| Author |
Topic |
Sunset Rogue |
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:30:00 - [ 391]
Abathur, many people have requested a third turret hardpoint on the Naglfar and this is not possible due to the art department bottleneck.
However
What about 3 highslots (1x siege, 2x guns) and a role bonus (75%? 100%?) to XL projectiles to balance damage?
This has been repeatedly requested but always ignored. |
Sunset Rogue |
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:43:00 - [ 392]
Fighter-bomber survivability:
I see two potential solutions to this.
Option 1) Remove the engines from fighter bombers, increase torp range. They are now "missile sentries"
Option 2) Role bonus: (temporary measure) 50% bomb resistance and 25% smartbomb resistance. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:58:00 - [ 393]
 Originally by: Sunset Rogue
Abathur, many people have requested a third turret hardpoint on the Naglfar and this is not possible due to the art department bottleneck.
However
What about 3 highslots (1x siege, 2x guns) and a role bonus (75%? 100%?) to XL projectiles to balance damage?
This has been repeatedly requested but always ignored.
there is no real NEED for it. As long as the bonuses are focused on turrets and most o dps comes from turret. I f you give a role bonus you will jsut make people of other races whien and complain. |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 19:41:00 - [ 394]
Originally by: Sunset Rogue
Abathur, many people have requested a third turret hardpoint on the Naglfar and this is not possible due to the art department bottleneck.
However
What about 3 highslots (1x siege, 2x guns) and a role bonus (75%? 100%?) to XL projectiles to balance damage?
This has been repeatedly requested but always ignored.
No need for it. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:32:00 - [ 395]
Please, someone show me a viable Leviathan fit that has more than 50 mil ehp.. |
LoveKebab
Caldari
LOST IDEA
C0VEN |
Posted - 2009.12.24 21:24:00 - [ 396]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Please, someone show me a viable Leviathan fit that has more than 50 mil ehp..
[eft warrior 1] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing |
NedFromAssembly
Gallente
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2009.12.24 21:31:00 - [ 397]
Thanks for breaking the EFT block so we have to enter it manually |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2009.12.24 21:52:00 - [ 398]
Originally by: LoveKebab
Originally by: Sokratesz
Please, someone show me a viable Leviathan fit that has more than 50 mil ehp..
[eft warrior 1]
Damage Control II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field
Pith X-Type Photon Scattering Field
Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field
Pith X-Type Explosion Dampening Field
Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing
I stressed the important bits. |
Joabinanias |
Posted - 2009.12.24 23:06:00 - [ 399]
I feel that's a very viable levi fit. The low cap regen problem is solved by having the carriers that are supporting you fit a remote energy reps.
It gets 50m+ EHP with a somewhat decent passive defense. There might be a lot of faction gear to buy but it's not as expensive as if you needed officer mods to get those kind of stats. |
John Zorg
Caldari
The Damned Legion
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 23:08:00 - [ 400]
There is something else that needs fixing on the Super Carriers. The bay sizes.
If you go look at the fuel bay / CHA of the Titans vs. Super Carriers there is something very wrong there.
The Titan has a fuel bay of 60,000 m3 vs. the 5,000 m3 of the Super Carrier. I then thought, ok... but the Super carrier would have a larger CHA that the Titan. This isn't even correct. A Titan has a CHA of 100,000 m3 vs. the Super Carriers 50,000 m3.
Isn't something wrong there?
The other thing to possibly look at is the part bonuses of the Triage that you are now planning to remove from Super Carriers. Would it not be worth making the remote rep bonus passive? Not the local rep as it would make the SC kinda overpowered? |
Elassus Herron
Caldari
Construction Cabal
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive |
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:02:00 - [ 401]
for heaven's sake, can we not call them "Supercarriers"? That sounds soooo dopey ("Oh yeah? Well XYZ Alliance has ten Superdupercarriers! We're gonna omgpwn uuu! Lolz!!!1")
I propose calling them "Fleet" carriers, especially since they now field a small fleet all on their own. |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc. |
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:06:00 - [ 402]
All hail Abathur. |
NedFromAssembly
Gallente
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:23:00 - [ 403]
Assault Carriers |
Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two |
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:38:00 - [ 404]
Originally by: Elassus Herron
for heaven's sake, can we not call them "Supercarriers"? That sounds soooo dopey ("Oh yeah? Well XYZ Alliance has ten Superdupercarriers! We're gonna omgpwn uuu! Lolz!!!1")
I propose calling them "Fleet" carriers, especially since they now field a small fleet all on their own.
As has already been stressed, supercarrier is already a widely-adopted term in the real world. Seeing as most ships follow real-world classifications, I see no reason why these should be any different. And for christ's sake, you can call them whatever the hell you want; the only noticeable effect a name change would have is in the flavor text. You can still call it a mom, a flying spaghetti ship, or a spaceduck for all anyone cares. |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 05:59:00 - [ 405]
Originally by: Elassus Herron
for heaven's sake, can we not call them "Supercarriers"? That sounds soooo dopey ("Oh yeah? Well XYZ Alliance has ten Superdupercarriers! We're gonna omgpwn uuu! Lolz!!!1")
I propose calling them "Fleet" carriers, especially since they now field a small fleet all on their own.
CCP's own stories (especially the Empyrean Age) constantly called the "moms" Supercarriers. It works. |
Rejected Enlightenment
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2009.12.25 07:06:00 - [ 406]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I stressed the important bits.
Please don't comment on supercap fits as you obviously have no idea how to fit them properly. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2009.12.25 12:14:00 - [ 407]
Originally by: Joabinanias
I feel that's a very viable levi fit. The low cap regen problem is solved by having the carriers that are supporting you fit a remote energy reps.
It gets 50m+ EHP with a somewhat decent passive defense. There might be a lot of faction gear to buy but it's not as expensive as if you needed officer mods to get those kind of stats.
You're gonna want 1 or 2 BCU's to get a decent DPS out of your torps, and wtb volunteers to fly carriers with the sole purpose of providing cap for a titan. |
Dursun Idris |
Posted - 2009.12.25 12:33:00 - [ 408]
Edited by: Dursun Idris on 25/12/2009 12:35:32 Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Joabinanias
I feel that's a very viable levi fit. The low cap regen problem is solved by having the carriers that are supporting you fit a remote energy reps.
It gets 50m+ EHP with a somewhat decent passive defense. There might be a lot of faction gear to buy but it's not as expensive as if you needed officer mods to get those kind of stats.
You're gonna want 1 or 2 BCU's to get a decent DPS out of your torps, and wtb volunteers to fly carriers with the sole purpose of providing cap for a titan.
In a large fleet fight, i believe more survival would be much more desired than doing extra 1-2 dread dps for a titan. I agree with your comment about cap. Edit: And please ccp do not throw away the idea of a marauder-like turret naglfar. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2009.12.25 12:37:00 - [ 409]
And then there's still the issue of the missing 37.5% shield hp due to gang bonuses. |
Keria Nue |
Posted - 2009.12.25 13:14:00 - [ 410]
I think a large issue and one that needs to be addressed is the "Supercarrier" docking ability, or lack there of.
Seeing as these ships are getting a boost and much love, you maybe want to see more people flying them on a regular basis? One of the main issues that presents it's self is the need for a pilot to actually maintain an alt just to hold their ship so they don't get it stolen. Now, if toss it into the POS shields then you take a huge risk of losing the ship to a friendly and not so friendly thief who sees a beautiful ship for the taking.
You can put in some rule that states that you can't undock it for like an hour or something, or maybe you can't redock for an hour. Add in a module that must be attached to the station to allow it to have super caps dock. Something that will allow it to dock and be safe while you are offline, or while you are flying another ship. I for one hate that I must have an alt hold the ship for me. So, I train an character to fly a Nyx only to turn around and have to train another character just to hold it. Is this counter productive? What happens when I end up buying another one for the fun of it? Do I then train another so it can hold the next one? Really?
Now, I can understand a Titan, it's the big boy, the one that is top of the food chain, but really is a "Supercarrier" top anymore? Not really. It's still very limited on what it can do. Take out it's Fighter Bomber/Fighter wings and it is a tiger without claws or teeth just waiting for the hunter to go, "BANG, YOUR DEAD!!!" If you are really going to listen to your players as it seems you are right now, maybe this should be one of the ones you listen to? The one that pretty much everyone is screaming for.
PS. If the main reason behind the thinking of not allowing them to dock is because of size issue of it undocking from a station and realism like some in other threads have suggested it may be, well just think about these stations that hold 34 Charons in it at a time and are no bigger then a Chimera!? Where is your realism there? It's Eve, throw that out the window and realize that your not gonna get it.
PPS. Great fixes otherwise, love it, any idea when it will be out? Next month? Two, three or so down the line? Would love to know for skill training on another toon soon to be in a Mom/Supercarrier. |
Arzal
Animosity.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 15:02:00 - [ 411]
Originally by: Keria Nue
- Stuff about docking xmoms-.
No docking, simple, it would make it the most overpowered docking game ship ever. also there needs to be a way of limiting them, and having to have another alt to use/sit in it (personally i have a alt that sits 100% of the time in it) is the best way of limiting it, not everyone will fly one, and as you can pay for accounts and chars with isk, I don't see a problem. |
NedFromAssembly
Gallente
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2009.12.25 16:25:00 - [ 412]
They don't need to dock. There's no reason to let you ***gots in lowsec play undock games with these too. |
ByFstugan
Big Shadows
Atlas Alliance |
Posted - 2009.12.25 19:01:00 - [ 413]
I don't really see the large point in why they shouln't be docked - the only reason I agree is rational is the limiting factor - but I think the price handles that pretty much so the not docking is not needed.
About docking-games one could instead of saying it wouldn't work imagine ways to solve that.
- Loooong aggrotimers for larger ships (if there's 1 hour aggression I doubt many would play docking-games).
- You only could dock once a day.
- One could make the ships unable to aggress on X km from or within dockinggrid. Same solution as to smartbombs in empire.
- Or limited docking to Player owned structures, with perhaps one of the above also.
- Or limited docking to specially upgraded stations that was suggested by CCP earlier, with perhaps one of the above also.
Seems that most that have problem with this ships docking doesn't see there might be solutions to the problem it could cause. |
RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS |
Posted - 2009.12.25 19:49:00 - [ 414]
With a ship as powerful as the SC will become, it MUST require commitment.
I.E. that of an alternate character. NO DOCKING. not now, not ever. i'm a lowsec pilot. and the docking games would be ridiculous.
-rock |
Kalissa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord |
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:01:00 - [ 415]
I own a mothership with has been in mothballs since Dominion and wil be until 1.1 comes out, I know atm and for the forseeable future MS's will not be dockable, and I accept this in a trade off with the advantages this ship will gain in Dominion 1.1
But seriously, the biggest arguement people seem to have about MS's not being able to dock is "docking games"? I mean thats about the weakest arguement for something I've heard in a long time. Locking times on these ships even with SB's isnt exactly instant you know. You'd have to foul up pretty bad to get yourself locked and blown up by a MS in low sec. And if you're in a partiularly big ship that it could lock, then may I suggest the age old tactic of an alt making an insta warp out spot.
It just bugs me that the best arguement that some can make against is the docking games one, it's just pure BS |
Julie Lin |
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:04:00 - [ 416]
No DD in lowsec!
Letting titans DD in lowsec will just make it more of a dessert then it already is, we don't need bubble immune ships who can do fly bys and kill carriers/jfs with one shoot.
Also, it would make lowsec a extension of the big alliances space because then they can hotdrop any small corp / small alliance cap fleet with 10+ titans and wtfbbq them.
So send those cowards residing in their Titans to where they are meant to be used - in 0.0.
|
Cpt AngelNova
Amarr
Licentia Ex Vereor |
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:34:00 - [ 417]
Originally by: ByFstugan
I don't really see the large point in why they shouln't be docked - the only reason I agree is rational is the limiting factor - but I think the price handles that pretty much so the not docking is not needed.
About docking-games one could instead of saying it wouldn't work imagine ways to solve that.
- Loooong aggrotimers for larger ships (if there's 1 hour aggression I doubt many would play docking-games).
- You only could dock once a day.
- One could make the ships unable to aggress on X km from or within dockinggrid. Same solution as to smartbombs in empire.
- Or limited docking to Player owned structures, with perhaps one of the above also.
- Or limited docking to specially upgraded stations that was suggested by CCP earlier, with perhaps one of the above also.
Seems that most that have problem with this ships docking doesn't see there might be solutions to the problem it could cause.
I agree with this, saying they cant dock because of a fear of docking games is really irrelevant when the issue can be countered in so many ways. Hek you can give it the cloan jump timer if you must. As for size.... well.. unless CCP has changed that already go onto SISI and fly a Phoenix alongside a Wyvren or hel or Aeon... you can use any other dread really, even the Naglfar, just turn it sideways  .. point is, moms arnt much bigger, so unless the devs changes the physical size so they actually look like super capitals visually and not just in the statistics i say make em dock. I liked the original idea CCP had about making then dockable only in upgraded player owned outposts, tho this could be a problem in NPC 0.0 like the wildlands ? compaired to an 0.0 region that can be fully developed. Hel As for bonuses to the hel id give it a defense bonus, as it stands now the hel is the weakest of the moms, apart from having lower base EHP it also has less low or med slots to support it Naglfar I support a turret only dread for one reason and one reason only. Skill training. as it stands now you need a serious amount of training to properly fit a naglfar Flagship. the idea suggested one page back in this tread. i LIKE it !  |
Natasha Nikolaev |
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:43:00 - [ 418]
Edited by: Natasha Nikolaev on 25/12/2009 22:19:38 Originally by: Kalissa
But seriously, the biggest arguement people seem to have about MS's not being able to dock is "docking games"?
The biggest argument is that not being able to dock is the single greatest limit on their proliferation. People simply bring up the "docking games" thing more because that will be the (direct) negative consequence most people would experience from it. Quote:
You'd have to foul up pretty bad to get yourself locked and blown up by a MS in low sec.
Station camping SCs would probably not be a huge issue except when 3x sebo'd and combined with a small tackler. The real lameness come when you engage a group on a station and then a triple sensor boosted nyx undocks, reps the sh*t out of whoever you're fighting and starts pummeling you with 20 fighters with approximately zero chance of you killing him. That is lame. I guardedly support an outpost addon that is enormously expensive and difficult to acquire (and would probably need some limitations), but they should never be able to dock in normal stations. Quote:
so unless the devs changes the physical size so they actually look like super capitals visually and not just in the statistics i say make em dock.
 I would also like to state again that FB orbit needs to be upped to 8km or higher. navy emp smarties should not be able to hit them in orbit. Making DCUs useful and helping the FB hp concern at the same time:-Set F/B damage to 75% of Abathur's original (regular fighters might have to be nerfed dps-wise a bit as well, but it would be more like 10% reduction) -change DCUs to +15% (possibly +17.5%) drone damage, +20% (maybe 15%) drone HP. These would be additive, non-stacking penalized and ofc the specific numbers would be subject to testing. 2 DCUs would get you to approximately the same FB DPS as abathur's orig. changes (2.5% lower, to be exact) and would have 40% increased HP on your drones/fighters/FBs, but you're sacrificing 2 highs in exchange. a full 5 DCUs would get you to a healthy 31.25% higher than abathur's orig. numbers and double drone hp, but require using up all but one highslot, greatly reducing your personal defenses/utility. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:54:00 - [ 419]
Originally by: Kalissa
I own a mothership with has been in mothballs since Dominion and wil be until 1.1 comes out, I know atm and for the forseeable future MS's will not be dockable, and I accept this in a trade off with the advantages this ship will gain in Dominion 1.1
But seriously, the biggest arguement people seem to have about MS's not being able to dock is "docking games"? I mean thats about the weakest arguement for something I've heard in a long time. Locking times on these ships even with SB's isnt exactly instant you know. You'd have to foul up pretty bad to get yourself locked and blown up by a MS in low sec. And if you're in a partiularly big ship that it could lock, then may I suggest the age old tactic of an alt making an insta warp out spot.
It just bugs me that the best arguement that some can make against is the docking games one, it's just pure BS
let me illustrate to you. New sov mechanics requite to take station to take system. Imagine motherships that can dock. Any big alliance can field 10 of them.... they keep undocking repairing station killing some ships and redocking repairing for free (since station is owned by the alliance) undock repeat. With their ridiculous HP would be impossible to kill them before they redock. Result.. stations become 100% impossible to conquer. Dockign for motherships... only if it was a 30 minutes operation where the ship was completely vulnerable... |
BlitZ Kotare |
Posted - 2009.12.25 22:07:00 - [ 420]
Originally by: Spectre Wraith
All hail Abathur.
Seriously though, great changes. My $.02 - The Hel probably needs *some* kind of MS bonus like the other Supercarriers get (Assault Carrier gets my vote for a name), and the speed one sounds very neat/interesting IMO. No Supercarrier docking - not now, not ever. Keep it that way. However, the models should scale up a bit in relation to their updated mass? Making them harder to bump sounds like a good idea - HIC's can still tackle them normally just fine. I've always thought MS models were a bit puny for their capability, especially next to Titans . . . No uberbuffs for fighters or bombers smartbomb/stealth bomber bomb wise. Thats the only counter to these fighters/bombers that opposing fleets are going to have, they're supposed to be somewhat fragile. Thanks for fixing the Nag - at least it's on-grid with the rest of the Dreads again. Final question - WHEN DOES IT GO LIVE? |
All Channels
Test Server Feedback
