think about rewarding the hard work of your loyal eve fans and addicts pilots/corps/alliances have spent years to build up their fleet give them something back.
their will be many supercarrier pilots stuck in ships give them the option to swich out and use the toons for something else, let them dock and be useful again.
as many have pointed out with the agro timer you will see many more die in the weeks and month that follow.. but also fix the self destruct add so ships in combat can not self destruct.
with the planed changes being introduced allow them to dock and turn the super carriers in to advanced carriers. let advanced carriers dock their not a unique ship anymore and give you have some battleships close to its size.
the suggested change to allow them to have 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers is a welcomed one
A lot of the changes coming in to play soon are welcomed but some of them are just odd. removal of drone bay parts from titans and dreds are a given but to increasing the number of other parts is a punch in the face. t2 triage needs a a longer rep range but a longer lock range is again odd, the lock range has never need an issue. the short time of dreds in Siege again great, but they need their lock time and and tracking increased.
now let the small minority toll away >> goons you can troll away |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 15:40:00 -
[599] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:I am still reading everything in this thread. I did go on vacation about a week ago. This was after the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion had passed.
Will we remove capital drone bay parts from Titans and Dreadnoughts? Yes, this was done for Crucible.
Will I consider increasing the drone bay of supers so that they can hold 20 fighters and 20 fighter bombers? Yes, I will consider it after Crucible.
I believe that the current set of changes will have an overall positive effect on fleet fights. It's entirely possible that they will not. But whatever the effect, I will be reading your feedback, balancing work will continue and things will change again. Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks). This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon. [Chimera, T2] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%)
i was arguing for just a modest +5 in cpu but hey i guess we need to go big or go home lest ccp adds just 2 cpu to it instead of 5 har har har
+1
/signed |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 16:32:00 -
[600] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier. You must have misread what you quoted.
You implied a carrier could be used to refit a SC. a carrier can not hold FB in it's drone bay, a carrier only has a 10K corp hanger so can only hold 2 Fighters/FB if it has nothing else in it's hanger like fule. The Aeon only has 20/10 capacity so to use one of these would require 5 carrier corp hangers to accomodate a swap to FB from fighters or visa versa.
|
|
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 16:33:00 -
[601] - Quote
Sameyaa wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote: your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .
LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet. Did you forget what it's like to fly a ship in PvP? Here's a hint: It involves more than right click -> jump, right click -> launch drones -> ctrl+F. Nope, according to killboard i have almost 10 times more experience than you in fighting subcaps with subcaps. So your arguement is invalid. Try again.
You need to ignore him, he's a dusche, will post anything to get a ride out of you.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 20:03:00 -
[602] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks).
This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon. [Chimera, T2] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II
Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%) ummm Capital Shield Booster * 4 Capacitor Power Relay II = fail |
Morgaine Mighthammer
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 21:02:00 -
[603] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Charles Edisson wrote: so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.
seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.
you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier. You must have misread what you quoted. You implied a carrier could be used to refit a SC. a carrier can not hold FB in it's drone bay, a carrier only has a 10K corp hanger so can only hold 2 Fighters/FB if it has nothing else in it's hanger like fule. The Aeon only has 20/10 capacity so to use one of these would require 5 carrier corp hangers to accomodate a swap to FB from fighters or visa versa.
incorrect sir, a carrier can hold fb's in it's bay, but it is not allowed to launch them due to lack of enough drone bandwidth |
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 22:53:00 -
[604] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Demon Azrakel wrote:Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks).
This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon. [Chimera, T2] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II
Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%) ummm Capital Shield Booster * 4 Capacitor Power Relay II = fail
You actually want the beta reactor control: Capacitor Power Relay I (or whatever), but I had initially forgot about that bit (was taking the faction / meta 2 / deadspace boost amp fit I had and making it T2; I cannot remember the last time I actually fit a ship with any type of capacitor power relay other than faction).
Here: [Chimera, T2] Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
That better?
If, however, your issue was with the capacitor power relay in general, show me your wonderful shield triage carrier (Chimera, nid, or, in some cases, a thanny) using cap flux coils or power diagnostics systems. |
stagz
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 00:08:00 -
[605] - Quote
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 |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
346
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 01:29:00 -
[606] - 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? |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 01:32:00 -
[607] - Quote
Super Carriers: 1. Give them back their original fright bay m3 back. 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range. |
LacLongQuan
Deep Space Expedition.
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 07:31:00 -
[608] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:
Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks).
This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon. [Chimera, T2] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II
Capital Shield Booster I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module I Capital Energy Transfer Array I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I Capital Shield Transporter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%)
confirmed Chimera has terrible CPU/PG |
Edsback
FinFleet Raiden.
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 12:44:00 -
[609] - Quote
all carriers still need for both a small Capacitor boost and cpu increase. all the carrier are in need of a Capacitor boost. Carrier are in despite need of some work the boost is needed but if you look at this ship in combat then you will notice once a carrier is in triage its a sitting duck and often killed in 1 shot by a group of battleships , so maybe boost the shield/armor of them,.
|
Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
183
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 13:22:00 -
[610] - Quote
Headerman wrote: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
Yes, because everyone wants to play station games with supercarriers.
If you can't see the obvious stupidity of that idea, why should anyone take your whining about fighter bays seriously? |
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 13:47:00 -
[611] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:Headerman wrote:
Yes, because everyone wants to play station games with supercarriers.
If you can't see the obvious stupidity of that idea, why should anyone take your whining about fighter bays seriously?
[quote=Phunnestyle][quote=Vincent Gaines][quote=Sameyaa] Exactly the scenario is bullshit, the scenario that you wished to force on us, at least your starting to see sence. Having 3 less what are you smoking dude, will be 10-5 less ROFL who didn't finish maths at school. As for you blindly saying Super pilots wish to use Supers as solo pawnmobiles, is your biased judgement really that far gone that you believe that. The pinging aggro timer on its own, makes sure that all supers but the most stupid will not be flying solo at all. Supers if you hadn't noticed won't be able to loggoffski. Pinging aggro timer dude. Supers can't afford after the patch to go gun ho soloing, coupled with only able to use Fighters as an offensive ploy against Subcaps, it makes soloing a very unadvisery thing to do. Its not like we can bail out sentrys an get rid of the HIC/DIC.A half drunk DIC pilot would be hardpressed to not be able to keep a Super pinned down indeffinately. You really do have a huge lack of knowledge. So you say we the Super pilots want everything, your own words. That ofc includes us wanting the pinging aggro timer, & the change to only Fighter Bombers & Fighters. We accept the HP nerfs although its not strickly a good representation of what the nerf should be, the nerfs generalized rather than individually focused on each Super, so what your saying is we are wrong to want all this. Us wanting this is wrongly biased as it only benifits Super pilots does it?!?!? Think befor you speak. This benifits us all, we want it as much as every other person, gives GFs and puts to rest solopawnmobile labels. Develops supers into more structured support reliant roles. You seem to have not understood or read that at all. Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20Fighter bombers & Fighters for all those reasons over the last several pages have stated. More than enough to justify the ammendment, but absolutely nothing to explain why 20/20 should'nt be implimented. Ill tell you a fact, the reason it is so easy to reply to you is becuase im right & your wrong, doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't have to make anything up, whilst you evidently do, as has been said, it only makes you look more of a fool. LOL&U again, loving your emo rage, but wish you could give a serious conversation rather than nonescence. Edited -> P.S. read your post again & LOL@U again
This applys to you Daedalus, your no different from Vincent, you have too much I hate supers syndrome, it clouds your judgement. Although I half agree with you about Supers docking, would need a small docking ring on the station so Supers could get fairly easily bumped off station. Need to develop the idea more b4 its even considered, as I also wouldnt want Supers playing station games either, but now Supers/titans will be extreamly vulnerable when trading & selling off, moving them to a destination to get delivered etc. Being able to jump to a station cyno & dock would at least allow for safer travel, otherwise I forsee many hularious Super/titan travel fit deaths. As I said though idea would need to be developed before considered, to make sure station games where not on a Supers agenda! |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
165
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 15:51:00 -
[612] - Quote
I don't hate supers, and I love mine thank you |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
347
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 23:11:00 -
[613] - 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? |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
166
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 23:34:00 -
[614] - Quote
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? |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
347
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 23:57:00 -
[615] - 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? |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 00:44:00 -
[616] - Quote
Headerman wrote: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.
So SC in large alliances were given even more safety then ever before and the small podpilot has to stay outside with his holding alt ? I don't think that would be a good idea, it should be either docking everywhere, no matter if it's an NPC Station or a POS, or it stays the way it is, no docking for supers at all. I would prefer the first one, though CCP would have to come up with a plan to stop sc from playing station games somehow, as that's the only problem I see with that.
|
Kaeser
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 03:29:00 -
[617] - Quote
For the love of god CCP, this !
Marlona Sky wrote:Super Carriers: 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range.
Did all of the intelligent thought on SC balancing between the races leave with Seleene and it's been put in the too hard basket ?
...and yes I own and fly a sh*tbox Hel on one of my alts. |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
166
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 04:51:00 -
[618] - Quote
Kaeser wrote:For the love of god CCP, this ! Marlona Sky wrote:Super Carriers: 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range. Did all of the intelligent thought on SC balancing between the races leave with Seleene and it's been put in the too hard basket ? ...and yes I own and fly a sh*tbox Hel on one of my alts. Then add in the shield sets, that way you have 2 tank and 2 gank. |
Jfox15101
The Mid Aged Republic Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 07:04:00 -
[619] - Quote
VeloxMors wrote:Can't get on sisi since nobody ever re-enables accounts, but my impressions based on what I've read:
Carriers are getting screwed. DDs not targeting subcaps and dreads getting buffed leave carriers with the short straw. T2 triage is nice, but triage continues to be a death sentence to a carrier in most situations and most carrier pilots will continue to not bother with the triage module at all. Moros getting buffed AND getting better hybrids? Seriously? The Naglfar seriously needs some love with its high slots, and the Phoenix just needs some serious professional help all around. The Moros was a solid dread before this, and could have definitely waited on getting the buff (especially with hybrids being tweaked). SCs are messed up. I agree the nerf on the Aeon and Nyx was a step in the right direction, but the Hel and Wyvern are just pathetic now.
The wyvern is really not affected to an extensive degree, with the drones being lost, being the biggest drawback, its tank is still strong. IMO, a properly fit wyvern can still be hard to kill, maybe as much as an aeon before nerf. Being that the wyvern isnt an armor tank, it laughs at the nerf, shields remain the same, resists will make that ship be the new aeon.
Now the phoenix, well lets just say with "Correct skilling" it is a royal pain in the ass. Unless neuted out, this ship can take a beating and keep throwing torps with its only downfall being range. Plenty more of this post for me to ramble on about, but i wanna go play eve :) |
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 07:53:00 -
[620] - Quote
Yes, if they fix the shield recharge after bonus Wyvern (and Hell) could be fun.
But as long as they don't fix that, the Wyvern and Hell are terrible |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
56
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 08:15:00 -
[621] - Quote
Headerman wrote: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 you mean like motherships, before the supercarrier buff?
man alive, people didnt complain this much about them and they were way less useful than supercarriers . . . even after the nerf |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 08:31:00 -
[622] - Quote
Kaeser wrote:For the love of god CCP, this ! Marlona Sky wrote:Super Carriers: 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range. Did all of the intelligent thought on SC balancing between the races leave with Seleene and it's been put in the too hard basket ? ...and yes I own and fly a sh*tbox Hel on one of my alts.
I'm too an Hel owner and I would like to been able to field it without the worring of knowing that I'm going to be the primary because I've the weakest tank, k thanks CCP. |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 10:03:00 -
[623] - Quote
We (by that I mean shield supers) really need the change of how boni affect our shield HP, as right now we loose about 20% and more just because we jump to another destination. Same Problem appears when you switch the char holding it to the actual battle char, I have to recharge about 50% of its HP before I can do something as anything else is just another form of suicide.
The next thing we need is the new implants for shield HP, for those still arguing that they want remote armor rep ones, too, we don't even have shield ones and if you're referring to christals, they don't work on capital modules.
So these things have already been stated as being looked at, but when can we expect any changes ?
And just because I'm already on it, we need at least 20/20 in our dronebay ! And consider adding or changing fighter/fighterbombers so that they can hit a large POS. One way could be shooting the actual shield first and once that is destroyed one can destroy the tower itself. Besides, in my opinion, we do not need to deal 100% damage to towers/shields, that might make dreads obsolete again, but no damage at all is no solution, too. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 11:24:00 -
[624] - Quote
ITT: "My ship costs alot therefore it should be able to outperform any other ship in every role and without any effort on my part." |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
167
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 14:54:00 -
[625] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:We (by that I mean shield supers) really need the change of how boni affect our shield HP, as right now we loose about 20% and more just because we jump to another destination. Same Problem appears when you switch the char holding it to the actual battle char, I have to recharge about 50% of its HP before I can do something as anything else is just another form of suicide.
The next thing we need is the new implants for shield HP, for those still arguing that they want remote armor rep ones, too, we don't even have shield ones and if you're referring to christals, they don't work on capital modules.
So these things have already been stated as being looked at, but when can we expect any changes ?
And just because I'm already on it, we need at least 20/20 in our dronebay ! And consider adding or changing fighter/fighterbombers so that they can hit a large POS. One way could be shooting the actual shield first and once that is destroyed one can destroy the tower itself. Besides, in my opinion, we do not need to deal 100% damage to towers/shields, that might make dreads obsolete again, but no damage at all is no solution, too. We don't "lose shields," the shields increase but it still charges at the same rate. Armor when bonused just magically jumps up.
I disagree with being allowed to hit a tower itself. That's a dread's job. A super is there to get the mods, but really to attack other capital sized ships.
By reading the patch notes, CCP stated the goal of the dronebay is to allow 35 for Hel/Nyx, and 30 for Aeon/Wyvern.
If this is the case, the carrier skill needs to be modified otherwise there's no huge reason to train carrier V.
As I've made clear before, I'm ok with the drop in fighters/bombers, but have come to feel that the carrier bonus needs to change to reflect the drop. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
120
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 16:36:00 -
[626] - Quote
I noticed in the notes, that the changes to the doomsday make them not only unable to target sub cabs, but that they cannot fire at structures now either.
Question : Up until this point, have Titan pilots even used their DD on structures? I've never really heard it mentioned. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 17:13:00 -
[627] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:I noticed in the notes, that the changes to the doomsday make them not only unable to target sub cabs, but that they cannot fire at structures now either.
Question : Up until this point, have Titan pilots even used their DD on structures? I've never really heard it mentioned.
Nope cannot DD structures lol
Shield Supers will always be at a slight disadvantage wich is why the nerf to HP should be more so directed at armor Supers than Shield.
Each Super & titan class needs individual attention when considering nerfing or buffing HP,as generalizing a nerf as has been done, seems a pretty ill though through nerf,just thrown out there to please the masses of super/titan haters.
It ofc needs to be worked on & developed, but as far as Supers go, I personally think a more accurate Nerf would be
Aeon Nerf Shield/Armor/Hull 15% Nyx Nerf " 10% & possibly cut drone damage bonus in half or roughly half. Wyvern HP unchanged Hel BUFF Shield/Armor/Hull 10% & leave the remote shield/armor bonus as it is.
As far as Titans go
Aeon/Erebus Nerf Shield/Armor/Hull 10% Liviathon no HP change Rag possibly stay unchanged as with a dual tank it is do-able, but could possibly do with a 10% Buff to Shield/Armor/Hull
As the Niddy stands now it could do with a 10% Buff to Shield/Armor/Hull & leave remote Shield/armor bonus the same.
If a change like this^ is made then having HG slave sort of implants for shield would give especially the Wyvern a rediculious tank. Don't think a shield slave set is the way to go for now at least, try affectively rebalancing the HP 1st as iv indicated above. Something to look at and work on.
The HP nerf is an issue we have our eye on, but what is paramount 1st and fore most, is that the situation is resolved over the Drone bay mess after crucible is released, so with all this talk about other issues involving HP,don't let your self forget CCP what is of Paramount importance to us. Room in drone bay for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 fighters. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 22:00:00 -
[628] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:Headerman wrote: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 Yes, because everyone wants to play station games with supercarriers. If you can't see the obvious stupidity of that idea, why should anyone take your whining about fighter bays seriously?
Simple just make the agression timer a lot longer for docking. Station games is the equivilant of punching someone outside your house then running back inside and hiding behind your mothers skirt.
|
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 22:08:00 -
[629] - Quote
Jfox15101 wrote:VeloxMors wrote:Can't get on sisi since nobody ever re-enables accounts, but my impressions based on what I've read:
Carriers are getting screwed. DDs not targeting subcaps and dreads getting buffed leave carriers with the short straw. T2 triage is nice, but triage continues to be a death sentence to a carrier in most situations and most carrier pilots will continue to not bother with the triage module at all. Moros getting buffed AND getting better hybrids? Seriously? The Naglfar seriously needs some love with its high slots, and the Phoenix just needs some serious professional help all around. The Moros was a solid dread before this, and could have definitely waited on getting the buff (especially with hybrids being tweaked). SCs are messed up. I agree the nerf on the Aeon and Nyx was a step in the right direction, but the Hel and Wyvern are just pathetic now.
The wyvern is really not affected to an extensive degree, with the drones being lost, being the biggest drawback, its tank is still strong. IMO, a properly fit wyvern can still be hard to kill, maybe as much as an aeon before nerf. Being that the wyvern isnt an armor tank, it laughs at the nerf, shields remain the same, resists will make that ship be the new aeon. Now the phoenix, well lets just say with "Correct skilling" it is a royal pain in the ass. Unless neuted out, this ship can take a beating and keep throwing torps with its only downfall being range. Plenty more of this post for me to ramble on about, but i wanna go play eve :)
Capital Hybrids are NOT being changed. they are the only weapon size in the game that CCP made comparible across all races for range so all dreads could hit a large POS from outside it's shields. Mind you I wouldn't put it past CCP reducing the range to force them to use long range ammo. Heaven forbid the Galle have one ship that's best in class in game. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 05:09:00 -
[630] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Super Carriers: 1. Give them back their original fright bay m3 back. 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range.
I can sign off on that. May I be allowed to point out exhibit A, with regards to the Hel's purpose according to CCP:
Unknown Hel designer wrote:Inspired by a vicious scissor-toothed shark indigenous to old-world Matar, the Hel is widely viewed as a sign of a Republic out for blood. Since the beginning of its development it has remained a project cloaked in secrecy, with precious few people aware of its progress and its capabilities, and its formal unveiling has come as a defiant slap in the face to many who formerly believed the Matari incapable of working at this scale of starship design. Whatever comprises the soil of its roots, though, one thing is clear: from no-frills living quarters to grim, unadorned aesthetic, this ferocious behemoth has been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. GÇ¥Imagine a swarm of deadly hornets pouring from the devilGÇÖs mouth. Now imagine they have autocannons.GÇ¥-Unknown Hel designer |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
306
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 05:48:00 -
[631] - Quote
So, I heard that Slaves no longer affect Capitals (or perhaps just Supercapitals). I have no way to confirm this, even after the patch goes live. Can anyone tell me for sure one way or another? |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 18:35:00 -
[632] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:So, I heard that Slaves no longer affect Capitals (or perhaps just Supercapitals). I have no way to confirm this, even after the patch goes live. Can anyone tell me for sure one way or another?
Where did you get that info ? |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 18:58:00 -
[633] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:So, I heard that Slaves no longer affect Capitals (or perhaps just Supercapitals). I have no way to confirm this, even after the patch goes live. Can anyone tell me for sure one way or another?
Slaves seem to work for me after patch. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 21:55:00 -
[634] - Quote
CCP, now since the patch is out and that the Hel still suck balls, what do you intend to do to make it at least a descent ship ? A ship that people want to fly ... CCP Tallest said he was looking at the issue, but so far we haven't seen anything really boosting a bit the Hel. There is only a few Hel pilots around here and I would like to see more of them because the ship worth to invest into it. It's nearly a year and half since the Hel is a plain joke and a shame for all Minmatar pilots. It's now time that you do something about this ship.
The Hel is supposed to be something useful as per the description :
Quote: Whatever comprises the soil of its roots, though, one thing is clear: from no-frills living quarters to grim, unadorned aesthetic, this ferocious behemoth has been designed for one purpose and one purpose only.
GÇ¥Imagine a swarm of deadly hornets pouring from the devilGÇÖs mouth. Now imagine they have autocannons.GÇ¥ -Unknown Hel designer
The one purpose is to fail in glory ? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 11:21:00 -
[635] - Quote
Ok Crucible has been out a couple of days, good job CCP (round of applause), understandable that a few bugs here & there need to be fixed, but we are very much eager to know when & if the ammendment to Supers drone bay of 20 Fighter bombers & 20 Fighters will be implimented in a patch fix very VERY soon!
P.S. ^ is right Hel currently is just meat shield for rest of fleet nothing more! |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 12:27:00 -
[636] - Quote
CCP Tallest have you considered the consequences the change of the Hel has because in my opinion 7,5% per Level is way to much. Right now 5 Hel along with a booster Tengu with Tech II Gang-links can tank 10 nyx without any trouble. Was this intended? And the Fitting to enable you to do so is rather cheap. All you need is a standard X-Type shield tank along with 3 named capital shield and energy transfer as well as a full Talisman set. I think it is stupid to be able to tank that much without any support in form of other capitals namely carriers.
So the people complaining about the Hel right now should seriously check it out again and do some tests on SISI with 3+ Hel's you'd be surprised. But if you test it do it with a booster tengu + T2 Gank-Links and Mind-Link.. Its just stupid this level of tanking is way over the line. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 13:38:00 -
[637] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:CCP Tallest have you considered the consequences the change of the Hel has because in my opinion 7,5% per Level is way to much. Right now 5 Hel along with a booster Tengu with Tech II Gang-links can tank 10 nyx without any trouble. Was this intended? And the Fitting to enable you to do so is rather cheap. All you need is a standard X-Type shield tank along with 3 named capital shield and energy transfer as well as a full Talisman set. I think it is stupid to be able to tank that much without any support in form of other capitals namely carriers.
So the people complaining about the Hel right now should seriously check it out again and do some tests on SISI with 3+ Hel's you'd be surprised. But if you test it do it with a booster tengu + T2 Gank-Links and Mind-Link.. Its just stupid this level of tanking is way over the line.
That doesn't change the fact that a hel has a horrible tank, & becuase of that they are not widely used, & are not even aloud to join fleets in some cases where they are just going to be a hinderance & loss mail. Dual armor/shield is best way to go,but you newt out a Hel, the already aweful tank loses even more of its EHP,leaving it a wreck withing a matter of a couple of minutes now. The remote armor/shield bonus should of stayed at 5% as a niche for the Hel/niddy, but doesn't change the fact that it does REALLY need a buff to HP |
Mauryce
Sheeps in Arms Fraggle Rock.
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 13:39:00 -
[638] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:CCP Tallest have you considered the consequences the change of the Hel has because in my opinion 7,5% per Level is way to much. Right now 5 Hel along with a booster Tengu with Tech II Gang-links can tank 10 nyx without any trouble. Was this intended? And the Fitting to enable you to do so is rather cheap. All you need is a standard X-Type shield tank along with 3 named capital shield and energy transfer as well as a full Talisman set. I think it is stupid to be able to tank that much without any support in form of other capitals namely carriers.
So the people complaining about the Hel right now should seriously check it out again and do some tests on SISI with 3+ Hel's you'd be surprised. But if you test it do it with a booster tengu + T2 Gank-Links and Mind-Link.. Its just stupid this level of tanking is way over the line.
Its false.
1er: you cant find 10 Hels in any ScFleets!!
2d:Whit only 2 Capital remote shield, if you want a decent EM/Th resistance on Hel, you cannot operate boths reps if you are targeted with neutralizers.
3er: If you are to crazy to fit 4 reps and only 2 invus, well, you never been in a superfight. How many DD can absorve?? Are you a Hel pilot or another EFTWarrior???????
In fact, you need to duplicate bonus and cut half capacitor consume on rshields to make hel a good logistic option with minimal tank. Or make Sc invulnerable to Neutralizer.
I never see many of you in supercaps fight like O2O.... firts check your info in game and in fight, them came here and write with a minimal sense... |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 14:23:00 -
[639] - Quote
Mauryce wrote:Baki Yuku wrote:CCP Tallest have you considered the consequences the change of the Hel has because in my opinion 7,5% per Level is way to much. Right now 5 Hel along with a booster Tengu with Tech II Gang-links can tank 10 nyx without any trouble. Was this intended? And the Fitting to enable you to do so is rather cheap. All you need is a standard X-Type shield tank along with 3 named capital shield and energy transfer as well as a full Talisman set. I think it is stupid to be able to tank that much without any support in form of other capitals namely carriers.
So the people complaining about the Hel right now should seriously check it out again and do some tests on SISI with 3+ Hel's you'd be surprised. But if you test it do it with a booster tengu + T2 Gank-Links and Mind-Link.. Its just stupid this level of tanking is way over the line. Its false. 1er: you cant find 10 Hels in any ScFleets!! 2d:Whit only 2 Capital remote shield, if you want a decent EM/Th resistance on Hel, you cannot operate boths reps if you are targeted with neutralizers. 3er: If you are to crazy to fit 4 reps and only 2 invus, well, you never been in a superfight. How many DD can absorve?? Are you a Hel pilot or another EFTWarrior??????? In fact, you need to duplicate bonus and cut half capacitor consume on rshields to make hel a good logistic option with minimal tank. Or make Sc invulnerable to Neutralizer. I never see many of you in supercaps fight like O2O.... firts check your info in game and in fight, them came here and write with a minimal sense...
I own 2 hel's so well yeah I know that tank wise they are on the low end but I do think there is no need for a buff other then taking the nerf the hel recived back and adding a shield slave set to the game. With that in place the hel will be just fine. Also regarding neuting yeah you will get neut'd in a knockout fight but when you have 3 capital energy on every hel its kinda impossible to break I mean srsly I dont think I need to tell you just how much cap gets generated by the transfers..
|
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 15:27:00 -
[640] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote: ....With that in place the hel will be just fine. Also regarding neuting yeah you will get neut'd in a knockout fight but when you have 3 capital energy on every hel its kinda impossible to break I mean srsly I dont think I need to tell you just how much cap gets generated by the transfers..
What dream region do *you* live in? I'd like to see these 2 Hels of yours in the next *anything* fleet battle rr'ing each other to victory. It doesn't have to be a special fight to get neuted. Primary will always get neuted.
You just used the phrase "impossible to break [tank]" in the same sentence as hel. Get out. This thread is for serious feedback only.
...designed for one purpose and one purpose only. GÇ¥Imagine a swarm of deadly hornets pouring from the devilGÇÖs mouth. Now imagine they have autocannons.GÇ¥ -Unknown Hel designer
|
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 18:16:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Tallest, all Hel pilots are still waiting for your feedback on our ship case, please. Thanks. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
353
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 08:58:00 -
[642] - 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? |
Altolinchen
Sternenschauer AG Smacked Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 10:27:00 -
[643] - Quote
Supers need at least the old size of the drone bay... The fight I've had yesterday showed that it is impossible for supers to fight other supers with support cause you're bombers and fighters are just to easy to kill and you can't take a secondary set of them. and since you lost 0815 drones you are defenseless and offensiveness and that's SUCKS. Many supers were reporting this problem in fleet during that fight. I even think the dronebay should now be able to carrier 60+ in total. Because before the patch even if your 40-45 bombers/fighters where dead you had thousands of drone and now you have nothing -.- so no DPS left... ( neuts / remote ecm... LOL )(and the few spare once we are able to carry in corp hanger - never mind .. you need to carrier other capital modules and spare isotopes etc... corp hanger soon is full.. and stuff for your support fleet ).
The fight was fairer for the enemy I think they got more numbers in supers and support.. so see where such nerf leads to... more blob - we would have needed a bigger blob to win :/.
Also If they stay on the nerf than please fix some other stuff as well. Give them a role, where they can be useful. Let bombers hit pos etc.?? or a bigger ship maintenance bay and corp hanger? fit again clone vat ? go to triage ? doesn't matters but now they are underpowered and unbalanced even more as they were overpowered before the patch...
|
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 12:31:00 -
[644] - Quote
Altolinchen wrote:Supers need at least the old size of the drone bay... The fight I've had yesterday showed that it is impossible for supers to fight other supers with support cause you're bombers and fighters are just to easy to kill and you can't take a secondary set of them. and since you lost 0815 drones you are defenseless and offensiveness and that's SUCKS. Many supers were reporting this problem in fleet during that fight. I even think the dronebay should now be able to carrier 60+ in total. Because before the patch even if your 40-45 bombers/fighters where dead you had thousands of drone and now you have nothing -.- so no DPS left... ( neuts / remote ecm... LOL )(and the few spare once we are able to carry in corp hanger - never mind .. you need to carrier other capital modules and spare isotopes etc... corp hanger soon is full.. and stuff for your support fleet ).
The fight was fairer for the enemy I think they got more numbers in supers and support.. so see where such nerf leads to... more blob - we would have needed a bigger blob to win :/.
Also If they stay on the nerf than please fix some other stuff as well. Give them a role, where they can be useful. Let bombers hit pos etc.?? or a bigger ship maintenance bay and corp hanger? fit again clone vat ? go to triage ? doesn't matters but now they are underpowered and unbalanced even more as they were overpowered before the patch...
signed, what would you say if CCP announces that all ships can only carry enough ammunition for 1 and a half rounds, for example if a gun can hold 40 Shots you can have 20 additional shots in your cargo, nothing more. It would lead to an outrage ! And that's kind of what was done to Supers. Fighters and Bombers are fairly easy to kill and once your 30(35) are gone you can't do anything productive. That's why I suggest a drone bay for supers for at least 60 fighters or fighter bombers. |
Altolinchen
Sternenschauer AG Smacked Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 13:03:00 -
[645] - Quote
Isbariya wrote: That's why I suggest a drone bay for supers for at least 60 fighters or fighter bombers.
But even 60 would be lol.. before the patch had about 2400 drones on board so nearly no time out of dps - Well much less dps if you had to pull out drones than with bombers or fighters but okay still dps left. Was able to launch wave after wave ( even when fighters and bombers where dead). Now limited to the bombers and fighters only and not able to carry at least 2 full sets? Even 2 full set are LOL. Like a BS where only 4 of 8 turrets loaded with 80 shot and the rest can only be loaded with 20 shot - WTF CCP. This ships are super carrier - so let them carrier a super amount. 60+ that would at least mean for wyvern and aeon 30 bombers and 30 fighters so not that fast out of dps. and 70 for hel and nyx. This huge dronebay is necessary- even a rorqual is to small ( for full sets) and would be the only ship with a capital tank on which you could reload fighters and bombers... and nobody will warp in fighters in cap fight - they are dead before you picked your new fighters and bombers out of them...
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 08:35:00 -
[646] - Quote
What is for sure is that Supers needs a manditory Drone bay capacity of room for 20 fighterbombers & 20x Fighters, that is manditory, as for having room for 60+ your getting a little ahead of yourself. Need to prioritize this ammendment first & foremost. We should never of had to dedicate our time to resolving this needless, aimless stupidity. Nerfing the drone bay should of never happened & should have never even been considered past the thought of "ohh ha, yea thats a stupid idea".
We would like to hear if & when this will be implimented into a patch fix. Needs to be very soon, an prioritized. In all fairness it wouldn't take long for CCP to sort this mess out,its not a complex fault to fix, so god knows why we havn't heard anything more on the matter. Don't want this folly dragging on any longer! |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 21:20:00 -
[647] - Quote
Any new thought, conclusions or updates regarding super caps ccp ? |
Zeb DaMadMiner
Wormhole Exploration Crew Transmission Lost
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 05:57:00 -
[648] - Quote
Another thing to add to the plate, if you look at the CPU/PWG between the Chimera fit, and the Archon for example. Even though the Chimera has more CPU than the Archon armor tanks do not use as much as shields.
Currently, you can fully fit Archon's with all the cap parts you need. And have spare leftover, yet with a Chimera just to get it close to the Archon's layout fit you still require +3 implant, + all level 5 CPU reduction skills just to fit. Little boost of the Chimera's CPU? - Even if it's only 10, they need it. |
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 06:40:00 -
[649] - Quote
The dronebay nerf have no sense. And you even increased the dronebay parts in the BPOs!!!
Ok removing the drones to avoid them being "too flexible", but removing the ability to even do ANY damage...
What were you thinking dudes? fitting a machariel? |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 12:12:00 -
[650] - Quote
Fighter bombers hit a sig of what 2250m and Fighters 125. One is far too small, (Fightrers) and the other far too big(FB).
Fighters resolution should be increased to 400 as they are designed to hit BS. to compensate for this their optimal range and tracking should be adjusted to make then engage at a longer range but with less tracking so they have the same effective tracking at their optimal ranges.
Fighter Bombers need to have their explosion radius reduced significantly. Should they not be in the same ball park as that of capital guns. most other missile platforms are, if this were the case they should have an explosion radius of around 1000m, BS would still be safe as the explosion velocity is only 60m/s. FB can be speed tanked by anything in the game. Again another weapon platform that's theoretical paper damage and actual in game damage are worlds appart. |
|
Ingwine
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 12:23:00 -
[651] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:
* Shield leadership bonus should work like an armor bonus and not require recharging shields after every jump.
Is that includes bonus from Leviathan as booster? |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 23:16:00 -
[652] - Quote
Still waiting feedback from CCP about the Hel situation. 3Weeks and counting... |
Lord FunkyMunky
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 01:03:00 -
[653] - Quote
Wait did someone just ***** that a super alone wasnt able to survive against a super with a support fleet????
Upp ya .. thats kind of how its supposed to be buddy... supers are supercapitals, there not meant to be able to survive solo... there team ships |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 12:26:00 -
[654] - Quote
Bump for the Hel issue and in particular all shield capitals. We have **** tank, we also want to take part in fight and be useful. CCP we are also your customers and expect you to include us into the balance. We want ship we can fly, we want ship we can be proud off, we want to have fun with our shield capitals/supercapitals.
Thanks. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 08:43:00 -
[655] - Quote
Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????
Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 09:47:00 -
[656] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????
Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved.
Needs more question marks and sense of entitlement. |
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 13:46:00 -
[657] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????
Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved.
You're the (<)1%, stop trying to force your will on the (>)99%! |
Sameyaa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 15:01:00 -
[658] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????
Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved. You're the (<)1%, stop trying to force your will on the (>)99%!
We are less then 1%? show me where you are getting these numbers from. Did you go around asking every person in the game and come up with this? Everyone that owns a supercap and even people who dont feel our pain. This is not a troll thread, if you have nothing productive to include in the conversation then don't say anything at all. |
Ranya Delnas
Viziam Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 18:50:00 -
[659] - Quote
Hey now i would be happy if you could only have 20 fighters/fighter bombers, or pre nerf stats, provided you could lock no subcaps other than dictors/HIC's Because im happy if all the caps kill eachother while the real pilots have an actually fun fight |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 20:03:00 -
[660] - Quote
Ranya Delnas wrote:Hey now i would be happy if you could only have 20 fighters/fighter bombers, or pre nerf stats, provided you could lock no subcaps other than dictors/HIC's Because im happy if all the caps kill eachother while the real pilots have an actually fun fight
shure if caps are the only way to gain sov and subcaps could not target capitals, for those not getting this statement, sarcasm !
|
|
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 20:12:00 -
[661] - Quote
Any news on the Shield Capital shield recharge after fleet bonus? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 20:33:00 -
[662] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Patch Fix out today, sooo why hasn't the Supers drone bay capacity been at least ammended to the manditory amount of 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters???????????????????
Need feed back CCP can't pretend you don't hear us & stick your fingers in your ears. Theres a immediate unjust issue & we would like it resolved. You're the (<)1%, stop trying to force your will on the (>)99%!
LOL as I have said in the past you are an example of a fool!
Have also given example of:
A Lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail, so why should mainstream Subcap pilot who know absolutely nothing of mechanics in question & have no experience other than being hotdropped by supers, have the majority overwhelming say in what happens to them. Makes no sence. As has been shown time & time again from feed back from this thread & the original capital ship balancing thread, the fail change to the drone bay capacity is being strongly opposed by many various alliances in the EVE community for good just reason.
Super pilots are accustomed to all forms of pvp, subcap/capital & supercapital alike,so we are the best judges for what needs to happen to balance Supers. If you've read before I like many other agree & congradulate changes such as pinging aggro timers & limiting Supers to Fighters & FBs. The nerf to Supers HP is acceptable as a lesser error, but is too generalized. Supers needed individual attention when it came to HP nerf/buff.
1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?
o7 |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 22:13:00 -
[663] - Quote
Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback. We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on : - Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield). - The new deadspace invu - Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame. |
Ingwine
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 23:02:00 -
[664] - Quote
Also it would be nice that Triage II module would have some rep/rem rep bonuses.. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 12:11:00 -
[665] - Quote
MastahFR wrote:Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback. We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on : - Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield). - The new deadspace invu - Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame.
If only there was some kind of forum search function that meant you could find these answers yourself instead of wailing like a petulant child. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 12:22:00 -
[666] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: 1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?
o7
Wrong. You do not speak for me or other supercap pilots. There are very valid balance reasons why the fight bay is limited as it is now posted throughout this thread. And I post this as someone who not only owns 3 supercaps, but builds several of them each month for others.
If you're still confused as to why, I'll refer you to this. You can apply it to all supercaps/ |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:19:00 -
[667] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:MastahFR wrote:Bump again and again until CCP start to give us feedback. We shield supercapital pilots are still waiting on your feedback on : - Fleet bonus applying directly (so we don't start a fight with half our shield). - The new deadspace invu - Boosting the Hel (changing the bonus or/and boosting the tank) because this ship is currently a shame. If only there was some kind of forum search function that meant you could find these answers yourself instead of wailing like a petulant child.
I know Tallest told us he might consider all that. You did fail at reading my post. I was asking for a feedback about what he said : when, in how long, for what ship (and many more) CCP will actually change things ? So we can have a real feedback and not just "I might consider"... |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 23:59:00 -
[668] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: 1 thing that is for sure is that Supers need a manditory drone bay capacity of room for 20 Fighter bombers & 20fighter. Theres no question about that in Super pilots minds. Would very much like feedback from CCP to if & when this ammendment is going to resume?
o7
Wrong. You do not speak for me or other supercap pilots. There are very valid balance reasons why the fighter bay is limited as it is posted throughout this thread. And I write this as someone who not only owns 3 supercaps, but builds several of them each month for others. If you're still confused as to why supercaps are balanced in this way, I refer you to this.
1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't! I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!
2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC stregth does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.
P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balancing, please do know what your blabbing on about b4 you waffle. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 12:23:00 -
[669] - Quote
Just have to face it. Supers are a tiny proportion of the game. Having anything in the ame that makes a small group of players too powerful is bad for CCPs remit of having as many subscribers as possible. The only thing CCP will like about supers is that they cant dock so to have one you need a dedicated account. That's never going to change it's intentional. Even if were to vote with our feet and leave or cancel subs this would be more than ofset by the new players they hope they will get.
To CCP you are just a source of money. We only got what we did in Crucible with the new content because too many areas of the player base had been treated like crap that total subscriber numbers were going down. Arrogant CCP made the assumption that they could treat the game like a matured company and sweat it for income with the absolute bare minimum of effort on their part. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 16:06:00 -
[670] - Quote
Yes in alot of ways the masses of clueless nubs have been listened to on matters that they don't even understand, hence nerfing the Supers drone bay capacity LOL, but it would be the pinicle of stupidity if CCP kept kicking vets in the balls, as we are the ones who have stayed loyal, majority of new players come & go like the wind, we also have multiple accounts & spend more isk/money than multiple numbers of newer players. Is it really to hard to be benificial to all aspects of the EVE community. Having older players gives a level of quality/experience & knowledge, wich would be sourly missed in EVE. |
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 18:59:00 -
[671] - Quote
CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.
Thanks, Zarak1 |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 23:29:00 -
[672] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.
Thanks, Zarak1 Its not just the Chimera its the Nidhoggur too.. boosting PG on Nidhoggur was stupid and unneeded... what it really needed was more CPU to be able to fullfill its role as shield support carrier as it is supposed to be a carrier to support both shield and armor which right now is not possible. |
HelPilot of20Years
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 15:41:00 -
[673] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:CCP Tallest, please do not let the ammount of spam being posted about supercarrier bays distract from the chimera's lack of CPU to be properly fitted.
Thanks, Zarak1 Its not just the Chimera its the Nidhoggur too.. boosting PG on Nidhoggur was stupid and unneeded... what it really needed was more CPU to be able to fullfill its role as shield support carrier as it is supposed to be a carrier to support both shield and armor which right now is not possible.
A very important point that has been mitigate throughout the years either by 1.) shitfitting carriers, or 2.) not using shield cap fleets (99% solution). Now that CCP Tallest has invited us to a discussion about capitals and the need for them to be balanced, these points are salient to this thread.
Also: to repeat what mastah has been saying: HEL. 15 minute meeting in an office with a few people who have actually played eve and the problems will be solved.
Time for that 15 minute meeting has come.
In all seriousness, this is what just happened in front of our eyes - one guy makes a long, polite post arguing in favor of a particular buff to the ship and it gets implemented posthaste. I for one, fear that this is a corporate call to appeasement of the minority Hel pilots, and our ship will subsequently be ignored under the guise of 'its already been addressed'. I just saw a rigged Hel go for build price in sell orders, that is what we in the law enforcement world call 'a clue'.
Sincerely, - A Hel pilot who has left his alliance, and safed-up/unsubbed until this 20 bil tomb is made spaceworthy. ...designed for one purpose and one purpose only. GÇ¥Imagine a swarm of deadly hornets pouring from the devilGÇÖs mouth. Now imagine they have autocannons.GÇ¥ -Unknown Hel designer
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
397
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 11:01:00 -
[674] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: 1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't! I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!
Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592
All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps.
Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning. Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet.
Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness. EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion were one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: Close range RR Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs hybrid gank Dominix, etc).
1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once.
2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers. A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off.
3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way.
Phunnestyle wrote: 2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.
1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past.
2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too! Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel...
Phunnestyle wrote: P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balanci...
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:14:00 -
[675] - Quote
I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying!
What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself! Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness. So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read! What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts. All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent. If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.
Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.
We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.
|
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:22:00 -
[676] - 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
We don't ask for too much, only what is right! This just a tiny quote of a massive discussion for the Ammendment. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:27:00 -
[677] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:Sameyaa wrote: Not really, when i get fueled i dont need my own alt, its done by a alliance hauler or corp hauler. In any case only a hauler is needed. takes less than 5 mins.
To refit i need to: 1) Have a useless alt sitting in my staging system that has a carrier (yes we all have free carrier alts laying around) 2) Login super (needs 30 secs) 3) Take all drones from drone bay of alt carrier, put needed fighters/fbs 4) Undock, get in fleet, warp to super 5) refit 1or2 fb/fighter at a time because for aeons/wyverns they will not have the free room to move fb/fighters in groups. 6) warp carrier back to station, refit drone bay like it was before (which in itself is annoying) 7) Logoff super, and sit at pos with an alt to make sure it disappeares without aggression.
You see where i'm going with this? does it remind you of something? maybe fueling a pos would be easier.
hmm... let's compare things to a subcap pilot. logs in spins ship oh look a fleet load new ship check fittings adjust and swap fittings as needed load ammo undock your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. You are just lazy. Your corp, your FLEET, should be there supporting your super. There are carrier pilots that would LOVE to do that. Why? because then they have a reason to use a carrier other than POS repping...hell, let a carrier pilot be your bish and haul your crap + keep you alive if needed. like a squire. heh. If I was to give an example of a stubborn fool bent on doing things for the benifit of only there own aspect of gameplay within the EVE community, I would give you Vincent. Absolutely everything you say is hularious supercarrier syndrome rage. You are grasping at straws, everything you say is complete & utter biased rubbish, I mean do you even think about it before you blurt out this garbage. If your not trolling, then if I was you I would seriously consider seeing your GP. Basically you would have us logg in, takes 30+ seconds,use a carrier,rorq,orca itty 5 etc to adapt our fit to what was needed, taking into account some people may only have a (dedicated) alt capable of either carrier or mb an itty 5, so that can take anywhere from 5-15mins say. Now saying that our target was still there 15+mins later, we are finally ready to jump in. Now we face according to you, having to bring our Rorq, orca etc bridge it with our supers so we have our remaining compliment of Fighter Bombers handy as well as spare Capital Armor/energy transfer handy. LOL Now say we got that far and the rorq, orca hadnt been melted within seconds. We then have to cross our fingers & hope that when we landed in system we didn't get bumped 50+km away from rest of the fleet. According to you,we are then supposed god forbid, to slowboat while possibly bubbled to refit & adapt to a possible ever changing situation. Supers very slow you know vincent, you possibly don't know,as you clearly state in everything you say,that you know very little. These needlessly complicated changes are resolved by a manditory 20 Fighter bomber & 20 Fighter drone bay capacity. You are trying to make something out of nothing, and your only making yourself look damn stupid.This is among the list of reasons & justifications for the rightful amendment to the Super drone bay to 20 Fighterbombers & 20 Fighters, they are all given over the last several pages that you are in stubborn denial about. Yet again you fail to see the full implications of what you blurt out!
This also is what your fellow goony wanted us to do, an thought was acceptable! I feel a goony ass whooping coming on again tbh =) everyday process XD
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:45:00 -
[678] - Quote
Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully. |
Venustas Blue
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:50:00 -
[679] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully.
His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence. I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh.
|
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
178
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 18:59:00 -
[680] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: 1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't! I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!
Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps. Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning. Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet. EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion where one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: RR/drone Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs max-dps blaster Dominix, etc). Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness. 1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once. 2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers. A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off. 3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way. Phunnestyle wrote: 2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.
1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past. 2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too! Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel... Phunnestyle wrote: P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further a...
|
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 09:00:00 -
[681] - Quote
Venustas Blue wrote:Svennig wrote:Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully. His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence. I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh.
LOL!
Hello Phunnestyle's alt. You consistently misspell words, such as when you write "sence", "arguement" and "alot". If you're going to fake popular support for your ideas by making lots of "I support Phunnestyle, he's a cool guy and I worship him and his opinions", you need to take an extra couple of minutes to make it less unbelievably staggeringly goddamn obvious it's you |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
401
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 09:53:00 -
[682] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Venustas Blue wrote:Svennig wrote:Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully. His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence. I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh. LOL! Hello Phunnestyle's alt. You consistently misspell words, such as when you write "sence", "arguement" and "alot". If you're going to fake popular support for your ideas by making lots of "I support Phunnestyle, he's a cool guy and I worship him and his opinions", you need to take an extra couple of minutes to make it less unbelievably staggeringly goddamn obvious it's you I thought that guy did have a Phunnestyle of posting...
ba dum tish |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:27:00 -
[683] - Quote
cough chimera cough |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:40:00 -
[684] - Quote
Can we get the troll post removed from here ? They have no purpose here.
And we (shield capitals and super capitals (especially the Hel pilots)) are waiting on CCP feedback on when the change will hit singularity. Also, CCP, we (Hel pilots) are still waiting on the re-balance you promised. It's been already too long that this ship has been useless, it's now the time to end that and make it worth his 14bil isk hull price. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:21:00 -
[685] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying!
No, you're a chickenshit scared on being called out on your own history. You can go after others who post with their main but you're scared- likely because you've shown nothing but complete and total idiocy and you are an embarassment to your corp and alliance.
God I hope you're not in mine.
Quote:What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself! Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness. So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read! What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts. All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent. If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.
Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.
We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.
You sound like a broken record, as if you're copying and pasting the same things over and over.
There's nothing "manditory" There's no reason for you to field 20 fighters other than you're still stuck in the mindset of having an overpowered ship. You have already stated several times in this thread the reason you are against the changes is because you're afraid of getting stuck by a small gang and killed while alone. Tough.
Yes, a bomber cn take out your fighters or drones, if you let them. Listen close, junior: In a subcap you can lose all your DPS much, much easier and I will spell it out for you:
1) ECM 2) Disruption 3) Neut 4) Damp 5) Speed/tracking 6) Range
And much, much more.
Using your broken, pathetic logic, we should remove ALL OF THOSE measures that can remove a ship's offensive DPS.
Oh, did I mention your super can't be neuted, damped or jammed?
Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abbadon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR! |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:59:00 -
[686] - Quote
Xtover wrote:
Oh, did I mention your super can't be neuted, damped or jammed?
Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abbadon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!
Oh, we can't be neuted, well guess then it's realy better if we don't get 20/20 dronebay
/sarkasm off
We can be neuted and though I don't like it, it's good that way. BUT, we need the larger drone bay, ffs CCP why is it so hard for you to answer in this thread when you answer every single other thread that's out there ... I don't think it's that of an complex situation. At least give us a heads up .... |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 22:23:00 -
[687] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:Xtover wrote:
Oh, did I mention your super can't be neuted, damped or jammed?
Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abbadon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!
Oh, we can't be neuted, well guess then it's realy better if we don't get 20/20 dronebay /sarkasm off We can be neuted and though I don't like it, it's good that way. BUT, we need the larger drone bay, ffs CCP why is it so hard for you to answer in this thread when you answer every single other thread that's out there ... I don't think it's that of an complex situation. At least give us a heads up .... why do you need it.
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 23:51:00 -
[688] - Quote
MastahFR wrote:Can we get the troll post removed from here ? They have no purpose here.
And we (shield capitals and super capitals (especially the Hel pilots)) are waiting on CCP feedback on when the change will hit singularity. Also, CCP, we (Hel pilots) are still waiting on the re-balance you promised. It's been already too long that this ship has been useless, it's now the time to end that and make it worth his 14bil isk hull price.
What was wrong with the Crucible changes? Thanks to the lesser shield nerf supercaps got, the Hel is basically on par with the Nyx in terms of EHP. Once they fix way shield fleet bonuses apply and add deadspace invulns it'll be fairly competitive. Especially now that it has a better niche with more base cap for some ewar-immune remote-repping. One rep from a Hel negates more than a supercap's worth of damage on another ship with decent resists.
The Nid and Chimera could use a CPU bump though; or better yet just reduce the CPU need on CSBs and CETs by about 15%.
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. I'd guess that we're probably going to have to wait on an intermediate content patch for them (such as Crucible 1.1 or 1.2) which puts them at least a few months away. Maybe around March if things go well. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
107
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 23:39:00 -
[689] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying! No, you're a chickenshit scared on being called out on your own history. You can go after others who post with their main but you're scared- likely because you've shown nothing but complete and total idiocy and you are an embarassment to your corp and alliance. God I hope you're not in mine. Quote:What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself! Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness. So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read! What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts. All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent. If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.
Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.
We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.
You sound like a broken record, as if you're copying and pasting the same things over and over. There's nothing "manditory" There's no reason for you to field 20 fighters/bombers other than you're still stuck in the mindset of having an overpowered ship. You have already stated several times in this thread the reason you are against the changes is because you're afraid of getting stuck by a small gang and killed while alone. Tough. Yes, a bomber can take out your fighters or drones, if you let them. Listen close, junior: In a subcap you can lose all your DPS much, much easier and I will spell it out for you: 1) ECM 2) Disruption 3) Neut 4) Damp 5) Speed/tracking 6) Range And much, much more. Using your broken, pathetic logic, we should remove ALL OF THOSE measures that can remove a ship's offensive DPS. Oh, did I mention your super can't be damped or jammed? Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abaddon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!
ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.
& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL
No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly. If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
405
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 00:17:00 -
[690] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.
& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL I'm considering clicking 'Like' on your post.
Please understand that this is not because I agree with it; but because it validates my theory that you're unable to respond to someone without involuntarily dribbling in a strategic pattern upon the keyboard that resembles the post seen above.
Which, if you think about it, is a pretty special skill. You're special. |
|
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
179
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 00:23:00 -
[691] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: 1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't! I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!
Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps. Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning. Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet. EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion where one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: RR/drone Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs max-dps blaster Dominix, etc). Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness. 1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once. 2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers. A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off. 3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way. Phunnestyle wrote: 2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.
1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past. 2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too! Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel... Phunnestyle wrote: P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further a...
|
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 01:10:00 -
[692] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:
ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.
& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL
No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly. If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol
You remind me of someone who realizes that they have nothing left to stand on. You can'at even disagree with what I said, you instead throw out a red herring and try to change the subject.
Keep posting, I'm not sure you've gone into the "complete dumbass" category but you're getting fairly close. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
138
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:23:00 -
[693] - Quote
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?
Supercaps are supposed to be vulnerable to subcapitals. How do we explain to the week-old newbie in a Rifter who tries to tackle an Aeon that the supercarrier "deserves" the ability to escape?
Years ago, warp-core-stabilised PVP ships were a scourge on TQ, allowing people to avoid having to commit to fights. This was fixed by setting suitable penalties on WCS. But two classes of ships remain, possessing built-in, penalty-free WCS. Complete the purge and remove disruptor/scrambler immunity from supercaps. They neither need nor deserve it. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
388
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 23:46:00 -
[694] - 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 -
[695] - 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? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 04:11:00 -
[696] - Quote
ccp |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
406
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 08:39:00 -
[697] - Quote
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. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
108
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 09:50:00 -
[698] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:
ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.
& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL
No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly. If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol
You remind me of someone who realizes that they have nothing left to stand on. You can'at even disagree with what I said, you instead throw out a red herring and try to change the subject.
For some one who has very little experience & has got the majority of his kills over the last week, you seem to have an aweful lot of rubbish to say. & yet again what you say does not give any reason for why Supers should not have a drone bay of 20/20, all that you have said is " You still want Supers to be overpowered" lol Sigh, moron....
Supers are always & should always bring benifits over Subcaps to a degree. It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news. The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.
Now I look at what you said, analysed it and came out with the conclusive result of what your implying. You said little else except for " You still want Supers to be overpowered" that really is all you said, so if we are missing some code in your writing then please go ahead & explain what more was ment to be in your rant. Your logic is flawed, people do not work in real life as well as in the game to revolve around the same restrictions. You work for benifits & progress, you skill train to gain advantages over those who do not have high end SP. Like it or not, thats how it is, tough son shine deal with it. With your logic implied, it would mean that there would be very little relivance & point of progress within the game. Alot of what EVE is about is progress, so without it, why would any1 bother to stay loyal to the game for so many years, would be end of EVE with your LOL logic being implied, well done fella, shall give you the medal of "Ohh so special Ideas" ,your pro LOOOOOOL |
Roboticus420
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 10:13:00 -
[699] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle]
For some one who has very little experience & has got the majority of his kills over the last week, you seem to have an aweful lot of rubbish to say. & yet again what you say does not give any reason for why Supers should not have a drone bay of 20/20, all that you have said is " You still want Supers to be overpowered" lol Sigh, moron.... 1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,they want everything to be dumbed down & made easier for them. Tell you what get some lego an play with that instead if EVE is to challenging for you. Honestly your just pathetic....
Supers are always & should always bring benifits over Subcaps to a degree. It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news. The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.
+1 Signed |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
388
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 10:47:00 -
[700] - 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? |
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 11:01:00 -
[701] - Quote
And so the drivel continues to flow forth.
Phunnestyle wrote:
1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,they want everything to be dumbed down & made easier for them. Tell you what get some lego an play with that instead if EVE is to challenging for you. Honestly your just pathetic....
Like you want it to be easy, because ohgod changing a few fighters or fighterbombers is so damn hard, right? You just want supercap logistics dumbed down and made easy for you. Do you lack skill? Or cunning? Or, as you say, are you just a lazy "bumm"? |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 12:26:00 -
[702] - Quote
Svennig wrote:And so the drivel continues to flow forth. Phunnestyle wrote:
1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,they want everything to be dumbed down & made easier for them. Tell you what get some lego an play with that instead if EVE is to challenging for you. Honestly your just pathetic....
Like you want it to be easy, because ohgod changing a few fighters or fighterbombers is so damn hard, right? You just want supercap logistics dumbed down and made easy for you. Do you lack skill? Or cunning? Or, as you say, are you just a lazy "bumm"?
You contridicted yourself more than once in a couple of lines, ROFL congradulations, that is a special skill for your CV XD
Exactly as you say "changing a few fighters or fighterbombers is so damn hard" easiest thing in the world to rightly ammend the drone bay to 20/20, yes you are correct. & if I wanted it to be easy I sure as hell would be complaining that there is now a pinging aggro timer & that all my sentrys & other drones are gone. Quite the opposite, I actually want the best for all area's of the EVE community, not just in your instance, your damn self! ( heres some lego, go play child ) You go onto saying "You just want superecap logistics dumbed down and made easy for you" omg didn't know you where such a tard, do you even think before you speak, I guess not, you would rather make yourself look a fool. I can guess many things about you, that you have a very limited/basic (lol) idea about the mechanics in question is evident, that you do not use a Super capital, that you only care about your Subcap area of interest, & that garbage comes out your gob when its open. All this has been proven. Its a wonder I reply to such nonescence, but I can't help myself when what you say is soo stupid. & I point out yet again that you fail as always to supply an actual reason for why Supers shouldn't have 20/20 drone bay! Is it really customary for you to literally always fail! |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 15:09:00 -
[703] - Quote
pinging aggro is the best thing to ever happen to PvP in eve you sissy *****. |
Phunnestyle
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:28:00 -
[704] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle]
It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news. The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.
Agreed |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:34:00 -
[705] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle]
It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news. The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.
Agreed Did you agree with your own post?
Post with your main. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:39:00 -
[706] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote: For some one who has very little experience & has got the majority of his kills over the last week, you seem to have an aweful lot of rubbish to say.
don't try to call me out when you won't post with your main yourself.
Oh, this is only one of my characters. My other flies a supercap.
Quote: & yet again what you say does not give any reason for why Supers should not have a drone bay of 20/20, all that you have said is " You still want Supers to be overpowered" lol Sigh, moron....
You haven't said why they should, except saying that they should be solo ships and able to fight if tackled, or whinking if someone bombs your fighters.
Eveything else you wrote is moronic dribble that a McDonald's clerk with Down's Syndrome would laugh at.
You once again are just an embarassment.
POST WITH YOUR MAIN.
Here's what I think.. you don't even fly a super. I don't even think you have carriers V. You're just a whiny little troll. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:40:00 -
[707] - Quote
Phunnestyle wrote:
You contridicted yourself more than once in a couple of lines, ROFL congradulations, that is a special skill for your CV XD
Exactly as you say "changing a few fighters or fighterbombers is so damn hard" easiest thing in the world to rightly ammend the drone bay to 20/20, yes you are correct. & if I wanted it to be easy I sure as hell would be complaining that there is now a pinging aggro timer & that all my sentrys & other drones are gone. Quite the opposite, I actually want the best for all area's of the EVE community, not just in your instance, your damn self! ( heres some lego, go play child ) You go onto saying "You just want superecap logistics dumbed down and made easy for you" omg didn't know you where such a tard, do you even think before you speak, I guess not, you would rather make yourself look a fool. I can guess many things about you, that you have a very limited/basic (lol) idea about the mechanics in question is evident, that you do not use a Super capital, that you only care about your Subcap area of interest, & that garbage comes out your gob when its open. All this has been proven. Its a wonder I reply to such nonescence, but I can't help myself when what you say is soo stupid. & I point out yet again that you fail as always to supply an actual reason for why Supers shouldn't have 20/20 drone bay! Is it really customary for you to literally always fail!
Supers DON'T have a 20/20 drone bay. I can sit here and do NOTHING and that will continue. I don't have to provide a reason that they shouldn't have it. YOU must supply an actual reason for a 20/20 drone bay and, other than that it unbalances the nyx compared to the others, all we get from you is "waaah don't make me have to move 5 fighters or fighterbombers around, that's too much effort".
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:42:00 -
[708] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:Phunnestyle wrote:[quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle]
It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news. The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.
Agreed Did you agree with your own post? Post with your main.
Yes. Of course. He's been astroturfing this entire thread, posting replies to himself and even liking his posts to give the idea of popular support. |
Suchak Hunt
G.I. Jews Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:43:00 -
[709] - Quote
Svennig wrote:
Yes. Of course. He's been astroturfing this entire thread, posting replies to himself and even liking his posts to give the idea of popular support.
Yes, it's obvious that this is what he's done. Hail Svennig. |
Zach Hart
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:45:00 -
[710] - Quote
Suchak Hunt wrote:Svennig wrote:
Yes. Of course. He's been astroturfing this entire thread, posting replies to himself and even liking his posts to give the idea of popular support.
Yes, it's obvious that this is what he's done. Hail Svennig.
I agree, hail Svennig. |
|
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 16:46:00 -
[711] - Quote
See how easy it is?
Never mistake the volume of posts for the popular support of an idea. Especially when considering someone like Phunnestyle, who has demonstrated willingness to distort the feedback process to his own ends. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
406
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 12:19:00 -
[712] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Post with your main.
He did on the last page.
Roboticus420 wrote:Phunnestyle wrote: I LOL@U over & over. +1 Signed
I had my money on him being NCdot too, as he didn't bite on the ev0ke comments I made. +1 to me!
However at this point I'm going to have to ignore his posts. Him self-quoting above without even realising he forgot to switch alts means either; a) Phunnestyle is a master troll feeding off this thread - who doesn't care about supercaps so much as our replies to his posts, or b) he is actually serious, and therefore so mentally deficient he doesn't realise how bad his posting is. In which case any continued prodding is just plain cruel. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
329
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 10:46:00 -
[713] - Quote
A brief list of modifications
Shield slaves (with recharge penalty) Dead space invuls (lol@600mill cn invuls) Shields are at 100% when boarded
Naglfar loses missiles, missile bonuses, gains a turret plus second damage bonus
Phoenix has citedel torps that hit stationary caps for something approaching full damage, whilst not completely sucking against moving ones.
Chimera gets +100 CPU. Also why the **** are caldari so CPU constrained in general??
Change the hels logi bonus for something useful Increase Hell CPU. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Lacolo Basema
Kotar Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 15:04:00 -
[714] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:A brief list of modifications
Shield slaves (with recharge penalty) Dead space invuls (lol@600mill cn invuls) Shields are at 100% when boarded
Naglfar loses missiles, missile bonuses, gains a turret plus second damage bonus
Phoenix has citedel torps that hit stationary caps for something approaching full damage, whilst not completely sucking against moving ones.
Chimera gets +100 CPU. Also why the **** are caldari so CPU constrained in general??
Change the hels logi bonus for something useful Increase Hell CPU.
The problem isn't the Hel and Chimera CPU, it's a general problem with capital shield boosters and shield transfers of all sizes. They really need to be looked at. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 16:32:00 -
[715] - Quote
the problem with changing the shield module stats is that they will be applied to every capital, including supercrapitals. i wold much rather see the ships that really need the change get worked on than such a broad and sweeping change. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 22:25:00 -
[716] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:the problem with changing the shield module stats is that they will be applied to every capital, including supercrapitals. i wold much rather see the ships that really need the change get worked on than such a broad and sweeping change.
Then you're missing the point.
First of all, every carrier has a problem with shield. This points to a problem with the mods, not the ships.
Secondly, supercapitals don't tend to fit large numbers of remote reps or transfers. One or two maybe, but not a full rack. And they already have absolutely no ******* problem whatsoever fitting them. And as for CSBs, don't make me laugh. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 04:08:00 -
[717] - Quote
i do not understand why you make such a generalization. you lump armor carriers in with shields using this arguement and an archon should not be able to even marginally shield tank. i disagree with your premise for your argument due to that reasoning. the modules do their jobs just fine. hell, a CSB nearly outperforms 2x local armor rep. i still maintain my position that the ships need attention and not the mods. all of the shield modules work as intended they just need platforms that handle them as well as their armor counterparts. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 09:33:00 -
[718] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:i do not understand why you make such a generalization. you lump armor carriers in with shields using this arguement and an archon should not be able to even marginally shield tank. i disagree with your premise for your argument due to that reasoning. the modules do their jobs just fine. hell, a CSB nearly outperforms 2x local armor rep. i still maintain my position that the ships need attention and not the mods. all of the shield modules work as intended they just need platforms that handle them as well as their armor counterparts.
Consider it an occam's razor of EVE. If you have two possible ways of balancing something, the one that results in the fewest changes is the one that you should take.
Let's say that we forget about CSBs for a moment (as these are mired in problems associated with CPR IIs). We could boost the CPU of the chimera, the nidhoggur and the thanatos to make them more shield-rep friendly. That's three changes. Or we can reduce the CPU usage of module that is common to these ships - the CST. That's one change.
You think that if these mods get reduced CPU cost you're going to see shield tanking archons? You're mentally damaged.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
142
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 10:41:00 -
[719] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote: Shields are at 100% when boarded
Phoenix has citadel torps that hit stationary caps for something approaching full damage, whilst not completely sucking against moving ones.
They "normally" already do hit stationary caps for full damage. The smallest capital sig is 2860 m, citadel torp explosion radius is 2000 m. The problems can only arise when Evasive Manoeuvres (max 35.16% sig reduction), or the Ragnarok's sig bonus is applied (37.5%). Considering that standard X-Instinct is only 7.5% sig reduction, I think that Evasive Manoeuvres is extremely overpowered. I mean, just compare it with some of the laughable Info links...
Pattern Clarc wrote:Naglfar loses missiles, missile bonuses, gains a turret plus second damage bonus
Only if you also do the same for the Phoenix. Leaving the Phoenix as the only missile-armed Dread will make it (even more) hated. |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 10:55:00 -
[720] - Quote
We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012. |
|
|
Koen L
Galactic Defence Consortium United Pod Service
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 13:30:00 -
[721] - Quote
To see so many drastically changes after so many years is frustrating. I made long time plans to fly one race-¦s big ship. I also made long time plans to focus on producing one race ship. The skilling time to fly one race mothership or even titan is really something.
But to see that every second patch everything changed completly is bad.
Thats not balancing. Thats hitting with a hammer on porcellan and destroy everything. Instead you should turn a finethreaded screw sensitivly and not completly screw up the whole shipsets.
I want to see stability so i can make decisions which affect my gameplay for years. Building a motherhsip or even titan is something (well for me), and this issue should be solved soon.
Instead i see friends in motherships quitting eve because flying a supercapital just sucks. Dont follow populistic opinions of players who just make the loudest noise. Close yourself into one room, throw away the key and find a good balanced solution fast, please. Sometimes its better just leave things like they are. People will adapt. I can adapt. But i dont want throw away my long time plans every 2nd Patch. GÖ½ When your ship gets blown to bits GÖ¬ GÖ½ And you lose your Faction fits GÖ¬ \Gÿ+/ Don't worry GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ Be Happy \Gÿ+/ |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 13:30:00 -
[722] - Quote
hey, your the one who said all carriers svennig. i've been having a reasonable dialogue with you here. no need to get uppity |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 13:37:00 -
[723] - Quote
Koen L wrote:To see so many drastically changes after so many years is frustrating. I made long time plans to fly one race-¦s big ship. I also made long time plans to focus on producing one race ship. The skilling time to fly one race mothership or even titan is really something.
But to see that every second patch everything changed completly is bad.
Thats not balancing. Thats hitting with a hammer on porcellan and destroy everything. Instead you should turn a finethreaded screw sensitivly and not completly screw up the whole shipsets.
I want to see stability so i can make decisions which affect my gameplay for years. Building a motherhsip or even titan is something (well for me), and this issue should be solved soon.
Instead i see friends in motherships quitting eve because flying a supercapital just sucks. Dont follow populistic opinions of players who just make the loudest noise. Close yourself into one room, throw away the key and find a good balanced solution fast, please. Sometimes its better just leave things like they are. People will adapt. I can adapt. But i dont want throw away my long time plans every 2nd Patch.
You are stupid. For more than 6 years Titans and Motherships were ****. You weren't crying about it then. When they changed both ship classes to something else, that was game shattering content by your standards. May I recommend the back left corner of the room for crying? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 15:04:00 -
[724] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:hey, your the one who said all carriers svennig. i've been having a reasonable dialogue with you here. no need to get uppity
FWIW I'm referring to shield reps, not shield tanking. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one shield tanking carrier, the chimera. Everything else should (and does) armor tank. Fixing CSBs might allow for (say) the nid to shield tank, but no-one in their right minds will at the moment. It's most important for the chimera, as this will make chimera triage fits on a par with the archon.
Apologies if two issues have been conflated. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 15:05:00 -
[725] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012.
<3 Tallest. Thanks for all the hard work, keep up the two way dialogue, and have a good Christmas break. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 18:00:00 -
[726] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012.
Cheer for at least taking care of the feedback we provide.
Do you have any clue if you'll attend to change something with the Hel and more generally with shield capitals/supercapitals ? I know you already intend to apply shield as armor does, give us a DED invu and maybe some implants. But do you actually consider rebalancing the Hel so it's a ship that people would like to fly as much as the 3 others supercarrier ? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 22:58:00 -
[727] - Quote
just FYI our triage nids are running shield boosters and have been doing so for more than 2 years now. they do this while running 3x armor RR's for the gang. it works amazingly well.
after reading your first post on the subject of how to balance this all out. i would not complain if they did go the way you suggest with the shield stuff svennig. i would however be a very a sad panda if a thanny or nid could do as much as a chimera or archon could for their respective fleet compositions. the scale should look something like this
armor - archon then nid then lolthanny then lolchimera
shield - chimera then nid then lolthanny then lolarchon
yea, i am hatin on the thanny. its a drone boat it should suck ass at logistics compared to the other three races. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 23:38:00 -
[728] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:just FYI our triage nids are running shield boosters and have been doing so for more than 2 years now. they do this while running 3x armor RR's for the gang. it works amazingly well.
after reading your first post on the subject of how to balance this all out. i would not complain if they did go the way you suggest with the shield stuff svennig. i would however be a very a sad panda if a thanny or nid could do as much as a chimera or archon could for their respective fleet compositions. the scale should look something like this
armor - archon then nid then lolthanny then lolchimera
shield - chimera then nid then lolthanny then lolarchon
yea, i am hatin on the thanny. its a drone boat it should suck ass at logistics compared to the other three races.
This raises an interesting question, however. Do you run CSB triage nids because there's an advantage in shield, or because (pre crucible) a 3 CRAR 1 CET 2 CAR nid wasn't feasible due to powergrid issues?
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 01:42:00 -
[729] - Quote
its more or less because cap power relays benefit the over all cap recharge more so than the mid slot cap rechargers do.
i think they are viable now but, they cannot sustainably rep or be given a resistance profile that is suitable for our uses. especially now that a moros alone can over come its tank if the pilot has tech 2 siege skills
edit: when i say viable i mean fitting wise. i have to ask him before i post it but, if he does not mind i'll show you what we've been using |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 08:08:00 -
[730] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:its more or less because cap power relays benefit the over all cap recharge more so than the mid slot cap rechargers do.
i think they are viable now but, they cannot sustainably rep or be given a resistance profile that is suitable for our uses. especially now that a moros alone can over come its tank if the pilot has tech 2 siege skills
edit: when i say viable i mean fitting wise. i have to ask him before i post it but, if he does not mind i'll show you what we've been using
Aaah yes, that's another interesting aspect of it. |
|
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 19:13:00 -
[731] - Quote
MastahFR wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012. Cheer for at least taking care of the feedback we provide. Do you have any clue if you'll attend to change something with the Hel and more generally with shield capitals/supercapitals ? I know you already intend to apply shield as armor does, give us a DED invu and maybe some implants. But do you actually consider rebalancing the Hel so it's a ship that people would like to fly as much as the 3 others supercarrier ?
CCP Tallest can you tell us if you might consider re-balancing the Hel so it's align with the 3 others supercarrier (ie. not sucking) ? |
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 11:56:00 -
[732] - Quote
or any shield capital for that matter |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 16:49:00 -
[733] - Quote
Svennig this is something you would see us use.
[Nidhoggur, New Setup 1] True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Capital Neutron Saturation Injector I Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module II Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
i'll never use it until the triage II changes come into play because i think the tank leaves it with a small/med gang skirmish role and that is quickly disappearing due to the damage changes to dreadnaughts. we typically run armor so, this may look like a bastard fit to some but, when the ships in triage it is on it's own so, you got to tank with what you can get.
the ship has absolutely no fitting issues in this setup but, again the tank is around 8k active so, i'm reluctant to use it.
another thing. you mentioned the slot layouts of the archon and chimera. i'll post these so you can see where you are about how these slot layouts compromise regen rates of capacitor.
[Archon, triage standard] True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit Capital Inefficient Armor Repair Unit
Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Triage Module II Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Coaxial Regenerative Projector Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
[Chimera, standard triage] True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay True Sansha Capacitor Power Relay
Imperial Navy Cap Recharger Capital Neutron Saturation Injector I Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Imperial Navy Cap Recharger Imperial Navy Cap Recharger Imperial Navy Cap Recharger
Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I Capital Murky Energy Transmitter I Triage Module II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit II Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
so, price difference aside, examine the lows and mids on these two ships. subract reps and resistance mods. these ships have the same recharge mod layout. the tanks are nearly identical as well. the chimera actually gets a little bit of an advantage over the archon since its resists are slightly better. lol, i'm starting to talk myself out of changes to the chimera.
edit: i found whats unreasonable. the capital shield trans require about 10% more cap to activate than capital RR's |
Dizztar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 23:16:00 -
[734] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:edit: i found whats unreasonable. the capital shield trans require about 10% more cap to activate than capital RR's So do capital shield boosters. Please stop trying to make shield tanking identical to armour tanking, they're not meant to be the same thing. Shield tanks are meant to be stronger (via better resists from invulns), cost more cap and hence run in shorter bursts. Armour is meant to be easier to sustain for longer periods but at a lower repair rate (EANMs - the armour omni tank mod - give way lower resists).
Please keep in mind while balancing that you're comparing apples to oranges.
|
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 00:23:00 -
[735] - Quote
Not really a problem- hilarious actually. Still.... CCP Tallest.... sup? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 01:04:00 -
[736] - Quote
dizzler, you need to read a bit more than the last post. svennig and i are discussing particuliars of the med/low energy mods and how they contrast and relate to the chimera and archons performance. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 01:10:00 -
[737] - Quote
the triage II will actually imabalance this since the chimera will not be able to fit the module without a CPU boost and the archon will be able to fit it without any issues at all. and since it means a massive reduction in activation cost of the RR's the archon can now fit an additional 1-2 EANM's instead of CPR's this means that the ship is now going to be a real bastard to to take down before it can get out triage and receive reps. this will not be much of an issue in k-space where a couple supers can punish someone for even fielding a traditional capital but, in wormhole space it means the balance between shielding and armor is going to tip even further in the favor of the armor fleet.
which is fine by me and most of my corp if you really want to go there but, it seems like a shame that half of the potential fleet comps will be made completely obsolete in w-space due to this very small detail |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 01:22:00 -
[738] - Quote
The chimera desperately needs more CPU, 10-20% more CPU, it won't fit Triage II even with faction and meta mods in a standard 3 triple remote 1 shield booster fit, it still painful when its only 2 remote.
Its capacitor is also rather weak. |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 03:33:00 -
[739] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:the triage II will actually imabalance this since the chimera will not be able to fit the module without a CPU boost and the archon will be able to fit it without any issues at all. and since it means a massive reduction in activation cost of the RR's the archon can now fit an additional 1-2 EANM's instead of CPR's this means that the ship is now going to be a real bastard to to take down before it can get out triage and receive reps. this will not be much of an issue in k-space where a couple supers can punish someone for even fielding a traditional capital but, in wormhole space it means the balance between shielding and armor is going to tip even further in the favor of the armor fleet.
which is fine by me and most of my corp if you really want to go there but, it seems like a shame that half of the potential fleet comps will be made completely obsolete in w-space due to this very small detail
This, and why havn't capital ship self-destructs been changed yet?
But to be fair Zarak, you know the only viable way to drop carriers in W-Space is to use bhaalgorns; raw damage output in W-Space is always much smaller than K-Space as well because of the limited number of battleships used. The burst tank of a carrier in these situations tends to be irrelevant (except in invasion scenarios where the defender has dreads) . Cataclysmic holes are the exception to this rule because local tank takes a huge hit.
TBH, I don't know where the Triage 2 module should even go. Triage is already strong as hell in W-space, but in known space where its more blobby its weaker.
You guys should really run the numbers with the new T2 ganglinks. They benefited armor much more than shield (1.69 triaged cycle time makes a bigger difference for end of cycle reps+ resistance gain is higher in general). If a triage carrier can remote rep in 1.69 secs, I don't think I can say end of cycle is much of a drawback (1.43 sec overheated).
I won't lie though, I've never seen anyone bring a shield carrier out for pvp in W-space. Archons having that cap energy transfer range can keep your bhaalgorns fed, whereas a nid you are stuck with the 16.5km range for cap energy transfers. Yes, bassys and guardians can be used, but bassys are much easier to alpha down than guardians, and you end up back at square 1. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:13:00 -
[740] - Quote
So CCP... given that Titans now can lock (quickly) and alpha frigates moving at full transversal... even pods... thoughts? |
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
529
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 07:13:00 -
[741] - 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? |
Redon
Most Wanted INC White Noise.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 23:33:00 -
[742] - Quote
Easy fixes:
Naglfar - Remove missile launchers (make pure turret boat)
Nidhoggur - Increase rr bonus to 25% per level, increase cap amount by an extra 5-10k
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.
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
572
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 08:10:00 -
[743] - 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? |
Ingwine
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 12:00:00 -
[744] - Quote
Yes. Hels are useless in supercaps fleets now. You can see there only 1 seldom. I don't know what bonuses they need to have to be a full-bodied part of it (maybe one day we'll see the shield sc fleet lol). The incoming balance for insta-boost shield fleet bonuses (oh, I hope) should get Hel close to Nyx in ehp, but others... Definitely remrep bonus must be higher than for carriers, much higher, not like a carrier in triage - half of it or so or/and less cap use for ST and RR. IMHO. |
Redon
Most Wanted INC White Noise.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 20:29:00 -
[745] - Quote
Headerman wrote: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
what upcoming changes do you mean? |
whoyoulookingat
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 01:52:00 -
[746] - Quote
Remove the ability of all carriers, Dreads, supers & Titans offensive weapons of being able to lock onto any ship class smaller than a Capital hull.
Reps, smarties.. no issues with these.
Capitals should be used with a fleet period. If you take one out with support, don't come b*tching that you lost it.
Give all Carriers, dreads, supers & titans an improved version of the Remote ECM burst as a "Get out of Jail" card. Something along the lines of: Scale each one to the class, increase re-activation delay & put in a penalty that it can't be used if drones are out & once activated, will offline all highslot modules.
As for the Naglfar - just remove the d*mn split weapon system & allow people to fit 4 guns.
/rant off - coffee mode on |
doombreed52
Neotech Industries Infinite Improbabilities
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 04:05:00 -
[747] - Quote
whoyoulookingat wrote:Remove the ability of all carriers, Dreads, supers & Titans offensive weapons of being able to lock onto any ship class smaller than a Capital hull. Reps, smarties.. no issues with these. Capitals should be used with a fleet period. If you take one out with support, don't come b*tching that you lost it. Give all Carriers, dreads, supers & titans an improved version of the Remote ECM burst as a "Get out of Jail" card. Something along the lines of: Scale each one to the class, increase re-activation delay & put in a penalty that it can't be used if drones are out & once activated, will offline all highslot modules. As for the Naglfar - just remove the d*mn split weapon system & allow people to fit 4 guns. /rant off - coffee mode on
first off post with main you twit
and second really so carriers cant lock on to sup capitals and have light drones attack it i mean really. your idea is just very stupid and short sighted. capitals ships should all be the same with the ecm burst.
and the amount of coding and and remaking of it would add unnecessary time just so you can feel safe in a sub capital when a capital group is on grid.
while you're at it why dont you make it so the only sub capital ship that can lock capital is a hic. thats how dumb your idea is just post with your main you tard. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
582
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 07:46:00 -
[748] - 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? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
172
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 08:01:00 -
[749] - Quote
Caldari capital fix
Phoenix: Caldari Dreadnought Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to missile damage and 5% bonus to Capital Launcher rate of fire per skill level + 10% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret optimal per level 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level +2 turret slots +5 scan resolution
so it can choose between missiles or hybrids
Chimera+Wyvern: 5% resist bonus changed to 7,5% /lvl +200 base cpu +5 scan resolution
|
Max Khaos
Element 27 Intrepid Crossing
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 10:58:00 -
[750] - Quote
Fix the Hel ............... as a super it sucks. |
|
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 15:29:00 -
[751] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Caldari capital fix
Phoenix: Caldari Dreadnought Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to missile damage and 5% bonus to Capital Launcher rate of fire per skill level + 10% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret optimal per level 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level +2 turret slots +5 scan resolution
so it can choose between missiles or hybrids
Chimera+Wyvern: 5% resist bonus changed to 7,5% /lvl +200 base cpu +5 scan resolution
first, the Phoenix change won't happen as it takes too much time to generate a new model with turret-hardpoints. The other dread changes seem quite fair to me, though I don't have a dread and don't care about them much either.
What i do care about is the wyvern. To be honest, I would rather have a slave implant for shields as well as the change how shield buff were added then those 2.5% more base resist. Scan resolution, well as long as supers don't have a full flight off fighters and bombers the wyvern does not need it, and the 200 base cpu, well don't need it either.
Regarding the chimera though I would appreciate those changes, it really does need a cpu boost or cap shield transfers need a reduction in cpu need. Either way it's definitely needed.
So CCP, give us a heads up ! |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 04:35:00 -
[752] - Quote
phoenix already has 1 turret hardpoint. if i had the skill to fit it, i would post a screen shot here. perhaps someone here is crosstrained enough to do that |
Emmerik
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:58:00 -
[753] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54112&find=unread |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:39:00 -
[754] - Quote
Capital Shield Transporters have had their cpu fitting decreased significantly:
Data from Sisi:
Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I cpu: 157.0 => 126.0
Capital Shield Transporter I cpu: 175.0 => 140.0
I don't fly a chimera or a nid, but looks like you'll be able to fit your shield carriers properly now.
Oh and there are now Deadspace Invulnerability fields. Hopefully this will cause Faction Invuls to fall down in price. |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 02:12:00 -
[755] - Quote
Good they did put a new deadspace invu. But fact is, the Hel still suck as supercarrier and need an urgent fix. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
413
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 16:59:00 -
[756] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Capital Shield Transporters have had their cpu fitting decreased significantly:
Data from Sisi:
Capital Murky Shield Screen Transmitter I cpu: 157.0 => 126.0
Capital Shield Transporter I cpu: 175.0 => 140.0
I don't fly a chimera or a nid, but looks like you'll be able to fit your shield carriers properly now.
Oh and there are now Deadspace Invulnerability fields. Hopefully this will cause Faction Invuls to fall down in price.
Yeah it's now possible to fit suicide shield-triage fits that dont require special named mods and CPU implants.
The deadspace invuln fields bring the Caldari supercaps inline with the other races very well (if a Leviathan goes all-tank it's actually now the best titan for EHP). The Rag could use a slight buff (5% shield) while the Hel and Revenant should probably get some kind of raw shield HP-related bonus. After this I don't see any need for 'shield slave set' or 'armour crystal set' equivalents.
MastahFR wrote:Good they did put a new deadspace invu. But fact is, the Hel still suck as supercarrier and need an urgent fix. That's an insightful and well-reasoned arguement you've put forward there. I'm sure CCP will get right on fixing this critical issue at once! |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 18:13:00 -
[757] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:That's an insightful and well-reasoned arguement you've put forward there. I'm sure CCP will get right on fixing this critical issue at once!
It as been said countless time (since 2 years and more than 10+ threads) why this ship is useless. I'm just bumping the thread so that CCP don't forget about us Minmatar pilots. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:55:00 -
[758] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:phoenix already has 1 turret hardpoint. if i had the skill to fit it, i would post a screen shot here. perhaps someone here is crosstrained enough to do that Confirming it does, but I could never figure out where... maybe tonight I'll mount one.
|
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:57:00 -
[759] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Caldari capital fix
Phoenix: Caldari Dreadnought Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to missile damage and 5% bonus to Capital Launcher rate of fire per skill level + 10% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret optimal per level 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level +2 turret slots +5 scan resolution
so it can choose between missiles or hybrids
Chimera+Wyvern: 5% resist bonus changed to 7,5% /lvl +200 base cpu +5 scan resolution
The phoenix needs a missile velocity buff. It does enough damage and being missile based is fine. |
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
65
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:33:00 -
[760] - Quote
Carriers are fine.
Supers: Remove the damn RR-bonus already, they shouldn't be able to dish out 10 000 dps (theoretical ofc) and give the same amount of dps in repping power. Imagine battleships doing 1 000 dps and spidertanking 1 000 dps per BS.
Titans: Nerf tracking allready. Change the tracking formula and use the "signature resolution" that all guns have to determine the amount of max damage a ship can do to another ship.
Ex: A ship that has a 300m signature radius gets shot at by a ship with large guns that has a 1000m signature resolution, the max damage that the 300m ship can receive when hit perfectly is then 30% (or something) of the theoretical max damage the big ship can do |
|
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:59:00 -
[761] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Carriers are fine.
Supers: Remove the damn RR-bonus already, they shouldn't be able to dish out 10 000 dps (theoretical ofc) and give the same amount of dps in repping power. Imagine battleships doing 1 000 dps and spidertanking 1 000 dps per BS.
Titans: Nerf tracking allready. Change the tracking formula and use the "signature resolution" that all guns have to determine the amount of max damage a ship can do to another ship.
Ex: A ship that has a 300m signature radius gets shot at by a ship with large guns that has a 1000m signature resolution, the max damage that the 300m ship can receive when hit perfectly is then 30% (or something) of the theoretical max damage the big ship can do Those are called missiles. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 20:37:00 -
[762] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Titans: Nerf tracking allready. Change the tracking formula and use the "signature resolution" that all guns have to determine the amount of max damage a ship can do to another ship.
This, most of all.
The new "tracking titan" fad is doing a pretty good job of killing the game.
Losing a fleet fight? Drop 50 titans that can hit frigates moving at speed. |
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:03:00 -
[763] - Quote
Jaigar wrote:Rixiu wrote:Carriers are fine.
Supers: Remove the damn RR-bonus already, they shouldn't be able to dish out 10 000 dps (theoretical ofc) and give the same amount of dps in repping power. Imagine battleships doing 1 000 dps and spidertanking 1 000 dps per BS.
Titans: Nerf tracking allready. Change the tracking formula and use the "signature resolution" that all guns have to determine the amount of max damage a ship can do to another ship.
Ex: A ship that has a 300m signature radius gets shot at by a ship with large guns that has a 1000m signature resolution, the max damage that the 300m ship can receive when hit perfectly is then 30% (or something) of the theoretical max damage the big ship can do Those are called missiles.
I guess you could make all titans use missiles, but that's a stupid idea tbh. |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 08:05:00 -
[764] - Quote
Xtover wrote:Rixiu wrote:Titans: Nerf tracking allready. Change the tracking formula and use the "signature resolution" that all guns have to determine the amount of max damage a ship can do to another ship.
This, most of all. The new "tracking titan" fad is doing a pretty good job of killing the game. Losing a fleet fight? Drop 50 titans that can hit frigates moving at speed.
So because youre to stupid to counter a few titans obviously they need a nerf... you do know that once you nerf them to ******** dread level tracking they wont do **** for damage even on capitals once they move?.. I'll say this 40b in minerals should damn well be able to kill something.. once tracking is gone titans will be useless cuz there wont be a single reason to field them in cap fights.. the only significant advantage they hold over other capitals and supers IS their tracking... cuz DD is already on a level where it is practically useless. |
EmmerTemp
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 13:49:00 -
[765] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote: .. I'll say this 40b in minerals should damn well be able to kill something..
Yep... agreed... Titans should be able to shoot subcaps as they do now, but... they are at the moment tracking interceptors and that should not be possible or atleast be very hard. They can shoot BS and maybe some large BC but no frigates.
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 18:04:00 -
[766] - Quote
Just thought I would ask a question that's been on my mind. In your folks opinions have the Dreadnaught changes led to more usage of the ship class or not? Outside of worm holes that is.
|
EmmerTemp
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 18:31:00 -
[767] - Quote
yes... the 5min Triage buff was the best thing that ever happend to Dreads |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 19:27:00 -
[768] - Quote
EmmerTemp wrote:Baki Yuku wrote: .. I'll say this 40b in minerals should damn well be able to kill something..
Yep... agreed... Titans should be able to shoot subcaps as they do now, but... they are at the moment tracking interceptors and that should not be possible or atleast be very hard. They can shoot BS and maybe some large BC but no frigates. Even Artillery Tempests shot Interceptors prior to Quantum Rise. Evading turret tracking is not missile/rocket science. The formula is known, if you do not want to get hit, behave such that the turret cannot hit you.
As for the hit quality cap based on signature resolution - as has already been mentioned, this would make turrets missiles with tracking, and therefor always inferior to missiles without tracking. Let's just introduce the 'Damage Thing II' module that does $something and remove all weapons from the game.
And as for a previous comment that shield slaves are no longer needed since some magical fittings are now comparable - what were the compared fits and how many tanking slots were used? Call me a nonbeliever, but I doubt that an Avatar with slaves and 8 slots for tank has comparable tank to a Leviathan with 7 Hardeners and 1 DC II (8 slots each!) just because already existing modules got renamed.
Using numbers from current pyfa, EHP is comparable when the Levi starts using an additional 8th hardener and 4 CN PDS in lows. So a 13 slot shield tank is balanced against an 8 slots armortank? Really? |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 17:55:00 -
[769] - Quote
The problem is not tracking of Titans at this point, it's the counter means to any ship that tries to abuse tracking that is creating the problem.
Webbing got nerfed a while back because 3 webs on any ship reduce it's speed to the point where it will fall within the tracking of almost any ship. But it never actually fixed the problem because when you allow stacking of webs based on a % reduction, it's always going to screw a ship's speed.
Think about this, a 3000 m/s ship with 1 web is going to be reduced to 1200 m/s. The 2nd web is going to reduce it further down to about 500 m/s. We can stop right there and already see a problem. 500 m/s falls within the range of most BS CR guns tracking at 10km optimal. For a titan, this same ship falls within the Titan's tracking limits at about 50km Optimal. There's only 2 types of ships able to reach this speed in the first place in a usual setting. Oversized AB ships, or MWD ships. This means the only ways to break a ships tracking after 2 webs is a means of increasing your sig by 500% or, by limiting your ship with an oversized AB.
There's 2 ways to fix this. Eliminate stacking of webs, which is a highly unlikely solution, but honestly one of the best potential fixes to ship class size warfare. Or, Eliminate the range multiplier on tracking.
The 2nd one almost nobody understands, but is a huge problem with tracking in this game. Currently under the game mechanics, Sig radius only starts to impact quality hits significantly if the tracking limit of a ship is at 50% or more capacity. This is why you can hit a 0m/s transversal ship for basically full damage no matter what sig radius it has. But how does tracking actually work. Well since it's based on Rad/Sec, the further away your are from an object, the slower your transversal becomes.
So if a Titan has ~ .0100 Rad/Sec Tracking, this means for every 10km of range, it can track 100 m/s of speed. So at 50km range, It can track at up to 500 m/s of speed at full effect. At 100km it can track at 1,000m/s. Because of the way a battle field unfolds, it's very hard to keep everybody inside of 50km of all targets, so if you have 5-6 titans on field, chances are, 3 of them will be at appropriate range to hit a target that is either webbed or w/o an speed modules on. This means that BC's and BS at 50km range, will be hit very easily unless they add speed because they are well under that 50% of tracking that I mentioned where sig really starts to impact guns.
The solution to this problem is simple... add a 3rd part to the calculation where range impacts the sig multiplier. It would be similar to a dilation in math where the farther you get from the center of the dilation, IE the guns shooting you, the more the sig would affect the calculation. The way I would personally do this is to give every gun in game a Base range for it's Signiture calculation. So for titan guns, this could be maybe 30km for their Close range guns. If I dilate my range by a scale factor of 2 from this sig radius, then my range from the titan becomes 60, meaning the Sig of gun doubles. So at 60km, a close range Titan turret would have a Signiture of 2,000 instead of the base 1,000. This would mean that ships wouldn't be penalized nearly as much for trying to fight outside of web range, or at the limits of web range.
For battleships, this means that adding an Afterburner instead or in addition to an MWD and fighting at ~ 50km would potentially break the titans tracking/sig calculation rather than allowing for the current Blapping.
30KM is just an example, obviously the number would have to be tweaked depending on what gun and what size it was. But the fix seems to fall within the current calculation scheme as a potentially easy fix to a huge problem w/o a total redesign of gun tracking or webs.
Basically, the effect is that the further something is away from you, the harder it is to hit... rather than the current mechanic where, the farther it is from you, the easier it becomes to hit. Anyone who's ever been to a gun range would gladly tell you how ******* stupid that is. |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
117
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:13:00 -
[770] - Quote
The above problem is pretty much half of the reason why AFs and interceptors got their sig bloom reduction bonus. And by the looks of it, EAFs will get it too. |
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:34:00 -
[771] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Because of the way a battle field unfolds, it's very hard to keep everybody inside of 50km of all targets, so if you have 5-6 titans on field, chances are, 3 of them will be at appropriate range to hit a target that is either webbed or w/o an speed modules on. That is called crossfire and being caught in it is supposed to hurt.
Quote:This is also a cool effect to help close range gun tracking issues such as the Blaster Mega because you can make it's base sig hold out to 50km meaning It will almost never have to worry about the Signiture issues. Meanwhile, you could nerf Pulses a bit since they already get the huge optimal advantage by making their Sig Range maybe 15km so that smaller ships gain an advantage by fighting at 30 or 50km. What advantage? With your calculation, regardless of size, damage application degrades well within optimal. A pulse zealot would already shoot with close to battleship gunsignatures at the end of its scorch optimal range, severely hindering it to shoot its own size.
Signature-reduced (Halos/Ganglinks) frigates would be immune to practically everything as long as they move.
Quote:You could also boost rails very nicely with this sort of change by making their Signature hold much further than beams or Artilleries, allowing for much more quality hits. Meaning everyone flies rails again, since beams and artileries cannot compete anymore?
|
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:45:00 -
[772] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Because of the way a battle field unfolds, it's very hard to keep everybody inside of 50km of all targets, so if you have 5-6 titans on field, chances are, 3 of them will be at appropriate range to hit a target that is either webbed or w/o an speed modules on. That is called crossfire and being caught in it is supposed to hurt. Quote:This is also a cool effect to help close range gun tracking issues such as the Blaster Mega because you can make it's base sig hold out to 50km meaning It will almost never have to worry about the Signiture issues. Meanwhile, you could nerf Pulses a bit since they already get the huge optimal advantage by making their Sig Range maybe 15km so that smaller ships gain an advantage by fighting at 30 or 50km. What advantage? With your calculation, regardless of size, damage application degrades well within optimal. A pulse zealot would already shoot with close to battleship gunsignatures at the end of its scorch optimal range, severely hindering it to shoot its own size. Signature-reduced (Halos/Ganglinks) frigates would be immune to practically everything as long as they move. Quote:You could also boost rails very nicely with this sort of change by making their Signature hold much further than beams or Artilleries, allowing for much more quality hits. Meaning everyone flies rails again, since beams and artileries cannot compete anymore?
You obviously skimmed it considering I said it would require a lot of number tweaking depending on the gun and the race. You can always give smaller guns larger base sig ranges compared to their potential optimals. It sort of makes sense considering smaller guns are supposed to be more effective.
Your pulse zealot example is just shear trolling retardedness since the base sig on a Pulse is 125 off the top of my head which means if it were given a 15km sig range, it would have to be shooting at ~ 45km before it had even near the sig penalty of a BS... and it would still have a massive amount more tracking. And again, if you had read the post or understood the tracking calculator in this game, you'd understand how important that much higher tracking is compared to sig radius. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 19:40:00 -
[773] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Your pulse zealot example is just shear trolling retardedness since the base sig on a Pulse is 125 off the top of my head which means if it were given a 15km sig range, it would have to be shooting at ~ 45km before it had even near the sig penalty of a BS. And a heavy pulse 2 zealot with scorch and a single tracking enhancer has around 40km optimal.
So, at around the end of its scorch optimal, it gets close to battleship weapon signature. You can call me names however you like, my statement was neither trolling nor ********, just fact.
[Edit] And to make one thing clear - you do not break designs by testing their comfort zone. A good design is characterized by being a lot easier to apply correctly then incorrectly. And produce predictable, non-dramatic results in cases that were not specifically designed for.
If you can not be bothered to defend your theory against the problematic cases without insulting people, you yourself obviously do not think very highly of it. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 20:03:00 -
[774] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Your pulse zealot example is just shear trolling retardedness since the base sig on a Pulse is 125 off the top of my head which means if it were given a 15km sig range, it would have to be shooting at ~ 45km before it had even near the sig penalty of a BS. And a heavy pulse 2 zealot with scorch and a single tracking enhancer has around 40km optimal. So, at around the end of its scorch optimal, it gets close to battleship weapon signature. You can call me names however you like, my statement was neither trolling nor ********, just fact. [Edit] And to make one thing clear - you do not break designs by testing their comfort zone. A good design is characterized by being a lot easier to apply correctly then incorrectly. And produce predictable, non-dramatic results in cases that were not specifically designed for. If you can not be bothered to defend your theory against the problematic cases without insulting people, you yourself obviously do not think very highly of it.
You've avoided the tracking difference both times, which if you had read the OP, you would realize matters way more than what you are saying.
All you are trying to defend is that an un-webbed frigate at 45km is going to be able to dodge scorch pulse. I do not see how this is an issue in terms of common sense balance considering that the frig will be doing virtually nothing at that range. A MWD or oversized AB cruiser will be hit or suffer greatly to avoid the tracking in any significant manner at that same range with my ridiculously early alpha number projections. So you're trying to flame a post on total nonsense is my point. Maybe you should try a different tone yourself before replying, b/c it appears all you want to do is negrep the idea rather than discuss it. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 20:30:00 -
[775] - Quote
Everything you write about tracking is a pure reproduction of the current game mechanics. What is there for me to avoid?
It's simply an introduction setting up your proposal of a new element in the chance to hit formula, that modifies weapon signature based on range. That has the potential to create circumstances similar to old nanophoons or domis where specific speed/signature combinations are invulnerable to entire classes of ship/weapon combinations since the range in which it can not be tracked switches directly into the range in where it is too diluted to be hit.
That is the fundamental problem in the practical implementation of your theory, which you leave completely unanswered except that it probably can be done by someone with a lot of per-gun tweaking. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 20:42:00 -
[776] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Everything you write about tracking is a pure reproduction of the current game mechanics. What is there for me to avoid?
It's simply an introduction setting up your proposal of a new element in the chance to hit formula, that modifies weapon signature based on range. That has the potential to create circumstances similar to old nanophoons or domis where specific speed/signature combinations are invulnerable to entire classes of ship/weapon combinations since the range in which it can not be tracked switches directly into the range in where it is too diluted to be hit.
That is the fundamental problem in the practical implementation of your theory, which you leave completely unanswered except that it probably can be done by someone with a lot of per-gun tweaking.
You can't nano phoon your way out of this idea. There is simply no way for a nano phoon to take advantage of anything since with an MWD, it's sig is going to climb, with a web loki/huggin, it's speed is going to fall, with a Scram proteus or arazu, it's MWD is going to turn off, or with a range beyond 45, it won't project damage. Again, if you had read the post, it states specifically that you can implement racial differences to create proper balance as well.
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 20:51:00 -
[777] - Quote
Similar to. Not the same, but alike in behaviour. Similar.
A ship that itself can still apply damage, but due to its speed/signature ratio can practically not be hit at all by a broad range of ships it is engaging. |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 12:11:00 -
[778] - Quote
Sorry "I'm Down"
Nerfing the web is really not a good idea and certainly not the solution.
But if you increase the weapon signature on the capital turret, it's certainly the best thing to do.
With 2000 of weapon signature that would be difficult to track HAS ans perhaps Battleship afterburner in short range. If you can't track you can come with support with web.
PL have already make some test with titan and loki with web, in this case you have not problem to hit your target.
The problem now it's titan didn't need support, we are exactly in the same situation than before crucible with the mothership.
Change stacking web : You have a lot of problem against nano fleet (or tengu 100mn). Tracking stacking : it's a problem for Amarr BS and certainly not a good idea.
Perhaps the best way in short term will be. That will be not possible to fit tracking module on titan or painter ETC.
or create some capital tracking module (with less bonus than T2) and use a lot of cap. |
Miriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 14:43:00 -
[779] - Quote
Chimera needs to be able to fit a triage fit with a local tank of 3 hardners/amps(combined) + shield booster + cap II's
4 beta reactor CPR
3 cap RR (t1) 1 Cap. cap transfer and a t2 triage module
Thanatos, uh? what to do with this thing ? allow it to field fighters(only fighters to prevent superfast lock on smaller vessels fast and abuse sentries etc, if it becomes a problem) while in Triage? atleast it gets use of it's damage bonus then.
Assuming 2 RR modules and a triage module you'd get 1500 dps with 2 links, 1375 with 3 RR mods and only 1 drone link. from it with perfect skills, this could make it worth fielding in smaller engagements, Archon would be able to rep as much/more and tank alot more + transfer cap
Tank tradeoff for some extra dps, keeps the ship unique from the others and sort of makes sense for the "drone race and all that yo!" stuff
Not saying it's the perfect solution to fixing the Thanny but as it stands now it's by FAR the worst triage carrier by a big margain. |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 15:10:00 -
[780] - Quote
AspiB'elt wrote:Sorry "I'm Down"
Nerfing the web is really not a good idea and certainly not the solution.
But if you increase the weapon signature on the capital turret, it's certainly the best thing to do.
With 2000 of weapon signature that would be difficult to track HAS ans perhaps Battleship afterburner in short range. If you can't track you can come with support with web.
PL have already make some test with titan and loki with web, in this case you have not problem to hit your target.
The problem now it's titan didn't need support, we are exactly in the same situation than before crucible with the mothership.
Change stacking web : You have a lot of problem against nano fleet (or tengu 100mn). Tracking stacking : it's a problem for Amarr BS and certainly not a good idea.
Perhaps the best way in short term will be. That will be not possible to fit tracking module on titan or painter ETC.
or create some capital tracking module (with less bonus than T2) and use a lot of cap.
Webbing can be bumped up to 75% max to help counter the pure nano destruction of old. But if you're only allowed 1 web and a scram to neutralize speed, then you're not going to be able to achieve anything more than maybe 1200 m/s if your MWD stays on in the fastest of frigates or about 500 if you oversize AB a ship. That's a totally fair scenario for speed vs webbing.
Especially considering there are further counters such as Neutralizing and Missile fleets that kick in with those much lower speed fleets as counters. |
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
252
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 16:34:00 -
[781] - Quote
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. |
Ryans Revenge
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 12:53:00 -
[782] - Quote
I think it all needs looking at a high level again myself. After talking to friends I personally believe the following:
Titan: As is but can only shoot capital ships. Should not be able to 1 shot anything at all and multiple doomsdays should not be allowed on a single target. Hitting for big damage and cripling tanks for dreads to finish up targets. Maybe even possibly change the role from damage ship to an extremely large bhaalgorn type ship that can kill other capital tanks adding another level of gameplay to fleet fights.
Motherships: Should be ships that carry other ships. E.g. A cynoable station people can dock in then undock on the field. Very limited offensive power other than to protect itself. Maybe insane tanking ship. Should be able to carry a whole lot of ships so when people die they can effectively redock and reship. This means it would be a BIG target to take out for the opposing fleet to stop reinforcements.
Carrier: Capital Logistic ship to repair other capital ships. Also very limited offense. Maybe no drones at all but bonus' to all sorts of remote modules.
Dread: Capital damage ship. Brings the pain. The main offensive ship out there but dies easily without the support of the carrier and the mothership bringing in the fleet. Should have a very weak tank unless they are in seige. Should not be allowed to self rep but can be remote repped while in seige. Therefore needing the support of carriers to be used.
Obviously these are radical changes but open up a lot more interesting game play. |
Ryans Revenge
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 13:00:00 -
[783] - Quote
Also regarding the above this would reduce the amount of drones/fighters on field decreasing lag. You could then even introduce a second tier of dreads with different damage bonus' like you do with other ships in game. Just for an easy example you could have a gallente blaster dread and also a gallente fighter dread.
Just food for thought. |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 13:27:00 -
[784] - Quote
The doomsday is and has always been stupid in all its forms and has always provided an incentive to mass titans which is even more stupid.
What if it was an area effect debuff?
Amarr: -5% capacitor recharge and cap transfer per level Gallente: -3% armor resistances per level Caldari: -3% shield resistances per level Minmatar: -5% remote rep and shield transfer effectiveness per level
Affects all enemies and neutrals on grid. No more reason to field more than one Titan of each type (let's leave the tracking aside as it's a separate thing), other than perhaps for backup. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 15:59:00 -
[785] - Quote
made-up-on-the-spot idea:
The doomsday should be a grid-wide siege module rather than a directly offensive weapon. Titan in FC slot activates DD, titan is frozen in place for 5 minutes, all ships on grid and in fleet get massive tanking and damage bonuses similar to those provided by a local siege module. Doesn't work inside POS shields, etc. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
68
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:20:00 -
[786] - Quote
EmmerTemp wrote:Baki Yuku wrote: .. I'll say this 40b in minerals should damn well be able to kill something..
Yep... agreed... Titans should be able to shoot subcaps as they do now, but... they are at the moment tracking interceptors and that should not be possible or atleast be very hard. They can shoot BS and maybe some large BC but no frigates.
This, as I said in a previous post about titans tracking you should not be able to shoot a fly with a bazooka. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 22:19:00 -
[787] - Quote
Hi.
The current Raiden. turret-fit Titans have an average tracking of 0.02. The Pandemic Legion turret-fit Titans are similar.
To give everyone a basline; the GSF/CFC Alphafleet Maelstrom has a tracking of 0.01 and the standard pulsebaddon has a tracking of 0.04.
While this is a very obvious issue that isn't particularly difficult to figure out, part of the issue arises not from the actual supercapital hull but from the current meta involving min/maxing the fits as much as humanly possible for maximum results through the liberal usage of faction/officer mods.
The single worst issue with current supercapital meta is their intensely effective tracking; so much so that titans are able to obliterate even ships like a Cynabal and Dramiel moving at high transversal due to the fact that all it takes to one-shot them is a glancing blow.
The practical application of damage from a titan against a subcap is obscene. Raw damage capabilities of a grouped set of Titan weapons fit for tracking and damage lead to the only requirement for use against subcapitals being whether or not they hit. Their immense raw damage means that any hit will instantly kill nearly any subcapital ship regardless of how well they hit. A glancing blow will instantly destroy all but the heaviest of buffer-fit battleships. The issue of immensely heavy-buffer fit battleships, however, is that a tracking of 0.02 will have no issues whatsoever landing solid blows against them. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 22:26:00 -
[788] - Quote
Note that the above post is post-nerf; the use of remote tracking links on Titans to increase their effectiveness in combat was not particularly common practice, and were, for the most part, edge cases and niche uses.r
The tracking issues for Titans are entirely within the confines of the Titans themselves. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
602
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 09:01:00 -
[789] - 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? |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
433
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:40:00 -
[790] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:Hi.
The current Raiden. turret-fit Titans have an average tracking of 0.02. The Pandemic Legion turret-fit Titans are similar.
To give everyone a basline; the GSF/CFC Alphafleet Maelstrom has a tracking of 0.01 and the standard pulsebaddon has a tracking of 0.04.
While this is a very obvious issue that isn't particularly difficult to figure out, part of the issue arises not from the actual supercapital hull but from the current meta involving min/maxing the fits as much as humanly possible for maximum results through the liberal usage of faction/officer mods.
The single worst issue with current supercapital meta is their intensely effective tracking; so much so that titans are able to obliterate even ships like a Cynabal and Dramiel moving at high transversal due to the fact that all it takes to one-shot them is a glancing blow.
The practical application of damage from a titan against a subcap is obscene. Raw damage capabilities of a grouped set of Titan weapons fit for tracking and damage lead to the only requirement for use against subcapitals being whether or not they hit. Their immense raw damage means that any hit will instantly kill nearly any subcapital ship regardless of how well they hit. A glancing blow will instantly destroy all but the heaviest of buffer-fit battleships. The issue of immensely heavy-buffer fit battleships, however, is that a tracking of 0.02 will have no issues whatsoever landing solid blows against them.
Agreeing with a DHD post... times must be tough
Nerf bazookas, protect the flies! |
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 02:57:00 -
[791] - Quote
I miss AOE doomsdays |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 22:30:00 -
[792] - Quote
I still don't buy these "wiping out Dramiels with high/max transversal" stories, particularly seen as they are always lacking any details (e.g. "yeah well that guy was triple webbed, and triple painted, and at 100km distance...")
Even if you can get the tracking up to 0.02 rads/sec (4 Cormacks tracking computers with scripts and 5% hardwiring right?....) the sig. resolution is still around 4 times the sig. radius of a MWD'ing frigate, and 2.5 times the sig. resolution of large turrets.
'Wrecking hits' of course, are a different kettle of fish, but aside from those I'd wager 'pilot error'...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
47
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 07:06:00 -
[793] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:I still don't buy these "wiping out Dramiels with high/max transversal" stories, particularly seen as they are always lacking any details (e.g. "yeah well that guy was triple webbed, and triple painted, and at 100km distance...")
Even if you can get the tracking up to 0.02 rads/sec (4 Cormacks tracking computers with scripts and 5% hardwiring right?....) the sig. resolution is still around 4 times the sig. radius of a MWD'ing frigate, and 2.5 times the sig. resolution of large turrets.
'Wrecking hits' of course, are a different kettle of fish, but aside from those I'd wager 'pilot error'...
I too am very skeptical about these claims as well. As a capital pilot my guns have trouble hitting cruisers with 3 tracking computers at 40km moving at 200ms.
Until i see actually evidence, I will have to dismiss these claims as factors separate from turret tracking. |
Max50
Parental Control HELL4S
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 13:24:00 -
[794] - Quote
The main problem when dealing SCs with subcaps wasnt really the abiblity of the sc's to do high damage with lots of drones.It was the fact that dropping 20 sentry drones(even T1 because many times you just left them if you had to bail) and assigning them to 1 target caller with a target painter was enough to make the perfect alpha strike fleet that worked properly in various lag contitions.The subcap dude never knew if he was getting primaried because only 1 dude was locking him so the logistics made no difference. What would be the case though if the sc's didnt had the option to assign drones to 1 target caller?You would have a sc gang with low scan res that each pilot had to take the broadcasted target and wait for the target caller to fire.This by itself would negate the alpha strike issue for subcaps,it would give time to someone to warp off,broadcast for reps(he would see all those yellow boxes) and recieve satisfactory amount of reps because in null sec there are many logistic ships fielded.It would stop the ridiculous jump in...drop sentries and assign to,go afk to make cofee and return when the 250 welp gang is dead 5 minutes later.
As sc's are now,there is a lot of gaming content lost especially for smaller entities or even solo players.With the addition of the new agro mechanic you wouldnt have to make a 50 man gang to kill a sc in 15 minutes.I think removing the possibility for a small entity to have the option to project a lot of power using expensive ships is not good.It creates even more blob when everyone is "asking" to deblob.How can a small entity grind sov structures now?It cant. its kind of stupid to nerf a ship so much that was and still is a very nice target for blobs to kill but was usefull to use against a blob to hit them too. In the end i am not really mad not to drop a sc in POSs and stuff,perhaps a bit disapointed to see a nice PVP ship turned to just an amazing ISK grinder making more than 500MIL per hour with it |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Viking Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.22 16:21:00 -
[795] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:Hi.
The current Raiden. turret-fit Titans have an average tracking of 0.02. The Pandemic Legion turret-fit Titans are similar.
To give everyone a basline; the GSF/CFC Alphafleet Maelstrom has a tracking of 0.01 and the standard pulsebaddon has a tracking of 0.04.
While this is a very obvious issue that isn't particularly difficult to figure out, part of the issue arises not from the actual supercapital hull but from the current meta involving min/maxing the fits as much as humanly possible for maximum results through the liberal usage of faction/officer mods.
The single worst issue with current supercapital meta is their intensely effective tracking; so much so that titans are able to obliterate even ships like a Cynabal and Dramiel moving at high transversal due to the fact that all it takes to one-shot them is a glancing blow.
The practical application of damage from a titan against a subcap is obscene. Raw damage capabilities of a grouped set of Titan weapons fit for tracking and damage lead to the only requirement for use against subcapitals being whether or not they hit. Their immense raw damage means that any hit will instantly kill nearly any subcapital ship regardless of how well they hit. A glancing blow will instantly destroy all but the heaviest of buffer-fit battleships. The issue of immensely heavy-buffer fit battleships, however, is that a tracking of 0.02 will have no issues whatsoever landing solid blows against them.
You're stupid you know that? Titan Tracking is fine as is wanna know why? Cuz you have to trade tank for tracking sounds perfectly fine for me.. Titans in groups are no more or less balanced then a 1000 man alpha fleet.. the only reason we hear so many goons ***** about titans is because you're to stupid to counter it. And yes there are ways and strategies to counter the titan blob you just think that bitching about them will let CCP fix it for you. Guess what you guess'd wrong. Sooo sorry... |
Isbariya
Fnord Works The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 10:58:00 -
[796] - Quote
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 ! |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 13:48:00 -
[797] - Quote
Still no news about the Hel possible change ? We got the DED invu great, now what about a ship we could use ? |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1143
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 13:25:00 -
[798] - Quote
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. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
602
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 07:39:00 -
[799] - 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 -
[800] - 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? |
|
H3llHound
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 22:32:00 -
[801] - Quote
rofl, everygoons start bitching around when a 90B space-**** is slapping them in the face. Winter has come, gone and nothing happend. Maybe for summer you want to be able to fit XL guns on your almighty subcap fleets. Adapt and start cynoing in dreads en masse...worked once before. Or maybe all the ships should just track like a dread in siege :rolleyes: |
stagz
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 05:15:00 -
[802] - Quote
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.
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
603
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 07:33:00 -
[803] - 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? |
I'm Down
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:35:00 -
[804] - Quote
The tracking formula in combination with Webs is what's borked in this game. Anyone who think's titan gun tracking changes will fix the problem is just clueless about the actual issue and how experienced players can abuse tracking.
As for dread tracking, you can get it to basically 70% of titan tracking...which is still crazy high tracking when you understand mechanics.
Not to mention, with capitals in their current state, it's incredibly easy to drop them on others, and much much harder to counter drop vs an organized opponent. Everyone experienced in Supercap Warfare knows it's really just a measure of DD calculations and interdictors. |
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 09:59:00 -
[805] - 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.
+1
|
Klytior Am'jarhs
Amarrian Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 13:23:00 -
[806] - Quote
Supers are to fight other capitals. That is what they need to do, no reason at all why they should have fighters. |
Bonny Lee
Columbus Exploration Company
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 15:27:00 -
[807] - Quote
I actually do like the ideas that supers are only working with a full fleet to back them up. => 3-4 supers for a full fleet. problem solved. If they come without fleet they cant use weapons. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
606
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:21:00 -
[808] - 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? |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 09:02:00 -
[809] - Quote
You are wrong right there... To make a game fun and balanced it's okay to allow small ships a hero role against bigger ships, but you have to be very carefull about making the bigger ships able to bully the small ships. It's all about creating a game where bigger isn't necesarily better... |
Shadowsword
The Scope Gallente Federation
113
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 15:52:00 -
[810] - Quote
Headerman wrote: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.
Subcaps already can't fight caps without hugley outnumbering them, so your point is irrelevant. Them being able to target supercaps is useless if you can't achieve anything with it on your own.
A more relevant comparaison would be to have battleships being able to switch whenever they want between Large, anti-BS guns and small, anti-frig guns. It's not done for balance purposes, to avoid solopwnmobiles. And there is no reason for supercaps to escape that balance rule just because they cost a bit to build.
Don't forget that supercaps are two sizes above battleships. |
|
Draconus Lofwyr
The Green Cross Controlled Chaos
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:06:00 -
[811] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:Headerman wrote: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. Subcaps already can't fight caps without hugley outnumbering them, so your point is irrelevant. Them being able to target supercaps is useless if you can't achieve anything with it on your own. A more relevant comparaison would be to have battleships being able to switch whenever they want between Large, anti-BS guns and small, anti-frig guns. It's not done for balance purposes, to avoid solopwnmobiles. And there is no reason for supercaps to escape that balance rule just because they cost a bit to build. Don't forget that supercaps are two sizes above battleships.
really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
but some already can, t2 ammo allows for those changes, drone boats like the domi can carry a full range of drones for that, so so much for that argument. Also BS's are 2 sizes above frigates, your point ( but a supercarrier is technically a tier 2 carrier, so only 1 and a bit above a battleship ) |
Msgerbs
Imperial Assualt Guild
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 05:14:00 -
[812] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
but some already can, t2 ammo allows for those changes, drone boats like the domi can carry a full range of drones for that, so so much for that argument. Also BS's are 2 sizes above frigates, your point ( but a supercarrier is technically a tier 2 carrier, so only 1 and a bit above a battleship ) Oh no a Gallente ship is versatile whatever shall we do?! Drones can be killed quickly by frigates, there's your balance. |
Draconus Lofwyr
The Green Cross Controlled Chaos
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:53:00 -
[813] - Quote
Msgerbs wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
but some already can, t2 ammo allows for those changes, drone boats like the domi can carry a full range of drones for that, so so much for that argument. Also BS's are 2 sizes above frigates, your point ( but a supercarrier is technically a tier 2 carrier, so only 1 and a bit above a battleship ) Oh no a Gallente ship is versatile whatever shall we do?! Drones can be killed quickly by frigates, there's your balance.
and so can fighters. and fighter bombers. but supercarriers have no other weapon options. perhaps we should allow weapon subsystem targeting on other ships? how would you like your rack of missles or lasers to be taken out? |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 21:38:00 -
[814] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
Look at how dumb you are.
(all it takes is one heavy neut and that hictor loses its tackle and the supercarrier escapes)
|
CrimsonChrono
RedSun Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 01:23:00 -
[815] - Quote
One thing that I would like to see is a change to the Naglfar, right now I think it is probably the worst of all the dreads. With the split damage type (Projectiles/Missile). First off to get full use of the ship you have to max out 3, 7x skills (Capital Projectile, Citadel Cruise, and Citadel Torpedo) each with there own large class weapon 5x skill that needs rank V. Which is a huge amount of skill points needed, far more then needed with any other ship. Also with the split damage type you have to waste lots of low slots trying to get any use of the missiles, wasting much needed low slots for other mods, lets face it capital missiles suck with out a ship bonus.
I suggest get rid of the missiles all together, why not get rid of the useless missiles and put on two more turrets, and bring its dps in line with the other dreads.
For example I have a friend I fly with a lot, we have same skill points, V in all things for our dreads and all gunnery skills. We are pretty much the same in every way except their dread does 2x the dps that the Naglfar does. If the Naglfar was given 3 turrets and no missiles it would be an improvement but it would still be lacking. With 4 projectile turrets it would be brought in line with the other dreadnaughts.
Suggested fittings 5 High Slots - 4 Turret hardpoints - 0 Missiles 6 Med Slots 6 Low Slots
I love the Naglfar but it never gets used because it sucks compared to the other dreads. It takes way to much time and skill points to fly properly, fitting is difficult to chose between damage or tank. Just get rid of the split damage type and make it like the other dreads. |
Draconus Lofwyr
The Green Cross Controlled Chaos
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 04:10:00 -
[816] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
Look at how dumb you are. (all it takes is one heavy neut and that hictor loses its tackle and the supercarrier escapes)
and without resorting to name calling, see the new t2 hictor point range and the ability to stay outside of even officer heavy neuts range. this point counterpoint can go on all day.
To be honest, the changes didn't change the way supers are used, just the way they dies when not in battles. They are still being used in massive numbers, and still being abused. the EHP nerf did nothing but speed the inevitable death a little. The nerf just made sure that they WILL get deployed in mass numbers. Again relegating supers to the tool of the major powers. |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:04:00 -
[817] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:HELIC0N ONE wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
Look at how dumb you are. (all it takes is one heavy neut and that hictor loses its tackle and the supercarrier escapes) and without resorting to name calling, see the new t2 hictor point range and the ability to stay outside of even officer heavy neuts range. this point counterpoint can go on all day.
If the hictor is using its heavy point, then even better: remote ECM burst to break its lock and you're free to go. |
Charles Edisson
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:00:00 -
[818] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:Headerman wrote: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. Subcaps already can't fight caps without hugley outnumbering them, so your point is irrelevant. Them being able to target supercaps is useless if you can't achieve anything with it on your own. A more relevant comparaison would be to have battleships being able to switch whenever they want between Large, anti-BS guns and small, anti-frig guns. It's not done for balance purposes, to avoid solopwnmobiles. And there is no reason for supercaps to escape that balance rule just because they cost a bit to build. Don't forget that supercaps are two sizes above battleships.
Following this logic a BS should not be able to shoot a cruiser sized hull. |
Shadowsword
The Scope Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:18:00 -
[819] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
"All it takes", eh?
You have a strange definition of those words, when you mention a killer fleet in the same sentence.
Pray tell, what are the supercap's friends doing while that kill fleet is on it's way? Sipping tea somewhere?
My point still stand, there is no subcap ship that can do anything it itself to a supercap. And because of that, there is no balance justification for giving supercaps the ability to slaughter subcap ships.
You want to defend yourself against subcap ships? CCP want you to do it with a subcap escort, end of argument. |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 22:27:00 -
[820] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
"All it takes", eh? You have a strange definition of those words, when you mention a killer fleet in the same sentence. Pray tell, what are the supercap's friends doing while that kill fleet is on it's way? Sipping tea somewhere?
"I botted for 2 whole months to buy this supercap! I shouldn't have to worry about things like support fleets, or tactics, or fittings!" |
|
Sarrein Razor
RazorCorporation NUNQUAM RETRO
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:37:00 -
[821] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Shadowsword wrote:Draconus Lofwyr wrote:really, all it takes is one hictor and a super is dead eventually, just hold it in place till the kill fleet arrives.
"All it takes", eh? You have a strange definition of those words, when you mention a killer fleet in the same sentence. Pray tell, what are the supercap's friends doing while that kill fleet is on it's way? Sipping tea somewhere? "I botted for 2 whole months to buy this supercap! I shouldn't have to worry about things like support fleets, or tactics, or fittings!"
Just because you and your friends get your ISK by botting, that doesnt mean that everyone else does. Most of the supercaps where earned through moon mining or reactions anyway.
Stop asking CCP to change the game to favour your playstyle. How about adapting to the game instead? |
EmmerTemp
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 08:46:00 -
[822] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=70166&find=unread |
Shaak Ti
D00M. Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 06:52:00 -
[823] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012.
Any news on this? |
MastahFR
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 19:35:00 -
[824] - Quote
Shaak Ti wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012. Any news on this?
Yea, were is the promise CCP made about re-balancing minmatar capitals (all of them) ? That does include the Hel. The Hel is still a useless flying brick. When is that gonna change ? They said they were looking at Shield capitals... Were are the implants ? Were are all the other stuff they spoke about to re-balance them ? |
Nazowa
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 13:08:00 -
[825] - Quote
MastahFR wrote:Shaak Ti wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:We are here and we are reading your feedback.
We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012. Any news on this? Yea, were is the promise CCP made about re-balancing minmatar capitals (all of them) ? That does include the Hel. The Hel is still a useless flying brick. When is that gonna change ? They said they were looking at Shield capitals... Were are the implants ? Were are all the other stuff they spoke about to re-balance them ?
Should be interesting. |
GeneralDouchbag
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:39:00 -
[826] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Caldari capital fix
Phoenix: Caldari Dreadnought Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to missile damage and 5% bonus to Capital Launcher rate of fire per skill level + 10% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret optimal per level 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level +2 turret slots +5 scan resolution
so it can choose between missiles or hybrids
Chimera+Wyvern: 5% resist bonus changed to 7,5% /lvl +200 base cpu +5 scan resolution
first, the Phoenix change won't happen as it takes too much time to generate a new model with turret-hardpoints. The other dread changes seem quite fair to me, though I don't have a dread and don't care about them much either. What i do care about is the wyvern. To be honest, I would rather have a slave implant for shields as well as the change how shield buff were added then those 2.5% more base resist. Scan resolution, well as long as supers don't have a full flight off fighters and bombers the wyvern does not need it, and the 200 base cpu, well don't need it either. Regarding the chimera though I would appreciate those changes, it really does need a cpu boost or cap shield transfers need a reduction in cpu need. Either way it's definitely needed. So CCP, give us a heads up ! '
the phoenix already has a Turret hardpoint.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |