| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
   |
Posted - 2007.11.09 14:49:00 -
[31]
I do think the ideas Zarch presented have merit to them, its similar to how the Carrier/Motherships in Homeworld 2 operate, you build the facilities required to do specific tasks and you only have a limited number of slots (though it was still alot so they still ended up being quite versatile). Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing, perhaps justifying the high price tag of an MS over a Carrier, which at the moment, is not worth it.
I'd also like to throw out an idea thats been suggesting a number of times before which is to introduce new Fighter classes, maybe Mothership specific ones as well to give the MS's an edge of the Carrier, against justifying the price tag. Bombers come to mind, slow, heavily tanked Fighters that can't hit anything but Capital sized craft.
Often the defense against Drones/Fighters for Carrier/Mothership pilots are smartbombs. Bombers could engage at a much longer range than a Fighter and be outside of Smartbomb range, leaving it to a support fleet to try and pick off the threat to the Capital in question. This does leave a question of how much firepower they could bring, would they end up being as effective as a Dreadnoughts firepower? If so would that make it pointless to bring them along? Perhaps to counter that to prevent fleets of Carriers doing what Dreads do, is to make it a Mothership only Fighter. Perhaps heavier than Fighters to carry. Just some thoughts anyway.,..
The Establishment is at your service...
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 15:23:00 -
[32]
Cloaks and runs from the EST blob... 
 Originally by: Ange1
Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing,
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions? 
Abathur
Game Designer
"Tux did it!" |
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Cloaks and runs from the EST blob...
Originally by: Ange1
Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing,
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions?
*engages warp disrupter field* Your cloak won't save you now Mwuhahhahaahah 
I think I've run out of suggestions that even I don't think are terrible for now...the more I think about it the more I like the 'strategic locations' idea though...
Particularly the deadspace - watch the nano ship lovers freak at that one 
Zarch AlDain
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:19:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions?
As mentioned above, perhaps Bomber-class Fighters.
Check Zarch's suggestions on other AoE weapons.
Others to consider perhaps off the top of my head (some good, some bad :P)
Perhaps it could create a super large Interdictor bubble (say 40km radius)? This might make it easier though to capture other Super Capitals by dropping another Super Cap on them to hold them down.
Give it much larger bonuses for using gang modules perhaps over a command ship? Example, the Command bonus is 3% to gang warfare links. Perhaps an MS could give a 10% bonus or some such. Allow it so say passive defense instead of giving 26% max skilled, would give 50%?
Mothership specific smartbomb or a range bonus to smartbombs? The nano-dive bombing Interdictor is the death of a Super Capital presently. With HID's coming in and having a longer range single point scram they can use (this also solving the low-sec problem), there are other methods now to scrambling an MS.
Kamikaze Fighter? A Fighter specifically designed to ram another ship causing massive amounts of damage. Expensive and you can obviously only have a few of them, but perhaps if things are desperate, send kamikaze fighters against the ships scrambling you.
Perhaps consider allowing MS's to use the Jump Bridge that Titans have?
Perhaps increase the effectiveness of the ECM Burst, allowing a greater area of effect and stronger effects.
What about a variation of the ECM Burst but like a Cap bomb instead? Likewise you could have the MS fire a directed burst of firepower like a Bomb, a step down from a Titans superweapon, only directed and a small radius.
I'll post more later if I can think of any more...
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Riato Hargoumi
byeee Corp
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 11:11:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Riato Hargoumi on 10/11/2007 11:11:17
Maybe the not-so-superweapon-but-still-quite-super would need another ship(s) in the fleet to mark the target of the weapon, more markers, more accurate the weapon, more super the damage. Have the weapon unable to auto repeat and have a recharge timer of say 15 minutes. Can be fired against a single target, or an area with use of scripts. In single target mode a single capital or subcapital target takes massive damage, but at the cost to the MS of a huge ammount of cap. This would make it so the MS couldn't 'shoot and scoot'. Once the not-so-superweapon-but-still-quite-super is fired, the MS is there for a while so it can be caught. In area mode, the same ammount of damage is spread between all ships caught in the area, again large cap usage so no shoot and scoot tactics and all targets in the area need to be marked to take maximum damage, however those not marked will still take, say 25% damage.
As for the jumpbridge, I think that should stay as a titan, but give the MS a way to pull subcapital ships along with it when it jumps? Less control than with the titans JPA, and the ships are spread over a larger area, say appereing anywhere in the grid that the MS arrives in.
