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: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 : last (13)

Author Topic

Alessia Suvayarin
Invicta.
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:34:00 - [271]
 

Edited by: Alessia Suvayarin on 19/01/2011 00:37:18
Well, one thing i do agree with is that Supercarriers do too much damage indeed and i can imagine that tackling 40 of them over a longer period of time is a tough thing to accomplish. On the other hand i don't like the idea of leaving them more or less totally defenseless against 1-2 HICs by crippling all the anti-subcap abilities too hard. Even though they are predominantly capital killers they should still have some semi-decent form of defense.

At this point the most reasonable thing to me seems to be the idea of giving them +1 drone per lvl and +3 drones per DCU along with say 25-33% total damage reduction on the bombers itself. They would still be able to do massive damage if they are fitted with "carrier class damage mods (i.e. DCU)" while they would at the same time sacrifice self-defense capabilities (somewhat similar to how a BS sacrifices tank for damage). Or they could retain their self-defense (aka Neuts, Remote ECM, Smarties) with lesser damage.

I would also not be too averse to a pure Fighter/FB bay and a much smaller regular drone bay even though i am not too sure if less than 1000m≥ would be good. I feel like you should still be able to launch one full group of almost every drone possible but that is just a gut feeling at the moment.

Altering their slots and/or capacitor attributes on the other hand i don't see as necessary just because i think the lowering of the scan resolution (which seems like an ok idea again) would take care of the "Ha! I will just quickly lock you and neut you out/drone you to death" issue when it comes to smaller ships. If a HIC gets a point on a Supercarrier and can't get anything that resambles a jesus blob or at least more HIC backup on the field within say 1-2 minutes the Supercarrier should still make it out in my book.

Also, bring in Slave implants for shields and while you are at it, even though a bit off-topic, Crystal implants for armor reps (active armor tanking BS might become useful \o/), fix the shield amount loss on jump-in and adjust the relative EHP of all Supercapitals to one another.

TL:DR

- Don't touch slots
- Don't touch the capacitor
- Yes, reduce scan resolution (HIC/Dictors should take a while, Capitals not so much)
- Yes, possibly add a seperate bay for 1 flight of either fighters OR bombers (plus 3-5 backup)
- Yes, reduce the regular drone bay size but not to much. 2000m≥ or 2500m≥ rather than 1000m≥
- No, dont increase cap usage for Neuts. Instead do the +1 drone per lvl / +3 drones per DCU thing
- Yes, reduce FB base damage by around 1/4 or 1/3

And no, don't even dare to touch their EWAR immunity. The day 10 Falcons lolerjam even 5 Supercarriers more or less permanently (we all know how it goes) while 5 Arazus stomp their scan resolution totally into the ground is the day the server should shut down Wink

o/

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 00:47:00 - [272]
 

Just want to add one more thing before I head to bed. If anything was changed about super carriers where fitting drone control units was needed to get the damage they do now, as in +1 drone per carrier level and +3 drones per DCU fit, you absolutely have to make the DCU fully passive. Right now they are active modules and don't use cap. I have no clue why they made it an active module but the last thing we need is for an epic fight to be happening, lag hits, and DCU's stop cycling and all the super carriers lose control of their fighter bombers and thus, almost all of their damage.

I know some of you would love it like that, but we have to be reasonable.


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.19 03:11:00 - [273]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Edited by: Ephemeron on 18/01/2011 22:26:11
Originally by: Miasmic Truth
SUPER caps are super for a reason; the idea that a small gang should be able to nuet and drop a super cap to me is ridiculous. If you take a step back and look at the material cost vs. performance, itís not really that great. Dropping it further only and reducing its ability to take on smaller targets defeats the concept to which this ship was born.
I think the idea is not for small gang to kill a supercap, but for supercap to be unable to neut and drop entire small gang.

Supercaps and small roaming gangs should simply not be able to do anything to each other.

Also, the concept on which the ship was built on was anti-cap. That role shouldn't be nerfed.
If the small gang wants to warp away, not much the SC can do about it. Thus the SC cannot kill the small gang unless the small gang is a willing participant. Willingness displayed by staying when they should have warped away.

Something about this whole discussion has been bothering me for some time. Why do people assume that the Super Carrier was designed to be exclusively anti capital. Itís ability to do sub cap damage is substantial and can be nothing less than an intended design. When the bombers were added it was to create a situation in which the SC had to make a choice. Attack structures and capital ships with maximum effect or deal with the sub capitals. Bombers were found to be too effective against sub capitals and were dialed back accordingly to reduce their effect to sub caps. I donít see the point at which they were designed to be exclusively anti capital.

-Windjammer

P.S. Youíre welcome for the bump.

Paskis Robinson
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.01.19 03:50:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Paskis Robinson on 19/01/2011 03:52:21
Some interesting discussion here. The OP's ideas are quite good, though I think there's some other good brainstorming in this thread the could develop them further. I'm an SC pilot so I have a vested interest and some relevant experience.

My general philosophy is that a supercap ship should require and rely upon a support fleet. In the real world, a carrier always belongs to what's known as a Carrier Strike Group. The carrier is always accompanied by missile cruisers, defensive ships like subs and destroyers, and logistics ships. I'd like to see changes that encourage teamwork and coordination - bringing an SC to a fight should be a brown pants moment for the enemy.

To that end I'd generally support changes that remove the SC's ability to defend itself against subcaps and tackle. I'd allow SC's to carry only FB's and fighters, and would remove the bonus to the number of fighters (but leave it for FBs.) I'd remove most if not all SC EWAR immunity (probably just leaving them immune to ECM because I hate it;) I'd leave SC's with HUGE DPS against capital ships, and a huge buffer tank.

I'd then look for cool ways to actually buff the SC's so they fit the role of being the focus of a Squad or Wing. I'd task the SC as a Wing Leader ship, and provide it with some bonuses if it is in the fleet role of Wing Leader. I would allow characters in the SC's Wing to dock *in* the SC while it cyno jumps, allowing a small titan-bridge like capability (up to the maintenance bay capacity of the SC.) I think cynoing, then having a dozen support ships undock from my ship would ROCK.

TLDR - The SCs should be nerfed so they need a support fleet, and buffed so if they have a support fleet they are awesome. Awesomeness should be proportionate to the teamwork involved.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.19 04:21:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Paskis Robinson

TLDR - The SCs should be nerfed so they need a support fleet, and buffed so if they have a support fleet they are awesome. Awesomeness should be proportionate to the teamwork involved.


That's not "buffing", that's giving them a role.

Currently Scaps do not have their own roles but are instead straight upgrades of existing ships. What you're thinking of is differentiating them from existing ships to get them out of the way of existing ships (mostly the dread and carrier, but also in large parts the support fleet that was made obsolete by the drone swarms).

Needless to say that this would be a very positive thing for Eve as a whole. Personally, I'd like to see moms as combat oriented version of the carrier, with much less dps/ehp/cost, no ewar invulnerability and gained docking ability. But a more fleet support oriented style would be okay too, as long as the dps and ehp inflation is tuned down a lot.

james1122
Posted - 2011.01.19 13:01:00 - [276]
 

Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 13:27:09


Alot of this stuff sounds life nerfing for the sake of nerfing.
The problem i see is SC's lack their own role.

This idea probs wont be popular but i think it would give a purpose to each capital.

but my idea is .........

Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.

This would make it so that the role of dreads would again be anti-capital and/or poor mans sov bash ship.
It would also force SC to have their own role as anti sov structures.

Would even be inclined to increase FB dps as they would only be able to hit non-dread stationary targets.
The idea is that your SCs would be your battering rams. They would still be extremly effective against sub caps with their neuts, SBs and fighters but would be very weak against other caps. However with a dps increase they could put down say 15k-20k dps against a sov structure.

And in turn dreads would once again have a role as anti-capital as they would be the main defence against the SC battering ram.
This is quite balenced imo as Dreads in their current state are already very weak against regular subcaps and titans. But alas each ship as its own designated purpose.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 14:17:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: james1122
Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.


Rolling Eyes

Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.

james1122
Posted - 2011.01.19 14:31:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: james1122
Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.


Rolling Eyes

Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.


hmmm no?
admitablly it was an off the cuff idea but what makes it so outragiously wrong then ?

All the above points mentioned are good at nerfing SC's but none of them really seem to address the issue of giving SC's their own unique role as well as giving a purpose back to dreads.

Dreads still have to seige and be stuck in place for 10 minutes in which time they are immune to RR. SC's can wipe dreads out with disgusting efficancy and are also currently better at taking down pos's and sov structures.

My idea makes SCs even more efficant at knocking out sov structures but gives Dreads back a purpose of anti-capitals. At the moment dreads are simply eclipsed by SCs.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.19 15:24:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: james1122
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: james1122
Make dreads immune to fighter bombers and change the explosion radious on fighter bombers so they can *only* hit stationary targets.


Rolling Eyes

Seriously??? Just leave this thread please.


hmmm no?
admitablly it was an off the cuff idea but what makes it so outragiously wrong then ?

All the above points mentioned are good at nerfing SC's but none of them really seem to address the issue of giving SC's their own unique role as well as giving a purpose back to dreads.

Dreads still have to seige and be stuck in place for 10 minutes in which time they are immune to RR. SC's can wipe dreads out with disgusting efficancy and are also currently better at taking down pos's and sov structures.

My idea makes SCs even more efficant at knocking out sov structures but gives Dreads back a purpose of anti-capitals. At the moment dreads are simply eclipsed by SCs.


Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.

You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures. This is seriously the worst idea I have seen in this thread. That includes the guy who spams emotes.

james1122
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:05:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.

You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.


Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals.
Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige).
Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme.
What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.

Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.

Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:09:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: james1122
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.

You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.


Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals.
Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige).
Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme.
What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.

Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.

Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)

If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make supercarriers anti everything.

waeaw
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:10:00 - [282]
 

Edited by: waeaw on 19/01/2011 16:11:10
Originally by: james1122
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Actually it has a role. The role you suggested is already taken(By dreads). They were introduced as anti structure weapon platforms.

You want to make a supercap that effectively cant engage players anymore and is limited to sov structures.


Not really it only stops them from engaging other capitals.
Dreads are currently completly eclipsed atm by supercariers as they can apply more dps, Ewar imunity, more mobility and rep-able (as they dnt have to seige).
Admitablly the idea was a bit too extreme.
What about the opersite then, making it so super carriers can't hit sov structures.

Concept being you would use a dread fleet for high anti-sov structure dps and the supercarrier blobs would be pure anti-capital.

Im just trying to find a way to give dreads an actual usefull role that another ship cant already do 5X better. Atm SCs are just too all purpose (Aka I win button)


Supercarriers really suck at taking down control towers

james1122
Posted - 2011.01.19 16:30:00 - [283]
 

Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 18:09:34
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make super carriers anti everything.


Lol your a bit of a d*** really arenít you :p

I like your original proposal as well as many of the other changes mentioned by other players, they would go along way towards balancing the ship as a hole.

However none of these ideas seem to address the fact that SCs leave dreads with very little purpose. Was just trying to fire off ideas to give dreads some meaning other than SC fodder.

The inability to be repíd or move whilst in siege mean they are just to much of a liability compared to SCs and even regular carriers.

What do you suggest as a solution to giving dreads an active purpose in current cap-warfare?

Sykhotic
Posted - 2011.01.19 18:41:00 - [284]
 

No

Robert Arbosa
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:19:00 - [285]
 

James your just Terrible. Honestly wow, being a pilot that has flown with Ed several time i know that he can be a little harsh. His Proposal needs to be toned and i did as much earlier on. But the Point is Moot because CCP opening said in the minutes they do not want to nerf the SC.

The the question that begs is how can it be changed then. One idea that was proposed to me earlier this week in a corp meeting was giving FB's a limited Clip size for their bombs. This means they'd have to Fly to the target attack until out of ammo then return to the SC for Ammo, then reapproach target.
This idea has pro's and con's but i wasnt much of a fan.

The other idea that the same pilot proposed that i really enjoyed was a counter that was derived from the Sub capitals it came in 2 ships

1 a t2 destroyer hull. Needs a modification to the auto target selector that allows this mod to be set up to target specific things like fighter bombers/ fighters/ drones

Then the T2 Destroyer Hull Which has the function of being an anti Drone platform, this hull would fit an auto target selector that would target the specific drone class (maybe through scripts) and the guns would cycle against the targetted drones.
These would give support fleets a counter to the Drone swarm.

Next The t2 Cruiser Torpedo Boat, this ship would be an anti capital platform the same as a stealth bomber is an anti bs platform. It would fire Citadels. But it would not cloak and would be a paper tiger. The idea being if defended by a support fleet and against a cap fleet or ship that is lacking a support fleet these ships would destroy caps. But if the enemy caps were protected by a support fleet these ships would easily die before being able to deal significant damage to the caps and supers.

Why is this line of thinking good?

Because if we continue making the counter to one ship, the next one on the food chain we won't have a cyclic system we will just have endless proliferation. If we make the PvP system cyclic as in Subcaps<Caps<Supers<Subcaps we will eliminate one motive for force escalation in terms of ship class or size.

So the TL;DR is

Instead of Nerfing SC's Bring the counter into place in the sub capital arsenal. By doing this you make the force escalation for super capitals either more supers or more subcapitals. (and which is easier and costs less to field?)

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:30:00 - [286]
 

Ah sh*t the patch reset my default toon the above is me

Serena Ku
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:11:00 - [287]
 

I've been watching this thread, but I got to say..

James1122, get out. Rolling Eyes

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:20:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Serena Ku
I've been watching this thread, but I got to say..

James1122, get out. Rolling Eyes


Im juat waiting for the Well My Cruiser should beable to kill a carrier 1v1 because by the time i can fly a carrier there will be something else thats trying to kill me.


"omg i can almost fly a dread but sc's own dreads sooo lets nerf sc's so that dreads are cool ugh. Because im at least another 6 months from flying a sc and about the same for affording it."

James's idea was neither a summation of previous ideas, new constructive idea, or an improvement on something previously stated. It was basically a cry to make SC's useless for pvp and dread fleets nigh invincible for pvp. Its Pretty obvious he falls into one of These categories

1) His main can almost get into a dread and wants it to be more powerful or OP.
2) Has a Dread and does not like shooting Sticks or waiting to enter a cap fight and click the russian roulette button for death known as siege.
3) Is part of an alliance that cannot field any supers and only has a dread fleet but wants to fight against supers and larger 0.0 fleets.
4) Honestly just has no grasp of Capitals and Cap warfare and 0.0
5) duhhh err i uhhhh i like post and errr myyyy name is james and my mommyyyy sayssss im spechial.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:25:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Something about this whole discussion has been bothering me for some time. Why do people assume that the Super Carrier was designed to be exclusively anti capital.
because CCP said so?

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=717
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We're unhappy with the role they currently occupy in practice and after much deliberation and testing we aren't happier with the direction we were taking them as anti-capital Supercarriers.

The anti capital role they were 'unhappy' with was later fully restored in Dominion 1.1 , you may remember.

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:33:00 - [290]
 

Although i agree Scatim the Problem lies in the word exclusively.

CCP never stated they were designed to be used only as an anti capital battery. They just stated that would be the primary roll of the SC.

I mean we really are just arguing the finer points of it. But the difference Being

Exclusive Anti-Cap Platform Cannot or would not be used to attack anything but capitals. No exceptions as that is their sole and only role.

Non-Exclusive Anti-Cap Platform Can be used to attack all classes and variations of ships in eve, but excels at attacking capital class ships and has a primary use and purpose of attacking capital class vessels.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.20 04:37:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: james1122
Edited by: james1122 on 19/01/2011 18:09:34
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If only someone had posted a thread suggesting a way to make super carriers anti everything.


Lol your a bit of a d*** really arenít you :p

I like your original proposal as well as many of the other changes mentioned by other players, they would go along way towards balancing the ship as a hole.

However none of these ideas seem to address the fact that SCs leave dreads with very little purpose. Was just trying to fire off ideas to give dreads some meaning other than SC fodder.

The inability to be repíd or move whilst in siege mean they are just to much of a liability compared to SCs and even regular carriers.

What do you suggest as a solution to giving dreads an active purpose in current cap-warfare?

This thread isn't here to suggest a fix to make dreads useful. That would likely be a seperate change *to dreads*.

This thread is here to discuss changes to SC vs subcaps so they cant roflstomp subcap fleets and any tacklers involved.

And ya, im a ****. Why would that bother me? You obviously havent even read the OP of the thread with your last 2 posts.

@Bobbeh your corp mate suggested my original FB idea verbatim, congrats. It's my understanding they werent put into the game in that way because CCP would have had to alter drone mechanics heavily and they dont really know how drones work anymore.

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.01.20 04:43:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Bobbeh on 20/01/2011 04:46:37
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources


@Bobbeh your corp mate suggested my original FB idea verbatim, congrats. It's my understanding they werent put into the game in that way because CCP would have had to alter drone mechanics heavily and they dont really know how drones work anymore.


i thought it sounded Familiar

:P

Yea i figured as much but as i said i think the change is in the subcaps

cyclical vs linear

CHAOS100
The Ankou
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:11:00 - [293]
 

Edited by: CHAOS100 on 20/01/2011 07:16:02
Keep everything the same.

But remove EW immunity. Except for regular warp disruptors. Maybe reduce sensor strengths to concentrate the nerf.

Problem solved.

This means they are still useful in smaller numbers and multiplied in large numbers, except they are counter-able by something other than an equal number of supercaps, because people will be able to jam and dampen the hell out of them.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:17:00 - [294]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 20/01/2011 07:18:28
Originally by: CHAOS100
Edited by: CHAOS100 on 20/01/2011 07:16:02
Keep everything the same.

But remove EW immunity. Except for regular warp disruptors. Maybe reduce sensor strengths to concentrate the nerf.

Problem solved.

This means they are still useful in smaller numbers and multiplied in large numbers, except they are counter-able by something other than an equal number of supercaps, because people will be able to jam and dampen the hell out of them.



The only ewar that would be even remotely useful to use against them would be ECM. So really youre wanting ECM immunity removed. Because one races overpowered ewar apparently "balances" things.

Hint: It doesn't.

Jamming 30-40 supercaps would take at least 100 dedicated ECM boats if not more using all the proper racial jammers and we all know what drones tend to do against those who are jamming their host. This would just result in a lot of dead ECM boats followed by the rest of the subcaps.

An unjammed titan can alpha an ECM boat every 15-16 seconsd.

Taisuke Black
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:03:00 - [295]
 

Edited by: Taisuke Black on 20/01/2011 20:08:50
Edited by: Taisuke Black on 20/01/2011 20:04:06
How about increasing the capacitor need or cooldown of supercarrier jumps? Making them hard to move around and nearly impossible to retreat from battle? Super Carriers should be all-or nothing ships, i.e. if two fleets with supercarriers show up only ONE of them will leave with a single supercarrier alive. Hasn't CCP been saying they want them to die more? Give SC's the ability to prevent other SC's from warping, jumping, or logging out of the battle.

CCP already wants big uberfleets to be less mobile, they should start with the biggest ships and work their way down instead of looking at jump bridges first.

As for actual stats, I agree that fighter-bombers should be easier to lock up.

Here's an idea, just a thought: What if SuperCarriers couldn't be affected by any implants or boosters? After all it's a freaking huge ship, why should a little chipset and some chemicals in your head increase its hitpoints by MASSIVE amounts? This alone would reduce the overpowered tank of the Nyx & friends to more reasonable levels.

Crebjr
Posted - 2011.02.09 17:25:00 - [296]
 

Support.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.02.10 02:37:00 - [297]
 

Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 10/02/2011 02:37:38
Your original post on changes to sc's is reasonable and well thought out. I'll tentatively support it, but I really prefer the following two counter suggestions, as I think they accomplish the same goal of making supers more susceptible to subcaps:

1.) Make F/FB's more vulnerable to BS weapons so they can be declawed. Although a POS mod for drone storage would probably be needed for refilling drones.
2.) A cruiser anti-super citadel bomber ships to provide a subcapital counter to super-capitals.

guthin aspheirocy
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.25 19:04:00 - [298]
 

Putting the idea of nerfing aside for one moment, there are a few things which currently dont make a lot sense about the overall balancing aspects of the super carrier and need to be discussed before any conclusion for change can be made.

First off, the super carrier is first and foremost a carrier, Which, by definition, is a support vessel intended for logistical and combat purposes. The combined adjective 'super' promotes the ability of being able to excel at its original purpose, with perhaps additional abilities. So where the carrier is intended to be an anti-sub cap vessel with the ability to provide logistical aid, the super carrier should excel at these tasks. In a sense, it does, and provides new abilities such as the fielding of fighter bombers which allow it to become an anti-cap platform. Comparing its ability to deal with capitals, against the carriers ability to deal with sub capitals, the super capital seems to be much more efficient at this task, which in my opinion, shows that the vessel is more of an 'attack vessel' then a support vessel. Hindering this role probably needs to be considered, it is in my opinion that the super carrier should be just as effective at taking out a capital class vessel, as a carrier is at taking out a BS or BC class vessel. The super carrier should be seen as a multipurpose platform (its size and name should allow to do a bit of everything), but should also be known as a support platform. A carrier vessel of this size should be able to move independently of a fleet, but not to the extend that it can knock out entire fleets of sub-caps. This i believe is already met, but perhaps needs further address as noted by others in this thread.

In terms of hp, this i struggle to understand. It has similar HP to a titan, and also has the ability to issue similar dps with the exception of the doomsday device. Cost is a useful fall back to identify the ability of a ship. The super carrier is more then half the cost of a titan and yet, is more effective in a fleet, or at least, close to. There is something definitely wrong here. In my eyes, the Titan, is not a support vessel, it is a vessel which carries entire civilizations to planets, the flagship of fleets and the bringer of destruction. The titan is almost the opposite of this, the largest ship in the game and has absolutely no ability to defend itself against anything but capitals. I wouldnt want to keep the people of Earth in one of those if it could be destroyed so easily. I would rather buy them all manticores.. it would be cheaper anyways. More to the point, the titan in my opinion should be the ultimate attack ship, and its price should reflect this. It is by no means twice as good at killing capital ships as the super carrier. And this is where it needs to be. In terms of each vessels health, i think this should be reflected by price. The carrier is 800 million or so. And has 350k or so hp. The super carrier hull is 13.5 billion or something on the order of and has 2.6 million hp or more. The titan hull is approx 45 bill and has 2.7 mill hp. In terms of ratios, the super carrier is 13 times the cost of a carrier and has 7.4 times the hp, plus a massive increased combat ability. The titan is 57 times the cost of a carrier and 7.7 times the health of a carrier, with similar combat effectiveness to a super carrier.

In conclusion, HP is unbalanced, with the titan requiring more, or the super carrier requiring less. The super carrier also needs less dps in order to set accordance with the price. The titans power is in accordance to its price somewhat, although is a little weak in my opinion.

From the ratio comparison with the carrier, it shows that the hp value of the super is in the right place, but reducing slots may be the answer so that the hp cannot be used so effectively. It is the dps that needs to be knocked in my opinion (which is in accordance to the ideas provided in this thread). In my opinion, the titan need a hp bump also.

Melkie
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:50:00 - [299]
 

NO

rcs619
Element 115.
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.04.25 22:45:00 - [300]
 

Honestly, any kind of nerf should be a last resort, or a counter to a truly game-breaking mechanic.

Im more in favor of buffing the underpowered than I am of nerfing something that may be a bit overpowered. Are there some areas of a super that probably need to be tweaked? Sure. But there's no reason to try and tear down the buffs they got in Dominion that actually made them useful. Supercarriers are endgame ships, it takes close to two years of training to fly them properly, and they cost as much individually as a small carrier fleet. They should be fearsome and scary.

Another solution to the supercarrier issue though, could be to buff standard capital ships, dreadnoughts in particular.

To start, they need to do more damage, so either give them an extra gun or two (this would require altering the ship's model though), increase the damage of capital guns (would end up buffing titans as a secondary result though), or give them a unique role bonus that adds extra damage to their XL guns. This would give dreads more bite. You could even add a damage bonus to ships with, say, greater than a 10km sig radius, to ensure than the extra damage only gets applied to supercapital-class ships.

The second thing that would need to be addressed is their tank. Even a sieged dread gets shredded by a supercarrier. I would suggest buffing their resists and/or total HP, to at least give them a little more time in a fight against supers. If the dreads' damage does get buffed, that would mean that standard carriers should probably get an HP buff as well (let's face it, they were always a bit too fragile to begin with).

I'd also suggest lowering the cycle time on the siege modules, since being stuck in place for 10 minutes can be a death sentence in the middle of a warzone. They need to definately be lowered to 5 minutes in length, bringing them in line with the triage module. I'd even support lowering the cycle time more, although that could cause some stront issues on longer POS sieges.

Also, and this is more of a pet-peeve than a major balance tweak...but alter the size of the models. Carriers need to be sized up to be more in-line with dreadnought size (since right now, a Machariel is as big as some carriers), and Supercarriers should be scaled up to roughly half the size of a titan (there's no reason the naglfar and phoenix can dock, but the supercarriers can't).

In short, maybe try to focus on potential buffs before we get into heavy nerf talks. Nerfs have a way of spiralling out of hand, and the last thing we need is for supers to be taken back to a mothership level of uselessness.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 : 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