| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2007.03.21 01:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 02:04:37
I only got my Nyx for less than two weeks now but already I think the motherships could use a tweak or two, or nine. Here's a list of things I think are important to get fixed rather sooner than later. Or rather late than never 
- 1. Remove the right-click Board Ship interface entry, especially as its being the very first option but the last thing you would want to do!
While I haven't had the privilege yet of misclicking while scooping empty ships, it damn sure almost happened twice now, the last time with me being inside an enemy POS scooping ships (I was given the forcefield password)
Self destruct and Eject have been given the idiotproof treatment already, and furthermore Supercapital pilots aren't likely to be boarding ships a lot so please make clicking Board Ship pop up a confirmation dialog window. The thought itself of one such fatal misclick is creeping me out already.
- 2. Motherships (Nyx confirmed) do not remember changes to drone folders upon exiting the client.
As it is now, every change (move drone to drone group, remove, or delete drone group) you make to your drone groups is not saved upon client exit, presumably due to an issue with the client overwriting/reverting/corrupting your drone settings when quiting. A workaround to saving your drone group settings involves setting the EVE/cache folder to read-only just prior to client termination, then setting the folder back to read and write. You may have to do this twice. Other Nyx pilots I have talked to about this can confirm this being a bug.
(Bug report has been submitted)
- 3. Optimize the drones overview.
- Make drone entries smaller in height, just like the 1.4 revision of the contracts system. Having to keep an eye on 20 drones in space while also having your Drones in bay opened is practically impossible, even on a 22" widescreen. And that's with the main overview minimized
- Allow drone subgroups. A mothership pilot can easily have 15 different drone groups which clutters up the overview. Instead of 15 drone groups, you could have 4 main ones (Fighters, Drones, EW, Logistic), with for example the fighters being sorted in their respective subgroup within the main Fighter group
- Allow to sort drones by names.
Try picking out the heavy drones here at first glance. Related to 3b: Fighters and Sentries haven't even been grouped by race yet in the picture.
- 4. Not a mothership specific, but fighters really need some <3
- If your fighters come back from a fight and you tell them to return to dronebay and then warp off, they will stop doing anything and sit there until you either warp back or assign the fighters to someone else.
- Fighters still return to you at orbit velocity speed instead of MWD.
- Give us the choise to set our fighters to Do not follow when a target warps off. Even when you recall your fighters right after your target warps, it can still take several minutes before they return, leaving your mothership practically droneless for the time being. Ofcourse you can choose to use heavy drones instead, but those only work up to 45 km (there's more important mods to fit than drone links) and above 45km your ability to kill is basically depending on other people's misjudgement. If you engage a target at 120 km with fighters, they are going to need 8 minutes for the return trip.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 01:57:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 02:02:15
- 5. Nerf bumping.
If you dive your spaceshuttle straight ahead at a 90 degrees angle into the earth's atmosphere, the first thing that happens is you die. If you scratch the atmosphere at a low angle, you bounce off: the earth does not move much at all.
A frigate is of an entirely different magnitude, in terms of proportions and mass than a mothership, yet with decent skills it is possible to keep a mothership from warping. The counter to this are ofcourse smartbombs (which do not work at a station or gate), but this doesn't fix the problem however. A nanod battleship that's being remote repped by a carrier or two will have no trouble keeping you in place for at least a minute, until the next nano BS comes around. If this part of the game was any realistic, the BS would burn up in the shields and cause 40k of explosion damage. (This might be a bit problematic in empire tho  ) So at least make it so that bumping has a minimal effect when done by by sub-capital ships.
- 6. Allow us to view cargo's of ships within the ship hangar bay.
This would allow mothership pilots to prepare fittings for ships within the ship maintenance bay by putting the fittings into the ships' cargos. Right now you need another pilot to board the ship, fit it, then eject and have the mothership pilot scoop the ship. Which takes us to the next bug:
- 7. Allow pilots to store ships with cargo.
If a mothership pilot wants to store a ship with cargo in it, he has to scoop it himself or have the pilot remove his cargo first before storing the ship himself.
- 8. Allow pilots to refit modules from the corp hangar.
Presently you can only fit your ship if the module in question is present in the cargohold. Fitting a module from either the corporate hangar or a can will not work. Especially painful if you need to fit a number of ships and you have to seperate the stacks and drag them over to your cargohold with every ship.
- 9. Give us the option to open our drone bays like we once used to.
If we wanna know how much space we have left now, we need to open up excel (love excel tho)
Feel free to correct me where needed.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 01:57:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 02:14:02
I only got my Nyx for less than two weeks now but already I think the motherships could use a tweak or two, or nine. Here's a list of things I think are important to get fixed rather sooner than later. Or rather late than never
- 1. Remove the right-click Board Ship interface entry, especially as its being the very first option but the last thing you would want to do!
While I haven't had the privilege yet of misclicking while scooping empty ships, it damn sure almost happened twice now, the last time with me being inside an enemy POS scooping ships (I was given the forcefield password)
Self destruct and Eject have been given the idiotproof treatment already, and furthermore Supercapital pilots aren't likely to be boarding ships a lot so please make clicking Board Ship pop up a confirmation dialog window. The thought itself of one such fatal misclick is creeping me out already.
- 2. Motherships (Nyx confirmed) do not remember changes to drone folders upon exiting the client.
As it is now, every change (move drone to drone group, remove, or delete drone group) you make to your drone groups is not saved upon client exit, presumably due to an issue with the client overwriting/reverting/corrupting your drone settings when quiting. A workaround to saving your drone group settings involves setting the EVE/cache folder to read-only just prior to client termination, then setting the folder back to read and write. You may have to do this twice. Other Nyx pilots I have talked to about this can confirm this being a bug.
(Bug report has been submitted)
- 3. Optimize the drones overview.
- Make drone entries smaller in height, just like the 1.4 revision of the contracts system. Having to keep an eye on 20 drones in space while also having your Drones in bay opened is practically impossible, even on a 22" widescreen. And that's with the main overview minimized
- Allow drone subgroups. A mothership pilot can easily have 15 different drone groups which clutters up the overview. Instead of 15 drone groups, you could have 4 main ones (Fighters, Drones, EW, Logistic), with for example the fighters being sorted in their respective subgroup within the main Fighter group
- Allow to sort drones by names.
Try picking out the heavy drones here at first glance. Related to 3b: Fighters and Sentries haven't even been grouped by race yet in the picture.
- 4. Not a mothership specific, but fighters really need some <3
- If your fighters come back from a fight and you tell them to return to dronebay and then warp off, they will stop doing anything and just sit there until you either warp back or assign the fighters to someone else. And there's no telling what the drones are doing; they still tell you they are following even when they are not.
- Fighters still return to you at orbit velocity speed instead of MWD.
- Give us the choise to set our fighters to Do not follow when a target warps off. Even when you recall your fighters right after your target warps, it can still take several minutes before they return, leaving your mothership practically droneless for the time being. Ofcourse you can choose to use heavy drones instead, but those only work up to 45 km (there's more important mods to fit than drone links) and above 45km your ability to kill is basically depending on other people's misjudgement. If you engage a target at 120 km with fighters, they are going to need 8 minutes for the return trip.
- Relay fighter status information to the carrierpilot when assigning fighters. People that are not 100% familiar with fighters but asking for em always get them killed. Plus, the fighter's status is sometimes not updated at all, even to the assigned pilot.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 01:57:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 02:02:15
- 5. Nerf bumping.
If you dive your spaceshuttle straight ahead at a 90 degrees angle into the earth's atmosphere, the first thing that happens is you die. If you scratch the atmosphere at a low angle, you bounce off: the earth does not move much at all.
A frigate is of an entirely different magnitude, in terms of proportions and mass than a mothership, yet with decent skills it is possible to keep a mothership from warping. The counter to this are ofcourse smartbombs (which do not work at a station or gate), but this doesn't fix the problem however. A nanod battleship that's being remote repped by a carrier or two will have no trouble keeping you in place for at least a minute, until the next nano BS comes around. If this part of the game was any realistic, the BS would burn up in the shields and cause 40k of explosion damage. (This might be a bit problematic in empire tho ) So at least make it so that bumping has a minimal effect when done by by sub-capital ships.
- 6. Allow us to view cargo's of ships within the ship hangar bay.
This would allow mothership pilots to prepare fittings for ships within the ship maintenance bay by putting the fittings into the ships' cargos. Right now you need another pilot to board the ship, fit it, then eject and have the mothership pilot scoop the ship. Which takes us to the next bug:
- 7. Allow pilots to store ships with cargo.
If a mothership pilot wants to store a ship with cargo in it, he has to scoop it himself or have the pilot remove his cargo first before storing the ship himself.
- 8. Allow pilots to refit modules from the corp hangar.
Presently you can only fit your ship if the module in question is present in the cargohold. Fitting a module from either the corporate hangar or a can will not work. Especially painful if you need to fit a number of ships and you have to seperate the stacks and drag them over to your cargohold with every ship.
- 9. Give us the option to open our drone bays like we once used to.
If we wanna know how much space we have left now, we need to open up excel (love excel tho)
Feel free to correct me where needed.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 03:27:00 -
[5]
Reserved.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Jasmine Dupre
STK Scientific
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 09:18:00 -
[6]
/signed
very good list of issues especially point 4
|
Lethil
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 09:31:00 -
[7]
/signed this should be fixed asap
|
Jags
Minmatar
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 09:37:00 -
[8]
Most od these can apply to carriers as well so I back this 100%
Especially the drone bay and fighter bits
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 10:04:00 -
[9]
Sensible suggestions, exept that one:
 Originally by: Aeon Yakati
[list]5. Nerf bumping.
If you dive your spaceshuttle straight ahead at a 90 degrees angle into the earth's atmosphere, the first thing that happens is you die. If you scratch the atmosphere at a low angle, you bounce off: the earth does not move much at all.
A frigate is of an entirely different magnitude, in terms of proportions and mass than a mothership, yet with decent skills it is possible to keep a mothership from warping. The counter to this are ofcourse smartbombs (which do not work at a station or gate), but this doesn't fix the problem however. A nanod battleship that's being remote repped by a carrier or two will have no trouble keeping you in place for at least a minute, until the next nano BS comes around. If this part of the game was any realistic, the BS would burn up in the shields and cause 40k of explosion damage. (This might be a bit problematic in empire tho ) So at least make it so that bumping has a minimal effect when done by by sub-capital ships.
Firstly, "But realistically..." arguments are pointless in eve. Eve is not supposed to be a realistic space simulation - almost every single mechanic in it does not work realistically in the first place.
The foremost reason for the game mechanics in eve is the game balance. Then comes the game fun. Making it realistic is only a far far 3rd.
Motherships as they are now are extremly hard to kill even WITH the current bumping mechanics. There's a reason we had only one real mothership kill so far.
So, if you nerf bumping you have to make them vulnerable in another way (and, no, nothing in eve is supposed to be unkillable, no matter the cost).
If you remove bumping as option to stop unscramable ships from warping you would need to remove their immunity to scrams. And give them ~30 warp core strength instead.
|
Ricco Lonestar
Minmatar
xtort
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 10:05:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ricco Lonestar on 21/03/2007 10:07:44
Sexy voice broadcasting a vocal message to gangmember that got a invitation to set up a jumpclone at Mum.
The drone overview defenately needs a overhaul.
A "jump to" button in overview could be very handy.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 10:26:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 10:34:33
Originally by: Aramendel
Firstly, "But realistically..." arguments are pointless in eve. Eve is not supposed to be a realistic space simulation - almost every single mechanic in it does not work realistically in the first place.
The foremost reason for the game mechanics in eve is the game balance. Then comes the game fun. Making it realistic is only a far far 3rd.
Motherships as they are now are extremly hard to kill even WITH the current bumping mechanics. There's a reason we had only one real mothership kill so far.
So, if you nerf bumping you have to make them vulnerable in another way (and, no, nothing in eve is supposed to be unkillable, no matter the cost).
If you remove bumping as option to stop unscramable ships from warping you would need to remove their immunity to scrams. And give them ~30 warp core strength instead.
That "realistic" analogy was meant to put the argument in a humourous way. But if you see through that, you'll see that risk vs reward equation is seriously unbalanced here. As it is now, a heavily plated (and possible remotely supported) BS will have little trouble holding a mothership in place for several minutes. That's 100 million isk vs 30,000 million isk basically. Even if you organize and bring 30 people in HACs and spend 5 hours of preparation, that still does not outweight the work involved of 3+ months of mothership production and tens of billions of ISK spent both in production facilities as well as the actual ship and fitting.
I'd say, the very, very least you should bring if you decide to hold a supercapital is a massive (10+) capital fleet and support. That creates a more balanced risk vs reward sheet and only then, if properly planned and executed, it makes it right to be able to kill a supercapital. Fatal errors on side of the mothership pilot excluded.
I will clarify my point in the list. thanks.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 19:18:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Aramendel on 21/03/2007 19:20:28
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
As it is now, a heavily plated (and possible remotely supported) BS will have little trouble holding a mothership in place for several minutes. That's 100 million isk vs 30,000 million isk basically. Even if you organize and bring 30 people in HACs and spend 5 hours of preparation, that still does not outweight the work involved of 3+ months of mothership production and tens of billions of ISK spent both in production facilities as well as the actual ship and fitting.
If that would work we would have far FAR more than 1 mothership kill *total* in EVE (not counting the one which was killed in a POS). It's not even remotely that simple.
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
I'd say, the very, very least you should bring if you decide to hold a supercapital is a massive (10+) capital fleet and support.
Motherships survive such situations just fine right now. I'd suggest your read up Seleene's battle report vs D2 in the north a few months ago.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 20:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/03/2007 20:48:35
Where did I say it was gonna be easy? Ofcourse bringing in a cap fleet is only half the story. A plan is needed as well. If you can't think of any, then I'd say you don't deserve it tbh.
And I was there when MC deployed their motherships in H-PA and E-0 and I can tell you that the reason the enemy did not kill any of their motherships is cause there were neither expecting MC to bring in their motherships into a fleetfight (H-PA) nor did they have a specific rules of engagement procedure against motherships (E-O).
But let's leave it at that. You won't convince me and I'm not going to try and convince you... (which mothership pilot would?)
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia |
Icome4u
IronPig
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 20:49:00 -
[14]
/Signed
But i was told on SISI carriers and MS got some major love for the graphic upgrade... maybe the DEV only ment visualy but i think it was also a major carrier/MS upgrade.
Grats on your mothership and g/l to BoB :)
|
Waxau
Liberty Rogues
Coalition of Carebear Killers
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 21:16:00 -
[15]
/signed
Nice list of probs there - nice one
|
Callistus
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 21:33:00 -
[16]
Very good list.
My only point is that the issue where drone folders are not remembered does not seem to be be exclusive to motherships. The issue arises on any drone-ship when you log out in space, rather than in a station. Obviously this will be noticed most prominently on motherships as they can't dock.
--------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainfrane] |
Fuujin
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.21 23:52:00 -
[17]
Amen.
|
R3dSh1ft
Caldari
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 00:08:00 -
[18]
/signed
I can't speak to the mothership specific points but they seem quite reasonable to me.
As a carrier pilot I can confirm the difficulty of managing above 10 fighter drones when assigned to a gangmate... no damage reports and too much space taken by the fighters on the drone list, horrible interface design just horrible.
______________________________________
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 01:13:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Where did I say it was gonna be easy? Ofcourse bringing in a cap fleet is only half the story. A plan is needed as well.
Yes. And this is right now the case. WITH the current bumping mechanics. Ergo motherships do not need a "boost" there.
|
Blind Man
Kemono.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 01:21:00 -
[20]
number one should be a change for all ships. a certain situation sitting in a shuttle watching my sleipnir die to sentries comes to mind 
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 09:37:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Callistus
My only point is that the issue where drone folders are not remembered does not seem to be be exclusive to motherships. The issue arises on any drone-ship when you log out in space, rather than in a station. Obviously this will be noticed most prominently on motherships as they can't dock.
Good to know.
Issues 1 and 2 have been updated and 3d. added
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 14:25:00 -
[22]
/Signed
As drones are the primary weapon group for these ships, then a new type of UI should be looked at.
But as I see it, your post pretty much sums it up. 
|
Hubbins
Species 5618
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:07:00 -
[23]
/Signed
Also many issues can also be applied to regular carriers as well. They need loving too.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Timmeh 2k ([email protected]) |
|
CCP Hammer
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
- 9. Give us the option to open our drone bays like we once used to.
If we wanna know how much space we have left now, we need to open up excel (excel 4tw)
You can open your fitting window in space with a hotkey. In there it shows how much of the drone bay is used and if you click the little drone icon it opens your drone bay. This window is also how you can install rigs.
|
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:15:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 22/03/2007 17:16:46
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
- 9. Give us the option to open our drone bays like we once used to.
If we wanna know how much space we have left now, we need to open up excel (excel 4tw)
You can open your fitting window in space with a hotkey. In there it shows how much of the drone bay is used and if you click the little drone icon it opens your drone bay. This window is also how you can install rigs.
/emote grabs a hammer and hits himself 
That's how I fitted my rigs..
But didn't know about the drone button. Will update the list
Edit. Hotkey is Ctrl + Shift + F for those that didn't know, also works near carriers. If I may add, it's awesome.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:52:00 -
[26]
Excellent list. I'll be sure to annoy many people about it. Especially Tux.
"Tux did it!" |
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 20:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
3. Optimize the drones overview.
- Make drone entries smaller in height, just like the 1.4 revision of the contracts system. Having to keep an eye on 20 drones in space while also having your Drones in bay opened is practically impossible, even on a 22" ws. And that's with the main overview minimized
- Allow drone subgroups. A mothership pilot can easily have 15 different drone groups which clutters up the overview. Instead of 15 drone groups, you could have 4 main ones (Fighters, Drones, EW, Logistic), with for example the fighters being sorted in their respective subgroups within the main Fighter group
- Allow to sort drones by names.
Related to 3b. Try picking out the heavy drones at first glance in the screenshot below.
[*]Horrible lag when you hit scoop/return to drone bay with either an expanded Drones in bay drone overview or an expanded Drones in local space overview. Having both drone group folders expanded in the overview while doing this multiplies the lag.
Workaround: Unexpanding, minimizing Drones in bay as well as Drones in local space immediatelly after giving the scoop/return to drone bay command.
I imagine carrier pilots suffer from the same.
The above drone issues can be pretty much summed up in this screenshot
Note that for argument's sake I grouped the sentries in each their own drone group here, but for playability reasons I usually group them together in just one folder. The screenshot was taken on a 22" widescreen @ 1680x1050.
[/list]
/signed for this. Big pain for Domi pilots as well. Do what you did with the gang window and make the HP bars three little boxes on one line instead of three separate lines. OR, keep the shield line separate and squeeze the armor and the structure lines together, because it's really the shields that drone/fighter pilots care about in terms of how much danger the drones are in and whether we need to recall them.
----------------------------------------------------
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 21:36:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Ange1 on 22/03/2007 21:33:38
"Drones/Fighters can not be launched and fighters cannot be delegated while inside a control tower force field."
There seems to be a slight problem with this recent change. Earlier today, we saw an Archon have Fighters deployed yet still inside the POS Shield. I would assume the point of this change was to make it so Carriers have to actually risk themselves outside the Shield to maintain their command of any Fighters If they wander inside the shield, they should lose control if they've not scooped the Fighters.
As The Establishment also has a Nyx, we've been calling a long time for new Fighter types like Bombers for example: Heavier, slower, and designed for hitting Capitals, but a bit crap at anything lower than this.
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 22:18:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
- 9. Give us the option to open our drone bays like we once used to.
If we wanna know how much space we have left now, we need to open up excel (excel 4tw)
You can open your fitting window in space with a hotkey. In there it shows how much of the drone bay is used and if you click the little drone icon it opens your drone bay. This window is also how you can install rigs.
Can we PLEASE get back old top-right statistic?
"Rig hardpoints left" totaly useless, it just duplicates rig slots at the bottom of widow.
--
. |
Callistus
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 02:00:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ange1
Edited by: Ange1 on 22/03/2007 21:33:38
"Drones/Fighters can not be launched and fighters cannot be delegated while inside a control tower force field."
There seems to be a slight problem with this recent change. Earlier today, we saw an Archon have Fighters deployed yet still inside the POS Shield. I would assume the point of this change was to make it so Carriers have to actually risk themselves outside the Shield to maintain their command of any Fighters If they wander inside the shield, they should lose control if they've not scooped the Fighters.
Fighters cannot be delegated while inside a pos force field, however you can delegate them while outside a pos and then move back inside the force field and they continue to work as normal.
--------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainfrane] |
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 08:59:00 -
[31]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Excellent list. I'll be sure to annoy many people about it. Especially Tux.
I took the liberty to add two more issues to the list, 4e. and 4f.
|
Flaming Candle
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 13:24:00 -
[32]
There appears to be no "open fittings" r-click menu item at a carrier (Don't know about MSs). You can fly to a ship maint. array, open the fittings there, then fly to a carrier and fit your ship there. I can't get in-game to test the hot key.
Originally by: Tuxford
It was a dirty hack to be honest but we couldn't find anyway around it. I hope we never have to do it again.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 13:57:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Flaming Candle
There appears to be no "open fittings" r-click menu item at a carrier (Don't know about MSs). You can fly to a ship maint. array, open the fittings there, then fly to a carrier and fit your ship there. I can't get in-game to test the hot key.
Ctrl + Shift + F
|
Chewan Mesa
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 16:41:00 -
[34]
A lot of your points apply to carriers and I can wholeheartly agree.
/Signed.
Btw, whats this about with changes on SiSi?
|
Flaming Candle
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 18:35:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Originally by: Flaming Candle
...I can't get in-game to test the hot key.
Ctrl + Shift + F
Another thing that I forgot to add: whenever something changes the contents or staching in the corporate hanger array (CHA), the shields, armour, and structure go to 0, then build up (quickly) to their actual values. when a large transfer happens in the CHA, the same build-up happens, and frequenty, the whole screen freezes and goes black for a second or two.
It seems that the UI is refreshing from the server for each update (even if you can't see the contents of the CHA) which is laggy and probably unnecissary. Where an update is one module/stack of modules moving around in the CHA.
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 20:26:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Callistus
Fighters cannot be delegated while inside a pos force field, however you can delegate them while outside a pos and then move back inside the force field and they continue to work as normal.
Surely this defeats the whole point
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Callistus
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 12:31:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ange1
Originally by: Callistus
Fighters cannot be delegated while inside a pos force field, however you can delegate them while outside a pos and then move back inside the force field and they continue to work as normal.
Surely this defeats the whole point
Pretty much, yeah
--------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainfrane] |
Hippo117
Caldari
Wings of Redemption
Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 18:28:00 -
[38]
/signed
--------------
Obligulatory 'opinion does not nescessarily represent those of my corp/alliance' stuff here. |
Vidar Kentoran
Minmatar
Provenance.
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 05:29:00 -
[39]
Quote:
The very least that one should do to hold a supercapital, is bring an almost equal amount of assets into the fight.
This is not how many other ship type in the game works from a price/performance ratio, yet it should work this way for supercapitals... because? Probably because you just got one 2 weeks ago, I suspect.
Putting money into a ship has always been at diminishing marginal benefit. Supercapitals are broken right now because that's not how they work. ANY ship type should be killable with 1/2 or less of its value in smaller, more numerous ships.
I can't believe there really exist people who can say with a straight face that any supercapital is too easy to pin down, but it is hilarious.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 07:50:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Vidar Kentoran
Quote:
The very least that one should do to hold a supercapital, is bring an almost equal amount of assets into the fight.
This is not how many other ship type in the game works from a price/performance ratio, yet it should work this way for supercapitals... because?
You just answered your own question right there. In case of supercapitals labor is a sizeable part of what you define as "the price", if not the biggest.
A battleship can be constructed overnight, cruisers while you're waiting. A capital takes a week and a few days, but constructing a supercapital from scratch takes up to 3 months easily (6 months for a titan). In other words, your classical definition of the price/performance ratio is outdated.
Quote:
I can't believe there really exist people who can say with a straight face that any supercapital is too easy to pin down, but it is hilarious.
We can argue here all night, so I'll just let reality speak for itself: The Nyx that went down a few days ago -in combat- went poof in merely 60 seconds. 60 seconds in which someone's work for the past 1/4 year and ISK has been nullified.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 13:38:00 -
[41]
*cough* patch 1.4.1 *cough*
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 21:15:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
The answer to your question lies within your question. In case of supercapitals labor may very well be considered a new factor in the equation. Cost is no longer defined by ISK for the most part but also by time and effort spent, the latter 2 being responsible for the 100%+ markup on supercapital prices.
You are answering your question yourself as well, the effect of labor is already included in the high supercapital markup. Does not change the issue at all.
Quote:
We can argue here all night, so I'll just let reality speak for itself: The Nyx that went down a few days ago -in combat- went poof in merely 60 seconds.
Time to kill != difficulty to pin down.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 09:51:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 03/04/2007 10:01:25
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
The answer to your question lies within your question. In case of supercapitals labor may very well be considered a new factor in the equation. Cost is no longer defined by ISK for the most part but also by time and effort spent, the latter 2 being responsible for the 100%+ markup on supercapital prices.
You are answering your question yourself as well, the effect of labor is already included in the high supercapital markup. Does not change the issue at all.
Assuming you're referring to Vidar Kentoran's comment, bringing ships worth 1/2 of 30 bil is already a big leap forward compared to 1/2 of 15 bil and does more justice to the amount of work put into the supercapital. I don't think he was talking about the market value, but rather the mineral value. If he wasn't, then I withdraw my reply to his.
Quote:
Quote:
We can argue here all night, so I'll just let reality speak for itself: The Nyx that went down a few days ago -in combat- went poof in merely 60 seconds.
Time to kill != difficulty to pin down.
Pinning it down took us 1 jump-in bump by a supercapital, which took about as long as 1 CPU query takes.
Before you quote me on that, I think bumping by a supercapital is OK. That is, under current game mechanics. In this instance we brought 5 supercapitals and 20 normal ones.
I do not consider bumping to be a pretty or sound tactic, but it's currently one of the very few valid and viable means we have at our disposal as players. I'd rather see something like a capital warp scrambler and capital jump scrambler that can only be fitted on supercapitals, or something in that direction. Something that feels more like an 'official' means and which can be better controlled, while not making it necessarily easier.
Bumping a supercapital in a 10,000 isk shuttle, or even a battleship is not OK, under any circumstances.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 12:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Assuming you're referring to Vidar Kentoran's question, bringing ships worth 1/2 of 30 bil is already a big leap forward compared to 1/2 of 15 bil and does more justice to the amount of work put into the supercapital. I assumed he was talking about the mineral value rather than the market value. If he wasn't, then I withdraw my reply to his.
I doubt he was referring to the mineral value, that would be just silly.
I mean, if you would compare ships that way then a t1 battlecruiser would be "equal" to 2-3 curses, for example 
What you destroy/risk is always the market value of an item, even if you produced/found it yourself.
Quote:
Pinning it down took us 1 jump-in bump by a supercapital, which took about as long as 1 CPU query takes.
...
The flaws of bumping, plus the motherships inherent weakness of fending off a zergling rush of dozens of t1 ships whose sum worth is less than 100 mil is what's wrong here.
But then you are still saying that you need multiple times the value of a supercapital in the open to kill another supercapital.
Just the bumping supercapital vs the killed supercapital is already an equal amount of money invested on both sides. And that single supercap would never have been able to stop the killed supercap from warping long enough to kill it on it's own.
If they introduce "capital" warp scrambler they would have to be generally capital class items, not only supercapital. A single t1 cruiser surely can scramble a single t1 battleship (and costs between 3-10% of it), however it sure as hell won't be able to kill it on it's own (outside using specialized EW).
I do not see how this is in any way different for a normal capital vs a supercapital. It's also 3-6% of it's price (well, vs motherships at least) and will die on it's own vs one.
And for the "inherent weakness of fending off a zergling rush of dozens of t1 ships whose sum worth is less than 100 mil" - it does not exist. One word: smartbombs.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 12:21:00 -
[45]
Capital scramblers that can be fitted on normal capitals could work too, but then supercapitals need a base warpcore strenght since it's silly to fit warpcorestabs on them. Let's say a mothership has 10 strenght and a titan has 20, and each scrambler having -1 strenght?
Quote:
And for the "inherent weakness of fending off a zergling rush of dozens of t1 ships whose sum worth is less than 100 mil" - it does not exist. One word: smartbombs.
I edited my post before you replied, it says t1 plated cruisers now since I'm well aware of smartbombs, and sending in 1 plated cruiser (5k HP easily possible) at a time will pin down a supercapital.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 12:52:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Aramendel
I doubt he was referring to the mineral value, that would be just silly. I mean, if you would compare ships that way then a t1 battlecruiser would be "equal" to 2-3 curses, for example
Imagine you fend off an attack and the 10 attacking capitals die. 10 capitals are ~10-20b. If they have the ISK, they can easily replace them within 12 days
Now imagine you fail at fending off the attack and die. Your MS without the mods is worth 30b+. Even if you have the ISK, it can easily take 4 months for you to get a replacement, possibly longer.
So while they bring in an almost equal amount of ISK to the battiefield, the supercapital pilot is risking to go through a whole lot more of time/effort to acquire a new one if he loses his ship. This aspect is something that definitely sets apart the supercapitals from any of the other ship classes, which for the most part can be ordered overnight.
I'm guessing it's because the supercapital market is still fairly young and since not many supercapitals have died yet, supply can still fairly well keep up with demand which explains the fairly modest markup on motherships currently.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 13:53:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/04/2007 13:55:19
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/04/2007 13:51:25
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Imagine you fend off an attack and the 10 attacking capitals die. 10 capitals are ~10-20b. If they have the ISK, they can easily replace them within 12 days
It's not in any way different with other ships. If you suicide 10 frigs on a BS you can literary replace the frigs in *minutes*. It takes you 10-20 times as long to replace the BS, both in time getting the isk/mins and in building.
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
I edited my post before you replied, it says t1 plated cruisers now since I'm well aware of smartbombs, and sending in 1 plated cruiser (5k HP easily possible) at a time will pin down a supercapital.
They will last less than a minute. Fighters hit cruisers very well.
And, again, not different for other classes. A 500k frigate can pin down a 150 mil BS.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 14:12:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 03/04/2007 14:10:27
Originally by: Aramendel
Fighters hit cruisers very well.
Yes and how long you reckon it takes to lock a cruiser? Then add the time the fighters need to go into orbit, settle down from MWD and actually start hitting.
Quote:
And, again, not different for other classes. A 500k frigate can pin down a 150 mil BS.
Yep, flawed as well. It's just becomes abundantly clear in the example of a supercapital.
Also, having to wait 4 hours for a ship to complete instead of 10 minutes is still of an entire different magnitude than 3 months instead of 11 days.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 14:16:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 03/04/2007 14:12:53
Originally by: Aramendel
And it doesn't takes 4 months to replace it. I've seen in this year at least two mothership auctions for each race from trusted sellers here and I wasn't particulary looking for them.