This would stop it being a tactical movement device, as using it directly into combat will get your fleet slaughtered beacuse they are scattered all over the grid, but useful for moving a support fleet around with the MS.
Just a couple of rambling ideas.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
soni Corp
Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 15:27:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Syberbolt8 on 10/11/2007 15:34:56
Originally by: CCP Abathur
In addition we're looking at ways to make motherships a little more than just a big carrier. [hint]Feedback[/hint] 
Super Laggy idea, Shield and armor Rep fields while in Triage, in the form of a highslot, would repair only gang members, and at the rate of maybe a large armor or shield rep. AoE effect, 10Km,
Aside from that, I like the proposed Idea of the OP, though using a new set of slots for this would be better I think, You could still fit the ship the same as you do now but would have a new set of slots to put these on. And give ship bonus's depending on how you fit it out, so you only get the tank bonus's if your fit for it, and likewise with repping, even add a cargo and SMB bonus.
Edited:Added effective range.
------------------------------------
Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 16:37:00 -
[37]
What do you do with ships that already have 8 slots of a particular type?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:03:00 -
[38]
A list of "cool stuffs" I'd like to see on super-caps.
Enhanced Logistics (Repair):
(T/MS) Nanite Cloud - Repairs armor of any wing-mate within range over time
(T/MS) Shield Frequency Remodulator - Area of effect wing-mate shield repair
Heat could be used to provide impressive bonuses to these modules for epic last stands.
Enhanced Logistics (Deployment):
(MS) Jump Well - Capable of dragging close proximity wingmates through jump.
(T/MS) Cyno Beacon - Mothership/Titan acts as a Cyno generator for fleet members but suffers no penalty.
/me starts singing "You'll never walk alone."
Enhanced Offense:
(MS/C) Assault Module - Anchors the MS in space unable to jump for the duration, projects additional power to fighters providing increased damage output and a steady rate of repair.
Enhanced Defense:
(MS/C) Triage Module - Fix the cap stability issues (less remote rep bonus more cap) and remove the immobility effect.
(T) Titan Siege Module - Eats POS and other capitals for breakfast, cycle time reduction to allow the titan to more easily withdraw.
(T) Fighter Bay - Allows the ship to carry a few fighters but only launch 5 of them and no ability to assign them. Because Titans need drones too, and those drones should be to scale.
Enhanced Support:
(T/MS) Fleet Link - The gang bonuses on titans should be removed and made modular, Titans should receive a much higher bonus to their use than motherships and a greater selection of fleet links should be made available.
Some of these give the mothership a little titan and the titan a little mothership but neither approaches the others ability in it's field. The mothership is a highly mobile fleet support ship while the Titan is a Cap/POS slayer. I also chucked in a slew of other stuffs to pick and choose from. Of course with each super-cap only being able to use two or three such modules you never quite know what the enemy will be fielding which would be excellent.
As mentioned NOS/Neut immunity would go a long way towards putting the super back in the super-caps and wouldn't be a game breaker now that the ships can be much more easily pinned down.
A script that can be used on the doomsday to turn it into a beam (I'm thinking theodicy style) allowing the titan to either ubersmartbomb a fleet or cause wrecking damage to a single POS, capital or opposing super-cap would be nice to see, with perhaps a reduced cycle time when using it in that form. Generally I just feel unprepared capital pilots should wet themselves when a titan jumps in, but maybe thats just me. Whatever you do don't allow titans to change their DDD damage type, people need that intel to take them down.
Shouldn't need to say this but:
T = Titan
MS = Mothership
C = Carrier
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:20:00 -
[39]
Right now the only real diference between a mothership and carrier is firepower and EW immunity.
With the ability to tackle motherships using heavy interdictors I think maybe its time to revisit their survivability as well as their other abilities.
Perhaps now is the time to make all cap draining modules unable to work on Titans and Motherships? After all their tank is basicaly the same as a carrier but it would be nice if an attacker has to chew through its Hitpoints to kill it rather than just tackling it with a heavy interdictor and killing it with a few energy and fighter killing battleships (as will now be possible after the patch)
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
soni Corp
Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:42:00 -
[40]
This Idea could be fun on the capital level as well, running in triage, or not, it would be fun.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=528097&page=1
------------------------------------
Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
TimMc
Skiddies of Doom
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 23:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: A'ruhn
Personally, I'd figured this is how carriers should have been from the start. You could customize it to exactly what role you wanted to use it for. All its missing now is some point defense weapons (very light mind you, frigate guns at the most) and it could be a reasonable facsimile of a modern combat carrier.
