open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Super Carriers and Electronic Attack Ships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.07.09 11:15:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Marlona Sky on 09/07/2011 12:07:34
The first thing to keep in mind is the following:

This proposal in no way is intended to be some golden bullet that fixes super carriers solely, but a change that would help enhance other changes to how capital warfare works.

Now on to the proposal.

In order for this idea to have any hope of a positive impact, two key changes have to happen.

  • Increase all EAS effective hit points by at least 25%

  • Drone bays on super carriers are restricted to only allow Fighters and Fighter Bombers to be loaded.


With those changes in mind, let's go over the initial idea from a recent idea that inspired me to.refine it.

Currently super carriers are immune to all forms of electronic warfare. It was recently suggested that, along with the 'only fighters and fighter bombers', that electronic attack ships be able to use their EW on them. Granted they were including titans and the tracking and super point stuff, my idea is only about super carriers and the EAS.

At first it sounded great but then I thought about it for a few minutes. The Kitsune could ecm it. Even though I think ecm is a dumb ****ing mechanic, at least that was something. The Keres could warp.disrupt the super carrier, thus making it a cheap super point? Feels like it is stepping on the toes of the HIC. It could dampen it some but to what? Kinda meh. So what about the other EW from the Hyena and Sentinel?? Target painting something the size of a small moon would be pointless. Web you say? So you make it go 25 or so meters slower? Super carriers are not exactly known for their blistering speed. Ok so Sentinel time. Tracking disrupt what turrets?

So basically only two out of the four EASs would be even worth using. I concluded that a simple, "Not immune to Electronic Attack Ship EW!" would work well enough.

Here is how I envisioned that idea refined:

Electronic Attack Ships can activate the EW that the ship gets a bonus to on a Super Carrier, BUT the affect is transfered to all fighters and fighter bombers under its control.

All effects mentioned below apply to bother fighters and fighter bombers. Here is the break down:

  • Kitsune - Based on the sensor strength of each individual fighter and fighter bomber, it has a chance to be jammed. So out of say twenty fighter bombers ten or so might becomes jammed for twenty seconds. Of course racial jammers would have a better chance at jamming the appropriate fighter, just like a normal ship. A Kitsune with great skills, gang bonuses and one of each racial has a good chance of jamming the entire swarm from that super carrier.

  • Keres - With a warp disruptor, all fighters would not be able to follow targets into warp and engage them. Warp.scramble would mean the same thing and all fighters would not be able to activate their microwarp drive. Thus taking much longer to get to their targets and engage. Sensor Dampener depending on how they are scripted would force longer lock times and smaller orbit ranges increasing the odds of being in smartbombing range.

  • Hyena - Activating webs on a super carrier would cause all fighters to slow down. Target painters increase their signature radius. For anti-fighter/fighter bomber, the combination would make easy targets to blast out of the skies.

  • Sentinel - Tracking disrupting depending on the drips would cause shorter optimal ranges for fighters and make it harder for their guns to track smaller non-capital ships. Fighter bombers are harder to figure out so I will go with this; Shorter firing range for the micro-citadel torpedoes, forcing the bombers to get much closer before shooting. Also increasing their explosion velosity dramatically enough that they will not be doing full damage, not even to capital ships.


Granted stats and such would need to be looked into. Electronic Attac

Cliffy Byro
Posted - 2011.07.09 11:20:00 - [2]
 

but the ships can still use their ewar on the fighters and fighter bombers anyway.

so there's no need to change anything.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions

Posted - 2011.07.09 11:32:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Cliffy Byro
but the ships can still use their ewar on the fighters and fighter bombers anyway.

so there's no need to change anything.


And here I thought highlighting things in yellow would help...

FDIC Agent
Posted - 2011.07.09 11:58:00 - [4]
 

*rubs eye* Shocked

Holy ****! An actual reason to train eas lvl 5!

Cliffy, what he/she is saying is the ew signal would transfer to every fighter and fighter bomber under the motherships control. Basically, "You can't stop the signal."

