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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Cpt Winky
Posted - 2010.12.25 06:51:00 - [151]
 

My thought is to not really hurt their survivability or dps, but increase the price of using them in battle, by nerfing fighter bomber survivability. Reduce MWD speed. Cut the hp in half. Bump up the sig radius. Also reduce their lock time and sensor strength by a fair bit with the purpose of making ECM bursts a viable defense. Finally, increase the drone bay size so they an carry several flights of replacements.

SC are big investments, absolutely, so its ok that they aren't going to die all that easily. So instead we make them likely to lose plenty of fighters in engagements. Gives an expense to battle with them without greatly increasing the risk of losing them. No SC may be lost during the fight, but a LOT of FBs are, and will cost several billions to replace.

And you'll think twice about hotdrops if a single on the ball stealth bomber who can respond quickly can cost the operation as much as the target you are going after...

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.25 07:19:00 - [152]
 

Except that a 20 man SC blob is 400 fighter bombers at a time. The odds of killing many even with half EHP is very slim unless you bomb them. Since we are routinely seeing 40 man SC gangs you would be seeing clouds of 800 FB at a time. Again, not going to make a big dent into that before they slaughter your fleet.

Alain Kinsella
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.12.25 07:53:00 - [153]
 

While I have no experience/interest in this ship type, I do have a question on XTTZ's suggestion.

Adding a module for AF would (perhaps should) be placed hand-in-hand with giving the Retribution his 2nd midslot in some form (thereby making it at least passable for PvP). Could you get behind this as well?

I'll support it (provisionally) as its thought out, and is making a good attempt at full-race balance - something you just don't see enough of here.

[BTW, I do have a lot of respect for you guys - used to 'fight' some of ya (SA) tooth and nail during SL's early years. Anyone there remember Plastic Duck?]

debbie harrio
Posted - 2010.12.25 09:16:00 - [154]
 



Just nerf the damage that fighter bombers do to sub caps, I know this has been done but it needs a little more nerfing.

Also Fighter bombers cannot be used against structures/pos, whoever thought that one up needs sacking.

Job done.

Oh and give the Hel a resist bonus, or a cap bonus, or something because it is terrible compared to the other 3.Cool

I'm Down
Posted - 2010.12.25 10:50:00 - [155]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33
3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.

How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?

Carriers are a major source of the problem with supers because they can elect to repair other ships both in and out of traige.

Titans have to be nerfed at the same time or this will just escalated the problem with titans.


Having said all that, yes, I agree mostly with what you said, but I doubt seriously CCP will be able to implement a proper nerf w/o killing the ship and causing mass emo rage quits.

The thing about titans is that by far they are more overpowered than super carriers in large blobs. The only reason they haven't been fully exploited YET is because of the threat of a SC hot drop, and the lower cost of SC to build. The moment SC become less imposing, you're going to start seeing 100 titans in a system as opposed to 100 SC, and then people are really gonna throw up their hands and wonder WTF do I bring against 100 1 shot killers.

Medidranda Livoga
Posted - 2010.12.25 11:11:00 - [156]
 

Whole supercapital shebang was (and still is) a gigantic failure right from the start, IMO. Too bad this forum doesn`t have emote :ccp: because that`s what this whole thing is like.

I doubt they would be man enough to abolish them from the game, reimburse skills and isk/minerals and be done with it.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.25 13:29:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: I'm Down
Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33
3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.

How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?

Slot removal or at least slot juggling has been done before - the Nidhoggur for one switched a midslot for a low, so whatever happened back then to Nids that happened to be in space during the patch with too many midslots fitted, would presumably apply again.

As long as pilots are warned well in advance that they're about to lose a slot and should get themselves to an SMA to refit appropriately the bulk of the active supercarriers will fix themselves, and for the rest it shouldn't be difficult to implement a downtime script which moves one of the excess modules to your cargo or at worst to your home station hangar.

Quote:
Carriers are a major source of the problem with supers because they can elect to repair other ships both in and out of traige.

I disagree, Carriers aren't really a significant factor because they're relatively vulnerable themselves (unlike supercap circlereps which are unbreakable and where every link is megabuffered in its own right). To be honest, if a supercap fleet is reliant on regular carriers for rep support then that's progress from today's state of play, as it means carriers actually have a role to play in fleet combat again other than as a pointless lossmail, and there's an actual strategy for other fleets to take them down by picking at the weak links in the chain, rather than just 'bring more supercaps than the other guy or don't bother'.

Quote:
Titans have to be nerfed at the same time or this will just escalated the problem with titans.

I actually think that Titans are a lot closer to being balanced than supercarriers, not really because of the cost but because of the relative lack of utility slots. Supercarriers basically have everything except their tanking layer as a free choice to fit whatever the hell they like, since drones don't take up slots in the same way as a Titan's guns and the damage mods for them do, which allows them to omni-fit to counter every scenario they might face.

Titans do have a particular balance issue with EHP - mostly that when tackled and unable to shake their attackers it has become a viable strategy to ctrl-q and have a reasonable chance that the hostile fleet can't chew through your buffer before you vanish 15 minutes later - but the supercarriers have that same problem. I agree that massed doomsdays against subcap fleets are irritating, but I'm not sure they're game-breakingly so, nor that its all that much worse than massed ECM bursts while fighter-swarming, and it seems to be mostly a problem when the servers are grinding to a halt and the doomsdays are effectively cycling at the same rate as everyone else's turrets (which is a server performance issue and not one of balance).

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.25 19:39:00 - [158]
 

Someone suggested a state similar to siege when fighter bombers are deployed, with a little tweak that could be a pretty good way of dealing with the problem at hand:

FB's Out:
* Loss of all invulnerabilities.
* Unable to receive any remote assistance.
* -50% sensor strength (drops to Carrier level).

Combined with a reduction of bay capacities so they can't carry a life-time supply of drones, using them would become a lot more "interesting".

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:00:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Someone suggested a state similar to siege when fighter bombers are deployed, with a little tweak that could be a pretty good way of dealing with the problem at hand:

FB's Out:
* Loss of all invulnerabilities.
* Unable to receive any remote assistance.
* -50% sensor strength (drops to Carrier level).

Combined with a reduction of bay capacities so they can't carry a life-time supply of drones, using them would become a lot more "interesting".


You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:09:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?

Yep, which is why I said "similar to".

Essentially a state change like that given to regular capitals, but in reverse.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.25 20:26:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
You realize that both triage and siege give the ships full ewar immunity not take it away right?

Yep, which is why I said "similar to".

Essentially a state change like that given to regular capitals, but in reverse.

Honestly I really don't think anymore root mechanics are what this game needs. The game needs to be more fluid not less.

I'm Down
Posted - 2010.12.25 22:06:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 22:14:36
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: I'm Down
Edited by: I''m Down on 25/12/2010 10:55:33
3 things before i support this simply b/c I hate what supers have become.

How do you implement a slot removal on a non dockable ship that wouldn't cause some kind of epic server fail?

Slot removal or at least slot juggling has been done before - the Nidhoggur for one switched a midslot for a low, so whatever happened back then to Nids that happened to be in space during the patch with too many midslots fitted, would presumably apply again.



Right, and if memory serve me correctly, a ship with a module not in the proper place will freeze in space... nids could dock, moms can't. I would guess the problem where a undocked nid got stuck would have been far fewer and less hazardous than 2000 super carriers.

Also, in terms of titans, they're problem isn't simply limited to sup caps. They're able to instantaneously remove capitals from the field too. Every game that's ever come out with an ultimate death gun has always had the issue that it's abused to no end.

Going old school, look at counterstrike and the 1 hit AWP. There's a reason everyone started banning it from their servers.

Everyone here can list probably 3 games where an ultimate weapon destroyed the game.

Super carriers were bad... but the moment they get nerfed, you're going to see an explosion of titans unlike what we've seen so far unless they get changed too.

Intar Medris
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:10:00 - [163]
 

Why is everytime someone doesn't like getting their ass kicked by something in this game they want it nerfed. I hate warp scrams every hardcore pvper in the game has one, but you don't hear me crying to have em nerfed. Get some guts, and bring more DPS if you want to take one down.

Intar Medris
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2010.12.25 23:12:00 - [164]
 

Edited by: Intar Medris on 25/12/2010 23:12:57
sorry did a double.

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.12.26 00:04:00 - [165]
 

Bring back the titan AOE DD weapon.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.26 07:42:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Intar Medris
Why is everytime someone doesn't like getting their ass kicked by something in this game they want it nerfed. I hate warp scrams every hardcore pvper in the game has one, but you don't hear me crying to have em nerfed. Get some guts, and bring more DPS if you want to take one down.

If you took a moment to read the thread you would see its not just a whine thread. But I am sure the honourable EntroPraetorian Aegis fields many supercaps and thus is aware of their power in large numbers and how game breaking it can become

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.26 08:12:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Mr LaForge
Bring back the titan AOE DD weapon.


This thread is not about titans. Also AoE books day was fine. The problem was when it was 3-5 AoE titan doomsday days at once. A lot of alliances just started relying on quad AoE DDs to fight everything. It was dumber than a box of ****.

Back on topic, I do like the idea of swapping the bonuses for drone amount of the super carriers and drone control units. The DCU would need to be made a fully passive module though. Imagine the lag and then your DCUs stop cycling. I never understood why they made it an active module. It doesn't even use cap.

Davelantor
Caldari
The Resistance Movement

Posted - 2010.12.26 08:37:00 - [168]
 

I am a Cap pilot and i approve this message o/

GreGh Rakrot
Rionnag Alba
Posted - 2010.12.26 11:51:00 - [169]
 

I own a Nyx. They can delete it for all I care, also they can delete titans while they are at it,

...and jumpbridges, and cyno gens, and cyno jammers, and jump freighters (I have 2).

No, I wouldnt want any refund. Better game would be my refund.

*keeps dreaming*

Wink


Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.12.27 00:09:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

<idea for giving stealth bombers citadel torps with 15km explosion radius>

This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.


Alright so you bring a valid point. But these would still be a serious problem for sieged dreads. It may be possible in the future but in todays climate dreads are almost useless as is. Let's get out of the woods we are in presently before throwing more into the mix eh?


I've had a look at some of the numbers - here's a simple case study, using 15km explosion radius torps:
Supercarrier :
  • 22m EHP
  • 8k effective tank
  • 12km sig radius

Sieged dreadnought:
  • 2.2m EHP
  • 5.8k effective tank
  • 2.9km sig radius

Total bomber DPS needed to kill the SC in 10 minutes: 56k
Time taken to kill the dread using the above: 7 minutes 20 seconds.

Exactly how many bombers should be needed to do this is a separate discussion, but if it's quite a bit of work to get the required number of pilots together, I doubt they'd bother just for the sake of a dread.

If this was still a problem, another balancing option would be to make siege mode reduce the sig radius of dreadnoughts slightly. This wouldn't affect their vulnerability to any other weapons.

titshangin out
Posted - 2010.12.27 02:54:00 - [171]
 

I like big, overpowering things.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.27 06:01:00 - [172]
 

What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?
Also only the wyvern can seriously tank its EHP and put up a massive passive tank at the same time. Expect all other(non ******ed) supercap to be pure passive tanks

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.27 09:43:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?



Did you miss the thing about the active tank he mentioned? Not that anyone uses that, but thats probably where the missing EHP went.

Anyway, it doesnt really matter all that much, his point was the sig radius comparison I believe, and a dread dying in half the time a SC would live isnt too bad for the anti-supercap bomber scenario.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:04:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 27/12/2010 11:05:37
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
What kind of terribly fit MS has only 22m EHP that isn't a Hel?



Did you miss the thing about the active tank he mentioned? Not that anyone uses that, but thats probably where the missing EHP went.

Anyway, it doesnt really matter all that much, his point was the sig radius comparison I believe, and a dread dying in half the time a SC would live isnt too bad for the anti-supercap bomber scenario.

The fact no supercap in their right mind active tanks was my point. The numbers are based on a hypothetical situation that happens extremely rarely. Like if I ran numbers on encountering a deadspace tanked T1 rifter that was buffer tanked.

edit: I like the idea of small anti capital ships. However at this point we dont need more stuff to discourage normal capitals.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.27 14:16:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I've had a look at some of the numbers...

Want to bet that CCP also looked at those numbers and thought all was good?

Does not take into account that SC can receive RR while DPS'ing whereas the Dread cannot.
Does not take into account that active SC's outnumber active Dreads by 2:1.

There may be thousands of Dreads in mothballs around Eve, but as long as SC are able to do their job better plus have all the versatility of Carriers there is no reason for people to even consider them.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.27 14:54:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I've had a look at some of the numbers...

Want to bet that CCP also looked at those numbers and thought all was good?

Does not take into account that SC can receive RR while DPS'ing whereas the Dread cannot.
Does not take into account that active SC's outnumber active Dreads by 2:1.

There may be thousands of Dreads in mothballs around Eve, but as long as SC are able to do their job better plus have all the versatility of Carriers there is no reason for people to even consider them.

This right here is the heart of my OP. My main is days away from a nearly perfect nag but ill likely never buy him one because we literally never field dreads. We field SC's p much every day.

Regina Wylde
Minmatar
The Demon Gate
SCUM.
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:19:00 - [177]
 

I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...

Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:24:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Regina Wylde
I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...

Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.

Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.

Regina Wylde
Minmatar
The Demon Gate
SCUM.
Posted - 2010.12.27 15:40:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Regina Wylde
I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...

Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.

Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.


You probably did, I am at work and skimming most posts lol. But this fix is still sound...and it would give more people a reason to fly bombers, which appeals to my interest in getting everyone in eve to fly bombers lol. :D

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.27 16:00:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Regina Wylde
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Regina Wylde
I have re-evaluated my ideas on the super carrier. Just do one or two things...

Give fighter bombers 1/2 the HP they have now and/or make them go into "drone siege mode" for 10 min. It would allow them to deploy fighter bombers, but suffer the same problems sieging dreads/triage carriers have. 10 min timer with lower fighter bomber hit points would make them more of a "glass cannon", but still able to deal tremendous damage.

Swear to god I read this exact post on the last page.


You probably did, I am at work and skimming most posts lol. But this fix is still sound...and it would give more people a reason to fly bombers, which appeals to my interest in getting everyone in eve to fly bombers lol. :D

Going to respond as I did last time. I really don't think Eve needs more root mechanics. The game needs to be more fluid not less.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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