Yeah same here.
All the posts from the OP have been pure gold, CCP need to hire him.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 04:47:00 -
[42]
Edited by: infinityshok on 11/11/2007 04:48:38
This sounds overpowered to me but MS/titan role-specific suggestions were asked for. And for the price of these ships a bit of uberness isnt asking too much.
A super-siege module that will be *****ble only to MSs or titans. The module would increase the shield amount of the MS/titan and project an extended force field such as a POS has to allow ganged ships to park within it and be invulnerable or be protected by the MS/titans shields. The ships inside the shield wouldnt be able to lock on ships outside the shield. Using onboard modules would still be available such as for repping allied ships. The penalties would be inability to move for x-period of time, perhaps a sieged mode where if the shields get too low the ship would be invulnerable but incapacitated the same way POSs are. Mobility would only be restored after its shield was repped to a certain amount. Hell...for the cost of these ships in comparison to a POS, why not give them some sort of ridiculous defensive capabilities like a POS has.
EDIT: ^ how the hell is 'fitable' a censored word.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 08:05:00 -
[43]
The devs have said, don't ask me where, that a huge amount of work would be required to enable the use of a POS shield on a mobile ship. We begged for it on the Rorqual and on t2 BS back before they were announced.
Also if a word is mysteriously blocked by the wordfilter I'd advise checking the Urban Dictionary for clarification. 
|
Lelulie
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 11:42:00 -
[44]
You seem to have proposed changes so a Chimera can still fit a nice tank and control lots of Fighters, but the rest would suffer greatly in their tanks to match the Chimeras damage.
|
Aki Yamato
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 13:44:00 -
[45]
Carrier modification modules are brilliant idea, however to fullfil conditon to stop carryers beeing all capable battle mule, it would require to adds ome fiting time.
ie I mean you wont simply add another hangar to kilometer long ship in zero time. It should require some time in dock until armor is stripped internal structure modified new systems instaled and hull reassembled again.
IMHO
BIG GUN
BIG FUTURE |
Red Leg
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:23:00 -
[46]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Good post, we'll definitely keep it was reference. It's actually not very far off what we've been discussing at our meetings.
More posts like this one please.
the only thing we know is your nerf is coming 
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari
TAOSP
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:41:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Kublai Khan on 11/11/2007 14:43:41
MS changes:
- Projected Bomb launchers like the remote ecm bomb
- Fix the remote ECM bomb to be something worth fitting
- MS Triage module: Offensive and self repair related module. Bonus to cap recharge and repairers. Inability to use remote reps while running. Increase damage or tracking of fighters. Increases smartbomb range with 100%.
- Hitpoints of Titans and MS should be lots lots more. Catch one, it shouldnt go down in 2 minutes and be an easy kill.
Carrier changes
- Modular design as suggested seems very fair.
- Modification through specific rig slots seems fair, dont really like screwing over the tankability of carriers with fitting extra things in low slots. Its not great as it is...
- Triage module should let you be immune to nos/neut, so you can sit there and wait to be rescued unless they can overcome your tank. Atm you just die right away...
Titans
- Need some kind of Siege mode ability. Huge bonus to self repair and cap recharge. Bonus to capital guns. Runs of strontium.
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:25:00 -
[48]
ok if im reading this right then by being a carrier lvl 5 person already means all i do is drop some of my tank to gain all the abilities i already have by putting 1 each of these "new" modules onto the carrier. in fact if im reading it right i can also carry more spare fighters and easily bring number of controled fighters over 10 (my current number). That makes this a buff to carriers and nothing more really.
Seccondly i think theres been mixed messages on what the problem with carriers is. Either they can do too many things or they arnt being used in fleets as they should be or rather are as good solo as in fleets (fleets made of other none carrier ships that is, not groups of carriers).
On the test server now i think carriers are perfect, they cant be used as haulers but they can carry in replacement ships, they can carry drones for many situations and fighters for actual dmg dealing. making them ideal in small fleets. prolly 1 carrier per 5/6 gang members would be the optimum.
So really the issue is making them more realistic comapred to actual real life carriers (where ms is a bigger version). Thus i prefer my suggestion :) (of course im a bit biased). which limits the carriers efectivnes to deploy drones for any given situation in large numbers and promotes using fleets with them or against them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631376
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Lelulie
You seem to have proposed changes so a Chimera can still fit a nice tank and control lots of Fighters, but the rest would suffer greatly in their tanks to match the Chimeras damage.
That is definitely a weakness of the suggestion, although as I said before the inherent disadvantage of shield tanking for pvp and for fitting counteracts that to a certain extent. It is also consistent with smaller ships where fitting damage mods hurts armour tanks more than shield tanks but fitting tackling etc hurts shield tanks more than armour tanks.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
ok if im reading this right then by being a carrier lvl 5 person already means all i do is drop some of my tank to gain all the abilities i already have by putting 1 each of these "new" modules onto the carrier. in fact if im reading it right i can also carry more spare fighters and easily bring number of controled fighters over 10 (my current number). That makes this a buff to carriers and nothing more really.
Seccondly i think theres been mixed messages on what the problem with carriers is. Either they can do too many things or they arnt being used in fleets as they should be or rather are as good solo as in fleets (fleets made of other none carrier ships that is, not groups of carriers).
On the test server now i think carriers are perfect, they cant be used as haulers but they can carry in replacement ships, they can carry drones for many situations and fighters for actual dmg dealing. making them ideal in small fleets. prolly 1 carrier per 5/6 gang members would be the optimum.
So really the issue is making them more realistic comapred to actual real life carriers (where ms is a bigger version). Thus i prefer my suggestion :) (of course im a bit biased). which limits the carriers efectivnes to deploy drones for any given situation in large numbers and promotes using fleets with them or against them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631376
As I understand it the situation currently on the test server is not intended to be the final solution. Further changes are going to happen.
To fit one of each module and hence end up where you are at the moment you will end up with one less low, mid and high - if you don't thing that that is a significant reduction then I'm not sure what you think would be?
Yes you can bring the number up over 10, but then carriers already can do that...a few drone control modules for example will easily take you to 12 or 13 fighters. As you say this proposal allows you to specialise your carrier and actually achieve better performance in one area than currently BUT only at the cost of other abilities.
Zarch AlDain
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 18:44:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Aki Yamato
Carrier modification modules are brilliant idea, however to fullfil conditon to stop carryers beeing all capable battle mule, it would require to adds ome fiting time.
ie I mean you wont simply add another hangar to kilometer long ship in zero time. It should require some time in dock until armor is stripped internal structure modified new systems instaled and hull reassembled again.
IMHO
In the future they have mastered automation. 1000m3 modules can be fitted and assembled ships are made from repackaged ships within a few seconds. There is no reason what the OP proposed shouldnt be possible.
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 02:12:00 -
[52]
Edited by: ElDiabloRojo on 12/11/2007 02:11:50
What i am saying is that this "fix" stops carriers being good at all the things they are now but allows them to focus their efforts and become dramaticly more effective at other things. Also in terms of using carriers as haulers you dont want to be ina fight any way so any versatility is not an issue. You use your system to convert the carrier into a mule, haul your pos fuel or whatever and then convert it back. Takes a few secconds and even if u get attacked your gonna try run away. with this system the carrier used as hauler gets bigger capacity. Then when its fighting it drops all hauler modules in favour of number of fighters and get a higher damage output compared to current fighters. So ultimately your swopping out 1 system where carriers can switch between roles instantly with another where carriers are better at each role but takes 2-3 mins to swop around.
If the "issue" is ability to switch roles at will then focus the carrier at fighter deployment by keeping its ability to deploy 6-15 fighters. Drop its drone ability to Dominix levels (ie, lots of drones but on 5 ata time). But cos its a carrier it can still carry some of each drone type. And drop its hauling abilities in favour of whats currently on the test server, as this will give it the ability to carry spare ships to a fleet, repair/rearm said fleet and project power like a carrier should but slow down its other "roles" by droping the efectivnes of none fighter drones by at least half. Doing this with a module like in my origonal suggestion slows down its role changing abilities as well. In fact it does so by a guaranteed 5 minutes, as apose to sitting 2 carriers next to each other and swopping "Capital Modules" back and forth like some sort of 3D rubix cube.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 11:34:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 12/11/2007 11:35:51
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
Edited by: ElDiabloRojo on 12/11/2007 02:11:50
What i am saying is that this "fix" stops carriers being good at all the things they are now but allows them to focus their efforts and become dramaticly more effective at other things. Also in terms of using carriers as haulers you dont want to be ina fight any way so any versatility is not an issue. You use your system to convert the carrier into a mule, haul your pos fuel or whatever and then convert it back. Takes a few secconds and even if u get attacked your gonna try run away. with this system the carrier used as hauler gets bigger capacity. Then when its fighting it drops all hauler modules in favour of number of fighters and get a higher damage output compared to current fighters. So ultimately your swopping out 1 system where carriers can switch between roles instantly with another where carriers are better at each role but takes 2-3 mins to swop around.
If the "issue" is ability to switch roles at will then focus the carrier at fighter deployment by keeping its ability to deploy 6-15 fighters. Drop its drone ability to Dominix levels (ie, lots of drones but on 5 ata time). But cos its a carrier it can still carry some of each drone type. And drop its hauling abilities in favour of whats currently on the test server, as this will give it the ability to carry spare ships to a fleet, repair/rearm said fleet and project power like a carrier should but slow down its other "roles" by droping the efectivnes of none fighter drones by at least half. Doing this with a module like in my origonal suggestion slows down its role changing abilities as well. In fact it does so by a guaranteed 5 minutes, as apose to sitting 2 carriers next to each other and swopping "Capital Modules" back and forth like some sort of 3D rubix cube.
Carrier facilities would take a large amount of m3 so carrying a complete refit would be hard or possibly even impossible. Additionally you would need support from either a POS, Station or a maintanance bay fitted carrier in order to refit. I don't see the problem - after all people fit battleships for travel and then refit to fight all the time. The original problem listed was that carriers are good at doing all those things at the same time and actually requested exactly what my proposal gives - that you have to refit to achieve the specific goal you want to aim for.
In addition one of the follow on suggestions is that rigs be used instead of modules, that would certainly make it expensive to reconfigure on a regular basis!
I read your idea the first time you posted it despite the broken link. I wasn't going to reply since unfortunately my feedback is all negative but since you keep raising it I will respond: Quite simply the idea as listed doesn't work, and your real life analogies are meaningless in eve. You need to revisit it and give a lot more thought to the various consequences of what you are suggesting.
For example:
Your suggestion of a 'combat mode' module would make any deployment of a carrier even more risky than it is now.
Your movement of remote rep bonuses onto the triage mode would massively weaken the already weak minmatar carriers.
Unsupported Carriers are already extremely easy to kill, I've seen one held down by a single recon ship scout for 10 minutes while our gang got into position to kill it.
You are also proposing two entire new ship types to deal with something that isn't actually part of the problem. Yes a case can definitely be made for introducing a smaller ship specifically designed to fight capital ships. That is an entire new ship class though that needs to be reviewed and designed properly to be something in it's own right. It should not be something bodged into the game as an attempt to balance something else.
(Edit for typo correction)
Zarch AlDain
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:51:00 -
[54]
ok i have caldari carrier lvl 5 so using your model i can fit 2 low slot mods, 2 med slot mods and 3 hi slot mods and get 15 drones (5 more then my current number) and enough drone bay for more then 15 fighters and 15 of each drone in game. Obviously that ruins my tank somewhat. But my hi slots dont add to the tank or dmg, and i have 7 mid slots so loosing 2 is fairly bad but not impossible to live with. i can move 2 shield hardeners for instance and replace it with 2 rigs (dropping res from 55% to 35% on 2 types but not effecting shield boost amount or cap). I wont have the ability to assign drones to people but that was one things listed under stuff the devs didnt like (the lack of people assigning them to gang members). So now instead of a carrier as i have atm with 12 fighters or 12 drones of my choice i have 1 with the same hangar bays, less tank and 3 extra fighters/drones. Thus increasing my "swiss army knife" abilities.
So overall all this does it allow ppl to drop the corp hangar and ship hangar (and thus keep most of there tank on shield users) and become better all round ships then before. So the only refit is when u want to haul stuff, where i put 2/3 ship bay modules on and carry 4/5 fully tech 2'd Bustards (think thats about 150Km^3).
I dont see how thats a better option to mine in which u max out at 15 fighters but never pass 5 drones. So using the swiss army knife similie you model is taking away a few of the tools and sharpening the rest and mine is dulling all the little ones and leaving the knife part the same. oh and slowing down the guy whos pulling the tools out.
Besides my proposal was 2 changes really, 1 to change the jack of all trades aspect and 1 to encourage fleet warfare with carriers.
Perhaps taking shield/energy/armour/hull transfers from the ships out of triage mode is a mistake tho.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:05:00 -
[55]
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
ok i have caldari carrier lvl 5 so using your model i can fit 2 low slot mods, 2 med slot mods and 3 hi slot mods and get 15 drones (5 more then my current number) and enough drone bay for more then 15 fighters and 15 of each drone in game. Obviously that ruins my tank somewhat. But my hi slots dont add to the tank or dmg, and i have 7 mid slots so loosing 2 is fairly bad but not impossible to live with. i can move 2 shield hardeners for instance and replace it with 2 rigs (dropping res from 55% to 35% on 2 types but not effecting shield boost amount or cap). I wont have the ability to assign drones to people but that was one things listed under stuff the devs didnt like (the lack of people assigning them to gang members). So now instead of a carrier as i have atm with 12 fighters or 12 drones of my choice i have 1 with the same hangar bays, less tank and 3 extra fighters/drones. Thus increasing my "swiss army knife" abilities.
I think you underestimate how much you have removed from your carrier in this case.
(Do you actually have carrier level 5 btw or are you using that as an example?)
Firstly if you do not care about high slots then you should already be using multiple drone control units in your high slots - reasonably that could take you to 13 or 14 fighters controlled. Most people though use neutralizers/smart bombs/cloaks/etc in their high slots so they are actually significent.
By dropping resistance to 35% on two types you now have a massive hole in your tank (you are taking 50% more damage on those damage types). In addition by using two rig slots for shield resistance you are no longer getting the cap recharge bonus from two CCC.
I honestly don't understand how you can think your tank developing two resistance holes and the loss of 30% of your capacitor regeneration is not a significant sacrifice.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
So overall all this does it allow ppl to drop the corp hangar and ship hangar (and thus keep most of there tank on shield users) and become better all round ships then before. So the only refit is when u want to haul stuff, where i put 2/3 ship bay modules on and carry 4/5 fully tech 2'd Bustards (think thats about 150Km^3).
Except that those bustards cannot carry 150km3 of cargo due to either the nerf currently on sisi or the alternative I advocated above. Also consider that you would lose (for example) 5km3 of space per facility module, so carrying them to refit would be a logistics challenge in of itself.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
I dont see how thats a better option to mine in which u max out at 15 fighters but never pass 5 drones. So using the swiss army knife similie you model is taking away a few of the tools and sharpening the rest and mine is dulling all the little ones and leaving the knife part the same. oh and slowing down the guy whos pulling the tools out.
Besides my proposal was 2 changes really, 1 to change the jack of all trades aspect and 1 to encourage fleet warfare with carriers.
Perhaps taking shield/energy/armour/hull transfers from the ships out of triage mode is a mistake tho.
I like your analogy actually. Yes that's exactly what my proposal allows. You can remove some of the implements from your swiss army knife and then sharpen the ones that remain. That is exactly what the developers said they are looking for...
On the other hand though as far as I can see your suggestion does not change any of the 'lesser abilities' at all. The only change is the addition of a 'siege mode' which must be entered in order to deploy fighters. A seige mode which turns the already extremely vulnerable carrier into a sitting duck.
Maybe I missed something though so please explain again how your suggestion reduces the ability of a carrier to haul, refuel, deploy fighters, gang support, etc that they do at the moment.
Zarch AlDain
|
James Draekn
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:54:00 -
[56]
Reading your ideas on the changes to carriers/MOMs shows the challenge CCP has before it when adjusting these ships. Your proposals have some very good ideas, but the problem you run into is tanking balance. As it currently stands most capital pilots are concerned about sustainable tanks. The recent low-sec MOM kill shows how easy it is to kill capitals when they are NOS/Nueted to hell. Your suggestion will also cause problems when you have a shield vs armor tank fight, when considering if you go gank on an armor tank your tank is shot, hardening wise. Versus you go gank on a shield tank your cap regen is shot, hardening is still entact.
A couple of ways to adjust your ideas:
1. Keep your ideas but instead of modules make them rigs. (increase carrier/mom rig slots to 8). This will make players choose what the want to do with their carrier, rather then change to adjust. This will also prevent tanking balance issues.
2. Make carriers and moms invulerable to NOS/Nuet. Make carriers invulerable to ewar like current moms. Make carriers/moms vulnerable to warp scraming (or the new heavy dictor bubbles) effects. This will allow carrier to better support their gang logistically but make them vulnerable to be held down and killed. The NOS/Nuet change will make carrier tanks a issue that has to be dealt with by bringing enough firepower (bringing some fun back to fights, rather then a NOS/Nuet suckfest).
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 02:29:00 -
[57]
Ok maybe I explained it wrong. But with the current system of carriers you get essentially two types of abilities. Those from the ship and those from drones. The greatest damage power from the carrier comes from fighters; I think we can all agree on that. Obviously u can calculate the damage output vs. frigs with normal drones compared to fighters but I'm talking more hitting ships that can kill you. Other drones give it the other abilities, and atm the carrier gets the ability to deploy as many drones as it does fighters. So when IĈm in a chimera (yes I do have lvl 5) I can use without doing anything other then undocking 10 drones or 10 fighter or some combination of the 2.
With only allowing fighters to be deployed in a specific "Fighter mode" (Flight operations module I guess would be a suitable name) you basically stop any and all of the other Swiss army knife tools being used from the drone side of things and can use the module attributes to effect other modes if desired. So the flight ops mode gives u 10 fighters at lvl 5 of carrier or 20 if youĈre in a MS. Outside of this mode u can only use 5 drones and none are fighters. So in terms of other drone based abilities you have a maximum that is exactly equal to none capital ships that carry drones for the purpose, you just get the option to sacrifice yourĈ fighter spares for normal drones and so can do all the things other drone user can do as apposed to just one or two (though I believe the new bandwidth system is about changing that a little). So from my ship with 10 drones IĈm down to 5 drones, i.e. I have halved the size of all the tools on my Swiss knife. That is my basic proposal.
Now in terms of what OTHER effects the flight op mode has that is something that obviously needs to be looked at. Giving the ship the ability to move in this mode may be better, IĈm not sure.
The other module of this kind, the triage module, boosts the defence abilities of the ship and its abilities of helping other ships. At the cost of movement and drone usage. So taking these ship based abilities off the ship and onto this module you are essentially adding a mechanism within the Swiss army knife that automatically closes and locks off some tools when 1 is being used and others when a different tool is being used.
And lastly we have the ability for a carrier to carry a hauler full of stuff from place to place in relative safety. Now this doesnĈt work on the trinity test server as u can only carry in your ship bay assembled ships that have ammo in there cargo or nothing. So u can use the carrier in this way for resupplying a fleet op with fresh ships. So I think this should be kept in place as it is great idea and makes the jump freighters have a point (they are amazing by the way and can carry at least 3 times the amount as a carrier can atm). This change also allowed ccp to make the ship bay larger and ships in general seem to be smaller. (I.e. carriers can carry 2 BS and MS can carry 5). So that aspect is not really an issue in these "changes" with that test server change.
So in summary I believe this system slows down the carrierĈs ability to switch roles at a whim and reduces the power of these abilities other then deploying fighters which is the same. It also blocks off the ability to do several things at once.
Oh and donĈt think IĈm having a go at you or anything, IĈm something of a scientist and so thinking of theories and trying to prove them or trying to disprove other peoples theories is how the scientific community works.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 10:35:00 -
[58]
Originally by: James Draekn
Reading your ideas on the changes to carriers/MOMs shows the challenge CCP has before it when adjusting these ships. Your proposals have some very good ideas, but the problem you run into is tanking balance. As it currently stands most capital pilots are concerned about sustainable tanks. The recent low-sec MOM kill shows how easy it is to kill capitals when they are NOS/Nueted to hell. Your suggestion will also cause problems when you have a shield vs armor tank fight, when considering if you go gank on an armor tank your tank is shot, hardening wise. Versus you go gank on a shield tank your cap regen is shot, hardening is still entact.
A couple of ways to adjust your ideas:
1. Keep your ideas but instead of modules make them rigs. (increase carrier/mom rig slots to 8). This will make players choose what the want to do with their carrier, rather then change to adjust. This will also prevent tanking balance issues.
2. Make carriers and moms invulerable to NOS/Nuet. Make carriers invulerable to ewar like current moms. Make carriers/moms vulnerable to warp scraming (or the new heavy dictor bubbles) effects. This will allow carrier to better support their gang logistically but make them vulnerable to be held down and killed. The NOS/Nuet change will make carrier tanks a issue that has to be dealt with by bringing enough firepower (bringing some fun back to fights, rather then a NOS/Nuet suckfest).
I have to say that the idea of making them rigs is growing on me, at least partially because of the shield/armour balance you mention. However I am still not convinced there is a shield/armour balance problem. As you say you trade off loss of hardening in one case with loss of cap regen in the other. Shield tanks will find it easier to gank without sacrificing tank, but armour tanks find it easier to tackle/ewar without sacrificing tank.
It increases the differences between the different races carriers without making one clearly stronger than the other (for the record I fly a Thanatos so a boost to shield tanking carriers isn't in my interest!)
Having said that implementing the modules listed above as rigs but otherwise with the same statistics and massively increasing the number of rig slots would achieve the same goals as my original proposal but with different details. Refitting would be harder, shield and armour tanks would be effected equally, etc.
So mixed feelings from me, I think I would want to do a lot of spreadsheets and playing on test servers to make the call on that one!
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 10:51:00 -
[59]
(I've snipped your quotes as I was running out of space!)
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
with the current system of carriers you get essentially two types of abilities. Those from the ship and those from drones. The greatest damage power from the carrier comes from fighters; I think we can all agree on that. So when IĈm in a chimera (yes I do have lvl 5) I can use without doing anything other then undocking 10 drones or 10 fighter or some combination of the 2.
With only allowing fighters to be deployed in a specific "Fighter mode" (Flight operations module I guess would be a suitable name) you basically stop any and all of the other Swiss army knife tools being used from the drone side of things and can use the module attributes to effect other modes if desired. So the flight ops mode gives u 10 fighters at lvl 5 of carrier or 20 if youĈre in a MS. Outside of this mode u can only use 5 drones and none are fighters. So from my ship with 10 drones IĈm down to 5 drones, i.e. I have halved the size of all the tools on my Swiss knife. That is my basic proposal.
In low sec carriers/motherships use heavy drones a lot as fighters die extremely fast to sentry fire. I do see what you mean about reducing the utility by limiting the use of non-fighter drones and it would be interesting to hear from the devs as to whether they thing the use of various types of drones is a problem. My gut feeling is that it is not as after all carriers are supposed to be fighter/drone deployment platforms.
What is interesting is that we are both limiting drones and fighters separately though - in my proposal you can fit the drone launch facilities to get more drones, but you then need another module as well to get fighters.
Remember that carrier drones have no bonus. 10 Ogre 2s from a Thanatos does only a little more than 5 from a Domi (effective 7.5) and the Domi also has the option of fitting guns whereas they are the only source of a carriers damage. The Moros by way of contract fields an effective 20 ogre 2s.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
Now in terms of what OTHER effects the flight op mode has that is something that obviously needs to be looked at. So taking these ship based abilities off the ship and onto this module you are essentially adding a mechanism within the Swiss army knife that automatically closes and locks off some tools when 1 is being used and others when a different tool is being used.
So essentially you are limiting the carrier to 5 normal drones (and possibly taking up a high slot by requiring the module to use fighters or not). That isn't really addressing the problem though which is that carriers can gank, tank, transport, etc all at one time.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
And lastly we have the ability for a carrier to carry a hauler full of stuff from place to place in relative safety. Now this doesnĈt work on the trinity test server as u can only carry in your ship bay assembled ships that have ammo in there cargo or nothing.
So in summary I believe this system slows down the carrierĈs ability to switch roles at a whim and reduces the power of these abilities other then deploying fighters which is the same. It also blocks off the ability to do several things at once.
Oh and donĈt think IĈm having a go at you or anything
Don't worry, I welcome debate on the ideas. Suggestions are rarely perfect first time. I still don't believe that you are addressing the actual problem though as carriers in your suggestion can still carry ships, refit ships, carry modules in their hangers, tank and gank all at the same time.
The only change is the activation of the special mode to launch fighters (which may or may not make using them in combat suicide depending on the properties of that module) and the reduction of versatility inside combat by the loss of drone options.
I do not believe that their versatility inside combat is a problem, it is their ability to do that and everything else at the same time that is the problem.
Zarch AlDain
|
Poborca Podatkowy
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 12:19:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Yamichi Wiggin
Brilliant.
Most other ships need to pick a fitting. You can't fit a mega for long range, uber tank, scram/jam, super speed, and in-your-face brawling. You have to pick one or two of those. This puts the same requirements on the carrier. And as you said, it gives them the chance to exceed their current value but by sacrificing some roles.
Moving DCU from high slot to low should fix it - carrier pilot have to choose between the tank and gang mode.
Additionally making drone modules or dedicated for fighters modules for high could make that fix stronger if that module would be put on high slot (depends on power/cpu consumption). The range for that modules could be from additional bandwidith, or expanding the dronebay to giving additional speed (in warp on subwarp), tracking and others for fighters. All that could attract carriers in combat as a gang machine (remember - pg/cpu issue and DCU on lows).
As for support there could be modules for medium slot dedicated for EW or for support (like a tracking link). In general expanding modules range in dedicated for capitals (as it is with armor repairer) could solve the problems and to prevent from using "normal" - give penalty for capitals for use it (i.e. power consumption or pg/cpu increase to capital module lvl).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |