open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Capitals and non-capitals
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 09:53:00 - [1]
 

There has been a lot of complaining lately, especially about caps and super-caps. I think the complaints can be distilled in the following statements:

1. Super-capitals are nigh invulnerable in low sec.
2. Capitals and super-capitals are too vulnerable in 0.0 vs smaller ships.

Examining the individual statements:

1. Super-capitals cannot be scrambled by anything but interdiction spheres and interdiction spheres are not allowed in low sec. This results in a situation where a super -capital can always escape by warping or jumping out.
The individual ship types:
- Titans: These are not a true problem in low sec. Their doomsday does not work there and besides their doomsday they lack the firepower and accuracy to do any true damage. Their main purpose is logistics and considering their cost their invulnerability in low sec is a good trade off.
- Motherships: These are the true problems. They have a very high damage output and are very flexible. The only thing you can do to them is kill their expensive fighters and maybe drive them off with a huge fleet.

2. The gap between non-capitals and capitals is simply too small. Any capital ship arriving at the scene where no other capitals are present should be an absolute terror. Since almost every corporation has access to capital ships these days this should not be a problem to deal with. At the moment, though, a single Celestis (T1 cruiser) can completely shut down any carrier and dreadnought. A few (about 2 or 3) well trained interdictors can do the same with a mothership and titan. Most people have complained about sensor dampening being the module that is responsible, but this is only a symptom. The real problem is that capital ships are, despite their differences with non-capitals, not in their own class. A capital ship should only fear other capital ships (and there are enough out there for that these days) and not any 15 man fleet that has a Celestis amongst their number.

Possible solutions:

A) Make all capital ships immune to webbification, ECM, Dampening, Target Painting, bumping by ships with a mass that is significantly lower then theirs (this should be true for all ships, IMHO), but not to interdiction spheres. This also makes the Triage module a bit more appealing again, as right now 1 dampening ship will prevent you from repairing anyone. Resulting in a ship that can't move, can't attack and can't target.

B) Give all capital ships the same sort of bonus to warp cores that blockade runners have (I stole that idea from someone else on these boards). For example: Carriers/Dreadnoughts +20, Motherships/Titans +40 (This means that 10 warp scrambling modules can still keep them where they are).

C) Introduce capital sized EW modules. For example a scrambler that scrambles for 20 points (The remote ECM burst from the Motherships are a good example).

D) Introduce capital sized Smartbombs (say 30KM, but relatively low damage and high cap costs) so you can deal with tiny ships locking you down. People should bring battleships or battlecruisers at the least instead of 300K frigates to deal with a capital ship. This also means that interdiction spheres are still effective on capitals, but they will become mostly effective to keep them from entering warp (since they now work even after you press the warp button), but you will need a lot of them or a capital ship with a capital scrambler to keep them from escaping in a reliable way. Of course, any carriers need to be very careful not to blow up their own fighters and dreadnoughts need to drop a turret or launcher if they want to fit this thing (This idea was presented by a friend of mine).

E) Increase the costs to fire a doomsday to maybe 1 or 2 billion. This should keep abuse down.

F) Eventually these measures also pave the way for different type of capital ships. For example an EW capital ship that can prevent everyone on the grid from warping away for a high fuel cost. Or maybe a ship that can deploy a temporary shield.

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2007.08.28 10:22:00 - [2]
 

With you logic in point 2, a BS should not fear a group of 7 frigates?

No ship should ever be a solopwnmobile, as this line of thinking will make cap ships. Unless you make cap ships unable to attack/hit non-cap ships. But then you would have 2 games in one. Cap Online and non-cap online.

A single carrier/dread should fear the small ships. Forcing the carrier/dread to use friends and support.

Also, if a fleet has a carrier and it gets dampend by someone, then the fleet should just shoot that someone. If the they do, the carrier is free to wreck havoc. If they don't, lets hope they were counting on the carrier getting the damps Smile.

Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
Posted - 2007.08.28 10:29:00 - [3]
 

Pretty sure in Triage mode you're immune to ECM / Damps etc, which is the no1. reason to use triage mode. To turn a carrier that can't rep / put fighters on people into at least one that can remote rep (without being damped / jammed into oblivion).

So you rep the fleet, the fleet kills the enemy. Friendly fleet becomes incredibly hard to kill if they communicate properly.

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 10:30:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Lydia Brightlance on 28/08/2007 10:31:30
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
With you logic in point 2, a BS should not fear a group of 7 frigates?


At the moment a carrier should not fear 1 cruiser. Also, the costs to fly and operate a carrier are far higher in difference then, say, a battleship and a cruiser. We are talking about an entire different class of ships here.

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
No ship should ever be a solopwnmobile, as this line of thinking will make cap ships. Unless you make cap ships unable to attack/hit non-cap ships. But then you would have 2 games in one. Cap Online and non-cap online.


It won't be a solopwnmobile. 20 ships can still kill a cap ship without too much losses. It is simply that those 20 ships need to be prepared and set up to take one on. Right now every groiup of ships with a Celestis can take down a carrier.

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
A single carrier/dread should fear the small ships. Forcing the carrier/dread to use friends and support.


A carrier needs friends and support in any case. There are enough cap ships in 0.0 that sitting solo in a carrier will get you killed anyway. Besides, it needs support to simply move around.

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Also, if a fleet has a carrier and it gets dampend by someone, then the fleet should just shoot that someone. If the they do, the carrier is free to wreck havoc. If they don't, lets hope they were counting on the carrier getting the damps Smile.


It is very obvious you have never flown a carrier before. It is ridiculous that a single frigate can null and void a capital ship. The system of a capital ship should simply be too powerful to be affected by a simply frigate. I mean, come on, the warp cores of a multibillion ship should be powerful enough to ignore 1 point of scrambling from a noob ship.

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 10:30:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Admiral Nova
Pretty sure in Triage mode you're immune to ECM / Damps etc, which is the no1. reason to use triage mode. To turn a carrier that can't rep / put fighters on people into at least one that can remote rep (without being damped / jammed into oblivion).

So you rep the fleet, the fleet kills the enemy. Friendly fleet becomes incredibly hard to kill if they communicate properly.


Nope, Triage doesn't make you immune. The description says it makes you immune, but it doesn't. That was changed before it went live on TQ.

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 12:07:00 - [6]
 

Also, mind that with these changes super-caps will become a lot more vulnerable in low sec. Yes, you will need 40 points of scrambling (or any other amount that suits CCP), but they -can- be scrambled, which is impossible now. An Arazu can create 10 points of scrambling with room to spare, this means that 4 Arazu's can scramble a super-cap and 2 can scramble a carrier. Then again, even a single cap ship can scramble any other with the proposed cap scramblers, making gatecamping in a MS very dangerous.

Jai Cee
M. Corp
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.08.28 12:58:00 - [7]
 

I can agree on some points disagree on others.

The Problem With Supercaps in lowsec
Super caps are simply too invulnerable in lowsec. Theres really no good explanation for this at all except for the fact that their counter, interdictors, would be overpowered if allowed to bubble in lowsec.

Fixs for supercaps in lowsec
One solution which is a nasty hack would be to create a second type of bubble specifically to stop cap jumpouts that could be used in lowsec. Alternatively you could change the MS built in scram invulnerability to simply a high warp core strength, perhaps 10 points. This still makes it very hard to scram if you have support but allows it to be vulnerable in lowsec. Personally I think interdictors are a perfect counter to MS, they are very fragile ships which are very vulnerable to support but are virtually unkillable by the supercap if correctly piloted. As such they demand a support fleet which should always be necessary for any capital pilot. This isn't comparable to the problems carrier pilots have with damps.

The Problem With Damps and Carriers
Carriers have a particular issue with sensor dampners that is not nearly as bad as with any other ships. Firstly they have only one possible counter to damping ships and thats to fit sensor boosters since getting closer isn't an option unless capital MWDs are introduced. If you do the maths SB simply don't work even with 3 fitted which is also not an option for shield tanking carriers. Secondly carriers are a target that you generally deploy to stay in place or die, if you cyno in some carriers they're not nimble enough to warp out and are pretty easy to tackle therefore you generally have to win the field or loose the ship. This is unlike non-capitals that can MWD around and escape in various ways not to mention most other ships will not get the same amount of "attention" a carrier gets. Finally a carriers real main purpose is as a logistics ship, sure the DPS is nice to bring in but if you want to use a carrier properly it should be repping other ships and this is completely shut down by damps. If damps, like ECM, were restricted to specialised ships this would not be a problem as a single ECM ship is easily destroyed and the more ECM you bring the more reduce your DPS compared to bringing heavy hitters. However with damps heavy hitters can simply fit one module and when 4 or 5 people in your gang activate on the carrier the carrier is nullified without really affecting the gangs offensive or defensive power.

Fixing damps vs carriers
Firstly I'd have to say that I like damps as they are now when used against non caps and I think that nerfing their use would be a bad thing. There are certain ships that are non specialised that can use them to great effect and add game variety. Damping ravens make great long range support but as soon as you get in close to them they melt like butter, a single damp will take an interceptors lock range down to very close to web range making it a great defense especially with the nos nerf etc. To fix carriers you need to either buff the carrier or nerf damps. Carrier buffs come in 2 forms immunity to damping (either in triage or out!) or a massive boost to sensor resolution and range, either inbuilt or perhaps giving carriers big bonuses to sensor boosters. Giving immunity to damps as a blanket issue would probably make carrier pilots overjoyed but would start to seriously devalue MS. Immunity in triage would however be a great thing and actually give carriers a reason to use it outside of station/pos repping. I'm not sure thats enough of a buff to triage perhaps it needs its cycle time reduced to 5 minutes and rather than a total nerf to drones reduce the number deployable to 5 (ie a minimum of a 50% DPS reduction). Nerfs to damping would be similar to the ECM nerf making the modules pointless on anything but specialised ships and for the reasons above really not be my favourite idea.

tyanid
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:23:00 - [8]
 



These changes would completely break the general balance en eve, with Cyno jammed systems in position a group of 5+ carriers would completely obliterate any opposite force short of a massive blob, carriers and capitals in general are intended to be used in addition to a support fleet, and changes like these will just make them so much a solo pownmobile... much like some motherships in 0.0 prenerf.Confused


Alexandra Silverscream
Posted - 2007.08.28 14:39:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Alexandra Silverscream on 28/08/2007 14:39:16
Originally by: tyanid


These changes would completely break the general balance en eve, with Cyno jammed systems in position a group of 5+ carriers would completely obliterate any opposite force short of a massive blob, carriers and capitals in general are intended to be used in addition to a support fleet, and changes like these will just make them so much a solo pownmobile... much like some motherships in 0.0 prenerf.Confused




To be honest, if these changes are made, then carriers will not be more of a pwnmobile then they are now, except that right now you can sensor dampen them with a single ship. Remove the dampener aspect and you have exactly what is proposed. And can anyone honestly say that a carrier should be so susceptible to dampeners as they are now?

Edit: Damn these alt standards. This is Lydia Brightlance, the OP.

tyanid
Posted - 2007.08.28 15:35:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Alexandra Silverscream
Edited by: Alexandra Silverscream on 28/08/2007 14:39:16
Originally by: tyanid

-quote-


To be honest, if these changes are made, then carriers will not be more of a pwnmobile then they are now, except that right now you can sensor dampen them with a single ship. Remove the dampener aspect and you have exactly what is proposed. And can anyone honestly say that a carrier should be so susceptible to dampeners as they are now?

Edit: Damn these alt standards. This is Lydia Brightlance, the OP.


Dampeners aside (sensor locking range should get a big boost, not locking speed), needing 20 points to lock down a carrier and web invulnerability would make killing a single one vey hard to accomplish.

In regular situations you would need 15+ support to even come close to lock one down, regular fleet bs fits don't have points, and "8 point" arazus will die quick to support fleet, and btw bring your own capitals to tackle doesn't work in cyno jammed systems.

Web invurnarability is just plain ******ed, carriers playing docking games and reapproaching pos fields with no risk

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 16:31:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: tyanid

To be honest, if these changes are made, then carriers will not be more of a pwnmobile then they are now, except that right now you can sensor dampen them with a single ship. Remove the dampener aspect and you have exactly what is proposed. And can anyone honestly say that a carrier should be so susceptible to dampeners as they are now?

Edit: Damn these alt standards. This is Lydia Brightlance, the OP.


Dampeners aside (sensor locking range should get a big boost, not locking speed), needing 20 points to lock down a carrier and web invulnerability would make killing a single one vey hard to accomplish.

In regular situations you would need 15+ support to even come close to lock one down, regular fleet bs fits don't have points, and "8 point" arazus will die quick to support fleet, and btw bring your own capitals to tackle doesn't work in cyno jammed systems.

Web invurnarability is just plain ******ed, carriers playing docking games and reapproaching pos fields with no risk



Actually, even without dampeners it takes 1 interceptor to tackle a carrier, especially since nos was changed. 1 point with a 20K scrambler and there really is nothing you can do about it. As for cyno jammed systems, yes, you are quite right. You should focus on taking out the cyno jammer, not the carrier. As for web invulnerability, perhaps you are right, but in such a case mass should become a factor where bumping is concerned.

BoB sucks
Burning Bush Enterprises
Posted - 2007.08.28 16:32:00 - [12]
 

I didn't know that sensor damping prevented you from asigning fighters. wth are people going to do? triple damp every nubship on the overview?

Lydia Brightlance
Gallente
V.O.C
Posted - 2007.08.28 16:40:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: BoB sucks
I didn't know that sensor damping prevented you from asigning fighters. wth are people going to do? triple damp every nubship on the overview?


As it stands Dampening disables the carrier's main purpose, logistics support.

Dampening aside, though, in my opinion capitals are simply put in the wrong spot in the game. At the moment a cap ship isn't a danger at all in 0.0 and too much of a danger in low sec.

Rogan Cron
Amarr
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.08.28 17:05:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Rogan Cron on 28/08/2007 17:05:22
Originally by: Lydia Brightlance


Actually, even without dampeners it takes 1 interceptor to tackle a carrier, especially since nos was changed. 1 point with a 20K scrambler and there really is nothing you can do about it. As for cyno jammed systems, yes, you are quite right. You should focus on taking out the cyno jammer, not the carrier. As for web invulnerability, perhaps you are right, but in such a case mass should become a factor where bumping is concerned.


The NOS nerf doesn't affect carriers that much, more so the majority of carrier pilot i know prefer neutralizers over nos anyday, and carrier can sustain several on with no issues.

"You should focus on taking out the cyno jammer", this is my major concern with this proposal, cyno jammer alone is 10m HP, so now you need a massive blob to make killing a carrier possible.

Also in the bumping department, making bumping a "have to" mechanism is as broken as it gets, no nanodreads sugestion please :P, specially now that bumping stuff close to force fields can be considered as "bowling" in some cases.



 

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