open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Large Combat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic

Lin Fatale
Posted - 2011.08.30 01:19:00 - [91]
 

supercaps should be customizable, similar to T3s

it should be the choice of the supercap pilot what he wants to do with his supercap
and in which area the supercap should have an advantage and which area is not so important


supercap base values
- small tank decrease (-25%)
- not immune to ewar (can be jammed, can be tackled by a rifter)
- titan dd -50% dmg
- supercarrier drone/fb dmg -50%
- Maximum jump range -25%
- Maximum bridge range(titan) -25%
- tracking - cannot hit subcaps



possibilitys to improve a supercap
+ tie dmg mods to dd / drones => if you fit 3 dmg mods you get back your full dmg dd / drones
+ tie tracking mods to dd => if u wanne hit subcaps like logis or commandships you have to fit some
+ introduce a new module which allows +25% jumprange
+ introduce a new module which gives supercaps back the ewar immunity

maybe you have to introduce some new capital dmg/tracking mods for that because the existing dmg mods are lowslot mods (caldari supers..)


summery

if a supercap pilot wanna gank something (e.g. carrier), he has to fit a lot of dmg (and tracking) mods

--> that means less tank, maybe can be tackled by a rifter
--> depends if the super has the anti-ewar mod fitted or not --> if yes, even less ehp but chance to get out
--> if a medium sized fleet tackle such a max dmg / low tank supercap it should die


in a big fleet fight, supers have to choose

max tank --> now u need 2 titans to dd one dread
--> fleet is relativity safe if **** hits the fan -->kill tackle, jump out, logoff ..because off high ehp

50% damge / 50% tank --> nice against another cap fleet
--> supers cannot hit subcaps, a decent subcap fleet can hurt
--> supers can be jammed and easily tackled ...hopfully u have a subcapfleet to kill tackle and ewar


anti-subcap fitting (tracking mods / anti-ewar)
--> you have to move a bit closer to your targe area, because -25% jumprange if you not fit the "advanced jump module"
--> possible to "kill" a subcap fleet but lower tank and dmg
--> if now someone drops his small supercap fleet or 30 suicide dreads it can hurt a lot

...
...
...

in the end a supercap can still do all the shiny stuff like now
but not all at the same time and with more risk if your decision was wrong


Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.30 04:22:00 - [92]
 

I think alot of people here are really beating around the bush and are failing to look at the bigger picture, although there are alot of good ideas, and there are alot of really bad ideas.

Before going any further, plz know that i operate 3 SC alts, which means my job in fleet battles is a seriously big task. I do it for fun.

Super carriers are NOT overpowered.

Some are quite obsolete (Hel), others are hellishly overtanked (my 2 Aeons, each has up to 166m EHP at any time with fleet boosting).

I have invested over 12 months into those three characters, and an uncountable number of hours training them up to be 1337 to the max.

Anyway, onto my point (with analogies).

We have carriers. (lets picture it as a slip, 23 year old attractive woman)
We have Dreads. (Picture them as a 28 year old Cage Fighting midget)
We have SCs. (picture them as a 9 foot tall Ogre with looong gangly arms)
We have Titans (30 Ft giants with a big wooden club).

Whats between the Midget and the Ogre? Nothing!

Why si there nothing between these two? Yes previously the Mom would have been a 5'9" UFC champion until it morphed. Now it is time to fill in the big gap between a Dread and a Super Carrier.

Yes it will mean another big ship, but i think that with some proposals here (the cyno mechanic change, set fleet compositions etc) they will be effective and ballanced.

Guns reduce lag. Big ships attract people.

I believe such a ship should have 1/2 the stats of SCs: half the EHP, half the jump range, half the DPS (or even slightly more), half the cost. SCs are very much an end goal for alot of people and work very hard to get into one, and a LOT of people work even harder to build them, let alone to mass produce them.

As it stands, it takes me a month to build an Aeon, if i spend 4 hours a day on it for 30 days straight. Also, there is NOTHING stopping smaller corps/alliances from building them too. It takes dedication and work.

Bring in a new capital class ship that fits between a dread and a titan, one that has guns/missiles.

Another idea i had is to make a Tech 2 version of the Tier 3 BS (Abaddon, Mael, Rokh and the Hyperion). Create a new 'mini siege' module, allow the ships to fit 7 guns, give the mini siege doing a very similar job as the normal Siege module: increase DPS, shield/armour rep, scan res and tracking number changes, as well as sliding the guns around some).

Give it a cost slightly above the Marauder, and make it a real T2 ship. I think these can also add in alot of variety to big fleet battles.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:17:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 30/08/2011 15:20:06

was thinking about some ideas to nerf supercap fleets, and though about that :

how about a way to create a blackhole on a grid, that would be an issue only for slow ships like SC ?

only way to escape it would be to quickly go out of his range of effect, so any ship with enough speed could avoid it easily.
but super are not quick. (make it so the more mass the object has, the more speed it need to avoid the blackhole)
so they couldn't escape.

you could make so that the blackhole can be destroyed, but only by subcapital fleets, and making so it can be spawned lots of blackholes at the same place, making it impossible to destroy all of them if you have too many super to save at the same time.

imagine a new module / ship who can spawn the blackhole.
lots of super on the battelfield
you have to burst close to a SC and activate the module to create a blackhole.
(of course ship would need a cloak or very high speed/agility to survive long enough, it could also be destroyed after activating, that would be fair deal considering the power of the module)
subcapitals can easily get out, even without speed module (even normal carriers would be able to get out), and begin shooting the blackhole
but others guy are spawning blackholes to your others super.
you can't destroy all of them quickly enough.

this would force people to bring less super to the field, or more subcapitals

seems funny, dunno if it would be a good idea however :)

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.31 05:27:00 - [94]
 

The issue with SC blobs is that:

- They are virtually invulnerables to anything when enough of them are spider-tanking.

- At least some of them can reach completely ludicrous EHP amounts (166M Aeon).


Would anyone disagree with that?



If only there was something that could be done to:

- Correct or lessen the two points above, by forcing the pilots to use some of their low/mid slots to things other than resists or HP.
- Give SC pilots a reason to chooses carriers over SC according to how they want to fight.
- Make sub-cap suicide runs on SC viables when all else fail, and reduce the number of supercaps overall/stimulate the mineral market.
- Lessen a bit titan's ability to smash subcap ships in large numbers.




Oh wait, it's possible, and without touching the SC anti-supercap role. You just have to extend their EW immunity to beneficial effect. No tracking or sensor links to titans, and especially no remote repping for both Titans and SC. let them do their own tanking.

Stan Durden
Posted - 2011.08.31 08:14:00 - [95]
 

Just want to throw out there that I would like to see a good reason to have multiple fit types in a fleet. It may be more of a leadership and coordination issue, as most fleets seem to fly like whatever the FC is flying. But it would be cool to see fleets with a heavy combat recon element for example supported by a fast moving group which in turn has some slow moving heavy hitters coming along behind, and all part of a fleet that makes sense. Usually you just roll one thing or another. The hassles of trying to coordinate the movements of different ship types isn't usually worth it. However the more peices to a puzzle the more variations you get. So instead of saying what are we gona counter this armor hac gang with, or shield bc, or range bs, etc, etc, you could be looking at a 2/3 rrbs - 1/6 long range bc - 1/6 nano hac fleet. The options and counter options could be a lot more interesting and variable.

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:19:00 - [96]
 

Large artillery needs a nerf imo. Alpha strike from 300 maelstroms is just as overpowered as doomsday or fighter bombers. It is pretty ridiculous when people start fitting artillery on abaddons.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:56:00 - [97]
 


I really enjoy the idea of a fleet battle envirnoment where FC's sub-delegate reponsibilities/goals/targets to wing/squad commanders. However, as long as game mechanics require Full Fleet DPS to Alpha or Grind down a target, this will NOT happen. As such, something dramatic must to change in the application of fleet DPS and RR.

If you've ever been in large frigate furballs (50+ vs 50+), you can get a taste of how crazy and dynamic fleet battles could be if they didn't revolve around repping and shooting primaries.

The first problem I see comes from Remote Reps. Once 10-20 guardians/scimi's are on the field, the alpha/dps required to break any ship's tank requires a fleet-wide primary. However, logis have an awesome role in small gang fights (<<20) that should not be elminated or significantly nerfed.

How do you nerf large scale RR without nerfing small scale RR?

1.) Add a drawback to RR. RR'ing a targets also Neuts, webs, paints them.
-- 6 Scimi's on a Drake might have the effect of 2 webs?
-- 6 Guardians on an AHAC might increase its sig to a BC?
-- 6 logies on a BC might neut it out w/in 2-3 rep cycles?
-- Cons: Different drawbacks have different levels of significance to fleet types.
-- Could be abused (RR your enemy)

2.) Implement a stacking penalty to RR.
-- After the first x # of reps on a target, RR is too reduced to matter.
-- Reasonable to implement (all RR has a 4.5-5s cycle time).
-- could be abused unless the Stacking penalty is granulated to the repper size, which makes implentation more difficult!
-- Dramatically reduces the scalability of SC's!
-- Creates an arbitrary optimal number of Reppers for a single target.

Once 20-30 ships can reasonably power through RR, then target calling at the wing level becomes much more feasible. Until then, there's just no point.

What other methods can be implemented that would encourage Wing/Squad Level targeting?

Eslathia
Posted - 2011.09.01 04:00:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Eslathia on 01/09/2011 04:05:02


Large escale fights need urgent fix. The core issue being super blobs and inhability to counter them (or even build more supers to counter them... Once you are out of supers it's pretty much game over, even if you have resources to build one, CSAA would just get hit.)


1) First, a common sense check. According to military theory, when any attacker assaults any fortified position, it needs to have about 5 to 1 advantage, to compensate for the defenders advantages (knowing the area, fortified positions, etc). A 4 to 1 ratio should just end up in a tied result. And even with 5 to 1 attacker advantage, any attacker should sustain some losses, more or less significant depending on defender's ability.

In Eve atm, we observe there is no bonus to defenders fighting in their own systems. If I see 10 supers + 100 support defending against 30 supers and 120 support and the fight ends with the total destruction of the defenders and attackers' losing 10 supers and 40 support, that is balanced to me... Lot's of fun, lot's of pew pew around and ships destroyed heavily on both sides, despite their ship class... Atm, you just need to rep to hell and nothing dies, especially supers.


2) Capitals need to fight capitals. If for any reason, a capital ship has not enough sub-cap support close, capitals should die to sub-caps way easier than they do now.
> Any sub-cap should have a 200% dps bonus when shooting a capital from closer than 10km.
> Supers' damage on sub-caps should be negligeble.
> Sub-cap's tank gets 50% penalty decrease when they get closer than 10km on a super (inside the dps bonus area).

This way sub-caps and caps can fight next to each other and there is an incentive to stay away from supers until all hostile support is taken care of (tanks too weak when too close to supers). That would help balancing things and giving a higher role in battle to sub-cap support.


3) Keep an eye on super's economics and replacement feasability. Atm, some alliances have 2 or 3 supers standing by per pilot, so if a super-cap pilot loses one, he can be sitting in a new one in no time. With points 1) and 2) supers would be easier to kill. This would facilitate protecting CSAA even just with sub-caps, to facilitate replacing and recovering from super loses. Also, make it so that CSAA show online only but that it is not known if it is actually cooking something inside or not.


4) Buff dreads a lot and nerf supers a little.

Zeveron
Exiled Gathering
HELL4S
Posted - 2011.09.01 14:39:00 - [99]
 

Since you are at nerfing/fixing/balancing (take whatever you want) supercaps, can you fix some unbalancing factors too pls?

1. Fix the damn leviathan bonus so I dont have to wait 5-6h each time I jump to get at 100% shields

2. Give to caldari (well the minmatar are hopeless) supercap pilots an equivalent to the damn slave set, or remove it from armor tanks to balance things out.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.09.06 03:20:00 - [100]
 

I dont think the supercapital fix is the end all and be all of fixing large gang warfare.

Yes supercaps are broken, and yes there needs to be some other counter to 10 supercaps than bringing 20 of them . . . but that still doesnt fix the problem.

The Eve community will simply find the next ship that has the best effectiveness/work ratio and blob 300 of those.

What large scale combat needs is diversity and tactics, not just everyone get in your highest damage ship and shoot at x

TL;DR
yes supercaps need a fix, but what needs a bigger fix is the blob mentality.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.09.06 10:49:00 - [101]
 

How about something like that?

Supercarriers and Titans come in a locked state. They can move and use titan bridges and stuff, but they have 0 target lock (even with auto-targeters fitted), can't delegate their drones and have 0.01 sig resolution. They get unlocked and can operate offensively only if they are in wing leader/fleet commander slots AND that their wings have at least 30 members in the same system.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.09.06 18:56:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Sigras
I dont think the supercapital fix is the end all and be all of fixing large gang warfare.

Yes supercaps are broken, and yes there needs to be some other counter to 10 supercaps than bringing 20 of them . . . but that still doesnt fix the problem.

The Eve community will simply find the next ship that has the best effectiveness/work ratio and blob 300 of those.

What large scale combat needs is diversity and tactics, not just everyone get in your highest damage ship and shoot at x



QFT

How do you increase the diversity of BS fleets? EWAR BS's???

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.09.07 06:19:00 - [103]
 

Ive been thinking about that for a while, and im not sure . . . The only thing I was able to come up with is adding more AOE to the game, er rather adding a ship that specialized in AOE, and Ideally give smartbombs a 1 km falloff radius on top of their optimal.

Im thinking a T2 tier 3 battleship (the carpet bomber) with the following attributes:
***************************
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% reduction in smartbomb CPU need and 5% armor resistance per level.
Carpet Bomber Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in smartbomb capacitor use and 100% bonus to smartbomb Falloff Range per level

Role Bonus: 25% resistance to smartbomb damage.
***************************
The resultant ship would have a smartbomb range of 6 + 6 km, have no drones and have about as much tank as an abaddon; I would also make it slow as cold tar, im talking 100 m/s with an afterburner running.

I might also add another script to the heavy dictor that turns off all MWDs in a 10 km radius but does NOT warp scramble the ship meaning it can still leave, and makes the hictor immobile (0 m/s)

Fielding these fleets would be expensive as each ship would cost like 700-800 mil, and would be easily countered, but I think this might get fleet commanders to break up their fleets a bit more instead of, ok everyone warp to X gate at 0.

Tau Cabalander
Posted - 2011.09.07 20:15:00 - [104]
 

I keep reading that The Mitanni is calling for a 50% supercap EHP nerf.

I hope that CCP realizes this affects the shield tankers differently than the armor tankers because of slave implants.

If a simple 50% cut is done across the board, the Wyvern and Leviathan will lose more HP than the others.

Bass Player
Posted - 2011.09.07 20:47:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
How about something like that?

Supercarriers and Titans come in a locked state. They can move and use titan bridges and stuff, but they have 0 target lock (even with auto-targeters fitted), can't delegate their drones and have 0.01 sig resolution. They get unlocked and can operate offensively only if they are in wing leader/fleet commander slots AND that their wings have at least 30 members in the same system.


Imho this idea limits corps that use supercaps for small combat in 0.0 and in low sec. And also what to do if u are 30 and 2-3 disconnect?

Originally by: Tau Cabalander
I keep reading that The Mitanni is calling for a 50% supercap EHP nerf.

I hope that CCP realizes this affects the shield tankers differently than the armor tankers because of slave implants.

If a simple 50% cut is done across the board, the Wyvern and Leviathan will lose more HP than the others.



I think nerfing EHP (if u mean titans) is an error. Titans must be really monsters (100bil for 1, plus many accounts to manage all the logistic). Could be reasonable nerf a little bit the really supercap (not titans) because is not normal that an Aeon tanks more (little more) than an Avatar. Also idea could be to limit the numbers of fighter that a supercap may use so people will stop to use Nyx for hotdrop small ships in lowsec (sorry if i go offtopic). Only 10 fighters like a carrier, so if u want to use fighters better use a carrier instead of a supercap. I also like the idea of make DDD with scripts (1 AoE and 1 other script for the actual DDD).

I think is really difficult solve the large combat problem if we speak about tactics, because blobbing is simple and effective if u have more numbers. First step must be defeat LAG! Btw i like the idea to give bonuses to fleets that respects diversity in their compositions (ie. frigates, cruisers, etc etc) for compensate and be more effective against who use only 1 type of ships always if we speak about same numbers.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

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