You just proved my point there.
If I was to look for a replacement Nyx, I'd have a new one after an average of 6 months or so.
I have been looking for a Nyx the past year and have seen about 2-3 myself up for sale.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 14:17:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/04/2007 14:15:26
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Yep, flawed as well. It's just becomes abundantly clear in the example of a supercapital.
It isn't flawed, it's just the way eve is. A multi player game.
If you spend the time & effort to get 10 players together they can destroy assets of a single player which FAR outweight their invested assets.
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
If I was to look for a replacement Nyx, I'd have a new one after an average of 6 months or so.
Read again, I said this year. Aka the last 3 months. Not the last year.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 14:20:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 03/04/2007 14:17:29
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Yep, flawed as well. It's just becomes abundantly clear in the example of a supercapital.
It isn't flawed, it's just the way eve is. A multi player game.
If you spend the time & effort to get 10 players together they can destroy assets of a single player which FAR outweight their invested assets.
Okay, let's say you have 10 level 20 players. They can not defeat 1 level 60 player in any game. Even if they were level 40, they still would have to go through hell to defeat a level 60. Frigs are pretty much down the latter in terms of skills and isk, so let's say the WoW equivalent of frigs would be a level 10 character. Now why would they suddenly be able to pin down a level 60?
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 14:35:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/04/2007 14:31:26
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Okay, let's say you have 10 level 20 players. They can not defeat 1 level 60 player in any game.
10 1 month players in frigates can defeat a 1 year player in a battleship in eve.
This it what makes the game special, amongst other reasons.
Quote:
Find me 1 Hel auction in the last 3 months, heck the past 12 months and I'll give you this one :)
I won't waste my time to look through one zillion pages in the sell order forum, but I was following a thread a few months ago where on of the major producer was selling 1 of each motherships, hel included. IIRC all but the Nxy were bought for the minimum bid price (25 bil) while the nyx went for 35 bil.
Believe it or not *shrugs*
|
john roe
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 17:20:00 -
[53]
*signed*, *signed*, *signed*... and *signed*.
it takes to be a real man to fly mothership these days, ccp.
seriously. and i'm not even talking about iskies you're risking, but bugs you're fighting with on each step.
and these drones bugs? drones lags? make me to want to murder
every drone of mine, seriously.
please, fix carriers/MSs, ccp.
we'll love you long time for that :]
adieu
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 17:22:00 -
[54]
4.b updated and 4.g added
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 09:52:00 -
[55]
Aeon, please continue to update this thread as you find the time. It is being watched and we appreciate the effort. Be aware though that some of the issues you list, while they may seem minor, would actually require a bit of programming time. This especially applies to any changes in the UI.
You won't see everything fixed at once but the problems are known and being worked as programming time becomes available. (And, no, it has nothing to do with walking in stations. That's a whole other group of people.)
Those of you with suggestions and experience should use the OP's format and attention here as an example. 
"Tux did it!" |
|
Lefevre
Caldari
Temptation inc.
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 11:31:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Lefevre on 07/04/2007 11:27:44
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 03/04/2007 17:20:11
- 4. Not a mothership specific, but fighters really need some <3
When your fighters come back from a fight and you tell them to return to dronebay and then warp off, they will stop doing anything and just sit there until you either warp back or assign the fighters to someone else. And there's no telling what the drones are doing; they still tell you they are following even when they are not.
- Fighters still return to you at orbit velocity speed instead of MWD.
If you engage a target at 120 km with fighters but abort and tell them to return, they are going to need 8 minutes for the return trip.
-> Workaround: Jettison a can and have the fighters attack it to trigger the MWD.
These are probably the two things that annoy me the most as a carrier pilot.. Although we have the work around with attacking a jettisoned can or a friendly ship close to you it's not always something that works while you are under fire and need to scoop those drones as soon as possible.
This goes for more drones then just fighters.. heavy drones/medium/light would also be a lot more fun to use if they would mwd back to your ship.
|
Waagaa Ktlehr
Amarr
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 11:57:00 -
[57]
RE. 2) If you go to the escape-menu and click "quit game" there instead of ctrl-q'ing or hitting the little 'x' in the top right of the window to log off, it should save the drone settings. At least this is my experience. :)
RE. 8) This is now possible, you can drag modules from the corp hangar onto the new fitting screen. \o/
-
- |
Dianabolic
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 12:05:00 -
[58]
An idea for the "anti-capital" side of things, and holding the targets down, may be a capital sized warp scrambler, that can only be fit on motherships and only works on other capital ships?
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 12:46:00 -
[59]
I personally think the only thing that seems really wrong with the arguments here is the inability to tackle a mothership. The fact that we are relying upon bumping as the only real method of tackling a mothership highlights their battlefield dominance.
On the other hand; the idea of a cruiser being able to lock down a mothership is ludicrous. Aeon also raises the point of economics and the cost of losing a mother ship. Sorry, but that holds no water for me as you are immune to ewar. That is a tremendous advantage and you know it.
As for the bumping - Mr Smartbomb will take care of the bumping ships for you. Even a battleship will eventually die to smartbombs.
I think Dianobolic's idea of a capital class scrambler seems appropriate. (I cannot believe I am agreeing with BOB here.) But if a dreadnaught in siege mode can scramble a super-capital then all of a sudden we have a real fight on our hands. That mothership knows the dread must die for it to escape. The trick here is to make sure the mothership KNOWS who is scrambling him.
The basic rule of Eve seems to be that no ship should be invulnerable by itself. A mothership at the moment breaks the rule. The rest of the requested changes are user interface changes and I don't know enough about them to comment.
|
HordeZla
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 18:30:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Gragnor
I personally think the only thing that seems really wrong with the arguments here is the inability to tackle a mothership. The fact that we are relying upon bumping as the only real method of tackling a mothership highlights their battlefield dominance.
On the other hand; the idea of a cruiser being able to lock down a mothership is ludicrous. Aeon also raises the point of economics and the cost of losing a mother ship. Sorry, but that holds no water for me as you are immune to ewar. That is a tremendous advantage and you know it.
As for the bumping - Mr Smartbomb will take care of the bumping ships for you. Even a battleship will eventually die to smartbombs.
I think Dianobolic's idea of a capital class scrambler seems appropriate. (I cannot believe I am agreeing with BOB here.) But if a dreadnaught in siege mode can scramble a super-capital then all of a sudden we have a real fight on our hands. That mothership knows the dread must die for it to escape. The trick here is to make sure the mothership KNOWS who is scrambling him.
The basic rule of Eve seems to be that no ship should be invulnerable by itself. A mothership at the moment breaks the rule. The rest of the requested changes are user interface changes and I don't know enough about them to comment.
Dude I am going to resist the temptation to smack you and point out that we killed a Mothership within a minuit......It's not hard, it just takes planning, skills and the manpower to do it.....There is nothing wrong with mothership not been able to be warp scrambled.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 19:19:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Gragnor
I personally think the only thing that seems really wrong with the arguments here is the inability to tackle a mothership.
...
Aeon also raises the point of economics and the cost of losing a mother ship.
I get misunderstood a lot on this point. I never said there should be no way to hold a mothership and suggested from the beginning that there should be a way to hold a supercapital without having to revert to bumping mechanicms. The focus of my critic was directed towards the implementation rather than the principal question whether a supercapital should be tackable at all or not.
First off, bumping with as goal to pin down a target is what I believe to be an unintentional side effect of the original intend (even tho a devlish someone whose name I shall not mention once suggested the use of nanonaglfars ). Versus all but the supercapital ships, bumping is essentially circumventing the use of 'proper' tackling means. However, as supercapitals are immune to EW currently, bumping is the only remaining game mechanic to hold a mothership from warping off. This does not however make bumping an elegant solution, far from it.
The second aspect of my critic at bumping concerns the risk vs reward equation. Under current mechanics, ships worth less than a 1/100th of the target's ship, can effectively pin down the target for more than just a minute or two. How long will it take to disable a handful (5-6) of plated and nano'd battleships that warp in one after the other at 0 meters to keep you from warping? And what are you going to do against a handful of Neuting apocs (run the numbers if you haven't). Smartbombing is not the answer to everything as suggested by others too, neither are fighters.
Granted, they still need to bring in more assets and firepower in the form of capitals, but once bumped and NOSed by the bumpingnossing suicide squad, it's just a matter of when really, instead of if. It's really the tackling that predetermines the outcome by a great deal, and in it's current form you can, with a bit of planning, luck and patience, pin down a ship with assets worth only a mere 1.25% (500m vs 40,000m) of the target's value.
I'd say, wanna kill a supercapital, then bring it!
Not bump it.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 19:30:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr
RE. 2) If you go to the escape-menu and click "quit game" there instead of ctrl-q'ing or hitting the little 'x' in the top right of the window to log off, it should save the drone settings. At least this is my experience. :)
RE. 8) This is now possible, you can drag modules from the corp hangar onto the new fitting screen. \o/
Tested quiting through escape menu before, but it did not work at the time, have they fixed this recently?
Another more convenient method to saving your settings which I found to be 100% failproof is by right clicking the EVE window top bar and closing from the menu. Or right click the EVE entry in your taskbar and close from there.
Gonna update both points, thanks
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.09 03:15:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Gragnor on 09/04/2007 03:23:19
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
Originally by: Gragnor
I personally think the only thing that seems really wrong with the arguments here is the inability to tackle a mothership.
...
Aeon also raises the point of economics and the cost of losing a mother ship.
I get misunderstood a lot on this point. I never said there should be no way to hold a mothership and suggested from the beginning that there should be a way to hold a supercapital without having to revert to bumping mechanicms. The focus of my critic was directed towards the implementation rather than the principal question whether a supercapital should be tackable at all or not.
First off, bumping with as goal to pin down a target is what I believe to be an unintentional side effect of the original intend (even tho a devlish someone whose name I shall not mention once suggested the use of nanonaglfars ). Versus all but the supercapital ships, bumping is essentially circumventing the use of 'proper' tackling means. However, as supercapitals are immune to EW currently, bumping is the only remaining game mechanic to hold a mothership from warping off. This does not however make bumping an elegant solution, far from it.
The second aspect of my critic at bumping concerns the risk vs reward equation. Under current mechanics, ships worth less than a 1/100th of the target's ship, can effectively pin down the target for more than just a minute or two. How long will it take to disable a handful (5-6) of plated and nano'd battleships that warp in one after the other at 0 meters to keep you from warping? And what are you going to do against a handful of Neuting apocs (run the numbers if you haven't). Smartbombing is not the answer to everything as suggested by others too, neither are fighters.
Granted, they still need to bring in more assets and firepower in the form of capitals, but once bumped and NOSed by the bumpingnossing suicide squad, it's just a matter of when really, instead of if. It's really the tackling that predetermines the outcome by a great deal, and in it's current form you can, with a bit of planning, luck and patience, pin down a ship with assets worth only a mere 1.25% (500m vs 40,000m) of the target's value.
I'd say, wanna kill a supercapital, then bring it!
Not bump it.
Give me capital tackling modules and I will.
|
Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.09 07:37:00 -
[64]
I can only sign this.
And to all that think that MS should be Electronic Warfare (EW) vulnerable. Build one yourself, then come back. It's at least 3 months of hard work and planning.
Mineral cost is around 15b, which means it's 15 times that of an tier one carrier. Add the build effort of 15 times more hauling, not being able to build in empire and on stations...
And the only thing that makes it differ from tier1 carriers is it's resistance to EW, 10 more fighters, a semi-useless clone bay and 5 times bigger ship maintenance and corp hangar.
You can't really say it's overpowered compared to tier1 carriers. And considering the cost and effort, the difference could be even bigger towards tier2 carriers favor, and you still couldn't complain.
Like said, build one yourself, fly it a bit, and then come back and speak.
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.09 12:02:00 -
[65]
I am not going to de-rail an important thread with personal comments. The issues raised are considered important by too many people for that. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not have a problem with making motherships ewar resistant. However, without the ability to tackle (scramble) a mothership and prevent it from warping away, one must rely on bumping it. Bumping any ship to prevent a warp out is far from optimal. It is this aspect I think needs tweaking and it would appear that Dianabolic seemed to agree.
On the other hand; Aeon quite rightly points out that having a multi-billion isk ship being tackled by a cruiser is patently unrealistic. And all I am saying and will continue to say is that if I can fit a mid slot tackling module which is effective against a mothership on a capital ship; I will fit it if and when I fly a capital ship.
|
Terradoct
Gallente
shock-WAVE corp.
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2007.04.10 07:00:00 -
[66]
I would like to see a tweak for fighters:
1. fighters have a volume of 1000 m^3
2. If they cost ~20mil each then let them have HP as tier1 BC and fire power of tier1 BC, or reduece there cost to 5mil.
3. fighers use mwd when ordert to orbit host
4. they start shoot only when target is in optimal+falloff range.
5. option to turn off persiue target if it warped out
Carrier have 3,5k m^3 cargo and only 10k m^3 of corp hangar this means I can only have 2 spear fighters, assuming I can control 15 fighters at once, there is no need to have so big volume of 5k m^3 as no ship have more that 400m^3 drone bay, exept carriers, mothership, titan. The cost of fighters is to big compere to there firepower and defence. The #3 and #4 are connected as there was such bug with combat drones as thery start firing at target as soon as ordered even if target is 100km away, and as result they do not used there mwd when ordered to return. The same is right now with fighters and with conbat utulity drones. #5 as what I wish to be made in fist, as fithers somwtime may go stuck in warping and only can be retured by deligating to gang members and only then carrier pilot can get them back to his control.
|
Chewan Mesa
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.04.10 09:32:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Gragnor
I am not going to de-rail an important thread with personal comments. The issues raised are considered important by too many people for that. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not have a problem with making motherships ewar resistant. However, without the ability to tackle (scramble) a mothership and prevent it from warping away, one must rely on bumping it. Bumping any ship to prevent a warp out is far from optimal. It is this aspect I think needs tweaking and it would appear that Dianabolic seemed to agree.
On the other hand; Aeon quite rightly points out that having a multi-billion isk ship being tackled by a cruiser is patently unrealistic. And all I am saying and will continue to say is that if I can fit a mid slot tackling module which is effective against a mothership on a capital ship; I will fit it if and when I fly a capital ship.
Wasnt the STK Aeon that got killed held down by multiple skilled interdictor pilots who managed to keep a bubble up all the time? I didnt see it getting bumped in Loxy's vid.
|
Bluestealth
Minmatar
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.04.10 16:27:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
10. Unnerf clonevats
In its current form, no one seriously uses clonevats. Reason why? It's only half functional. You can clonejump to (but not away from) the mothership, and only as long as you have created a jumpclone there in advance. Furthermore, with each clonejump to the mothership you have to install a new jumpclone afterwards, because once you clonejump to a jumpclone installed aboard the mothership, the jumpclone will be moved to a pod and will no longer be installed at the mothership. That means that sooner or later (as your skill allows), you have to start trashing clones.
Probably the best solution to this, also happens to be how you can make people start using clonevats: enable players to clonejump away from the mothership and thus allowing them to store their active jumpclone. That way the whole clonevat idea is no longer a 1 way trip thing and actually viable as a logistic solution to those that do want implants in their clones and do not want to trash an endless amount of jumpclones.
I think it would be cool if when you activated your clone vat every member of your corporation/alliance would get a option to jump clone to your mothership while it was active. The Clone Vat skill could be changed to a range bonus of some amount of lightyears for which it would appear in stations, so that people would train the skill.
When they wanted to return they would simply return to the mothership and download into another clone. I don't think this would make it too overpowered, and a lot more useful.
|
Aeon Yakati
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.10 17:49:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 10/04/2007 17:53:42
Added a few more suggestions:
3.e. Smartbombing your own drones/fighters will make them go after anyone aggressing you, including remote repping/boosting ships since this is technically aggression. For example, if a target warps in on top of you and you have your fighters out, then use your smartbomb, your fighters will mwd off to anyone remote repairing you.
4.h. Not a issue as such, but currently a mothership pilot with carrier lvl 5 can hold just about 2 to 2.5 waves of fighters. That makes it impossible to hold 1 full wave of each type of fighter.
6.c. Pilots boarding a ship from the Ship Maintenance Bay directly do not get their visible UI name updated. Instead it will name the ship after the ship type, which can be particularly confusing when you try to account for which pilot is taking which ship, when all you see is the ship types names. Also, I reckon this intensifies target calling by a tad when all you see on your overview is 10 x 'Taranis'
6.d. When there's a sudden need for ship replacements, a mothership's capability to refit at is quickly disabled as more than 2 pilots in range will automatically incapacitate the ability to refit at. Since it always takes time to tell people why they can't refit, and additional pods warping in at the same time, it soon feels like you're in the middle of a traffic jam to the only shop giving away free Playstation 3's. (This is even more a problem on carriers)
|
Saladira
Caldari
Bulgarian Mafia Squad
The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.04.12 12:48:00 -
[70]
/Signed
Also many issues can also be applied to regular carriers.
|
brateman
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 14:54:00 -
[71]
A thany pilot myself. We need 2 maybe 3 more high slots. Would make a normal carrier more useful on the front lines. Mind you we call these carriers and they too in rl have more defences than drones/fighters. Oh and either come out with some fighter specific skills like we have for drones. Or just make the current drone skills apply to the fighters.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 17:52:00 -
[72]
While the argument has essentially over now, I wanted to add my voice to those who feel there should be a way to hold down a mothership besides bumping, which is generally thought of as a reasonable request. However, I believe that the method for tackling one should not require a capital ship, and the possibility should be available to subcapitals and also without using interdiction spheres.
Capital-mounted scramblers would be a good start, sure, but for balances sake, it is essential that some amount of subcapitals should be able to pose a threat to a mothership both alone and with some support. The idea for a compromise at an innate +5, +10, or +15 warp core strength, circumventable by ordinary Warp Disruptor Is or Warp Scrambler Is, seems like a decent enough idea for a midway point between the "risk versus reward" fears people have.
The argument has been stated that since motherships take hundreds of man-hours and billions of ISK to make, they should not be too easy to lose, which I can understand, but that initial cost should be followed by the ongoing, continuous effort of protecting it. If it takes teamwork to build it, it should, to more of a degree than just a mothership pilot and a cyno generator friend, take teamwork to maintain it and keep it safe. Much like constructing it, it also takes teamwork to destroy it now, as would it if it had innate warp core strength, as proposed. A group (corporation, alliance, whatever) should only feel compelled to construct a mothership when they feel up to the task of taking responsibility for protecting it in situations where it may come into danger.
Interdictor bubbles, to my knowledge, can prevent supercapitals from warping out, but not consistently. Anchored bubbles tend to break interdictor bubbles from patch-to-patch, and though this isn't intentional, there should be another way to hold them down in situations where interdictor bubbles aren't an option. Further, there should be a way to tackle one without using a capital ship, because of other reasons (slow locking times on capitals, lack of mobility of the tackler cap, and requisite training time being too much of a hindrance, for instance). People often propose a "strategic interdictor" of some sort, but that's still not providing a wide enough array of counters to it, particularly if the strategic interdictor is for tackling capitals and has no other role.
As for what the innate warp core strength should be, I think the region between five and fifteen to be the most realistic. In an extreme example, where a mothership had 50 warp core strength, as long as you knew that your enemy had less than the needed amount of midslots to tackle you (25-51, depending on the mix of scramblers and disruptors) and had no dictor bubbles available, the mothership would be able to do virtually anything it wanted without risk to itself. Though, the anti-mothership force would still be able to de-fang the mothership by destroying the fighters.
A warp core strength that is too high would be akin to a pre-nerf nanoed, istabbed, rigged and snaked 10km/s megathron with smartbombs in the highs and warp core stabilizers in the lows (I have seen this) having essentially no fear or anything but lag or just bad luck, since only a force with dozens of webs would be able to slow him down, and only those who also had snakes, rigs, and ships capable of reaching the same speeds while sturdy enough to withstand smartbomb blasts would be able to deter it (i.e. other nano-battleships). Meanwhile, it would be very easy for the nanophoon to simply avoid them. In this lies a deficit of risk versus reward: the defenders have to both use the same tactics as the nanophoon, but the nanophoon does not have to rely on the burden of teamwork, since it can work alone.
All in all, I feel the only buffs truly deserved for carriers and motherships is debugging their interfaces and de-gimping the clone vat bay, which are validly requested by Aeon. |
Zenst
Gallente
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 18:35:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Zenst on 13/04/2007 18:32:57
Originally by: Bein Glorious
While the argument has essentially over now, I wanted to add my voice to those who feel there should be a way to hold down a mothership besides bumping, <SNIP>
C<SNIP>
Interdictor bubbles, to my knowledge, can prevent supercapitals from warping out, but not consistently. Anchored bubbles tend to break interdictor bubbles from patch-to-patch, and though this isn't intentional, there should be another way to hold them down in situations where interdictor bubbles aren't an option. Further, there should be a way to tackle one without using a capital ship, because of other reasons (slow locking times on capitals, lack of mobility of the tackler cap, and requisite training time being too much of a hindrance, for instance). <MORE SNIPPY>
Dude, whats your prob.
You wine about unable to hold a ship down and then clearly state ways in which it can, TOTALY killing your own arguments and then adding some patch winginging about unspecified bugs. Eithere there is a bug or not and you shoudl focus on that and not add into the equation.
Yes interdictors and bubbles take time to train a skill for but hey, guess what...so does a mothership. So please go look at the issue and see, ew wow there is no issue ingame with the game only people who cant handle the truth.
So to sum up, NO a cheapy little T1 friggy cant scramble a 15B Mothership, but and corrrect me if i'm wrong I've yet to see somebody tow away a aircraft carrier with a surfboard, but thats exactly what you seem to want. Just flowingf around the issue that remarkably enough to get anywere you actualy need to train skills and plan ahead.
You have your solution/answears and you fully know them, so i suggest you focus on training and actualy learning how they work instead of going on about how you cant get nano nags just because you take a joke as gospel.
Yes I dont fly motherships, nor do I fly interdictors, but remarkably enough seems to have been able to kill them.
Lets face it - they do and can die, albiet non been solo'd by a T1 frig yet, but hey, i live with that (see surfboard and aircraft carriers above :).
--
Some people solve problems, some talk about it and others chuck loads of money at the problem and still complain. Personaly I see opertunities.
--
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 20:37:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Zenst
Dude, whats your prob.
You wine about unable to hold a ship down and then clearly state ways in which it can, TOTALY killing your own arguments and then adding some patch winginging about unspecified bugs. Eithere there is a bug or not and you shoudl focus on that and not add into the equation.
Yes interdictors and bubbles take time to train a skill for but hey, guess what...so does a mothership. So please go look at the issue and see, ew wow there is no issue ingame with the game only people who cant handle the truth.
So to sum up, NO a cheapy little T1 friggy cant scramble a 15B Mothership, but and corrrect me if i'm wrong I've yet to see somebody tow away a aircraft carrier with a surfboard, but thats exactly what you seem to want. Just flowingf around the issue that remarkably enough to get anywere you actualy need to train skills and plan ahead.
...
Lets face it - they do and can die, albiet non been solo'd by a T1 frig yet, but hey, i live with that (see surfboard and aircraft carriers above :).
My point about dictor bubbles is that, while in theory they are able to hold down ships immune to ewar, having only one counter to something as effective in combat as a mothership isn't adequate in the long term.
Right now, interdictor bubbles do not stop warps that have already been initiated (as in, not in warp yet but the command has been given and the ship is aligning), they don't work if there is already an anchored bubble on grid, and they are also destroyable by smartbombs, which as I understand have increase range unintentionally from the irregular "bounding spheres" of capital ships. Those three problems could be already have plans for adjustment, but they show that a variety of choices is necessary for balance, since unanticipated problems can arise. CCP surely doesn't want to have new, more crippling bugs arising after applying bugfixes, but it has been known to occur many times before, and it would be best for them to anticipate the possibility.
But even in an ideal, bug-free world, making dictors essentially the only thing that can hold them would be a less-than optimal balance situation, since if one side has no dictors to use, that means the mothership can act with impunity. Not having any dictors around isn't very likely in this day and age, but by principle, it is at least in some respects in need of resolution.
An example of a problem: dictor bubbles can't be used in low-security space, so there is at the moment no way whatsoever to tackle them with a dictor. Even if lowsec is unrelated to things like system sovereignty, its a problem in need of a solution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nano nags", but I consider the imbalance and balancing efforts in response of nano/istab ships to be a valid comparison since its the problem of having both profound offensive power and the ability to escape extreme situations. Huginns and rapiers could theoretically stop pre-nerf nanoships (though in some cases nanoships were so fast, even that couldn't do it), but that's only two ships to chose from with a web bonus belonging to one race. If CCP had made special "anti-speed" ship classes for all races in response to the speed issue, it would have worked part of the way, but its a less than ideal solution in the long-term.
And lastly, if you suggest that someone making note of unresolved balance issues and giving carefully considered input (and in the end agreeing with virtually everything in the thread's opening post) counts as whining, then I think you're overreacting. And furthermore, comparing vulnerability with resistance to targeted warp scramblers to a surfboarder towing an aircraft carrier is hardly applicable. I've brought logically based problems to light without antagonizing anyone unlike some other people in this thread, including those who are essentially on my side of the argument, and it would be courteous enough for people to do the same for others. |
Zenst
Gallente
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 21:22:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
<SNIP see above post>
Ok so the real issue is motherships in empire space. Not as a whole. That said they also have a disadvantage with regards to smartbombs. But giving any and all ships ability to scramble would be silly. Unless they had a built in warpcore strength of say 10 or so, maybe linked to the skill for the ship for fairness.
As for interdictors, well maybe there will be larger class versions comming along. personaly I'd like to see these ships have other type of sphere's too launch such as webby feilds and dampner feilds, even dmg feilds like a decaying smartbomb/mining gas cload.
But bottom line it should need more than one frig to be able to scramble, and before that scramblers need looking at.
All that said, it realy aint hard to bump a mothership, which in itself is just silly, so until that whole aspect is addressed, you fixing an issue that isn't mothership related at all.
As for the bubble bugs, the one were more than one on grid, well, perhaps that needs looking at.
As for already being in warp, well - makes perfect sence to me as warping is two phase:
1) destination warp aligned and cap used as destination locked in
2) ship physicaly aligned to locked in destination
scramblers disrupt the alignment of the warp feild and prevent fiurther locks were disruption sphere's will only prevent a lock as there a larger feild/area effect and as such there interferance isn;t as good as a focused jammer. Thats my take on it logicaly. Which makes sence to me.
Now you could have stronger sphere's introduced but lets face it, your real issues is with motherships in empire and as said, bumping is a great option in that enviroment, especialy given they aint going to be *****ing smartbombs in a hurry.
Also any stronger sphere's aint exactly going in the amount of SP direction you seem to demand. that said the amount of SP's needed at the moment compared to flying a mothership is hardly balanced either, go figure :).
I see a gap in the logistics ship area, maybe a dedicated captital scrambler ship, though that would be a big SP dent training wise, but insignificant still compared to the targets SP needs.
So in summary, empire motherships can be a problem, though until the whole bumping area is fully addressed there is no problem, unless your a mothership peep who have no mothership sized MWD's or ability to use stargates, so unbalance unless these area's are also looked at then how can this be raised honestly as a balanced argument. Given a large capital cant use a pretty large stargate but a small T1 frig with a small T1 module can disable it. Balance realy is a word more used to define an unbalanced argument more than a balanced issues. For every up there is a down, thats balance.
Personaly a bog standard T1 frig should NOT be able to have enough warp scramble strength to scramble a BS, but hey - liek I said scramblers needs to be looked at fully still. As in not last minute forgoten about and dropped from the initial ECM changes over 2 years ago. Those showed logical progress, and a warp scxrambler is a form of ECM. So until thats picked up again and fully balanced, then we might have some area's to discuss.
Until then fly safe, but do fly.
Oh and remember SP's<>kills, its only a means too undocking with more minerals :).
|
Chewan Mesa
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 21:30:00 -
[76]
We're still talking about killing a mothership here.
If you want to achieve this, you should be willing to bother to sort yourself out and not have any mobile warp disruptors anchored, and have 5 or more interdictors ready to keep a bubble up 23/7 on the Mom while shooting it.
You seem to say that its clumsy and difficult to keep the bubble up, and that it has bugs with anchored bubbles...well you can all avoid this, and manage to keep bubbles up. But it takes effort and skill, nothing wrong with that.
|
iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 15:01:00 -
[77]
Edited by: iqplayer on 14/04/2007 15:00:34
Originally by: Dianabolic
An idea for the "anti-capital" side of things, and holding the targets down, may be a capital sized warp scrambler, that can only be fit on motherships and only works on other capital ships?
TBH, the addition of a capital scrambler that could only be used on a MS, without also adding options to scramble supercapitals with regular ships, would be out of line with the rest of Eve's principles. It's always seemed silly to me that a BS could be scrambled by a single frigate - but that's the way Eve has been designed. It should not require a more expensive, or equally expensive ship to hold a supercapital down.
That said, I would see nothing wrong with giving a capital/supercapital an advantage at holding capital ships down, as long as it was possible with smaller ships. The idea of a WCS strength of +15, say, on a MS, where regular scramblers did +1 and a capital scrambler did +15, would be one scenario that accomplished this. The specific WCS strengths would need to be tested and balanced of course, this is just an example of the idea.
As for the need for some form of change, the argument that a few MS have been killed already is not a reasonable argument to justify the current mechanics. A BS that was piloted the way MS and Titans currently are used would be lost in 8/10 or 9/10 times - ie, one BS vs 10 or more frigates/cruisers normally results in a dead BS. One MS or Titan vs a fleet of 30-40, rarely results in a supercapital loss - or even a supercapital in danger, or needing fleet assistance.
|
Icome4u
IronPig
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.04.15 01:52:00 -
[78]
It's normal that a scrambler/warp bubble doesn't stop a ship from warping if the warp command was already given. Why? Because the warp computer already processed the calculations for warping.
Scramblers/Warp Bubble don't scramble the engines, they scramble the computer that lets you warp, if the calculations for warping are already done, then scrambling the ship doesn't do anything...
Oh and yeah, please fix MS and Carriers CCP
|
Chewan Mesa
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.04.15 08:14:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 15/04/2007 08:10:43
Originally by: iqplayer
As for the need for some form of change, the argument that a few MS have been killed already is not a reasonable argument to justify the current mechanics. A BS that was piloted the way MS and Titans currently are used would be lost in 8/10 or 9/10 times - ie, one BS vs 10 or more frigates/cruisers normally results in a dead BS. One MS or Titan vs a fleet of 30-40, rarely results in a supercapital loss - or even a supercapital in danger, or needing fleet assistance.
Uhm, you cant compare 1 BS killed by 10 Frigs to 1 MS hold down and killed by 30 Ships. Its totally not in proportion if a 30man gang could easily kill a mothership.
It's not impossible the way it is, but it shouldnt be any easier.
And the argument that MS have been killed using Dictors is indeed an argument if you like it or not, because it clearly shows given the dedication and planning is done, it can be hold down and killed.
|
iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 17:28:00 -
[80]
Edited by: iqplayer on 16/04/2007 17:29:06
Edited by: iqplayer on 16/04/2007 17:25:03
Originally by: Chewan Mesa
Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 15/04/2007 08:10:43
Uhm, you cant compare 1 BS killed by 10 Frigs to 1 MS hold down and killed by 30 Ships. Its totally not in proportion if a 30man gang could easily kill a mothership.
It's not impossible the way it is, but it shouldnt be any easier.
And the argument that MS have been killed using Dictors is indeed an argument if you like it or not, because it clearly shows given the dedication and planning is done, it can be hold down and killed.
You can, and you should! Now, perhaps the *number* of ships that might be needed to hold it down has to be balanced - again, I'm just using numbers to try to make a point. But you try to say that there's such a huge difference between frigate/BS, and BS/MS?? A frigate costs what, 500k? That's probably generous. A BS, let's say 100m. That's 200 times more value held down by a single ship. Okay, now let's do BS/MS. BS = 100m, MS.... well, if we use mineral value, ~13B, or let's say 25 to include effort/logistics (though it takes far more work to build a BS than a frigate also??), and we get a ratio of..... 250. Seems fairly close. Now, would the solo frigate kill the BS? No - but neither would a solo BS vs a MS. It would still take a decent sized fleet to kill the MS. But I'm going to leave that argument at that point for now, and move to another, more compelling argument.
When BS were first introduced, they were pwn mobiles. Large turrets hit small ships. A single BS could take on a group of small ships, and quite reasonably win.
They were nerfed.
BUT that's exactly how many MS and Titans are now used! MS/Titans *are* solo pwn mobiles as things stand right now, and that's just not how the rest of Eve works! MS and Titans are supposed to be *fleet* vessels, and yet the current mechanics actually gives them huge advantages when fielded solo. I would go so far as to say, the only fleet that a MS encourages to form is the enemy one - because without a huge fleet, you have no chance against a MS.
I'm sorry you spent 15/20/25 whatever billion on your solo pwn mobile and are worried that it could get nerfed. But the current mechanics *are not* inline with the mechanics, or the spirit, of Eve warfare.
The fairest way to handle supercapitals, would be to give them some abilities that gave them *some* advantage - like a built in WCS strength of +15 (example only); they've already got a high sensor strength, and dampeners need balancing all around.... but they shouldn't be nearly invulnerable. They *certainly* shouldn't have mechanics that give them a very decent chance of escape, even when facing a large fleet. And they *absolutely* shouldn't be solo pwn mobiles.
|
Serendipity007
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 19:27:00 -
[81]
I wholeheartedly agree.
EvE is quickly becoming "Capital Ship Online". Without some means of balancing Capital vs Non-Capital ship combat, EvE stands to lose a ton of its loyal playerbase not already in capital ships.
Without going into the dead-horse argument that is doomsday weapons, we can all agree that capitals as they are now, make anything smaller than a battleship obsolete. The current game mechanic is very biased towards capitals, especially supercapitals with their immunity to EW.
The best way that I can think of to solve this balance, is to add some sort of "subsystem" or highslot targeting mechanic, where sub-capitals can target capitals, target their subsystems and/or guns, and disable them with less effort than it takes to outright destroy them.
With such a mechanic, battleships could target the guns of a Dreadnaught and disable them. The description of dread guns even says they are the size of frigates, so this makes some sense. This mechanic could also work to a lesser extent for carriers and motherships, with subsystems such as "engines", "warp drive", "sensors", "main computer", "life support", and "shield generators" that could be targeted and disabled. Some of the smaller modules/subsystems should only be targetable/attackable by smaller ships such as cruisers or frigates, as to give them a role in anti-capital warfare. Although subsystems could be disabled, they shouldn't lose complete functionality, as capitals logically would have multiple backup systems.
Motherships especially seem pointless to build, as they don't provide many signifigant advantages over a fleet of carriers that the resources could build. Some rough ideas for fixing this:
* Fix the drone vat bay so that it is useful in combat.
* Introduce "bomber" versions of fighters. They would have 1.5x-2x the volume of regular fighters, but have signifigantly higher DPS. They should have more HP, be slower and vulnerable, but be able to threaten capital ships with enough DPS to be dangerous, especially to emplaced installations and supercapitals. Their increased volume would mean that Motherships would be the ideal platform for such bombers, as they could hold enough of them.
Regarding Titans, I remember way back before Titans were introduced, and in a dev blog it was stated that Titans were not designed to be a huge damage monster, but to be a mobile starbase. As Titans are today, they are the largest single shot ship in the game, capable of wiping out whole fleets with little risk to itself. I can think of no other game where players have such power without consequence. Titans desperately need adjusting, and here are some rough ideas:
* Remove the remote doomsday functionality entirely.
* Change Doomsdays so that instead of only a large amount of damage, there would be much smaller amount of initial damage, followed by a lingering after-effect. The effect would vary on race: Amarr: capacitor recharge and max amount debuff, Minmatar: prevent warp out (or in possibly) for the duration (would give an actual reason for building Minnie Titan :P ), Caldari: debuff to shield resists, Gallente: Debuff to armor resists.
* Remove DD, and replace with a "Station" module. When activated, a small POS shield would be erected, and the Titan would be immobile for 15-30 min. While shields are up, system-wide signifigant gang bonuses would be given. POS shield HP would be equivalent of a small POS, and the Titan would be vulnerable (and immobile) if the shield goes down. No reinforced mode available. There would also be a 5-10 minute cooldown time for the station module. This module could not be activated within 100 km of stations, POS's, or gates.
___________________________________________________
"I'm an engineer, not a miracle worker!" - Scotty, Star Trek: TOS
|
Harisdrop
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 20:04:00 -
[82]
Carrier thread about fighters
I also would like to have a better management of Fighters. More skills related to effectiveness of fighters would be appreciated.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.16 22:53:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Chewan Mesa
Uhm, you cant compare 1 BS killed by 10 Frigs to 1 MS hold down and killed by 30 Ships. Its totally not in proportion if a 30man gang could easily kill a mothership.
Depends.
If the 30 ships are 10 BS and soem cruisers, no. If those 30 ships are 1 (non-mothership) carrier with a capital scrambler, 20 BS and some cruiser support it's actually VERY compareable.
Around 4 bil in assets and 30 pilots vs 40 bil in assets and 1 pilot.
Around 5-10 mil in assets and 10 pilots vs 75-150 mil in assets and 1 pilot.
The propotion is if anything in favour for the mothership.
I would disagree that we need a non capital jammer for mother ships. Dictors can provide that, although rather problematic (you need a severe overkill there, AFAIK the Aeon kill was made possible by at least 10 dictors spamming it with disrupt probes).
But a 1 bil base cost capital being able to stop a 25 bil base cost mothership or 80 bil base cost titan from warping out...hell, yes. Thats not really different from a frigate jamming a BS.
Quote:
It's not impossible the way it is, but it shouldnt be any easier.
And the argument that MS have been killed using Dictors is indeed an argument if you like it or not, because it clearly shows given the dedication and planning is done, it can be hold down and killed.
I doubt many people claim they are unkillable, just that the required effort/cost to lock them down is imappropriately higher than that for other ships.
|
Liisa
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.04.18 16:27:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Aramendel
<snip>
The propotion is if anything in favour for the mothership.
I would disagree that we need a non capital jammer for mother ships. Dictors can provide that, although rather problematic (you need a severe overkill there, AFAIK the Aeon kill was made possible by at least 10 dictors spamming it with disrupt probes).
But a 1 bil base cost capital being able to stop a 25 bil base cost mothership or 80 bil base cost titan from warping out...hell, yes. Thats not really different from a frigate jamming a BS.
Quote:
It's not impossible the way it is, but it shouldnt be any easier.
And the argument that MS have been killed using Dictors is indeed an argument if you like it or not, because it clearly shows given the dedication and planning is done, it can be hold down and killed.
I doubt many people claim they are unkillable, just that the required effort/cost to lock them down is imappropriately higher than that for other ships.
Then we are all agreed since you need 'dictors to hold down a mothership or titan, motherships and titans should not be allowed into lowsec where 'dictors cannot use their warp disruptor probes?
----------------------------------
|
iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.18 20:06:00 -
[85]
Edited by: iqplayer on 18/04/2007 20:07:11
Edited by: iqplayer on 18/04/2007 20:04:21
Edited by: iqplayer on 18/04/2007 20:03:07
Originally by: Liisa
Then we are all agreed since you need 'dictors to hold down a mothership or titan, motherships and titans should not be allowed into lowsec where 'dictors cannot use their warp disruptor probes?
Well, not I.... don't keep them out of low-sec, make them at least somewhat vulnerable. Let me make a chart that will help explain why I feel the way I do. This is how EW is 'balanced' amongst ships in Eve, in terms of difficulty to jam:
Frigate *
Cruiser **
BC ***
BS ****
Carrier *****
MS **********************************************************************
See the problem? Oh, and this isn't even really the right picture, because that line for MS would extend forever to the right.........
Now imagine the chart for warp scrambling.
EDIT: Meh, the forum nerfed my pretty picture : (
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.19 17:41:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Liisa
Then we are all agreed since you need 'dictors to hold down a mothership or titan, motherships and titans should not be allowed into lowsec where 'dictors cannot use their warp disruptor probes?
If they introduce a "capital class" scrambler which can scram them - no.
If they don't - yes. Although I much rather had the first option since dictor bubbles as primary titan/MS "scrambler" is not really something which I would call balanced in effort/effect.
|
Mutant
UA Industry
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 02:37:00 -
[87]
1) to spend billions for purchase components bpo, ms bpo and fit;
2) 1,5 month for all constructions;
3) to protect pos with shipyard.
and you offer to facilitate an opportunity of destruction...
who will build ms's after that?!
i think 30 carriers better than 1 ms... one cost 
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 02:45:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Mutant
1) to spend billions for purchase components bpo, ms bpo and fit;
2) 1,5 month for all constructions;
3) to protect pos with shipyard.
and you offer to facilitate an opportunity of destruction...
who will build ms's after that?!
i think 30 carriers better than 1 ms... one cost
Sorry if it seems wrong dude, but its a game. If there isn't a way to tackle one, either as intended or not, then the game is broken. You just have to remember that cost can't mean you get whatever you want. |
Mutant
UA Industry
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 04:03:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Sorry if it seems wrong dude, but its a game. If there isn't a way to tackle one, either as intended or not, then the game is broken. You just have to remember that cost can't mean you get whatever you want.
It is difficult for constructing and should be difficultly to destroy...
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 07:12:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Mutant
1) to spend billions for purchase components bpo, ms bpo and fit;
2) 1,5 month for all constructions;
3) to protect pos with shipyard.
and you offer to facilitate an opportunity of destruction...
who will build ms's after that?!
i think 30 carriers better than 1 ms... one cost
One battleship does around twice the dps of a cruiser and needs 12-30 times the minerals.
One mothership does around twice the dps of a carrier and needs 20 times the minerals.
Higher concentration of force on a single person means an expotential cost increase, that was always the case in eve. If the cost-effect ratio would be the most important thing everyone in eve would fly around in t1 frigates. One big ship is only worth it's value in smaller ships if you ignore the "cost" of having enough pilots for those available (and online).
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 17:18:00 -
[91]
It is probably difficult to find the right spot where everyone is satisfied that the ship is both vulnerable enough to be balanced but useful enough to be worth the money. But either way, the main point is that there needs to be some kind of adjustment to the traits of supercapitals to balance them in the scope of the game. Philosophy on what capital ships should and should not be might be better left to another thread, but I think enough has been said about the problems of EWAR immunity, as evidenced by the issue of not being able to use interdictor spheres in lowsec space, among other things. |
iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.20 21:57:00 -
[92]
"Invulnerable"
That sums up entirely what's wrong with Supercapitals.
There should be nothing in Eve that is invulnerable. Give it a + WCS strength, it already has a high sensor strength, and a bonus to targeting range to counter sensor damps - but remove 'invulnerable'.
You cannot balance something which is infinite.
|
prathe
Minmatar
Omega Enterprises
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 18:40:00 -
[93]
a sensible and balanced list
TBH ccp needs to get some serious drone <3 going on all drone ships need it really drone organization and deployment are still messy
for many pilots drones can be a main weapon and there are too many bugs in the way the operate and maneuver
c'mon tux give a drone a hug
/signed
|
gordon cain
Minmatar
x13
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 18:09:00 -
[94]
Edited by: gordon cain on 24/04/2007 18:05:46
1) Mothership and titans are close to unstoppable. And I am talking low-sec here. You can be lucky to bump one long enough to kill him. But still you should either be able to deploy dictor bubbles or let low-sec be a " NO GO" for super capitals.
2) Why on earth should a ship be immmune to something else in eve. I dont care if it cost 150 billion or 2 billion. Thats the good thing about eve. You loose stuff if you dont know what you are doing, and if you dont bring your friends you are screwed.
Some good points in this thread. The best I think is some built in warp-core bonus affected by skills. That would even things out.
|
Sir Bart
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 19:31:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
[*]5. Nerf bumping
Frigates and sub-capital ships in general should have a minimal effect on keeping a 40 billion worth supercapital in place. Even if you get a gang of 30 non-capitals together and spend the night planning the assassination, ....
I'm with you on most points except for this one. Motherships are already nearly impossible to kill. They don't need to be any more invulnerable than they are. Same goes for titans. Currently, the only way to kill a mothership or titan involves a mixture of nos (to prevent jumping), bubbles / bumping to prevent warp, and finally... a plan to not get killed by the super capital while you're doing it. The other way is to find exploits to flag a pilot while they log off or drop a lag bomb of 200 people to load onto grid so that they may be too lagged out to initiate jump.
-Bart
|
Sir Bart
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 19:36:00 -
[96]
Something that wasn't suggested that I think carriers / motherships need is a warp disruption fighter... without that, you can attack a carrier with just 5-6 battleships and have nothing to worry about.
-Bart
|
Chronus26
Gallente
Team Laser Explosion
|
Posted - 2007.04.25 02:13:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Sir Bart
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
[*]5. Nerf bumping
Frigates and sub-capital ships in general should have a minimal effect on keeping a 40 billion worth supercapital in place. Even if you get a gang of 30 non-capitals together and spend the night planning the assassination, ....
I'm with you on most points except for this one. Motherships are already nearly impossible to kill. They don't need to be any more invulnerable than they are. Same goesfor titans. Currently, the only way to kill a mothership or titan involves a mixture of nos (to prevent jumping), bubbles / bumping to prevent warp, and finally... a plan to not get killed by the super capital while you're doing it. The other way is to find exploits to flag a pilot while they log off or drop a lag bomb of 200 people to load onto grid so that they may be too lagged out to initiate jump.
-Bart
Killing a Mothership should be possible under 'normal' game circumstances; I think everyone agrees here. However, the disagreements begin to surface when you try to decide how difficult this should be.
Peronally, I believe that the destruction of a Mothership should be something that takes both planning and skill in large measures. It should be a feat that commands respect. It should be achivable by only those groups skilled enough to come up with a plan to counter any actions the MS pilot may take to escape, and who have the dicipline to carry out this plan without error.
I know a lot of people are in favor of giving MS a Blockade Runner-like '+ to warp strength' bonus of a high magnitude. I feel this subtracts a lot from the tactical aspect of MS killing, as it would take nothing more than your average blob to destroy a MS.
In my opinion, the only things that needs to change in regards to locking down MS are:
:- They should not be able to use the Jump-drive to escape from Mobile Warp Disruptors or Interdiction Spheres. This gives people the tools to lock them down; however using them to achive a result is where that planning and skill comes into play.
:- As Aeon Yakati says: 'Frigates and sub-capital ships in general should have a minimal effect on keeping a 40 billion worth supercapital in place.' - if nothing else, its a total immersion-breaker. I think the entire game physics systems needs a little reworking at this stage, not just on this issue.
-----
|
xttz
|
Posted - 2007.04.25 13:24:00 -
[98]
Edited by: xttz on 25/04/2007 13:20:11
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
On a more serious note, the risk vs reward sheet needs balancing. Frigates and sub-capital ships in general should have a minimal effect on keeping a 40 billion worth supercapital in place. Even if you get a gang of 30 non-capitals together and spend the night planning the assassination, the efforts still come nowhere close to the work, time and ISK spent in fitting, maintaining and building a supercapital over a 3+ month period. The very least that one should do to hold a supercapital, is bring an almost equal amount of assets into the fight. I.e. a decent sized capital fleet (10+) with support minimum. And cook up a masterplan. Only then a supercapital kill would seem fair and square if you think about it.
Bumping and collisions in general needs alot of tweaking to make the process less silly. Anyone who has attempted to get a freighter out of a busy station knows it's a daunting task. Catching an Ibis will cause you to lose momentum and stop dead. Undocking onto a cargo can or shuttle wreck will bounce the freighter away at high speed without moving an inch itself. I've had my dreadnought undock onto a corpse which got stuck inside the ships bounding box, and the only way to move again was to scoop or blow up the body.
Floating cadavers and worthless bits of metal should have no effect on powered, multi-billion ton machines.
|
iqplayer
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.25 14:48:00 -
[99]
Originally by: xttz
Edited by: xttz on 25/04/2007 13:20:11
Originally by: Aeon Yakati
On a more serious note, the risk vs reward sheet needs balancing. Frigates and sub-capital ships in general should have a minimal effect on keeping a 40 billion worth supercapital in place. Even if you get a gang of 30 non-capitals together and spend the night planning the assassination, the efforts still come nowhere close to the work, time and ISK spent in fitting, maintaining and building a supercapital over a 3+ month period. The very least that one should do to hold a supercapital, is bring an almost equal amount of assets into the fight. I.e. a decent sized capital fleet (10+) with support minimum. And cook up a masterplan. Only then a supercapital kill would seem fair and square if you think about it.
Bumping and collisions in general needs alot of tweaking to make the process less silly. Anyone who has attempted to get a freighter out of a busy station knows it's a daunting task. Catching an Ibis will cause you to lose momentum and stop dead. Undocking onto a cargo can or shuttle wreck will bounce the freighter away at high speed without moving an inch itself. I've had my dreadnought undock onto a corpse which got stuck inside the ships bounding box, and the only way to move again was to scoop or blow up the body.
Floating cadavers and worthless bits of metal should have no effect on powered, multi-billion ton machines.
The sad part is, I very much agree that bumping and collisions need fixing - but nerfing bumping at the moment would make holding down MS even worse. Really, the whole system needs to be rethought.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 21:29:00 -
[100]
Very very Signed. Managing a carrier's drone bay is pretty absurd when you have about 25 different kinds of drones. My greatest problem with the EVE interface in general is the lack of subtabs, this applies to chat windows, cargo bays, hangers, and drone bays. Everything would be so much smoother if I could have my 4 stacks of heavy drones under one tab, then each stack gets their own tab within that. Or if I could have a chat tab and in intel tab, then different channels within these. Managing a large hanger or drone bay is total hell, and least with hangers you can do cans, but is that really necessary? CCP, please boost tabs!
|
Barthezz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 08:25:00 -
[101]
Normally I'd call necro, but alot on this list still seems very accurate (and required). And it seems that issue 2 (drone folders not saving) has returned with a vengeance.
|
Una D
Ex Coelis
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 15:46:00 -
[102]
I would agree. Only part I don't agree on is 4h (why would a MoM have to be able to fire of 4 flights of carriers I have no idea).
And please please (if nothing else) change how much space active drones take up on the overview. I'm starting to think about widescreen 22" turned 90¦ for carrier flying
|
Barthezz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 08:00:00 -
[103]
Back to the first page, please give us carrier/mom pilots the option to tell our fighters NOT to warp after our targets. Yesterday my fighters went awol again for the majority of the fight.
|
Nikol Kidman
Sadistic Influence
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 12:55:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Nikol Kidman on 29/08/2007 13:05:24
First of all:
Bigger ships should lock faster, because they got more place for electronics. Carriers have quite good lock range until someone damp you, and time to lock something even without damps is really really bad.
In real life huge ships like real carriers, crusiers have far better radar and can lock a target (even small) from bigger distance faster than planes onboard.
Carriers should have lock range around 200km and speed around 500-600mm (with maxed skillz). Mothership a bit more maybe 250km and 700mm. And both up to 10 or even more target (maybe new skill).
|
Finderup Soren
Caldari
The Ankou
The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:47:00 -
[105]
Such a nice job!!! A big "Thank You" for this!
Gotta Bump this so that others can agree1!!!
Thanks,
Soren
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar
Res Publica
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:19:00 -
[106]
/necro signed
SAVE carrier and Moms |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |