EVE Search - Heavy dictors can scramble motherships in low sec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Heavy dictors can scramble motherships in low sec

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 13:36:00 - [1] Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 13:37:12 While i do agree this is awesome anti mothership in lowsec and was needed for a long time i think it brings up issues. A speedtanking broadsword can solo tackle a mothership in 0.0. Not much point in the EW immunity of a 40 bill isk ship if it can be effectively tackled by one single ship until the fleet arrives. Basically a mothership is just a carrier with a few more fighters now. Edit: @Barthezz from what i know it's not. You're looking at 3k/sec+ fast orbiting broadswords tackling the so called EW immune supercapitals.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 15:22:00 - [2] Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 15:23:20 Originally by: CCP Atropos Originally by: MOS DEF Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 13:37:12 While i do agree this is awesome anti mothership in lowsec and was needed for a long time i think it brings up issues. A speedtanking broadsword can solo tackle a mothership in 0.0. Not much point in the EW immunity of a 40 bill isk ship if it can be effectively tackled by one single ship until the fleet arrives. Basically a mothership is just a carrier with a few more fighters now. Edit: @Barthezz from what i know it's not. You're looking at 3k/sec+ fast orbiting broadswords tackling the so called EW immune supercapitals. Did you test this 'speed fit' with the scrambler active? It's quite alarming that you ask me this question. You should bloody know! You're a DEV and this change might make paper toys out of the second expensive ship in game and you don't even know. Personally i have not tested it. I've been on sisi and had someone report this and he had a broadsword. Who said they should be flown solo? Don't wwist my posts! I said a boradsword will tackle a mothership speedtankign at zero risk. That is an issue. Last thing this game needs is even more oeverpowered speedtanks. I fly vagabond and huginns myself - i know what they can do.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 15:43:00 - [3] Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 15:46:39 Originally by: CCP Atropos If it helps, I'm getting clarification on the matter from the Game Design team. It would help. I would test it if i coudl use the ship myself. I therefor had to rely on the info of a pilot that can use it. If the HIC cannot do 3k+ there is no issue. Reports from sisi say they can though. If that is true that is quite game breaking. I wouldn't be surprised after waht you guys pulled off lately. You must excuse me but your latest changes to the game were radical and the trust of the community in the DEVS is lower then ever. Edit: At the poster above: There is nothign easy in catching a vagabond or huginn. It is possible by using rapiers and that's pretty much it. If you use your brains you are very hard to catch. Also i would not compare a 10 mill ceptro tackling a battleship with a 100 mill HIC tacklign a 40 billion mothership or 100+ bill titan. Don't go there. Isk shpould not make you invulnerable. But there should be SOME reason to fly this ships. Right now i cannot see one anymore.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 15:49:00 - [4] Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 15:51:15 Originally by: CCP Atropos Currently the Focused scripts nullify the negative side effects of the Heavy Interdictors, which does indeed allow you to speed tank the Broadsword. However, as with everything on Sisi, it may change. As i said before........ Polycarbs scream for a fix since ages but you are to busy screwing up the game to see it. Soon we will only see nano gangs or blobs. And nanoblobs. It is harder then ever to get a fight in this game.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 17:46:00 - [5] Edited by: MOS DEF on 07/11/2007 17:46:52 Originally by: Vicious Phoenix A Broadsword dedicated to tanking (something like 17k shields with resists in the 80's for a T2 fit) plus a Scimitar will be able to hold down a mom quite nicely I think. Scimitar can just stand off at 60 or so km and warp out as needed if the mom's heavies get to him, then as the heavies trundle back to the Broadsword, the scimitar comes back and resumes repping. Sounds doable to me but it's definately not a guaranteed sustained tackle especially if the mom has a support gang like it should. That's where is see the issue. Jump in 2 dreads and the mom is dead. The problem is that a mothership has the same tank as a carrier. A tad better with deadspace items but you can put that on a carrier too so that's no real argument. I know they were a pain in lowsec and i see the need to fix that. The current fix made them 30+ billion isk carriers with no real role though. Where's the point in them now? Edit: Fenderson: You are ofc right there.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:04:00 - [6] Originally by: Mr Broker Originally by: MOS DEF But there should be SOME reason to fly this ships. Right now i cannot see one anymore. think outside solo or small gang ganking they are very usefull in fleets and to large alliances That's just blabla without a single argument. In a large blob the mom has no huge advantage over a normal carrier either. It's the other way round actually. If there is 20+ carriers on the field the lil more DPS the mom does is almost unnoticale. For remote repping it would be stupid - any carrier can do it just as well.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:27:00 - [7] Originally by: Lachesis Moirae Unless the script makes it so the hactor can be remote repped, it doesn't nullify all the downsides of the bubble, and as such is fine. From my info i got it can orbit at insane speed without any downsides and can be repped by a scimitar as well.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:59:00 - [8] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Orar Ironfist Edited by: Orar Ironfist on 07/11/2007 20:08:14 Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf This is all great news, especially for shield tanking gangs and those tired of lo-sec MS However there is one problem. /me walks over and hammers the last nail in the Blockade Runners coffin. You do realize that makes no sense yes? If your speaking low-sec then that doesnt matter good nav skills+blockade runner+ a t2 i-stab or two and you align faster then anyone besides a double sensor-boosting bs could lock(and with the built in wcs you still get away) And if your talkin about 0.0 throw an mwd on it and you can get back to the gate and jump/warp fatser then the dictor/ gang with anchored bubble could kill you. Every ship in this game is designed for a purpose,(this is not really directed at you but at the people whining about the hic)Just because your too blinded by your own argument and cant see said purpose doesnt make the devs wrong and untrustworthy. EDIT: ignore my bad sp3llin Glad it's not directed at me, I like the HIC in it's current iteration. However by your logic any cruiser with a pair of i-stabs in immune to gate-camps since they share similar mass and agility stats with blockade runners. I think you'll find that isn't the case. Anyway, it's a side-issue and I don't expect it to affect the HiC, more that the blockade runner should perhaps be looked at again since it is barely used as it is and the last scrap of usefulness it had (being able to run very small camps) just got taken away. Did you ever fly a blokade runner? I can get my prorator below 0.2 agility. Even a polycarbon i-stabbed vagabond is not even close to that. A blokaderunner warps the same time he decloaks. There is only one way to catch one in lowsec. An instalocking HIC. This would need very heavy remote sensor boosting to be possible. Now you jump into this camp and see that it is boosted. You simply reaproach. Nothing can stop you unless they have another bunch of remote boosters on a huginn. If they got a remote boosted broadsword and aremote boosted huginn they prolly just deserve the kill.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.08 17:44:00 - [9] It's quite funny how people bring up arguments here. Then a random DEV jups in and says: You're all wrong because i bloody say so. Way to go. Keep going devs. At least you solve the lag issue. Less players is less lag after all.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:13:00 - [10] Edited by: MOS DEF on 09/11/2007 09:14:02 What amuses me most is the people that keep jump in for a cheap reply saying - bring enough support and it is no issue. Guess what: If you have enough support to keep the titan or mom alive safely thee is no need to use the titan or mothership in the first place because you allready won the bloody fight. Where's the point in a ship class you can only use in fights you 100% sure win either way? These ships are very hard to build - especially titans - and should be a huge threat. Yes titans were overpowered witht the remote DD. What i can see here tzhough is that once CCP starts the nerfing they can't seem to stop. It's quite obvious that they created somethign with supercapitals that didn't turn out as they wanted and now they slowly remove them again. A hint for the future: Think before you release new ships. The throwing in content and think about it later thing didn't turn out so well for you in the last years CCP. Funny thing is you do it yet again next patch. The balancing after trinity will be a nightmare and i bet it will take over half a year before the mess is sorted.

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