| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kenneys
RAZOR Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:13:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
Alright, I've heard what you've had to say.
Now, please consider these other possibilities :
(If you have any other alternatives, please add them below.)
1) Nerfing the cynosural field.
Make it so that both the cyno ship and the ship that have jumped are locked down together for that period of time.
Result: Capital ships suddenly disappear from day-to-day daily ganking without having to lose their DPS.
2) Nerf fighters sig size and DCU's only work for fighters
Change the resolution sig size of a fighter to 400 m in addition to rendering DCU's to work only for fighter drones.
Result: Capital ships are no longer a serious threat to cruiser or less sized ships.
Now, in the face of these proposed nerfs, there needs to be a counterbalance. I propose:
Role Bonus: Capital ships are resistant to sensor disruption. (Anything targeting related)
How much/what the resistance is, remains to be debated.
|
Plave Okice
Gallente
0utlaws
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:14:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Plave Okice
Boost Dreads, improve their carrier killing skills, make carriers unable to deploy fighters (but still can use drones) in low sec.
Still keeps carriers the same for 0.0, removes the carrier and mom pwnge in low sec (something really does need doing about this) and actually makes dreads useful as combat ships too. Win, win.
I posted this ^ in the other thread
|
Gontard
Minmatar
E-Truth
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:54:00 -
[3]
It's not healthy to think and post alternatives to re.tard.ed ideas.
|
Zachstar
Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:05:00 -
[4]
Yes it simply encourages them to give out stupid ideas so we will try to rationalize a middle ground which will end up more of a nerf then they could get us to accept before.
Dont feed people that (In my view) need to have their employment terminated. This game (In my view) is failing enough as it is.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:47:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Zachstar
Yes it simply encourages them to give out stupid ideas so we will try to rationalize a middle ground which will end up more of a nerf then they could get us to accept before.
Dont feed people that (In my view) need to have their employment terminated. This game (In my view) is failing enough as it is.
So, how is it failing? Whats wrong with the game?
Let's hear what you have to say... wait, no. Lets not communicate, discuss, cooperate or evolve the game in any way. Lets just lean back, cross our arms and be mad.
Jaketh runs off, shouting "Death to progress"
OP, those are good suggestions, but will still mean that carriers will melt battleships in seconds solo. I think that is part of the problem  .
Unfortunately, I cannot come up with a better idea, other than limiting the numbers of fighters as the dev suggested.
|
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:49:00 -
[6]
My personal proposal:
Proposal
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:05:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 22/10/2007 10:04:56
Originally by: Lydia Brightlance
My personal proposal:
Proposal
Ok, i looked at you balance suggestion and that is not a balance but a serious buff. You take a solopwnmobile and buff it up to a wtfbbqsolopwnmobilehamster.
Drone able to follow in warp. 50% drone damage pr level.
These suggestions means you need absolutely no support at all, especially with the "look at damps against cap ships".
Dev suggest a balance/nerf to make a carrier only fulfill its role, you then counter it with a gigantic buff.
|
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:11:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Lydia Brightlance on 22/10/2007 10:11:38
The +50% drone damage is the same that is used by the Moros. Overall damage will seriously go down from what it is right now. Also there will be a lot less drones. It is not so much as a buff or nerf what I am proposing, but a shift in how the ship is being used.
As for the damps. I specifically stated that this is probably not needed if the Triage module is fixed.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:28:00 -
[9]
Still sounds like a serious buff to me.
Imagine 10 inties vs a mother today (assuming the mother can be scrambled). They would stand a good chance of keeping the mother in place till reinforcements arrive.
With you proposed balance, you would just assign 7/8 light drones to 2 inties, wait till you get the kill mail, and then attack the next two.
I don't think carriers are supposed to be able to defend themselves against everything.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:29:00 -
[10]
The most straight forward answer to lag from drones in a "drone number" sense is to change drones into "drone squadrons" and cap every ship at 5 squadrons maximum.
On small ships, nothing changes - you have 1 drone per squadron.
On carriers however you might have anywhere from 1 to 5 fighters per squadron. Motherships would be defined as fielding squadrons with more fighters in them then motherships.
This neatly ensures that every ship is only launching a maximum of 5 additional entities, while retaining the versatility and DPS of carriers and motherships as the currently stand.
|
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Still sounds like a serious buff to me.
Imagine 10 inties vs a mother today (assuming the mother can be scrambled). They would stand a good chance of keeping the mother in place till reinforcements arrive.
With you proposed balance, you would just assign 7/8 light drones to 2 inties, wait till you get the kill mail, and then attack the next two.
I don't think carriers are supposed to be able to defend themselves against everything.
Right now a mothership can assign 10 drones to 2 fighters each, which has almost the same result. Either the Inty can outrun the drones or not. Te damage bonus simply makes the inty's life a few seconds shorter. Besides, most decent interceptor pilots can outrun most drones, especially with the new interceptor changes coming in so they have more cap for constant MWDing.
This aside, an interceptor can't do anything at all to a motherhsip at the moment. In my proposal a Mothership actually needs to assign drones on an interceptor instead of simply ignoring it. Also, an inty is rather well suited to killing drones if it cannot outrun them.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Do Or Die And Live Or Try
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lydia Brightlance
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Still sounds like a serious buff to me.
Imagine 10 inties vs a mother today (assuming the mother can be scrambled). They would stand a good chance of keeping the mother in place till reinforcements arrive.
With you proposed balance, you would just assign 7/8 light drones to 2 inties, wait till you get the kill mail, and then attack the next two.
I don't think carriers are supposed to be able to defend themselves against everything.
Right now a mothership can assign 10 drones to 2 fighters each, which has almost the same result. Either the Inty can outrun the drones or not. Te damage bonus simply makes the inty's life a few seconds shorter. Besides, most decent interceptor pilots can outrun most drones, especially with the new interceptor changes coming in so they have more cap for constant MWDing.
This aside, an interceptor can't do anything at all to a motherhsip at the moment. In my proposal a Mothership actually needs to assign drones on an interceptor instead of simply ignoring it. Also, an inty is rather well suited to killing drones if it cannot outrun them.
Well, as it is now, drones can't follow into warp. Thats the major buff, along with the 250% damage.
|
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:48:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Lydia Brightlance on 22/10/2007 10:48:52
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Originally by: Lydia Brightlance
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Still sounds like a serious buff to me.
Imagine 10 inties vs a mother today (assuming the mother can be scrambled). They would stand a good chance of keeping the mother in place till reinforcements arrive.
With you proposed balance, you would just assign 7/8 light drones to 2 inties, wait till you get the kill mail, and then attack the next two.
I don't think carriers are supposed to be able to defend themselves against everything.
Right now a mothership can assign 10 drones to 2 fighters each, which has almost the same result. Either the Inty can outrun the drones or not. Te damage bonus simply makes the inty's life a few seconds shorter. Besides, most decent interceptor pilots can outrun most drones, especially with the new interceptor changes coming in so they have more cap for constant MWDing.
This aside, an interceptor can't do anything at all to a motherhsip at the moment. In my proposal a Mothership actually needs to assign drones on an interceptor instead of simply ignoring it. Also, an inty is rather well suited to killing drones if it cannot outrun them.
Well, as it is now, drones can't follow into warp. Thats the major buff, along with the 250% damage.
The 250% damage is far less then the amount that 10-20 Fighters do at the moment, so damage overall will drop drastically.
In the end you loose a lot of damage output and you gain more flexibility on how you use your carrier. I'd say that is rather balanced. (Remember, right now Fighters can follow into warp. Since in my proposal Fighters will become useless against anything but other capitals it is only logical to have the normal drones pick up the slack)
|
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:00:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Originally by: Zachstar
Yes it simply encourages them to give out stupid ideas so we will try to rationalize a middle ground which will end up more of a nerf then they could get us to accept before.