Thumbs up for not stopping the signal!

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.09 13:29:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 09/07/2011 13:29:46
That is actually a pretty decent idea.

For the people who complain that a small ship can then completely shut down a supercarrier (that kitsune might be kinda too strong compared to the others tbh, it can completely shut down the fighters while the others dont come close to that), bigger should not always be better, supercaps need a weekness they now lack.
And for those who are afraid it makes them useless, we are talking EAFs here, get a freaking support fleet and they blow up so fast you dont even notice they warped in.

Quote:
Holy ****! An actual reason to train eas lvl 5!

Or lvl 2 Cool

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.07.09 15:04:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
that kitsune might be kinda too strong compared to the others tbh, it can completely shut down the fighters while the others dont come close to that


Practically every super carrier carries mixed fighters and fighter bombers. So in order for one Kitsune to shut it down by itself, it would need to fit ECM heavy sporting one of each racial leaving a loltank. Any support from that super carrier so much as convoes the Kitsune pilot with harsh language and it will explode.

That said, like what was stated, some numbers that might include sensor strength of the fighters and fighter bombers might need to be tweaked.

Trygonus
Posted - 2011.07.09 16:05:00 - [7]
 


Marconius
Caldari
Polka.

Posted - 2011.07.10 02:49:00 - [8]
 


Better Than You
Posted - 2011.07.10 06:23:00 - [9]
 

Consider yourself extremely blessed to have my seal of approval. I was actually working on something similar and talking it over with some alliance mates. So either this idea of yours is totally coincidence, or you stole it from me. Considering how close it is to my idea except a few changes I would say you stole it.

In the spirit of not having multiple threads on the same thing I will simply thumbs this one up and walk away like a gentleman.

Fair warning to you though. If you steal an idea from me again, I will hunt you down and destroy everything you own. You will not have a ship to spin or a two modules to rub together. I will crush you. Crystal clear on that?





That's what I thought thief.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.07.10 07:29:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 10/07/2011 07:30:22

Pretty sure that is gonna be pretty damn difficult to implement, if even possible at all without major changes to how ewar modules are applied to targets.

I like the idea, its a pretty creative approach to the supercarrier problem and also gives at least some kind of purpose to EAFs, but its not gonna fly unfortunately.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.07.10 07:38:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 10/07/2011 07:30:22

Pretty sure that is gonna be pretty damn difficult to implement, if even possible at all without major changes to how ewar modules are applied to targets.

I like the idea, its a pretty creative approach to the supercarrier problem and also gives at least some kind of purpose to EAFs, but its not gonna fly unfortunately.


“The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. ” –Arthur C. Clarke

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.07.10 07:45:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky

“The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. ” –Arthur C. Clarke


Thats a nice quote, but besides the point. It isnt about impossible or possible, it is about developer resources and feasibility.

AllYourBaseAre BelongToUs
Posted - 2011.07.10 09:30:00 - [13]
 

Can't stop the signal.

CombatSmurf
Drunken Wookies
Posted - 2011.07.10 14:10:00 - [14]
 

Obviously for this to make any sense the effects would have to work on regular carriers, titans and triage carriers aswell.

The concept of jamming the ship controlling the drones, and thereby jamming the drones makes sense to some extend, but fighters are iirc sposed to be manned.

Even though the suggestion might help with some much needed ballance on the supercapital warfront, I - personally - would like to see a more logical solution.

Afterall, if jamming the mothership (meaning the ship controling the drones/fighters) results in potential jam on the drones, every ship with a dronebay ought to be affected.

The way I see it, one of the points of an external weaponsystem, such as drones/fighters, is to avoid this.

In the same regard I feel the suggestion that limiting SCs to only carrying Fighters and Fighter Bombers is illogical, it is supposed to be the biggest, baddest drone carrier out there, why shouldn't it be able to launch the most basic light scout drones?


I feel that the main problem with SCs, and Titans (tracking BS like inties track cruisers aside) for that matter, is the sheer numbers. I would like to see an increase in vulnarabilty (EHP/Slot nerf/Slave compatability) before changing the mechanics that, from a logical standpoint, should affect almost every ship in the game.


--

That said; EAFs do need love, and Supercaps do need a severe battering with the nerfhammer, but I must say I don't think this "two flies with one swat" solution, however elegant, is the way to go about it.

--

Gah, hope I ended up making sense :P

/Smurf

Rented
Posted - 2011.07.11 02:58:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Target painting something the size of a small moon would be pointless. Web you say? So you make it go 25 or so meters slower? Super carriers are not exactly known for their blistering speed.


Sieged Dreadnaughts. True story.

Its Over 9000
Posted - 2011.07.11 04:25:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: CombatSmurf
The concept of jamming the ship controlling the drones, and thereby jamming the drones makes sense to some extend, but fighters are iirc sposed to be manned.


Originally by: CombatSmurf
Afterall, if jamming the mothership (meaning the ship controling the drones/fighters) results in potential jam on the drones, every ship with a dronebay ought to be affected.


The super carrier is still unaffected by electronic warfare in the proposal.

/me puts on role play hat

The idea is that the Electronic Attack Ships, due to its small size and precise role, can hack into the communication frequency of the targeted super carrier. Using the same frequency the super carrier is using to communicate with its deployed fighters and fighter bombers.

So it is effectively using the motherships own communication frequency as an amplifier against its own weapons, its flight of fighters and bombers. Just like in the movie Independence Day. In that movie they hacked into the orbiting mothership and injected a virus. Thus causing all the deployed fighters and such to lose their shields.

So essentially, Electronic Attack Ships are not affecting the super carrier but its horde of fighters all at once instead of trying to lock each one individually. Yes there are other things that need to be done to help balance out super capitals like removing the remote repair range bonus for one.

I love this idea. Bouncing the EW effect off the super carrier to its army of fighters. Can't stop the signal.

CombatSmurf
Drunken Wookies
Posted - 2011.07.11 12:05:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: CombatSmurf on 11/07/2011 12:10:34
The reasoning still stands. If the effect is transfered to the drones on a SC, it should work the same on every other dronecarrier.

Roleplay hat edit: If the manned fighters are recieving hacked transmissions from their carrier, whats to stop them from cutting off the signal?

sidenote: Independence Day was :okay: up until they started on the whole virus thing. Pretty lucky the programming of two races who never met before is compatible.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.07.11 15:12:00 - [18]
 

Ditch the "only fighters and bombers" bay, allow a much smaller bay for normal drones, and this idea could work.

The EAS change just means EAS are even more of a priority target than they already are and thus even more completely suicidal to fly. 25% EHP is really not going to make any difference to their survivability in a fleet fight.

Lakuma
Posted - 2011.07.12 02:47:00 - [19]
 

One problem...stacking.

Think about it: I put five ewar frigates on your mothership. ewar, most notably webs, stacks - meaning your fighters and FB's are moving at the speed of a BS. No mwd makes this even worst. TP's + dampeners and you just really made these useless.

The idea is a great one and certainly ingenious, don't get me wrong. SC's really do need a nerf of some sort, or dreads need to be buffed to counter them somehow and stop the I have 1+ SC I win scenarios. However, this suggestion goes above and beyond nailing SC's...and drone boats in general if applied that way. It severely overpowers ewar ships. Fact is that a solution either to make SC's more vulnerable, FB's less powerful, or an effective means to combat the drones needs to exist WITHOUT upsetting other balances.

I'm all for ewar ships seeing more love (even jammers, though not necessarily in the form of a buff) but other ships are in dire need of attention. Black Ops are virtually useless, SC's need a counter other than more SC's, dreadnaughts (and arguably carriers) are obsolete because of SC.

(Personally I think DD needs to be AoE again and be able to wipe supers drones out. More ships destroyed = better economy as well as more strategic battles.)

AllYourBaseAre BelongToUs
Posted - 2011.07.12 03:12:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Lakuma
One problem...stacking.

Think about it: I put five ewar frigates on your mothership. ewar, most notably webs, stacks - meaning your fighters and FB's are moving at the speed of a BS. No mwd makes this even worst. TP's + dampeners and you just really made these useless.


He did say that numbers would need to be adjusted. So a 60% web would slow the fighters down by 30%, maybe 10%. There is also stacking penalty to consider. If the super carrier is really being bothered by the electronic attack ships then maybe he should have brought in a proper support fleet instead of nothing but supers.

Originally by: Lakuma
It severely overpowers ewar ships.


I guess super carriers without a support fleet will view them as being over powered. Certainly other ships won't think that way because these effects only apply to super carriers.

Originally by: Lakuma
Fact is that a solution either to make SC's more vulnerable, FB's less powerful, or an effective means to combat the drones needs to exist WITHOUT upsetting other balances.


S
U
P
P
O
R
T

F
L
E
E
T


Originally by: Lakuma
Black Ops are virtually useless


I agree, but this proposal has nothing to do with Blops or somehow arguing where development attention needs to 100% focused on.

Originally by: Lakuma
(Personally I think DD needs to be AoE again and be able to wipe supers drones out. More ships destroyed = better economy as well as more strategic battles.)


So your saying to field another super capital to be able to fight a super capital? AoE doomsday was incredibly stupid. You would get hundreds of people ready for a big fight and then one side would just drop in a couple titans, dd and that was it. So where is the rock, paper, scissors in that? Rock, paper, scissors, bigger scissors?

Bring a support fleet.

Lakuma
Posted - 2011.07.12 04:23:00 - [21]
 

Quote:
He did say that numbers would need to be adjusted. So a 60% web would slow the fighters down by 30%, maybe 10%. There is also stacking penalty to consider. If the super carrier is really being bothered by the electronic attack ships then maybe he should have brought in a proper support fleet instead of nothing but supers.


You could have stopped there - the rest is just wasting space and trolling an opposition comment. As I said, the idea is a great one but I have my doubts about its viability. Also last I checked nobody is bringing just supers - support fleets are always there.

The next concern I'd have is lag - yes that sounds lame but think about warfare links, great concept, causes crazy amounts of lag. Now take into consideration what ewar ship effects being spread across so many different entities are? Personally, as I said, I'd rather see other ships brought up to fight against supers - dreadnaughts have a chance to fulfill this role or destroyers could possibly be revisited - they are meant to be anti-fighter support and given their inherently higher dps could be buffed more to suffice as fighter/fighter-bomber killers while still remaining fragile.

The short of my point is that this idea sounds neat, but I'd rather see other solutions implemented to handle super-carriers and their imbalances. I'm straddling the fence on whether carriers should only use fighters/FBs - it would certainly change gameplay with them, possibly for the better, but then again its kind of lame that the ultimate drone ship is incapable of launching light drones to handle a swarm of frigates (like those ewar ships?).

Kudos for thinking outside the box - we certainly need that, CCP seems intent on thinking inside the coffer...err...box. Laughing

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.07.12 16:10:00 - [22]
 

Quote:
CCP doesn’t always know at the design level how hard a task is. One example is fighter bays (which would only hold fighters and fighter-bombers, but not regular drones). This began as a 3 point story and exploded into 5-8 point story, so it was moved out of Little Things and added to the Winter nullsec expansion where it will slotted in if time and resources allow.

P. 3 CSM Meeting Notes.

The long awaited scarrier nerf. A reasonable one at that.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.07.12 16:55:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Bagehi

P. 3 CSM Meeting Notes.

The long awaited scarrier nerf. A reasonable one at that.



We'll have to wait and see if it makes it into the game like that, a little bit too tame in my opinion as it apparently leaves the ridiculous EHP values intact as well as implant interactions.

On a side note, the 'changing local' bit has me pretty excited. Addressing the instant intel problem is long overdue. Here's hoping for the best Very Happy

xxxak
Caldari
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.07.12 18:22:00 - [24]
 

I am going to "support" this idea, although I think it is a little bit too harsh of a nerf on SC.

But as a generality, I REALLY like the idea of EW ships having a special ability to harm super caps.

Last Star Fighter
Posted - 2011.07.19 07:12:00 - [25]
 

THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY FUN IDEA.

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2011.07.19 17:02:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Darek Castigatus on 19/07/2011 17:02:47
I like this idea a lot. Not just for the implicatiopns for nullsec but as long as they do something about the absurd ehp level SCs have it should also solve the 'I'm bored so i drop my SC on a random fleet in lowsec because I know theres jack **** they can do to me' problem as well.

3 or 4 EAFS later and that lone super is a big fat lossmail waiting to happen.

EDIT - forgot the thumbs upEmbarassed

freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
Posted - 2011.07.20 03:32:00 - [27]
 

I must confess that this is a good way of making EAFs useful but won't affect SCs in anyway because the support fleet will maul the EAFs on sight. Increase the cost of SCs to 40bil and your good.

Manique
Caldari
Ominous Corp

Posted - 2011.07.20 08:49:00 - [28]
 

adds up to this http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1516620

signed cose they are both great ideas

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.20 10:21:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 20/07/2011 10:22:58
Originally by: freshspree
I must confess that this is a good way of making EAFs useful but won't affect SCs in anyway because the support fleet will maul the EAFs on sight. Increase the cost of SCs to 40bil and your good.



Cost has already been proven to be a horrible way of balancing ships. If a cost of 15 bill doesn't deter people from buying them as fast as CSAAs can **** them out then what makes you think that doubling or tripling that cost will have any effect?

The point of Marlona's very interesting proposal is to ensure that supercaps NEED a support fleet. A supercap fleet that attacks without support can quickly be crippled,. A supercap fleet that loses its support is in grave danger. IOW, this stops superfleets being an I-Win button that is unanswerable by anything other than "more supercaps"

Giving the long-neglected EAS class an interesting and useful role is merely a bonus, although a very welcome one.

Although EAS are horribly vulnerable, it's worth noting that all carriers and motherships have huge hangers, and can easily bring along spares for the EAS pilots to reship.

Additionally, EAS are a fairly accessible class to new players. so this proposal would give a genuinely meaningful role to newer players in fleet fights.

EDIT: BTW you can easily tweak the relative utility of EAS to stop the Kitsune being too powerful by increasing the sensor strength of Fighters and FBs.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts

Posted - 2011.07.20 10:33:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 20/07/2011 10:36:04
Originally by: freshspree
I must confess that this is a good way of making EAFs useful but won't affect SCs in anyway because the support fleet will maul the EAFs on sight. Increase the cost of SCs to 40bil and your good.



Yeah, it's a good change for EAFs but it doesn't really help with the supercap problem at all. Even ignoring a support fleet that will instantly nuke all EAFs on the field, the supercarriers can just whack them with Warriors or, if they're really proving to be a problem (and if they're not being a problem then they're pointless), then the Titans just DD them. You might think that using a DD on a frigate is, er, excessive, but if EAFs are effective at neutralising supercaps then, by definition, it will be worth killing them.

The fundamental problem with the EAF-as-supercap-counter idea is that you don't solve supercapitals' problem of a complete lack of vulnerability to subcaps by giving them a vulnerability to a single, extremely fragile and relatively expensive subcapital. And this applies to every single "let's make this class of ships into supercap counters, although at least it's far more sensible than the insane "blackops as supercap counters" idea.

If you want supercaps to be vulnerable to subcapitals and make them require a support fleet, then you need to make them vulnerable to all subcapitals. That means removing their warp scramble immunity and limiting them to FBs only. And making DDs and remote ECM bursts work only on capitals. But in that model, there is still a place for making supercaps vulnerable to EAFs' ewar. So the EAF changes would be a good idea in conjunction with other changes.


Pages: [1] 2

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