open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Dominion Supercarrier Feedback
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (27)

Author Topic

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.20 09:18:00 - [91]
 

...
The other more minor factor I notice is that the more you boost shield and armour hp the more the anomolies of shield tanking vs armour tanking get amplified and things get unbalanced. For example slave implants boosting armour, armour tanking being more cap effecient, active tanking becoming almost irrelevant anyway, more carriers remote repping armour. There's a danger of armour tanking supercaps being viable while shield tankers aren't. Meanwhile crystal implants already don't affect capital tanks because "they'd be too unbalanced". Hull hp are a more natural way to tame these issues (might need a stacking penalty on reinforced bulkheads though if it were to be taken too far).

Titan superweapon vs supercaps: Regardless of nerfing dread damage this new titan weapon is also potentially too big a disincentive especially to supercarriers. I've already said I hate it as a concept but if you must go with it an idea to solve the main problems is to reduce the damage it does to hull, either to zero or better, if combined with a big supercap hull boost, to say 5 or 10%. This way it'd still vape any sub-cap and put carriers/dreads well into hull but would give supercaps a significant defence against being ganked in the time it takes 10 titans to hotdrop them. Then increase the rof appropriately to compensate not being able to one-shot gank capitals.


Other random thoughts:

- As a concept I like fighter bombers. If you nerfed dread damage against supercaps fighter-bombers could have a particularly nice unique role as heavy dps killers of other supercaps, making it possible to still kill a titan reasonably fast but only if you risked a lot yourself. Regardless, combined with the remote ECM burst I think supercarriers will have a decent enough role offense wise as long as you can fix their survivability.

- Jump range of supercarriers with cal5 being on par with dreads at cal4 would certainly be a good idea. Having to provide extra cynos / towers / lengthen dread route is just one more reason to leave ms at home.

- Blow up supercarrier models a bit so at least the Nyx is harder to mistake for a thannie :)

- There's no reasons given for removing the clone vat ability. If it's just "nobody uses it anyway" then it should be left in, since it's exactly the kind of thing someone finds a sound use for eventually. Removing it is just shrinking the sandbox. Better still, fix cloning at ships so it's more useful. On the otherhand if removing it is a Need-for-speed fix or something then cool go ahead, nobody uses it anyway. Triage ability on ms really is useless (it's a liability tbh :) ) but would be nice also to know the thinking behind removing warfare link ability - is it really neccesary?

- Noone's suggested yet making Fighter Bomber orbits elliptical (if it's doable), with them firing their torps at the point(s) where they're closest to their target but flying outside smartbomb range at other times. Would spice things up and make it require some skill/timing to smartbomb them.

- It's traditional for Matari caps to have a joke bonus at first but I think it's been overlooked that we already had a good chuckle at the Hel and it's now due a serious bonus. 7.5% velocity to fighters/fb per level could work. Gives a bit of a dps boost since they get on-target quicker but can also escape quicker so it's still a defensive bonus too, but with a very Minmatar flavour. Failing that just give it an identical bonus to the Nyx, it's not like the Wyvern and Aeon don't already have basically matching bonuses. Or redo all the bonuses and give every supercarrier +5% dps to their racial fighter (bomber) type. I fear the Nyx as it is now might end up being the only supercarrier worth caring about again. Even if drones are Gallente's thing it's not really fair to tip an entire important shipclass so heavily in their favour.

- And err. Don't make them dockable. Seriously why is everyone suddenly suggesting that?

Hull Blaster
Gallente
Missions Mining and Mayhem
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.09.20 09:19:00 - [92]
 

In which case, surely its a good idea to make the SC's far more popular. If they're vulnerable on the battlefields of today, instead of giving them a HP buff again make them more numerous. People have moaned and groaned about this proposition, but I believe it would increase the popularity of SC's overnight...

a) Make Super Carriers dockable at stations.
b) Reduce the production costs by roughly 5 billion ISK.

This would get around needing a further HP buff, which as previously mentioned would make SC's a bit of a ZOMGWTF pwnmobile against smaller sub-cap fleets. This would also make them more viable against a large fleet of Dread's, as they would gain a numerical advantage to an extent where the large DPS would mean that one might fall but the rest could finish the job.

I've not flown a dread, but personally I think at the present dread pilots can drop a huge blob of them in to a system without really having to worry about getting pwned on the other side. Perhaps the proliferation of Super Carriers and anti-cap platforms would make them think more carefully about their tactical options.

kyrieee
Bite me inc.
Narwhals Ate My Duck
Posted - 2009.09.20 11:05:00 - [93]
 

I think the hull tanking idea makes a lot of sense
They would need a pretty insane HP boost though since you can't really get your resists very high down there

iudex
Posted - 2009.09.20 13:53:00 - [94]
 

I didn't test them myself, but I noticed that mothership BPCs have considerably gone up in price on TQ. It was quite frustrating when researched Aeon BPCs had to be offered below 500 mil for example, since no one wanted to build them as motherhips were rather useless after losing their tackle immunity. But it seems that this has changed now and the increased demand of mothership BPCs is a good indication that people might want to build and fly them again.

Hamatitio
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.09.20 15:37:00 - [95]
 

Perhaps a change to warfare links so they are only viable on grid, along with a better bonus for fitting them to motherships? (apart from [the few] other good changes already mentioned)

Ridjeck Thome
DEATHFUNK
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.20 16:56:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 20/09/2009 16:57:01
regarding the titan superweapon Vs supercarrier argument, I do wonder if the shield tanking Supercarriers will be at a disadvantage, in that they will take the entire initial hit against their primary tank, as opposed to having a buffer to absorb some of the initial alpha damage before reaching their primary tank (for armour tankers).

It might be that this is just one of those things, but i do think that with these massive 'insta-hit' weapons around, the shield tanks will be hit relatively harder with initial alpha than the Armour tanked versions.

on a related note, as mentioned a number of times previously, I would support any decision taken to allow them to dock OR increase the model sizes of these ships (data included in thread below),

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1179392

Battle Tested
Shiva
Posted - 2009.09.20 19:11:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Ridjeck Thome
Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 20/09/2009 16:57:01
regarding the titan superweapon Vs supercarrier argument, I do wonder if the shield tanking Supercarriers will be at a disadvantage, in that they will take the entire initial hit against their primary tank, as opposed to having a buffer to absorb some of the initial alpha damage before reaching their primary tank (for armour tankers).

It might be that this is just one of those things, but i do think that with these massive 'insta-hit' weapons around, the shield tanks will be hit relatively harder with initial alpha than the Armour tanked versions.

on a related note, as mentioned a number of times previously, I would support any decision taken to allow them to dock OR increase the model sizes of these ships (data included in thread below),

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1179392


All the more reason that Crystal sets should work on Capitals as the slave sets do

Mc Leech
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2009.09.20 22:15:00 - [98]
 

I find it totally hilarious that some people feel that ccp should do something to protect their precious little super carrier against 10 titans hot dropping it. This is EVE ONLINE this isnít wow, this isnít belt miners online. The whole point of this game is for ships to die not so your little supper carrier can live happily ever after in a belt. I sure as hell hope that nearly a trillion isk of ships will be able to hot drop your super carrier after the patch and wtfpwn it laugh at you and fraps it too so we all can watch it and laugh with ccp joining us on it.Twisted Evil

IWill Ducttapeyou
School of PWN
Posted - 2009.09.20 22:28:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Mc Leech
I find it totally hilarious that some people feel that ccp should do something to protect their precious little super carrier against 10 titans hot dropping it. This is EVE ONLINE this isnít wow, this isnít belt miners online. The whole point of this game is for ships to die not so your little supper carrier can live happily ever after in a belt. I sure as hell hope that nearly a trillion isk of ships will be able to hot drop your super carrier after the patch and wtfpwn it laugh at you and fraps it too so we all can watch it and laugh with ccp joining us on it.Twisted Evil


Surely you mean four hundred billion, not nearly a trillion.

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.20 23:29:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Blazde on 20/09/2009 23:33:44
Originally by: Mc Leech
I find it totally hilarious that some people feel that ccp should do something to protect their precious little super carrier against 10 titans hot dropping it.


Point is not that it shouldn't die but that it's no fun for anyone if it's gone in the blink of an eye (or if he was never there in the first place cos he knew it was too easy to get ganked). Think about it, you're in a fleet and your FC says on TS:

"Cool ten of our titans just instagibbed a supercarrier"

Great, chances are it makes you smile a bit. The first time anyway, but it'll get old fast. Just like hearing PL titans just wiped out the Kenny fleet you were about to engage got old fast. The alternative is:

"Align ABC gate. Ten of our titans just dropped on a supercarrier, we need to get there fast to keep him tackled. Hostile fleet of 100 bs is a few jumps out and they're already gathering a dread fleet, if you have a carrier alt log em in and get undocked. Jump on land."

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2009.09.21 00:05:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Misanth on 21/09/2009 00:12:42
Blazde, I know I'm writing too long posts at times, and yours were probably very well thought through and all.. but seriously dude, if you can't fit it all in one post, it should give you a hint that it's way too long.

I skimmed through your first, noticed it continued, then saw a 3rd post and I just gave up. It takes quite alot to make a forum***** like me to stop read a post you know, I think only you and Jade Constantine have succeeded to do that so far.

Please try to summarize it and I'll promise I'll read it.

Terra Mikael
Horizon Dynamics
Posted - 2009.09.21 04:44:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Terra Mikael on 21/09/2009 04:44:30
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I cannot even tell you how badly you guys at CCP missed the boat on this.

1) They should have stayed Motherships.

2) They should have been given the ability to anchor in systems without player declared Sov, and when anchored act like mini-stations, at which players could dock, and to which they could jump clone. Like stations, the hull itself should be more or less invulnerable when they are anchored, but you could still shoot the services.

3) The pilot should be able to board another ship and get out when his mothership is anchored.

4) They should have been given a special (enormous, will only fit in a Mom) jump drive that allowed them to jump into WH space systems class 4 and higher.

They could have truly been "Motherships" in the sense of being a home away from home for intepid explorers of deep, uncharted space. Instead they're just going to be MOAR DPS!!!!. Isn't that just refreshing and exciting ugh. I hope that some day you consider ways of making this game continue to be fun and interesting other than by providing larger guns.


Either you're a complete troll or you're the biggest most flamboyant carebear I've ever seen.

Either way, 7/10

Haramir Haleths
Caldari
Nutella Bande
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:03:00 - [103]
 

Nah, he want his super duper solo Wormhole Space Mobile Rolling Eyes

LoveKebab
Caldari
LOST IDEA
C0VEN
Posted - 2009.09.21 09:10:00 - [104]
 

not sure if i got it right but atm fighters are shooting outside of 7.500km smartbomb and tbh i like it ... at least 1 thing that allow a ms to do decent dmg without losing already hard to replace drones ...

i say NO to docking MS ...

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.09.21 11:06:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: LoveKebab

i say NO to docking MS ...


you sooo dont want see me in one eh?

Saul Reaver
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.21 11:07:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Hull Blaster
RL carriers i.e. Nimitz class - Super Carrier
carriers like HMS Ark Royal - Carrier

Enough of the name whining pleeeease. ugh


I wish people would stop comparing equipment/ships in EVE to real life stuff.
THIS IS EVE. NOT REAL LIFE.
Personally i don't care what they are named. Aslong as they are fun to fly i'm good with it. Keep up the good work CCP. Smile

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.21 11:15:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 21/09/2009 11:32:54
Just one thing from being on the receiving end of fighter bombers - the graphical effect from their torpedoes hitting the target is a massively obnoxious full-screen whiteout even when the camera is zoomed right out, please tone this down a little (a lot).

Jags
Minmatar
Savvy Gents.
Posted - 2009.09.21 11:30:00 - [108]
 

Played about a bit earlier a few things I think need changed

- supercarriers need a bonus to repair amount on capital reppers , whether thats 25/50/100% per level of skill I dunno but taking 40 mins+ to rep my armor isnt much fun.

- fighterbombers need a wee bit of loving , seems to be just slightly better fighters , need a wee bit more than that IMO.

- somehow my Hel works better as an armor tank if you bung the implants in , 2,2m armor and 1.3m shields = nice , is that an intended side effect of the changes ?

LoveKebab
Caldari
LOST IDEA
C0VEN
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:29:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: LoveKebab

i say NO to docking MS ...


you sooo dont want see me in one eh?


supercaps were designed as a remote station - i see no reason for giving them ability to dock after 2 years of when they were introduced... in last 2 years ppl were not whining about not being able to dock in his supercap but now when ccp said they are looking for ways to improve them suddenly every1 want to dock their MS, like wtf?

Hull Blaster
Gallente
Missions Mining and Mayhem
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:15:00 - [110]
 

I think the docking thing is because people would rather not have to hug a POS forever and a day. A lot of people also don't like the pretty lame idea of being stuck in there all the time if you don't have an alt. To be honest... it makes sense to me. CCP want to increase the amount of SC's being fielded... with the current system I think a lot of people are put off training for such ships because they would be permanently stuck in it.

Ethan Hunte
Ninjas With Frikkin StarShips
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:36:00 - [111]
 

perhaps CCP can say...

- allow them to dock

- increase jump range

what does not allowing motherships/super carriers to dock add to the game? And what does allowing them to dock subtract from the game.

What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people. With all the titans and motherships + the alts to move them around, equaling a couple hundred or more than 1000 thats a nice return.

On some current alliance budgets they could afford to replace like 10 - 15 motherships currently anyway a month.

So motherships isn't a problem for certain space holding alliances.


Commander Keyes
Posted - 2009.09.21 17:46:00 - [112]
 

A lot of people are asking for a jump range increase and I agree Super-Carriers (moms) titansneed to be able to travel with other caps if they want to play. I would say that SC and Titans need Cal5 to travel with Dreads with Cal 4.. seems fair.

I have mixed feelings about allowing Super-Carriers to dock.
I would like to see a bonus to Cap repping to all Super Carriers. Be it armor or shield ect.

El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:00:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Jags
- somehow my Hel works better as an armor tank if you bung the implants in , 2,2m armor and 1.3m shields = nice , is that an intended side effect of the changes ?


Check page 2 for a few numbers on this. The TQ Hel has more armor than shields and received the x4 hitpoint buff on shields.

Sadly there seem to be so few Hel pilots around, that next to no one cares.

LoveKebab
Caldari
LOST IDEA
C0VEN
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:26:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Ethan Hunte
perhaps CCP can say...

- allow them to dock

- increase jump range

what does not allowing motherships/super carriers to dock add to the game? And what does allowing them to dock subtract from the game.

What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people. With all the titans and motherships + the alts to move them around, equaling a couple hundred or more than 1000 thats a nice return.


the very essence of name "SUPERCAPITAL" - they were meant to stay in space, why wont u leave ur supercapital at pos if u want to do anything else with the pilot char?

following ur logic ccp should also allow titans to dock tbh... they are also supercaps and "
What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people." ?

Mara Intala
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:20:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Mara Intala on 22/09/2009 01:19:59
Originally by: LoveKebab
Originally by: Ethan Hunte
perhaps CCP can say...

- allow them to dock

- increase jump range

what does not allowing motherships/super carriers to dock add to the game? And what does allowing them to dock subtract from the game.

What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people. With all the titans and motherships + the alts to move them around, equaling a couple hundred or more than 1000 thats a nice return.


the very essence of name "SUPERCAPITAL" - they were meant to stay in space, why wont u leave ur supercapital at pos if u want to do anything else with the pilot char?

following ur logic ccp should also allow titans to dock tbh... they are also supercaps and "
What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people." ?


Super Carriers should not be Super Caps, end of story. why should you not be able to Dock your super carrier? take a look at this.

Thanatos. 2,300 Meters long. Can Dock.
Archon. 3,300 Meters long. Can dock.
Providance 1,800 Meters Long. Can Dock.
Nyx. >>3,250<< Meters Long. Cant Dock? WTF.
Hel >>4,000<< Meters Long. Cant Dock? WTF.
EREBUS >>>15 Kilometers<<< Long. Shouldent be able to dock.

Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:27:00 - [116]
 

How about seperating supercarriers from carriers with a more powerful bonus then simple dps and costing 13b to make while not able to dock -

It already is a sortof flagship with its commandmods, if the fleet bonuses of the titan get moved to motherships theyd had a significant role besides doing the dps of two dreads.
Titans will be happy with their bridges, instaing capitals and doing twice the damage of a sieged dread with only their xl guns - theyd never fit a warfare mod inplace of a xl turret while supercarriers have 5 highslots to play with.

mrpapageorgio
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.22 01:50:00 - [117]
 

Not sure if being able to dock supercarriers is a good idea, but surely there should be a way to anchor/lock them inside a pos. I can lock my car in the parking lot, but not an incredibly advanced spaceship, makes perfect sense to me. Why should a character be locked into a ship that is going to get such limited use, even with the boost.

cyborg 009
Isk
Posted - 2009.09.22 11:52:00 - [118]
 

Sorry if i'm a little off topic. Fighter bombers i saw a carrier use them? Is this just for SISI or will standard carriers be able to field them?

Kraken Kill
Menace ll Society
Posted - 2009.09.22 12:54:00 - [119]
 

some epic ******s posting in this thread who will never own one of these ships.

Anyway. Down to Brass Tacks.

The Super Carrier should not be able to dock, its a Super Capital all the same and one of the burdens of such a ship is that you are tied into it.

The Hel Needs more Tweeking to make it make more sense. The TQ armor/shields need reversting and the x4 shield bonus applying to this value.

Slave Sets for Shields, either slaves need to go for caps or There needs to be a shield equivalent. Crystals not working on Capital shield boosters.

Repping 60k Shields every minute 10k repped with cap booster and a nice Amp...- repping 1.8million Shields on a Hel (let alone a Wyvern). 30mins to repair your shields. The Cap stability of a Hel isnt so great as it is, just barely running the Capital shield booster stable, so its just pretty crazy the HP that the Booster cannot repair.

Looking at the Aeon- that can easily have 2.4mil Armor. They rep about 20k every 24 seconds with dual reppers- thats going to take roughly 50minutes to repair the armor.

Fighterbombers. Its Being able to smartbomb these torps they fire is pretty crap. Every carrier with a clue has smartbombs.

the ECM burst- can it be changed so you cant instantly lock a target again? No point breaking a Hics lock for it to have locked you in half a second again.- The Cap use of this Mod is INSANE- so trying to run your shield booster at the same time is madness.

I do Support the Idea that Lvl 5 Cal on a Super Carrier = lvl 4 Cal on a Dread.
Also Fighters 5 insted of 4 for the bombers also sounds good, less noobs in these ships.

What Would be a suggestion is that the Ship could dock externally to the station to access things like Items/Ships and the Market, corp hanger etc, but be targetable and pew pewable and not safe while it does so.

But really- the hel, if its only going to have 7 mids for tanking and other stuff and no shield resistance bonus then its gotta get the TQ armor and shield amounts swapped and then recieve the boost to these shields. Its just too paper at the moment to titans. 3 Titan blasts and you could be about in armor, or very low shields, and with the repper barely doing anything your pretty much all finished in the Hel.

Also Make The Wyvern Model Far larger. its stupid small atm.

Ethan Hunte
Ninjas With Frikkin StarShips
Posted - 2009.09.22 13:59:00 - [120]
 

alot of people dont want them in the first place because they cant dock.

your just a traditional eve player doing another traditional thing just for the sake of it.

your one of the people who loves endless pos warfare and can't see anything wrong with it because you have no life outside of eve.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (27)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only