open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Dreads are the new electronic attack frigs
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Author Topic

Kalle Demos
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:55:00 - [1]

2 years ago, motherships were only really used to kill jump freighters (yes im lame) now they are everywhere, dreads however are ignored and neglected while fleets are flooded with supercarriers which are OP and annoying as hell.

The problem with dreads is, in siege they are a sitting duck for 10 mins vulnerable AND do less damage against structures (minus a pos) than a supercarrier and when they are out of siege they do ****ty damage.

I can understand why alliances would want to have supercarriers over dreads and imo dreads are only really useful in WHs now.

Surely when CCP was designing supercarriers they didnt want them to be versatile and fill the role of dreads too.

I propose a supercap nerf and a dread buff, I have thought of ways to make the dread more appealing but honestly I feel these ideas would make them OP, for example allowing them to receive remote reps while in siege, although it could create interesting situations in 0.0 it would make them OP in WHs.

I was wondering how the CSM felt about dreads and them becoming the new black sheeps in eve?

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:17:00 - [2]

Edited by: Jason Edwards on 16/01/2011 10:18:11
I think the real difference for dreads. Everyone and their mother can deploy one. Whereas motherships you might drop 10-20 of them in a big drop? That 100,000-200,000 dps from the motherships arent to bat an eye at.. but when you could bring 250 dreads. That's like 1.5 million dps. Furthermore if you lose a mothership it hurts. You lose a bunch of dreads who cares because they are insured. At the end of the day using motherships are more risky. Add on top of that. If you were to have 250dreads/moms go up against 250 battleships/hacs. Those caps are all dead. So people generally bring battleships instead. This is why dreads just arent around anymore. It's better to have your dread pilots in battleships. While it's absurd to suggest putting your mothership pilots into battleships.

So the cap battle is decided solely on who wins the subcap battle. So you want to bring the biggest subcap fleet.

This is why dreads have disappeared and motherships dominate the field.

Want to bring dreads back? Create a new supercap perhaps tier 3 dread. Who sucks at shooting stuff that dreads typically shoot; but absolutely **** the **** out of subcaps. Lets the subcaps fight off field. As sending your subcap blob in to kill the supercapdread would be lolbadidea. You then have to do your battles separate.

I imagine a supercap dread that had like 3 remote smartbombs whose range is large enough to hit fighterbombers and slightly better dmg then your officer smartbombs. Kind of like the Remote ecm burst. Such a thing would be crap against pos modules because it'd kill your blue drones/fighterbombers. It would be crap against other caps because of the amount of ehp. Except when that blob warps in and is all balled up. Locked and remote smartbombed to oblivion. Problem I could happening though... what stops you from bringing those ships the subcap fleet? How about you have to siege and then you cant lock anything for 30+ seconds. Lets the subcap fleet run. Moreover you can make it so warpdisrupt bubbles, wrecks, everything get killed by these and the dictors themselves wouldnt last long. In addition the ability to spread out enough to negate the smartbomb ability.

TLDR: Cap battles are decided by the subcaps and not the caps themselves. So having dread pilots in battleships is superior.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.01.17 13:52:00 - [3]

Lol Jason... First you complain about SCs, then propose introducing more overpowered supercapsRolling Eyes

I support the motion of a moderate SC nerf combined with a moderate dread buff. Give the latter better non-siege dps (comparable to a carrier with fighters) and better sieged tracking.

Artisan Botanist
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:48:00 - [4]

Thread can be closed, CSM and CCP already share my concerns and have explains this on the CSM meeting

Jihn Anolar
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.01.18 14:32:00 - [5]

Although I hate your shiptoasting in CAOD, this is pretty much my exact thoughts on the cap situation and I agree 100%.

My suggestion would be to allow dreads to interrupt their siege cycles, HOWEVER - this would take an ADDITIONAL cycle of stront. This would give dreads a bit more versatility than "SIEGE UP AND DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS YOU CAN BEFORE YOU DIE!" but would introduce a bit of stront management into the mix. Maybe to increase the management side of it, CCP could reduce the amount of stront that a dread can carry - making it more strategic.


Paskis Robinson
Posted - 2011.01.19 02:39:00 - [6]

Edited by: Paskis Robinson on 19/01/2011 02:40:49
Not a bad idea Jihn, and I remember when fuel bays were introduced that CCP said 'we can have bays for anything now', so how about a stront bay?

My fix for super carriers would be, remove the 'more drones per skill level' bonus completely; then up the damage on the drones with a multiplier. This way a SC could field 10 max (5 plus 5 x drone control units - if you're crazy) and de-toothing a supercarrier by killing its fighterbombers becomes practical. Today there's not only little that can hurt the SC, but little that can counter its damage, which to me is the kicker. Oh and there has to be lag benefits to only launching 7 odd FB's per SC compared to 20.

Kerensky Initiatives
Posted - 2011.01.19 13:30:00 - [7]

Originally by: Jihn Anolar

I think you should stop posting

Jihn Anolar
Autistic Sharks
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.01.19 19:06:00 - [8]

Originally by: Bumblefck
Originally by: Jihn Anolar

I think you should stop posting

A well written and though out post, outlining excellent and well structured arguments.

Rolling Eyes

This isn't CAOD or C&P, try trolling there if you feel the need to.

D'Leh Mannuck
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:31:00 - [9]

Well, it's safe to say that a carrier is a tier 1 version and a supercarrier a tier 2 version.

Just bring a tier 2 version of the dread in.

Cause a dread as it is now has such a small niche roll that you're practicly forcing people into the carrier direction.

Posted - 2011.01.23 08:10:00 - [10]

I looked at this a short time ago -- about a week or so. I came up with an idea but it doesn't appear workable with how I envisioned it to operate. I'll drop it here so you can see what I mean.

First - a new module that only fits on dreadnoughts. Drone Supressor.

An ECM based module with a 25 strength (enough to jam any Fighter Bomber) but with a very limited range that works like a smartbomb. 10 second jam, 20 second duration - only 1 module fit per ship. It provides extended protection from drones to dreadnoughts so dreads could be used to threaten super carriers.

The problems:
* FB's orbit range to target is 7.5km -- big problem, that's a large reaching ECM effect and I didn't want anything that needed major rework by CCP.
* FB's RoF is 15 seconds -- with 2s lock times, 10s can't lock - 12s lost out of 20s... Net effect is 75% reduction in the DPS a super carrier can deliver on a capital class target. I estimated roughly 60% would keep a super carrier able to kill a few dreads that lacked logistics support. 75% is too much of a damage reduction. (would have worked with 4s fire rates but not as slow as FB's seem to have).


A bunch of little things just added up.

It was a different approach to the super carrier issue. Not a direct "gut it" across all areas they work. More buff something so it can "face the beast" and put a bit more hesitance into supercarrier pilots.

Think how many Thorax would be required to take out an Ishtar as the theme... cost wise -- the differences are in the same range as dreads vs supercarriers.

I think the theme of buff here to threaten there is still a solid approach but my idea just doesn't cut it. Perhaps the theme can be taken up elsewhere.

I really hate "nerf it!" as the solution when that means the supercarriers lose massively anytime a pilot climbs into one. Better to have something capable of threatening the ship so that threat can be watched for and dealt with as it shows, without making the main ship less in all aspects of its use.

Artisan Botanist
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.23 13:25:00 - [11]

I have always liked the idea of dreads being able to use a new type of bomb launcher at a longer range but only in siege, so each dread gets an extra high slot where they can use bombs in siege, however these bombs would be used for anti-super cap rather than anti sub cap,

Though this could turn out to be a little OP it could be fun for dreads :D

Pou Tau
Posted - 2011.01.24 15:54:00 - [12]

Dreads aren't useless, Republic Alliance just used them to take out 12 carriers and 2 super caps of white noise in 1 engagement. Worked pretty well.

Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:54:00 - [13]

Originally by: Pou Tau
Dreads aren't useless, Republic Alliance just used them to take out 12 carriers and 2 super caps of white noise in 1 engagement. Worked pretty well.

Yes, I saw the battle report, if you notice my comment was "wow someone is using dreads" :)

I am no saying they are useless, just saying supercarriers fill their role and well every other role.

The issue really is Supercarriers > Titans > Carriers > Rest being the norm, or titans first if a turkey shoot is expected, this seems to be the problem and the fact that supercarriers and titans fill the role of dreads, even battleships are for more effective than dreads now.

Before the supercarrier buff (and titan nerf), alliances frequently used dreads, the option to use battleships instead was there but there was equal pros and cons of using either.

Who am I kidding though, theres been alot of issues for several years, bug reports and other stuff that isnt gettng sorted or fixed so I hardly doubt CCP will actually change supercarriers and dreads despite commenting and agreeing there is a problem.


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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only