open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Supercarrier Nerf
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 10:52:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 16/01/2011 04:21:56
Proposed changes

: Wyvern and lowslot
: Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot
: Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate
: Reduce scan resolution
: Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers
: Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3
: Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000%
: 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers

With these changes a supercarrier or even group of them would be much harder pressed to counter hictors, interdictors, and subcap fleets in general.

The reduction of DPS would finally allow titans to out dps them but keep a supercarriers DPS high enough to fulfill their role as an anti capital ship.

The nos/nuet removal hinders their ability to nullify hictors and to a lesser extent interdictors which are countered more by the scan res reduction.

None of these changes would stop a supercarrier from killing capitals, only subcaps. You would be required to bring support to strip tacklers or defend against a conventional fleet.

edit: Oh and I am a long time Wyvern pilot. This isn't about me hating Supercarriers. It's pretty plain to see they are presently overpowered.

Alternatively here is a suggestion by XTTZ
Quote:

: Reduce scan resolution
: Turn current drone bay into fighter/bomber only bay.
: Regular drone bay of 250m3 (400m3 Nyx)
: Aeon armour reduction 1.1m -> 975k
: Nyx armour reduction 1.05m -> 950k
: Wyvern shield reduction 1m -> 975k
: Hel bonus change -> +5% shield hp per level
: All SC's can deploy 1 additional drone per level
: Role bonus: Each DCU allows for 3 additional drones
: (No change to current bandwidth)

: Anchorable bubbles cannot be targeted by bombers/fighters
: New module for AF's - Focus point with 10-15km range.
: New bubble probe for interdictors - 30km range, only affects jump drives and not warp drives.


And just for folks who say this is a goonie troll or a whine about dev haxsploits I have this.
Quote:
The current situation with Super Carriers is that they are just not dying, they do large quantities of damage to other Capital ships and sub Capital ships in fact they can be wielded in any situation with very good effects. In addition, they are obsoleting a whole class of ships, the Dreadnaughts. There were some examples given of how easy it is to move Super Carriers due to their jump range allowing extreme force projection by relatively small number of pilot flying Super Carriers. It was decided to postpone this discussion to the 0.0 discussion. CCP Greyscale floated a trial balloon for some conceptual balance changes, which have not been allocated time or manpower. More details will be provided on the Features and Ideas forum section if the topic is granted development resources.


later
Quote:
A high-level conceptual discussion of rebalancing and addressing the rebalancing of supercapitals then ensued. CCP emphasized that fixing this and other aspects of nullsec is not a matter of "if" but of "when"


Juliette DuBois
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:36:00 - [2]
 

Ed, how do you see roles of different capitals in general? Would make it bit easier to see your vision of cap warfare.

Obviously these are big nerfs but you are still leaving these ships with massively oversized tanks, especially on armor tank side (capitals with slaves Rolling Eyes).

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:36:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/12/2010 11:37:09
This would go quite far to balancing them, with adding a weakness by forcing them to choose more what drones they take with them.

Still a bit worried though that they wont really get a seperate role from other ships.


And obviously shield and armor supercaps should be rebalanced, but that is a matter of slaves and not of supercarriers specificly.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 11:46:00 - [4]
 

I've been talking about these with Ed in our jabber channel so its probably helpful to go through and explain some of the theory.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot
: Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot
: Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate


These three changes are part of a package - by removing a slot from the supercap's 'utility' (usually capacitor mods) layer, and simultaneously reducing the cap/recharge, supercarriers are more vulnerable to energy neutralisation and less capable of sustaining unbreakable circle-reps when under attack.

Quote:
: Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers
: Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3


These two, again, work together. By seperating off the fighters and fighter bombers into their own bay, and reducing the drone bay to 'sensible' levels, we no longer see the situation where supercarriers are capable of launching endless waves of expendable drones against anything that threatens them. Killing off drones will begin to affect a supercarrier's offensive capabilities , something that is not the case under the current system where they carry literally hundreds if not thousands of spare drones and can pop fresh waves out to replace casualties for hours on end.

The fighter bay must be small enough that supercarrier pilots have to choose between fighters and bombers, and without room for more than a couple of spares. This would mean, again, that supercarriers would need to take some care to manage their fighters and it becomes a viable tactic for opponents to pick them off to reduce the supercarrier's damage output.

Quote:
: Cap destabilizer and NOS activation cost increase of 3000%
: 30% reduced DPS to Fighter Bombers


Having said all of the above, these are the two that me and Ed don't agree on!

My preference to the neut/nos modifier would be to remove one or two highslots from all supercarrier hulls to reduce their ability to omni-fit the highs, and to force the pilots to make a decision at the fitting screen about whether they wanted anti-tackle utility (neuts and smartbombs and remote ECM) or a set of remote rep circlejerk mods. As it is, supercarriers have no fitting decisions to worry about, and that makes for poor design.

As for the Fighter-bombers, to me their DPS isn't the problem so much as their EHP, although admittedly Ed has a point that supercarriers are frequently able to both out-gank and out-tank titans. I'd like to see fighter bombers reduced in velocity and hitpoints by around 20%, and increased sig radius by around 20%. This would make them more vulnerable to being targeted and picked off by anti-support subcaps, so supercarrier pilots would be less able to simply launch bombers against any target with impunity, would be more reliant on subcap support to tie up those ships that would otherwise be blowing up their bombers, and would need to pay attention to more ships on the field than just the dictors and the capitals.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.19 12:54:00 - [5]
 

Looks pretty good, I'd personally leave the poor Hel out of the lowslot removal.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront

Posted - 2010.12.19 12:56:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 19/12/2010 12:56:38
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

: Wyvern and Hel -1 lowslot
: Aeon and Nyx -1 midslot
: Reduce capacitor and/or capacitor recharge rate

Should work as intended, will certainly make them susceptible to neutralization.
Quote:
: Seperate Fighter Bay with room for full flight of fighters OR bombers
: Regular dronebay of less than 1000m3

While I understand I appreciate the idea behind it, I fear that it will once again make them far too hard to manage resulting in a few thousand POS ornaments.
Problem is the size of the drones, where are they supposed to "reload"? For the SC fleets that we all know and love (heh) you would need entire POS dedicated to just storing the swaps, even on "small scale" it benefits larger entities far more than smaller due to ISK/Logistics concerns.
In another thread I wrote the idea of having a hangar deck on the SC themselves where bombers/fighters are stored when not in drone bay. Make the difference between the two amount to a couple of drones and you avoid the insta-swap in combat.

F.Bombers really need to be made much more vulnerable to sub-cap assets if SCs are to maintain their absolute EHP/DPS advantage over everything else.
Personally think that the 20% tweaks are too little, they are cruiser sized, moving at cruiser speeds which in it self takes BS counters out of the equation (blobbing excepted). They need to be double signature for it to have any impact I think.

Whichever way it is handled there still needs to be reliable counters available to super-fleets which this unfortunately does not provide, at least not on its own.

In short: A good start, but not enough. Tentative support.

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:19:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: xttz on 19/12/2010 13:20:39
Posting an amended list. The focus here is to make supercaps more susceptible to sub-caps, and improve the usefulness of dreads+carriers.

: Titans
: Standard doomsday reduced to 50km range, same damage
: Mid-range DD script - 125km range, 1mil damage
: Long-range DD script - 200km range, 250k damage
: Cannot activate DD on non-capital or non-supercapital ships

: Supercarriers
: Reduce scan resolution
: Turn current drone bay into fighter/bomber only bay.
: Regular drone bay of 250m3 (400m3 Nyx)
: Aeon armour reduction 1.1m -> 975k
: Nyx armour reduction 1.05m -> 950k
: Wyvern shield reduction 1m -> 975k
: Hel bonus change -> +5% shield hp per level
: All SC's can deploy 1 additional drone per level
: Role bonus: Each DCU allows for 3 additional drones
: (No change to current bandwidth)

: Tackling
: Anchorable bubbles cannot be targeted by bombers/fighters
: New module for AF's - Focus point with 10-15km range.
: New bubble probe for interdictors - 30km range, only affects jump drives and not warp drives.

The net result of this is:

  • Supercarriers must choose between pure damage and the ability to remote rep each other. A RR-circlejerk fleet will now do much less DPS, while a fleet that focuses on DPS will need carriers to support it.

  • Supercarriers are much more vulnerable to dictors and HICs. No more waves of 1k drones that alpha any tackler at no risk to the supercap fleet. And no more tens of thousands of spare drones degrading server performance.

  • Long-range dreadnought fleets are now more viable against titans. Massed titans will now need to coordinate doomsdays to be as effective.

  • All supercaps will find it tougher to shake off tackles without a support fleet

  • Assault frigates finally get a usful role. Yay.



Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:32:00 - [8]
 

I like this proposal.

Brian Khan
Amarr
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:32:00 - [9]
 

Sure why not.

Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:33:00 - [10]
 

As a supercarrier alt (curently without supercarrier fortunately) I support this proposal.

Tuleingel
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:34:00 - [11]
 

I support this.

Tehnomaag
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:34:00 - [12]
 

Sounds good.

Hun Jakuza
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:36:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 19/12/2010 13:36:38
Supported, need supercarrier nerf before they ruined the game.

NeoKalista
Kernel of War
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 13:40:00 - [14]
 

Why not. SuperCaps need to be change.

(SC Pilot)


Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 14:34:00 - [15]
 

As an Aeon pilot I think it's a great idea. It needs to happen.

Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.19 14:45:00 - [16]
 

Supported.

And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.19 15:43:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.


No.

I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital. Back to the topic, I simply can not support this unless ALL drones are banned from super capitals. Especially super carriers. They have many tools at their disposal that allows them to Leroy around solo and get away. One of them that needs to go is the ability to field ECM, Neut and light drones to fight of HIC's and dictors. Support ships is what should be used to protect the super caps from that stuff.

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.12.19 19:15:00 - [18]
 

looks good but first they need to fix the way shield bonuses apply.

Cause taht already gimps shield supers

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution

Posted - 2010.12.19 20:14:00 - [19]
 

A big step in the right direction for sure

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.12.19 20:43:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: wr3cks on 19/12/2010 20:43:16
Needed, good, supported.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 21:00:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.


No.

I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital.


Cost in itself isn't a factor to balance around - State Ravens cost more than titans, does that mean they should get ewar immunity too? What if I officer-fit a rifter?

(I actually agree that the e-war immunity should stay, just not for the reason you give.)

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.19 21:27:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
And it's time to remove the supercarriers EW immunity.


No.

I am all about nerfing super caps some but let us not forget how much these things cost compared to a normal capital.


Cost in itself isn't a factor to balance around - State Ravens cost more than titans, does that mean they should get ewar immunity too? What if I officer-fit a rifter?

(I actually agree that the e-war immunity should stay, just not for the reason you give.)


Then you're dumb for officer fitting a rifter. These should not be vulnerable to ewar

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions

Posted - 2010.12.19 23:30:00 - [23]
 

I support the idea of reducing supercap effectiveness against solo PvPers and small roaming gangs.

Either make them less effective, or give me a chance to solo it.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:14:00 - [24]
 

Ok i am not a super capital pilot, but I am going to weigh in as I am a capital pilot.

It of course is always hard to determine how to nerf something to bring it in line with other ships, especially since the new fighter bombers pretty much replaced dreads for capital pvp. Instead of large amounts of dreads fighting we now just have super capital blobs going at it with massive amounts of ehp and nothing really dying except for those not in a super cap.

So what are my thoughts

Wyvern and Nyx -1 mid slot
Hel and Aeon -1 low slot

Ok yeah this is like a kick in the balls hit to the tank, but they can still survive several DD at them plus the aeon and the wyvern both have natural tank bonuses.

I would go for reduced capacitor recharge rate and, maybe increase the amount of base cap needed to jump?

Fighter bay - this could be an interesting concept, i dont know about implementation.

Neut / Nos - ok this is a good imo, but 3000% is extreme, maybe 300%

30% reduced dps - yeah, this would be useful to give regular a fighting chance to either escape or take a few of them with them.


Other thoughts - maybe have some sort of draw back to having full flight of bombers out?

Still supported though

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:20:00 - [25]
 

The 3000% is meant to be extreme. its complete discouragement from using neuts much like using points is discouraged by a massive bonus to activation cost during triage.

Reduction in tank wont reduce its effectiveness vs subcaps and will only hurt its given role. This is akin to an EHP bonus and does literally nothing but hurt the ship needlessly. A supercap at 10% hp is just as dead as a supercap at 1% hp. Not giving it that extra 9% is pointless. A reduction in the slots typically used to give cap recharge wont hurt its given role but will hurt its ability to be a highly mobile anti subcap fleet tool.

Piercing Silence
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:23:00 - [26]
 

nerf to bots> no thanks

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:24:00 - [27]
 

Agreed.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.20 00:52:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Piercing Silence
nerf to bots> no thanks

I think you wandered into the wrong thread bro.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2010.12.20 05:45:00 - [29]
 

So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.20 06:42:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/12/2010 06:46:31
Originally by: Jason Edwards
So they buffed motherships... just months ago. Now you want to nerf them. Where were you during testing? Your changes make moms useless as hell. You're absurd.

Why does taking away their ability to counter sub capitals make them useless? They would are anti capital and supercapital platforms and would still curbstomp capfleets with ease.

Also I was *all over* that thread during testing and FB were my ****ing idea so troll disregarded.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

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