Dont feed people that (In my view) need to have their employment terminated. This game (In my view) is failing enough as it is.
So, how is it failing? Whats wrong with the game?
Let's hear what you have to say... wait, no. Lets not communicate, discuss, cooperate or evolve the game in any way. Lets just lean back, cross our arms and be mad.
Jaketh runs off, shouting "Death to progress"
OP, those are good suggestions, but will still mean that carriers will melt battleships in seconds solo. I think that is part of the problem .
Unfortunately, I cannot come up with a better idea, other than limiting the numbers of fighters as the dev suggested.
For you to even ask whats wrong with this game shows how much of a noob you are.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Icome4u
For you to even ask whats wrong with this game shows how much of a noob you are.
Lets keep it civil and constructive. No need for name calling and mud slinging.
|
Niffetin
Gallente
CONsordium Infinate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:17:00 -
[16]
10x Ogre II + 250% Damage Bonus >>>> 10x Fighters
---
[WTS] Void L / Armageddon / Myrmidon / Antimatter XL / Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I |
Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:21:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Niffetin
10x Ogre II + 250% Damage Bonus >>>> 10x Fighters
Yes, but in my proposal you can only use 5 Ogre IIs. Is 5 Ogre IIs + 250% damage still better then 10 Fighters?
|
Trask Kilraen
The Older Gamers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:33:00 -
[18]
Other than being lag-machines.... carriers and moms don;t need to be fixed atm!
They ain't broke!
------------------------------------------
|
Celeste Bane
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Trask Kilraen
Other than being lag-machines.... carriers and moms don;t need to be fixed atm!
They ain't broke!
It isn't about them being broke. It's that CCP wants to reduce their role as solo ships. They want them to rock in bigger groups, but suck at members less than 5.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:34:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 22/10/2007 16:36:07
I propose a line of new single target DD weapons and a new class (Juggernought) to field them. These would be weapons designed to maul capital ships with a crippling alpha strike, so that 2-3 pilots in Juggernoughts could erase a mom pilot in a matter of seconds.
Juggernoughts would be lightly armored capital ship hunters, with poor tanks but more turret and launcher slots. The ultimate alpha strike cap ship. They would be weak though, weak enough to fear a Titan dd, but faster then other capitals. Possibly designed for cloak.
Essentially a ship designed to eradicate lone capships, but vunerable to groups of battleships.
That, or allow smaller ships to ram and self destruct.
--------------------------------------------------
FRIGATS Coalition
FREGE-Red-IAC-Goon-AAA-Tau-Southerncross
"We gonna beat you with frigats." |
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:40:00 -
[21]
No discussion from me on any proposed changes to Carriers till CCP fires ZuluPark and buries ANY idea of reducing the number of Fighters my carrier can launch!
Disscussing various other 'options' in the face of such an extinction event as this is the equalivalent of negoatiation with Terrorists while I have a gun to my head!
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc.
STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:45:00 -
[22]
Quote:
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
first off a carrier should be better then a battleship.
thats why its 5 times the size 10 times more expansive and 8 times longer to train.
now for carriers imo they are not even strong enough they can use a boost actually.
either in strength or damage or in new features aka more special abilitys.
motherships have only 1 flaw.
that is the lowsec invulnarability.
This has to change as its not possible to tank it in anywhere from 0.1 to 0.3 space and that possibility should be made.
think in ways of changing the ecm invulnarability into a high wcs strength.
but other then that also this ship does not have enough key features it needs more special abillitys.
Titan other then its doomsday device all other features are used on poses moms or even a rorqual nowadays.
with other words this mega big ship that is very hard to obtain and train has only 1 feature a red button.
obviously this ship also needs more special abilitys.
so in conclusion.
instead of what you are looking to do aka make in this case carriers moms more weak i suggest you do completely the opposite.
they are not overpowered but underpowered.
|
Marcus Quo
Gallente
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:28:00 -
[23]
It would be great if CCP explained what all they were trying to fix with this. The dev post was fairly vague, saying "capitals flying without support." Are they talking about low-sec motherships? Are they also trying to fix capital blobs in 00? Are they trying to reduce lag created by fighters? Are they trying to keep carriers off the front lines?
Until we know specifically what this "fix" is for, it's going to be hard to come up with other suggestions that will make CCP happy.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:46:00 -
[24]
I already stated in other posts. I would. Limit to 1 fighter deployed per second, that would diminish the occurrence of:
5 moms warp into your fleet lock and wtfpown everything before the BSs can align out.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Danjira Ryuujin
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:00:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
No discussion from me on any proposed changes to Carriers till CCP fires ZuluPark and buries ANY idea of reducing the number of Fighters my carrier can launch!
Disscussing various other 'options' in the face of such an extinction event as this is the equalivalent of negoatiation with Terrorists while I have a gun to my head!
Why is it his fault? Developers don't come up with these ideas unilaterally and force them on the eve community. Like any software development team, there is lots of discussion that goes into every change. Read the blog again he even says "we've been discussing". This blood feud with zulupark and all the personal dev bashing is so very childish.
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc.
STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:42:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin
Originally by: Princess Jodi
No discussion from me on any proposed changes to Carriers till CCP fires ZuluPark and buries ANY idea of reducing the number of Fighters my carrier can launch!
Disscussing various other 'options' in the face of such an extinction event as this is the equalivalent of negoatiation with Terrorists while I have a gun to my head!
Why is it his fault? Developers don't come up with these ideas unilaterally and force them on the eve community. Like any software development team, there is lots of discussion that goes into every change. Read the blog again he even says "we've been discussing". This blood feud with zulupark and all the personal dev bashing is so very childish.
we have been discussing on how long they have been discussing into even posting this idea.
and ofcourse ppl are flaming at him to, did you even pay attention to the way he wrote it.
quoting a line from the blog
Quote:
But wait! Thereæs more!
if this doesnt show you he is actually EXCITED! about it
i dont know howmuch diffrent he could have done it to do show how excited he is about the idea.
oh and this topic is about giving them GOOD ideas that you DID think about.
so pls stay on topic and if you dont want to give any ideas then go flame in one of the 3 other threads.
|
Kenneys
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:33:00 -
[27]
Well rather than complain about how silly the developer is.. let's just focus on providing alternatives to achieve what they have "visioned" for the carriers/MS.
|
Davlin Lotze
STK Scientific
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:44:00 -
[28]
Remove interdictors and large bubbles from Eve. That'll work :)
|
Druadan
Gallente
Aristotle Enterprises
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:45:00 -
[29]
There's no need for an alternative. Carriers are fine. Fighters do crappy damage, are easily destroyed, and a carrier is so easily tackled and dampened it isn't even funny.
|
Karentaki
Gallente
federation navy taskforce
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:04:00 -
[30]
I presume that the problem the devs are trying to fix is carrier/mom invulnerability in lowsec, and the fact that a solo carrier/mom can warp in on a group of BS's and melt them in a minute or 2 with its fighters.
I propose that rather than limiting the number of fighters usable by the carrier/mothership, they instead they have to wait between deploying waves of drones. The first 5 could be deployed instantly, then after that the pilot would have to wait 30 seconds (or maybe 1 minute) to deploy the next 5. Also, the carriers should get a Warp Core Strength of 5, and moms should get 10.
This will make it much easier to kill motherships/carriers in lowsec:
just scram them with interceptors while killing them with a BS blob
and also much harder to use them as solo-gank-mobiles:
tacklers would be needed to stop the targets from escaping while you deploy your fighters
=======================
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |