EVE Search - Dread/Carrier discrepancy, Wish for triage-only RR capabilities

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Dread/Carrier discrepancy, Wish for triage-only RR capabilities

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 988	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:01:23 - [1] - Quote Among Caps, Dreads are refered to as well balanced (to other ship classes). They are DPS monsters with the need for a subcap fleet that are entirely useless outside of siege. Carriers are the opposite, extremely useful in triage at repairing and feeding cap, but out of triage they are nearly as good as Logistics and even more ramp up into nigh unbreakable RR-blobs. So, to save the supers for the future, drastically reduce the RR-trasnfer-amount )remote repairs/remote cap) of a non-triaged (non super-)carrier, in a way as dps for a non-sieged dread is reduced. This would put a non-triage archon with 3 reps, 2 large transfers unable to capchain, and the repoutput of only a few guards out of triage, and unchanged in triage. Ideally, restrict Carriers to Fighters only. If people want to blap inties still, need drone mods. But no inexhaustable swarm of warriors or EC-300 dropping on the trigger after cap escalations.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 509	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:16:47 - [2] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: So, to save the supers for the future, drastically reduce the RR-trasnfer-amount )remote repairs/remote cap) of a non-triaged (non super-)carrier, in a way as dps for a non-sieged dread is reduced. This would put a non-triage archon with 3 reps, 2 large transfers unable to capchain, and the repoutput of only a few guards out of triage, and unchanged in triage. +100^100000000000000000000000000000 Yes pls. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 271	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:58:21 - [3] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: [stuff] [tl;dr (massively) reduce the base capital RR and cap transfer amount, and boost the triage bonus] [stuff] I have said this before, and I agree with it now someone else is saying it For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 108	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:42:36 - [4] - Quote Yes to the triage changes, No to the fighter-only change. The UI update we deserve
WarFireV Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 413	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:45:19 - [5] - Quote Do you have any idea of how bad fighters are? Just asking.
Nac Lac Vicis Inter Astrum Triumvirate. 5	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:09:10 - [6] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Among Caps, Dreads are refered to as well balanced (to other ship classes). They are DPS monsters with the need for a subcap fleet that are entirely useless outside of siege. Carriers are the opposite, extremely useful in triage at repairing and feeding cap, but out of triage they are nearly as good as Logistics and even more ramp up into nigh unbreakable RR-blobs. So, to save the supers for the future, drastically reduce the RR-trasnfer-amount )remote repairs/remote cap) of a non-triaged (non super-)carrier, in a way as dps for a non-sieged dread is reduced. This would put a non-triage archon with 3 reps, 2 large transfers unable to capchain, and the repoutput of only a few guards out of triage, and unchanged in triage. Ideally, restrict Carriers to Fighters only. If people want to blap inties still, need drone mods. But no inexhaustable swarm of warriors or EC-300 dropping on the trigger after cap escalations. Have you calculated what the output of a guardian is verse an archon? At max skills, one archon with 3 t1 reppers, the more expensive ones, can output 990 hp/s. A guardian with 4 repairers can do 341 hp/s. Which makes three guardians able to out rep a carrier. Add on the fact that a guardian has 20 additional kilometers of rep range and your argument holds no weight. This is before considering that a guardian can be fitted with 5 repairers in some circumstances. With drones, why not look to reduce the size of the bay instead of looking at neutering a carriers combat potential. They can hold so many drones because a fighter is 5,000 m3. Drop the size of fighters and the bay will drop as well. Alternatively, instead of crippling the ability of carriers to deal with subcaps, give the carrier a two bays, one for fighters and a small bay for subcap drones, say 1,000m3. Enough to hold a variety but not an infinite variety. 1,000 m3 is enough for 40 sentries by the way and nothing else. More than fair for a fight in my estimate.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:46:08 - [7] - Quote To be perfectly honest I'd rather see carriers be used to carry sub-caps instead of swarms of drones. I'd be an interesting way for sub-caps to utilize cyno jumps with out the need for a titan and a way to refit or reship in combat with out fighting a god awful UI. Although I wanted this from the beginning, I have heard from pretty much everyone since, it's probably never going to happen for some monolithic technical obstacle or another so it's nearly impossibru also what I'd really like to see is a cap to fill gap between battleship and dread much like destroyers and BCs fill the gap be tween frigs, Cruisers, and Battleships.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 48	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:56:28 - [8] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Among Caps, Dreads are refered to as well balanced (to other ship classes). They are DPS monsters with the need for a subcap fleet that are entirely useless outside of siege. Nobody said the first part, and I couldn't agree more with the second... They are in need of a rebalance like the rest of the capitals now that structure bashing is going away. Something along the lines of a base line damage and a massive tracking bonus, then siege mode applies a tracking reduction and damage bonus. IE - siege mode anti-cap/structure, out of siege the "big stick" of a fleet that still requires fleet assistance to stay alive and apply damage. Lloyd Roses wrote: Carriers are the opposite, extremely useful in triage at repairing and feeding cap, but out of triage they are nearly as good as Logistics and even more ramp up into nigh unbreakable RR-blobs. So, to save the supers for the future, drastically reduce the RR-trasnfer-amount )remote repairs/remote cap) of a non-triaged (non super-)carrier, in a way as dps for a non-sieged dread is reduced. This would put a non-triage archon with 3 reps, 2 large transfers unable to capchain, and the repoutput of only a few guards out of triage, and unchanged in triage. Like I stated above for the dreads. Triage is meant for repping structures or saving other capitals from other capitals, much like dread's siege is meant for destroying them. Out of triage they are balanced for direct combat, which is why while in triage they cannot use their drones. Your complaint about RR and RC is actually a matter of scaling, something that could only be "fixed" by applying diminishing returns to them (not something that should ever be considered!). Reduce the amount of remote assistance, all you do is increase the number required for an effective fleet while killing the game play of small time users of the ship. And if you apply a diminishing returns then you will effectively kill off this form of combat entirely, and it would likely be applied to sub-caps as well destroying any purpose of bringing logi at all. And no my friend, that is not a good thing as you have now reduced the variety of ships brought into a fleet and hurt the little guys even more yet again. Lloyd Roses wrote: Ideally, restrict Carriers to Fighters only. If people want to blap inties still, need drone mods. But no inexhaustable swarm of warriors or EC-300 dropping on the trigger after cap escalations. I believe someone said this already... do you have any idea how BAD fighters are? Sentries/Geckos have better applied damage than them until you go full tracking fit which has no place in actual combat. Also frigates, and to an extent cruisers, should be left to the sub-cap fleets to handle anyway not the carriers/dreads themselves. -1 Please go fly one before you suggest changes again.
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:12:48 - [9] - Quote Add a tracking penalty for carriers using sentry drones, -50% tracking on sentries should make killing anything below battleship/capitals alot harder
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:43:50 - [10] - Quote Haatakan Reppola wrote: Add a tracking penalty for carriers using sentry drones, -50% tracking on sentries should make killing anything below battleship/capitals alot harder -1. No more drones nerfs, they are primary weapons for some ships and you try to cripple them.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:49:11 - [11] - Quote Atomeon wrote: -1. No more drones nerfs, they are primary weapons for some ships and you try to cripple them. Until they require cap and or ammo, slots, or any form of fitting load. may the nerf bat keep swinging.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3349	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:06:18 - [12] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Atomeon wrote: -1. No more drones nerfs, they are primary weapons for some ships and you try to cripple them. Until they require cap and or ammo, slots, or any form of fitting load. may the nerf bat keep swinging. So...neither drone bay or bandwidth, nor the requirements for the upgrades, are considered fitting requirements?
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1316	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:34:22 - [13] - Quote The ops making two different arguments. One is triage reps and non triage reps, which in most respects people can agree on. The drone thing is another issue. Note the op isn't talking about sentry drones, there talking about the very small ones (warriors, ec300's). Op makes a point, but that is really more of a argument regarding the universal use and ambiguity of the roles carriers have. To the first point though, it makes sense. The 2nd argument is beyond this thread and should be argued elsewhere. Yaay!!!!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1770	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:42:23 - [14] - Quote WarFireV wrote: Do you have any idea of how bad fighters are? Just asking. Well provided the right fitting they could kill subcap of pretty much any size so they are, provided a not so stupid fit, likely capable of at least targeting BS and probably BC. Not being able to fend off cruisers and under for a capital platform should be considered bad? Hell battleship have some application issue VS cruiser and under... It's not like they are supposed to be their own anti tackle arm while providing the logistic arm and dps for a fleet... At least not without re-fitting.
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:36:16 - [15] - Quote Atomeon wrote: Haatakan Reppola wrote: Add a tracking penalty for carriers using sentry drones, -50% tracking on sentries should make killing anything below battleship/capitals alot harder -1. No more drones nerfs, they are primary weapons for some ships and you try to cripple them. They are primary weapons for some ships, that does not mean they should stay the primary weapon for carriers. Im not suggesting all sentries getting-50% tracking, but that carriers get a role "bonus" that gives -50% sentry tracking. Capital ships should NOT operate with the same tracking as medium guns. Garde II have 0.036 rad/sec tracking and 24km optimal + 18km falloff (no skills or mods) 650mm Artillery Cannon II have 0.0261 rad/sec tracking and 19.3km optimal + 17.5km falloff (close to same range) Focused Medium beam Laser II (middle beam gun) have 0.0378 rad/sec tracking and 21km optimal + 6km falloff (close to same tracking) As we can see the tracking and range on Sentry is around the same as 2nd best long range medium guns, Capital ships with Battleship dps and cruiser tracking IS BAD!
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2119	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:07:22 - [16] - Quote Capital ships should not be useless outside of special modes. I.E. Dreads actually need a buff, they should be viable outside of siege, as this will allow them to actually participate in fleet fights more, and make siege an interesting option rather than a required part of their function. Same for carriers and triage, they should be able to perform a RR role outside of Triage, since it's not interesting to be forced to be immobile and local reps only in a larger fight. Does the total amount need a change downward, perhaps. But it should still be a practical amount, Triage should not be +500%.
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:23:44 - [17] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Capital ships should not be useless outside of special modes. I.E. Dreads actually need a buff, they should be viable outside of siege, as this will allow them to actually participate in fleet fights more, and make siege an interesting option rather than a required part of their function. Same for carriers and triage, they should be able to perform a RR role outside of Triage, since it's not interesting to be forced to be immobile and local reps only in a larger fight. Does the total amount need a change downward, perhaps. But it should still be a practical amount, Triage should not be +500%. Carriers are already VERY usefull outside of triage, thats what the drone DPS does along with stronger reps than logistic ships (lock time is not a problem when your locking another carrier) They need a nerf outside of triage, either to RR or drone use. Outrepping dedicated T2 RR ships and doing more dps than dedicated drone ships with 50-60x the EHP is a serious problem. A single Ishtar with 1 Basilisk using 5 T2 reppers have almost 5k tank (t2 shield resist in all mid slots, no armor tank to get more drone dps) do around 750 dps, carrier with 2x DDA do 830dps with Garde II. Comparable range and tracking AND same tank when paired with a similar fit carrier, ofc the carrier scale better with numbers since they provide bouth repping and DPS from the same ship. Disclaimer: I dont claim to have any optimal fit for either carrier, logistic ships or Ishtar
WarFireV Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 413	Posted - 2015.05.05 13:23:28 - [18] - Quote So basically this is another topic, where people who don't know much about ship stats, are talking like they know how to rebalance again. :/
The Newface Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2015.05.05 15:32:50 - [19] - Quote Yes carrier reps better then T2 logistics, you know just like T2 logistics reps better then frigs. If you feel carriers are so great fly one, nothing is preventing you from that. You will soon notice the down sides though, moving a carrier is a hassle, it may sound easy but its really not. You always have to have hot drops in mind since its more then worth dropping on a carrier. You also have to have a few million more skill points and spend at least 1B to field one. The only fix that's needed is to make BS slightly more powerful (yes that means they would eat cruisers, just like it should be) Figs > Destroyers > Cruisers > BS > Capitals (Granted with some variations within each group)
Thorr VonAsgard Never Surrender. Drama Sutra 56	Posted - 2015.05.05 15:42:22 - [20] - Quote +1 for triage change NO NO NO NO NO NO NO for fighter change You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com ! Envie de fraicheur ? Frugu, le forum fruité est fait pour toi !
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 48	Posted - 2015.05.05 15:46:46 - [21] - Quote WarFireV wrote: So basically this is another topic, where people who don't know much about ship stats, are talking like they know how to rebalance again. :/ Pretty much, spiced with players who would like to compare capitals to T2 cruisers in power level and think they should be on par with one another outside of siege/triage because balance?
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1016	Posted - 2015.05.05 16:38:19 - [22] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: WarFireV wrote: So basically this is another topic, where people who don't know much about ship stats, are talking like they know how to rebalance again. :/ Pretty much, spiced with players who would like to compare capitals to T2 cruisers in power level and think they should be on par with one another outside of siege/triage because balance? From my conception they aren't supposed to be the single one omniship that you can exclusively field if you want to win a fight over an objective. Surprisingly the big complaints coming from PL and Darkness. You're right though, I'm not a carrier pilot. Flying a dread tho, I see how siege/no siege outlines my vessel's capabilities, and on the other hand how carriers scale to infinity and back. I fooled around with flying a nid and using fighters to kill cruisers, so in a restriction to fighters only I don't see taking a carriers offensive capabilities, that's utter BS. It only means you have to refit to track things you aren't supposed to nuke in the first place, and - what's a lot more frightening for you - the number of times you can redeploy drones without giving a ** is greatly reduced. Nasar Vyron wrote:** I believe someone said this already... do you have any idea how BAD fighters are? Sentries/Geckos have better applied damage than them until you go full tracking fit which has no place in actual combat. Also frigates, and to an extent cruisers, should be left to the sub-cap fleets to handle anyway not the carriers/dreads themselves. I'm well aware how poor fighter application without OTLs and DNCs is. Those inacceptable fitting downsides were the whole idea. However, some good complaints made in this thread: Nuke carrier resists outside of triage is now the word!
Haatakan Reppola Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:44:09 - [23] - Quote The Newface wrote: Yes carrier reps better then T2 logistics, you know just like T2 logistics reps better then frigs. Figs > Destroyers > Cruisers > BS > Capitals 4 t2 repper Guardian rep less than a single meta 0 capital rep, so a single capital repper will outrep a dedicated ship, bring 2 along with Battleship dps and cruiser tracking. Basicly a carrier is to storng at to many things at the same time (no refitting needed) Destroyer > Cruiser > Battleship > Capital means that destroyers beat cruisers, cruisers beat battleship and battleship beat capital. This goes against carriers beeing able to use normal drones or even tracking mods for fighters :P
Ele Rebellion Dead Star Syndicate 38	Posted - 2015.05.05 20:04:13 - [24] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: Until they require cap and or ammo, slots, or any form of fitting load. may the nerf bat keep swinging. They don't use cap, but neither do Missiles or Projectiles. They don't use ammo, they ARE the ammo, and with the changes to NPC aggression Carrier pilots are loosing quite a few small and medium drones to sleepers and other rats. They DO use fittings. Drone Damage Amplifiers, Drone Link Augmenters, Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancers, Omnidirectional Tracking Links, Drone Navigation Computers, and Drone Control Units. (Then the drones themselves use bandwidth which is considered a fitting of its own) Your argument is invalid. On the other hand, I like where carriers are sitting currently. They aren't something that simple to train into. Long prerequisites and high multipliers on all skills associated with it. If I pilot takes the time to train into such skills then they should have a powerful ship for their effort. Trying to force carriers to become useless outside Triage makes no sense. The key to the survival of a carrier is its mobility. In triage a carrier looses that mobility and can easily become the target of dreads. Also if a group is capable of putting together several RR carriers (no small task) then they should not be easily vulnerable to a small group of Sub Capitals. (Unless you live in a Wolf-Rayet system, in which case a small group of 1,000dps enyo's mean you're gonna have a bad day)
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 48	Posted - 2015.05.05 20:29:24 - [25] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: From my conception they aren't supposed to be the single one omniship that you can exclusively field if you want to win a fight over an objective. Surprisingly the big complaints coming from PL and Darkness. You're right though, I'm not a carrier pilot. Flying a dread tho, I see how siege/no siege outlines my vessel's capabilities, and on the other hand how carriers scale to infinity and back. That's the thing, they are far from an "omni" ship if you catch one solo or even in a small group. Can they kill undersized ships? Yes, they were designed to do just that if properly fit. However their firepower on the scale of other capitals is garbage - as intended! You are comparing apples to oranges when you look at a carrier vs an Ishtar or carrier vs Guardian. You are failing to grasp the concept of the tiered system within EVE. Each step up reduces your ability to apply your damage to those below you, but increases your ship's combat efficiency via increased utility, firepower, and buffer. Imagine if you will a fleet of Guardians/Scimi/Basi/Oneiros spider tanking and fitting purely drone damage and tank. A small gang of cruisers and frigates would never kill them, yet they would destroy the opposing fleet despite having much lower firepower than a normal damage oriented hull. To take them out you would need more firepower/ecm to bring them down. Due to their low buffer, there is a critical number you can reach in which they will be volleyed off field. Now step that up to capital level hulls. You will find that it would take far fewer dreads to crack that nut. Let alone bringing a handful of supers or titans to the party and laugh as they melt with or without triage. As you can imagine that carrier fleet is just as helpless as the cruiser fleet was when greater firepower is brought to bear. This idea that a fleet of subcaps should be able easily break a spider tanked carrier fleet is a joke. You want them dead? Escalate! Otherwise you're just going to have a stalemate like Darkness had with a few Pizza fleets a while back. They would show up, take a few pop shots at us, and warp off again before our carriers could even get a lock. Yet here we are, where so many of you have never flow in a capital fleet yet feel you can judge its balance from your perspective of a sub cap pilot and EFT warrior. Lloyd Roses wrote: I'm well aware how poor fighter application without OTLs and DNCs is. Those inacceptable fitting downsides were the whole idea. I never once disagreed that a carrier should have to refit to kill off subcaps if they want to use fighters. However, sentries have their own set of weaknesses, their tracking - try going in for a close orbit just out of smartbomb and web range and see how well they can apply any damage to you. See a ball of warriors? Warp away! At the same time, unless you properly escalate the fight with other caps or overwhelming force I also don't think you should be able to take them out either, even if it's just a few carriers and not a massive fleet. Lloyd Roses wrote: However, some good complaints made in this thread: Nuke carrier resists outside of triage is now the word! I'll pretend like you didn't say that for the ignorance is too strong. Siege gives resist bonuses -Triage does not. And by nuking resistances I assume you mean their basic T1 resist profile or the Archon or Chimera's 4% per lvl resist bonuses. So I'll repeat. Please go fly the damned ship and get experience before you comment about how to balance it.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.