Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
547
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 15:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've mentioned a few other times how I feel that the capital remote reps are imbalanced with respect to the Triage module, and how I feel that the Triage module should be buffed to be on par with the Siege module. Accompanied with a corresponding nerf to capital remote reps that keeps their abilities while a carrier is in Triage exactly the same as they are now would, I feel, go a long way towards resolving the capital logistics imbalance that drives fleet doctrines like SlowCats.
But then I got to thinking: this still leaves Carriers very combat-capable while still sporting strong, if no longer overly strong, remote repping abilities. In Dreadnaughts, we limit their combat abilities severely when they are not Seiged, so wondered what would happen if we placed the same restriction on Carriers.
I came up with this:
1. Allow Carriers to fit Siege Modules. 2. Carriers may no longer launch fighters unless they have a Siege module fit and active. 3. Modify Siege Modules to disable all outgoing remote reps and disallow the use of non-fighter drones. 4. Buff Triage Modules to give the same caliber of bonus as Siege Modules, and nerf Capital Remote Reps so that they provide the same overall benefit while a carrier is in Triage. (This is the item I mentioned earlier.)
This would give a Carrier three "states".
1. "Normal", in which they have limited combat, logistics, and local tanking ability, but are fully mobile and able to receive remote reps. 2. "Triage", in which they have no combat ability, are immobile, and cannot receive remote reps, but have strong local tank and remote repping ability. 3. "Siege", in which they have no remote repping ability, are immobile, and cannot receive remote reps, but have strong local tank and fighter combat ability.
"Normal" carriers would still be able to fight and remote rep, but if they want to be fully effective at either, they have to commit to it for at least 5 minutes (the length of a Siege/Triage timer). I do understand that carriers can simply refit off each other to swap modules, so in light of that I don't feel the existing slot layouts should be changed. (i.e. They don't need another high slot to accommodate a Siege Module.)
I am also torn about "Normal" carriers and non-fighter drones. They can carry an effectively unlimited number of them which gives them a huge boost to their combat ability, but given that they wouldn't be able to use fighters and drones in the same state, I think it's okay as is. I'd be open to somehow nerfing normal drones on carriers, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
Thoughts? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Arden Elenduil
Scary Devil Monastery
151
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 16:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why on earth would you want to do this? Carriers and dreads are 2 completely different shipclasses, with different roles. Don't try to force one role onto the other!!! There's no need for this at all.
Sorry, but a big -1 from me. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Can see what your going for and on some levels I don't disagree but ultimately it would be one bandaid on a bigger problem.
A lot of the bigger blobs use assisted sentries rather than fighters for damage as well which would reduce the potential usefulness of the change. Personally I'm not that favourable towards nerfing carrier's ability to fit normal drones.
One thing that might help to address huge capital blobs - though I've not looked at the numbers - would be to reduce the range bonus on capital reps out of triage and increase it in triage to compensate but not sure how many capitals you can realistically fit into a smaller area as to whether that would really have any impact but potentially makes bumping them out of range easier and possibly puts a cap on the rep density for any given area maybe. |
LOL56
Galactic Express
71
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
this is a silly idea, because fighters already suck, no need to make them worse. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
548
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rroff wrote:A lot of the bigger blobs use assisted sentries rather than fighters for damage as well which would reduce the potential usefulness of the change. Personally I'm not that favourable towards nerfing carrier's ability to fit normal drones. It's assisted sentries coupled with strong remote repping capability that causes the issue. Nerf the remote reps, and the sentries become less of an issue. Maybe not less enough, but less. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Rroff wrote:A lot of the bigger blobs use assisted sentries rather than fighters for damage as well which would reduce the potential usefulness of the change. Personally I'm not that favourable towards nerfing carrier's ability to fit normal drones. It's assisted sentries coupled with strong remote repping capability that causes the issue. Nerf the remote reps, and the sentries become less of an issue. Maybe not less enough, but less.
no its mostly the sentries you remove that problem and now sub caps are needed to kill the other subcaps and you can kill those a lot easier under carrier reps |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
844
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 18:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Wonder how it would work if carrier drones were damage bonused at the expense of tracking/weapon sig/rate of fire essentially making sentries/heavies into capital grade weapons, etc. not sure if its possible to balance it so its not easily worked around by webbing and tping. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |