open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Quick and dirty temporary solution to SC's
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:18:00 - [1]
 

Simply removing their immunity to all forms of Electronic warfare would significantly affect their performance without defanging them. It would mean that they would have to be wary of any conventional fleet if they did not have a significant support fleet of their own. This would not fix the super carrier problem but it would fix using them with impunity against people who can't field as many. Currently if most alliances know you don't have a batphone to a lot of super carriers they are perfectly willing to drop two or three super carriers into a small gang fight. If those super carriers could be largely disabled by electronic warfare it would then be very risky to use them that way.

cheese monkey
Macabre Votum
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:28:00 - [2]
 

sir, you are about to get rage flamed beyond belief!

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.18 04:13:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: cheese monkey
sir, you are about to get rage flamed beyond belief!


Why? It's amazing ccp hasn't done anything to nerf them yet, and their ewar immunity is long past due.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.02.18 06:03:00 - [4]
 

It's certainly an option. You wouldn't believe how many SC kills I'd have at this point if only my trusty warp disruptor II had any effect on them. Instead I have 0. The damn things are for all intents and purposes impossible to tackle in low sec. Yes a scripted HIC can, but that is a HIC's only role in low sec. If you aren't hunting SC's specifically, you won't bring one. Even if you do, between the dps, ecm burst and ECM drones, you need no less than 5x HIC's per SC fielded. Nevermind the dps to actually kill them. And nothing would make me happier than some SC pilot tears when they get permajammed by a falcon.

Valarre
Posted - 2011.02.18 07:01:00 - [5]
 

Considering how much these ships cost, and how long it takes to build them, no. It would be a bad idea to make them subject to any type of ewar. Instead of calling for a nerf, perhaps we need to boost other ships, for example capital ships. Maybe it's time to allow carriers to field fighter bombers, and to increase dreadnaught dps, along with moar tank for both. Or instead of only 1 extra drone per level for carriers it could be 2, and forget the fighter bomber idea perhaps. Another solution would be to significantly lower building requirements for super capitals so that more players are able to field them but that might be disastrous, dunno.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.02.18 08:45:00 - [6]
 

Well, either SC's need to be nerfed hard or every other ship in the game needs a buff, titans included. Which do you think is easier to do? I really would prefer for SC's to be returned to logistics since dps is the dread/titan line's role. But this idea is workable too.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.02.18 08:48:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 18/02/2011 08:48:39
the problem is still the same, lack of a specific role for supercarriers. Actually, it would be fine if they were just superrior carriers, slightly better than regular ones - but in fact, they are ultimate omfgwtfpwn-machines.

Valarre
Posted - 2011.02.18 09:34:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: King Rothgar
Well, either SC's need to be nerfed hard or every other ship in the game needs a buff, titans included. Which do you think is easier to do? I really would prefer for SC's to be returned to logistics since dps is the dread/titan line's role. But this idea is workable too.


You do not need to buff every damn ship in the game to balance out super capitals. You need to buff the appropriate ones. Dreadnaughts, carriers, and maybe titans come into mind...

Valarre
Posted - 2011.02.18 09:37:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 18/02/2011 08:48:39
the problem is still the same, lack of a specific role for supercarriers. Actually, it would be fine if they were just superrior carriers, slightly better than regular ones - but in fact, they are ultimate omfgwtfpwn-machines.


and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.18 09:50:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Valarre


and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.


There shouldn't be omfgwtfpawn-machines at all. Cost doesn't matter.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.02.18 10:27:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Valarre

and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.


another f**got believing ISK are a balancing factor.

Rhedea
Rhedea Corp
Posted - 2011.02.18 10:35:00 - [12]
 

The lack of real roles for the dreadnought they should be give a gun that is design just for knocking out the super-carrier. That said I believe carriers should be able to kill carriers. Carrier warfare in EVE has always been a dream of mine and fleets engagements should be carrier engagements with waves of fighters attacking each other carriers. Cool

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.02.18 15:31:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 18/02/2011 15:31:50
Originally by: Valarre
and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.

1st the devs themselves stated they don't want any 'omfgwtfpawn-machines'.
2nd supercaps obviously don't cost enough and don't take long enough to build considering just how many of them are in the game.

As for countering supercarriers, I just had the idea of a new drone-setting:"Attack hostile fighters and bombers". Maybe only bombers. That would probably make killing a supercarrier's fighters and bombers a bit easier, especially in laggy situations.
Hey, it could also be a slight Gallente buff Laughing

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.18 15:36:00 - [14]
 

For Goddess sake Ms.Masaer, use formatting/paragraphs Very Happy

Having immunity has been the norm for all supers since the early days of their existence, so not sure a flat out removal is the answer.

Let them share the Dreadnought immunity albeit without the need for a module, having bombers in space would trigger the immunity.
Removes their ability to to damage + get RR as well as making them rather risky to deploy against anything other than capitals (bombers do less to subs and not immune with fighters/drones out).

Perfect solution if I may say so myself *pats self on back*

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:12:00 - [15]
 

I should have added that I still meant they would still have their immunity to standard points, as it would be to cheesy to have something so valuable tackled effortlessly.

Currently the problems with super carriers is they are very difficult to acquire for alliances without SOV.
They can fight everything from frigate on up and win out numbered 5 to 1 with virtually no risk, so long as their opponents are not super capitals.
They have the protection of the 15 minute log off timer.
They have massive protection due to the difficulty to tackle them.
Their damage cannot be mitigated in any effective way with EW.
They suffer no penalties like dreads or titans for their benefits.
They carry the amazingly effective remote ECM burst which can turn the tide of an entire conventional battle with one shot.
They can't dock which makes them even more out of reach in price.
They can only be built in space with sov which limits their production to only those alliances in power preventing any upstarts.

In short they are completely messed up and only serve to stagnate nul-sec. Bring 100 super carriers plus a bunch of hictors and dictors and how many power groups could oppose you, I bet you can probably count them on one hand with fingers missing. If you made super carriers cost 100 billion isk it would only serve to make the situation worse as it would limit them to only the already ridiculously powerful, a higher cost is not a balancing factor it only serves to further the imbalance.

The super carrier is the swiss army knife, the jack of all trades but master of all. The only thing it can't do is shoot POS towers. Changing other ships to fix super carriers means you are re-writing the entire balance in the game which is stupid. It is far more sensible to fix the odd man out than everything else.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:22:00 - [16]
 

Quote:
If those super carriers could be largely disabled by electronic warfare it would then be very risky to use them that way.
If someone can bring 3 SC to the battlefield for some silly lowsec incursion (not the NPC kind) against a small gang, doesn't it seem odd that they can do it having to much isk on hand and bored enough to do it but you expect an easy, cheap (for you) kill.

My tinfoil hat theory is that CCP wants the players to start dedicating higher isk cost per large scale blob fight. Reason being is that an SC by itself replaces quite a few battleships which means each SC is a force multiplier (say there was 100 vs 100 BS, then one side brings 10 SC + 80 BS vs 100 BS, each SC can replace 5 BS which then comes out to be 130 vs 100, those 1700 0.0 null blobs would actually be valued higher if you applied a number to each ship brought instead of whats in local and exclude the massive lag Rolling Eyes). To counter that, the other side now needs to bring more SC of their own, which the first side needs to counter by bringing even more SC. Each SC is a huge sink of isk for modules (usually officer stuff), the isk cost for skill books is high, and lock the ship into a POS when not in use (requires POS upkeep and paranoia to make sure someone didn't run off with it) and are not insurable because they cannot dock. Every past expansion after Apocphyra has had some kind of nerf to reduce isk into the game (meta 0 BS loot, NPC corp tax, Sov upkeep) and SC are the one of the things that has fixed it at the sink level instead of the faucet level (SC or carrier would be "endgame" ships for fun factor in my opinion, Titans and dreads are just so boring with limited roles). So, instead of *****ing that its CCP's problem to fix these wtfpwnmobiles so you can use your T1 throw away ships to catch it why don't you start flying the one ship that can pin it (HIC) in a gang, organize your own counter fleet, and hotdrop something with "Capital Skill Requirements" to kill it (meaning, you need to dedicate just as much isk). Loss needs to be on both sides of the scale and the "Don't fly what you cannot afford!" certainly applies with such a powerful ship, it means you need to to start flying more expensive toys instead of half a dozen cheap T1 hulls backed by a falcon Rolling Eyes

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:06:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Kalia Masaer
I should have added that I still meant they would still have their immunity to standard points, as it would be to cheesy to have something so valuable tackled effortlessly...

Yet that is one of the main reasons why it can be spammed with little risk, there are only two ships (HICs/DICs) that can tackle them.

They should be more vulnerable when running without support. Compare it to the even more expensive Titan's, they rarely have neuts/smarts in highs and have no reliable way of swatting a HIC/DIC .. they need support to be effective.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:30:00 - [18]
 

If it were highly resistant instead of immune that would serve all round. Give it a sensor strength of like 60 and a warp strength of 30. With a big enough ewar fleet you could overcome it, but it would have to be a fleet put together for that purpose.

captain skinback
Posted - 2011.02.18 23:48:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Sheledra
If it were highly resistant instead of immune that would serve all round. Give it a sensor strength of like 60 and a warp strength of 30. With a big enough ewar fleet you could overcome it, but it would have to be a fleet put together for that purpose.


by the time you get a fleet together to tackle a supercap, the ship will be long gone.

but letting super caps vulnerable to ewar is just going to make them want blob even more. thed probably only ever be deployed in fleet fights because the risk of using them is so high.

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.02.18 23:57:00 - [20]
 

Adding spool up time for these ships to jump as suggested by Grimmi (sp) would do much to limit these vessels enough I think.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.19 03:49:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 19/02/2011 03:55:25
The current sensor strength of a Hel is 120 not an easy thing to jam.

And if super carriers are restricted to the blob that makes it more fun for everyone who wants some smaller scale combat rather than being hot dropped bye super carriers.

The spool time will only help to resolve hot dropping as a whole not just supers, don't forget it makes it that much harder to drop reinforcements to kill a super carrier as it is for the super carrier to drop on other ships.

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.02.19 04:43:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Kalia Masaer

The spool time will only help to resolve hot dropping as a whole not just supers, don't forget it makes it that much harder to drop reinforcements to kill a super carrier as it is for the super carrier to drop on other ships.


Maybe I missed something, but the spool up time was suggested to apply to Caps, not BS and under.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.19 05:11:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 19/02/2011 05:11:41
Cyno spool up time means no instant titan bridges too which means no more easy titan hot drops. Cyno spool up time means the the cyno has a delay before it becomes active which affects every ship jumping to it.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.02.19 07:30:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Valarre

and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.


another f**got believing ISK are a balancing factor.



This is the reason 95% of sov null population leave bots running whenever they would otherwise log off.Rolling Eyes

Valarre
Posted - 2011.02.19 07:41:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Valarre

and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.


another f**got believing ISK are a balancing factor.



This is the reason 95% of sov null population leave bots running whenever they would otherwise log off.Rolling Eyes


excuse me, dont call me a ***got. I'm just saying that its a bad idea to make such ships easy to kill considering how much time and isk it takes to build one. Perhaps in order to properly nerf such a ship it would first make sense for the building requirements to be significantly lowered.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.02.19 07:59:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Valarre
Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Valarre

and they should be omfgwtfpawn-machines considering how much they cost, and how long it takes to build them.


another f**got believing ISK are a balancing factor.



This is the reason 95% of sov null population leave bots running whenever they would otherwise log off.Rolling Eyes


excuse me, dont call me a ***got. I'm just saying that its a bad idea to make such ships easy to kill considering how much time and isk it takes to build one. Perhaps in order to properly nerf such a ship it would first make sense for the building requirements to be significantly lowered.


Apparently, it doesn't cost enough time and isk to build. Otherwise not everyone and their mother would have one. It's simple, when the rate of mom proliferation slows down, you know you've achieved balance. The self-regulating market.Cool

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.19 09:34:00 - [27]
 

Removing EW immunity and still requiring SC's be tackled by a hic or dic in no way makes a super carrier easy to kill, it would still take at least 20 BS to do the damage needed to kill a single super carrier before it logged off and to keep those BS alive you would need at least a handful of EW ships, hics and dics and logis. Not easy by any means but would be possible for a fleet the could kill one SC to drive off more a dozen though they likely could only kill one. It would still likely take at least 30 ships to do it if not more.

The point is to force the super carriers to have a support fleet not just randomly and unsupported in battle, they need to be at risk as currently 90% of super carrier kills are done by other super carriers and those that aren't are typically when one was caught not paying attention.

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2011.02.19 09:51:00 - [28]
 

Why not alter the EW mechanic in a way that makes it ship class specific.

It makes absolute sense that Frigates, Cruisers and stuff can't really affect the electronics of a ship thousands of times bigger than themselves. (Exception being the highly specialized Hic)

Leave that, but give Dreads and Carriers the means of using EW against Supers (or caps in general), in the form of Capital Warp Disruption, etc....

So either introduce capital sized EW modules or alter the way existing modules work such that they only affect caps when fittet on caps.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.19 12:35:00 - [29]
 

I think that SCs should be just like tier 3 carrier, while they are more like a T2 carrier (or dread).

Usually T2 costs 20 times than T1 and outshines T1 in every aspect (ok, battleships excluded).
That's pretty much the relationship between regular capitals and SCs.

The current situation is somewhat justified by their cost.
In my opinion CCP was about to do the right thing when they planned to
  • reduce their production cost to 6 billions, and reimburse players
  • Let them dock
  • Give them stats of a enhanced carrier, just like they were before Dominion
  • Let them use just 10 FBs


If the distance between dreads and SCs is smaller then SCs would be easier to balance.


Valarre
Posted - 2011.02.19 20:26:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Camios
I think that SCs should be just like tier 3 carrier, while they are more like a T2 carrier (or dread).

Usually T2 costs 20 times than T1 and outshines T1 in every aspect (ok, battleships excluded).
That's pretty much the relationship between regular capitals and SCs.

The current situation is somewhat justified by their cost.
In my opinion CCP was about to do the right thing when they planned to
  • reduce their production cost to 6 billions, and reimburse players
  • Let them dock
  • Give them stats of a enhanced carrier, just like they were before Dominion
  • Let them use just 10 FBs


If the distance between dreads and SCs is smaller then SCs would be easier to balance.




I agree with most of what you said. Except for only 10 fighter bombers. Really guys this is the way to fix super carriers, not electronic warfare or any other silly slap dash fix.


 

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