open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Dominion Supercarrier Feedback
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (27)

Author Topic

Haxfar Portlaind
Posted - 2009.10.17 11:47:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Major Hunt
Originally by: Haxfar Portlaind
Does anyone have pics of the other fighter-bombers? Smile


Cyclops

Malleus

Mantis


No Minnie pic yet


Thx for the pics Very Happy
The amarr reminds me about that ship the bountyhunter from Star Wars have...

Oljud Zork
Evolution
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.10.17 13:13:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Any word yet on XXL shieldboosters / repairers or bonuses to aid their tank?

Loads of HP will only make you last a bit longer, and the amount of time it currently takes to boost up all that shield on my wyvern is #&*(^# ridiculous.


Originally by: Oljud Zork

Yes a new bonus to repair modules are needed for all the Super Capitals. If I donīt remember wrong from the Fanfest did CCP say that they would not introduce either T2 or Super Capital modules, maybe faction mods but that was not sure... So the only way around this as it looks to me are a bonus for repair modules to the Super Capitals.



Does this answer your question?

Regards

Zork

aldarrin
Posted - 2009.10.17 13:30:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: aldarrin on 17/10/2009 13:33:51
Edited by: aldarrin on 17/10/2009 13:32:39
Just a thought, but what about allowing SCs to rep carriers in triage / dreads in siege? That would certainly be useful. Would certainly cause FCs to want them on the field.

edit: looking at the pictures, makes me wonder if we'll be able to directly pilot the fighter bombers (lovely cockpits, those).
edit: /\/\ I can't believe that "name for the place a pilot sits" got censored. This is a game about piloting space ships, right?

Karazack
The Littlest Hobos
En Garde
Posted - 2009.10.17 13:48:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Karazack on 17/10/2009 13:52:28
I doubt they will introduce a repair bonus for supercaps, the ships are designed to have big buffers that delay their demise but not completely hinder it, they are not meant for permatanking oodles of dps and it is more balanced that way really.

Ofc repping them up after a fight will take annoyingly long but can always fit a dedicated repair fit and sit in a pos for an extended time (or in case of shield tankers only sit in a pos and let recharge commence) or get a gang of logistics and/or carriers to rep you up, supercaps arent meant to be operated solo, enlist some help ;)

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2009.10.17 22:57:00 - [275]
 

supercaps rquire a support gang. Not solo omgwtfpwnmobiles. perhaps if not under aggro they could have a 2-3% repair boost. The other otpion is for the pilot to have implants to assist

Serena Ku
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.18 02:57:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Karazack
Edited by: Karazack on 17/10/2009 13:52:28
I doubt they will introduce a repair bonus for supercaps, the ships are designed to have big buffers that delay their demise but not completely hinder it, they are not meant for permatanking oodles of dps and it is more balanced that way really.

Ofc repping them up after a fight will take annoyingly long but can always fit a dedicated repair fit and sit in a pos for an extended time (or in case of shield tankers only sit in a pos and let recharge commence) or get a gang of logistics and/or carriers to rep you up, supercaps arent meant to be operated solo, enlist some help ;)



Have to agree with not letting supercaps have XXL repairers, that would force massive blobs to break it's tank and thus a bit unbalanced. A remote repair bonus and/or even higher HP buffer would be nice.

Having flown both ships extensively on Sisi and TQ, I can say they are quite fun now and more versatile. The sit-at-pos-rep-armor sessions after every serious combat is quite a pain though.

Crexa
Star Mandate
Posted - 2009.10.18 03:02:00 - [277]
 

Edited by: Crexa on 18/10/2009 03:06:02
50% support docking, 50% oppose docking. Compromise solution can be found on page 2, post by TechnoMag Reikoku. Or something close to this.

It satisfies those that think the ship is something special since it can't dock, but provides the option to pull your butt out of a ship flown only for big fights and lets you go make some isk. I think its unfair to "lock" a character into a ship. But, if no "anchoring" solution is possible by CCP in the time remaining before expansion launch, then the no docking (current non-option), should be maintained.

I also support increasing model size.

aldarrin
Posted - 2009.10.18 04:03:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Crexa
Edited by: Crexa on 18/10/2009 03:06:02
50% support docking, 50% oppose docking. Compromise solution can be found on page 2, post by TechnoMag Reikoku. Or something close to this.

It satisfies those that think the ship is something special since it can't dock, but provides the option to pull your butt out of a ship flown only for big fights and lets you go make some isk. I think its unfair to "lock" a character into a ship. But, if no "anchoring" solution is possible by CCP in the time remaining before expansion launch, then the no docking (current non-option), should be maintained.

I also support increasing model size.


You can already anchor a capital ship maintenance array at a POS.... no change necessary if that's what you want (unless you'd like the grid / cpu requirements adjusted). Personally, I'd favor letting them dock ONLY if their re-dock timer is made ridiculously long (say an hour). Station games are annoying enough as is.

I support the model size increase.

Serena Ku
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.18 06:19:00 - [279]
 

I too, support the model size "buff".

It's embarrassing enough that some battleships are bigger than a Supercarrier, nevermind the fact you can't dock or use stargates in one considering the laughable size. Embarassed

Major Hunt
Posted - 2009.10.18 07:29:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: Major Hunt on 18/10/2009 07:32:16
Edited by: Major Hunt on 18/10/2009 07:30:55
Originally by: HeliosGal
supercaps rquire a support gang. Not solo omgwtfpwnmobiles. perhaps if not under aggro they could have a 2-3% repair boost. The other otpion is for the pilot to have implants to assist


I dont think anyone here wants them to be solo ships. But the ships need to atleast retain some consistency with the rest of the game.
I would still like to see the armour/shield hitpoints reduced by 30-50%, and a repair bonus introduced. At the moment the ships have simply received the "band aid" approach to give them staying power. If CCP where to go back to the drawing board and give them a modest amount of hitpoints, and introduce bonuses to make fitting capital modules viable (Im thinking 25% repair amount per level for supercarriers, and 100% repair amount per level for Titans) it would balance them far better, without alienating the supercapital class from its support fleet (ie, other normal capitals).

However I dont think they should recieve a remote repair amount bonus, this would create alot of balancing issues with using them on conventional ships

Serena Ku
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.18 09:10:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Major Hunt
...I would still like to see the armour/shield hitpoints reduced by 30-50%...


Can you elaborate on that? That statement makes me think you never flown a supercapital, or rather flown one in heavy combat. Even with the current HP buff they are still prone to dying relatively quick in a typical alliance vs alliance warfare.

Major Hunt
Posted - 2009.10.18 10:25:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Serena Ku
Originally by: Major Hunt
...I would still like to see the armour/shield hitpoints reduced by 30-50%...


Can you elaborate on that? That statement makes me think you never flown a supercapital, or rather flown one in heavy combat. Even with the current HP buff they are still prone to dying relatively quick in a typical alliance vs alliance warfare.


No i just think the ship needs to move away from a passive buffer and towards being able to active tank. The armour hitpoint reduction is to compensate for the additional active tank I think they should have. Im assuming CCP has calculated the numbers at this point for a reason, but if introducing a buff to the tank, to remain balanced something must be taken away. Hell I would love to see 2-3x the armour on my titan, but at the end of the day CCP wants to remove the massive numbers of these ships from the game, so it wont happen...

Also the hitpoints difference between supercaps and titans is not enough. In the current proposed format on sisi a titans tank is similar to a supercarrier. That dosnt work for me is one ship is 100x the mass.

Grut
The Protei
Posted - 2009.10.18 10:35:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Major Hunt
Originally by: Serena Ku
Originally by: Major Hunt
...I would still like to see the armour/shield hitpoints reduced by 30-50%...


Can you elaborate on that? That statement makes me think you never flown a supercapital, or rather flown one in heavy combat. Even with the current HP buff they are still prone to dying relatively quick in a typical alliance vs alliance warfare.


No i just think the ship needs to move away from a passive buffer and towards being able to active tank. The armour hitpoint reduction is to compensate for the additional active tank I think they should have. Im assuming CCP has calculated the numbers at this point for a reason, but if introducing a buff to the tank, to remain balanced something must be taken away. Hell I would love to see 2-3x the armour on my titan, but at the end of the day CCP wants to remove the massive numbers of these ships from the game, so it wont happen...

Also the hitpoints difference between supercaps and titans is not enough. In the current proposed format on sisi a titans tank is similar to a supercarrier. That dosnt work for me is one ship is 100x the mass.


1. Fleet ships
2. Focus fire

The above makes titan / sc local repair completely redundant.

50 dreads put out 200k dps, thats the kind of levels of focus fire the supercaps are expected to put up with. A local tank which would put a dent in that would let an SC solo bs fleets.

I doubt any serious SC fits will include a local rep.



Crexa
Star Mandate
Posted - 2009.10.18 13:34:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: aldarrin
Originally by: Crexa
Edited by: Crexa on 18/10/2009 03:06:02
50% support docking, 50% oppose docking. Compromise solution can be found on page 2, post by TechnoMag Reikoku. Or something close to this.

It satisfies those that think the ship is something special since it can't dock, but provides the option to pull your butt out of a ship flown only for big fights and lets you go make some isk. I think its unfair to "lock" a character into a ship. But, if no "anchoring" solution is possible by CCP in the time remaining before expansion launch, then the no docking (current non-option), should be maintained.

I also support increasing model size.


You can already anchor a capital ship maintenance array at a POS.... no change necessary if that's what you want (unless you'd like the grid / cpu requirements adjusted). Personally, I'd favor letting them dock ONLY if their re-dock timer is made ridiculously long (say an hour). Station games are annoying enough as is.

I support the model size increase.


No. Your missing the point. What those that support docking want, is to be able to leave the ship and fly something else. Without worrying that the ship is going to be bumped out of a pos bubble, or ripped off by a corpmate. Trust is one thing, trust with 15 billion plus, in cap ship, is another. Re-read the post I refer to. It explains alot.

Haxfar Portlaind
Posted - 2009.10.18 14:29:00 - [285]
 

Any have a pic of the minmatar FB?

Alpha Dragh
Caldari
Gemeinschaft interstellarer Soeldner
Posted - 2009.10.18 23:39:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Alpha Dragh on 18/10/2009 23:39:34

sorry if already posted, but from a eye candy / cameraguy point of view (all effects on) , the fighter bomber explosion effects are performance killers. After a couple of explosions, the framerate goes from 60 to 15 and I have to jump to another system to get it back to 60 (zoom out or warping away in same system doesnt work)

also, it looks cool the first 5 minutes if the screen goes white for each explosion, but in a fleetfight it would be annoying, so please tone it down a bit.

Serena Ku
Gallente
Posted - 2009.10.18 23:45:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Alpha Dragh
Edited by: Alpha Dragh on 18/10/2009 23:39:34

sorry if already posted, but from a eye candy / cameraguy point of view (all effects on) , the fighter bomber explosion effects are performance killers. After a couple of explosions, the framerate goes from 60 to 15 and I have to jump to another system to get it back to 60 (zoom out or warping away in same system doesnt work)

also, it looks cool the first 5 minutes if the screen goes white for each explosion, but in a fleetfight it would be annoying, so please tone it down a bit.


It's a known bug that lags even the best of systems; appears to be a memory leak. Just turn off "missile effects" and it will play smoothly again.


McFly
Peanut Factory
Posted - 2009.10.19 09:21:00 - [288]
 

Docking: Supercap docking would be wonderful tbh, not everyone who has a supercap also has sov, many people have to use a character they spent years on to log the things off on and basically say goodbye to that character. My Nyx pilot used to be my favorite ninja ishtar. Not to mention he would also be useful with his all V jump skills in a JF. But alas I can't just throw a pos in lowsec and leave a 20bil ship floating to do other things.

HP Buffer: The Buffer from what I can tell works quite well. It buys time, time for the supercap pilot (and his support) to attempt to kill off the HICs and try to get out if need be, or his support to repair and hold him over. In my experience so far on SiSi local reps dont have a big effect but I would still fly with them on. As an Example dual Rep Aeon and Nyx are still able to rep themselves fairly well (like in a pos after the fight) while maintaining a tough tank, Aeon with A-type hardeners, DC, and a-type eanm is tough cookie to get down.

Wyvern, for the first time I tried to be serious business with this ship, but again I realized that it was pointless. Shield tank with 2 X-type Pith boost amps, DG Invulns, and X-type EM/TH, still didn't matter the thing dropped quick. Sadly shields just dont hold up in comparison to slave implanted aeon or nyx.

Dont have the skills to try the Hel.

I like what CCP has done, MSes will actually be almost commonplace on the frontlines again which is nice. But at the same time post dominion we will see a lot of supercaps dieing. Without Sov4 we won't be seeing a lot of them being produced anymore. So the ones that do exist will become quite a bit more valuable, also I think that with supercap production dimming down (without sov 4) we'll also see abundance of capital components which may lead to cheaper carriers and dreads. so that is something good to look forward to.


Amy Wang
Posted - 2009.10.19 10:10:00 - [289]
 

Edited by: Amy Wang on 19/10/2009 10:10:53
Originally by: McFly

Wyvern, for the first time I tried to be serious business with this ship, but again I realized that it was pointless. Shield tank with 2 X-type Pith boost amps, DG Invulns, and X-type EM/TH, still didn't matter the thing dropped quick. Sadly shields just dont hold up in comparison to slave implanted aeon or nyx.



Maybe the slave implanted Nyx or Aeon just were better fitted? two boost amps is pretty fail and doesnt add to the buffer which is the strong point of the new supercap, dont try to active tank them like that and they will hold up far better ;) with proper use of PDUs, mix of single hardeners, invul fields and shield extender rigs I doubt you will notice much difference in sturdiness especially not if you fork out the same cash that the nyx/aeon guy had to pay for his more expensive omni hardeners plus the slave set ofc.

McFly
Peanut Factory
Posted - 2009.10.19 10:30:00 - [290]
 

well I just can't bring my self to drake fit a wyvern, even if it is the advantageous way of doing it... lol. Now if CCP lifted the ban on Crystal Implants, there would be something to active tanking on capitals for shield.

As far as isk investment, my Nyx and Aeon fits run about 1bil for the necessary hardeners, I went with a-type, x-type armor hardeners and eanm would be cream of the crop but I didn't take the time to price check them and only had a-types from the mirror.


Jason Sarek
Posted - 2009.10.20 00:41:00 - [291]
 

I think the hitpoint changes are good. It finally gives supercaps the much needed buffer required to actually stay on the batttlefield.
However, the boost is a bit massive. In conjunction with the huge damage of fighter bombers, focused DD and new titan dps, I am worried that dreads will lose their role as capital damage dealers and just become food for supercarriers or target practice for titans.

The progression for carriers over battleships was more tank, same or slightly higher dps.
The progression for dreads over battleships was more tank, a lot more dps, but with severe penalties (siege) and inability to combat sub-capitals.
The progression for supercapitals over dreads seems to become a lot more hp and a lot more dps.
I'm sceptic.
A lot more hp is definitely ok. But a large boost to both hp and dps makes the scaling pretty ugly.

Question to the devs:
Have you thought about how many dreads or carriers are supposed to beat one supercarrier or titan? Is there a concept? Does it work?
I think small groups of supercarriers taking out fleets of normal capitals without serious losses would be wrong.

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:07:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: Necronus
Edited by: Necronus on 18/09/2009 05:47:25
Edited by: Necronus on 18/09/2009 05:46:13
My 5 cents:

1) DD - great innovation. But supercapitals should be somehow protected from it. Because in large fleet engagement Titans will focus fire a DD's on Supercarriers or another Titans , which in my opinion will be pretty OP. And this brings us back to the problem we currently have at TQ.

2) Hp buff of supercapitals - great thing. But now MS and Titans have effective hitpoints equal to Large control towers, which makes them easy and appealing to field in actual combat BUT makes them almost totally invulnurable to subcapital fleets due to logoffski factor. I think if you catch supercapital without any support it should die horribly not just logout and escape. Now its impossible without a blob or your own supercapital fleet.





You realize these ships are 10km long? And they are bigger then POS's. Thats how they should be, not like paper how they use to be. Rolling Eyes

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:24:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I cannot even tell you how badly you guys at CCP missed the boat on this.

1) They should have stayed Motherships.

2) They should have been given the ability to anchor in systems without player declared Sov, and when anchored act like mini-stations, at which players could dock, and to which they could jump clone. Like stations, the hull itself should be more or less invulnerable when they are anchored, but you could still shoot the services.

3) The pilot should be able to board another ship and get out when his mothership is anchored.

4) They should have been given a special (enormous, will only fit in a Mom) jump drive that allowed them to jump into WH space systems class 4 and higher.

They could have truly been "Motherships" in the sense of being a home away from home for intepid explorers of deep, uncharted space. Instead they're just going to be MOAR DPS!!!!. Isn't that just refreshing and exciting ugh. I hope that some day you consider ways of making this game continue to be fun and interesting other than by providing larger guns.


Motherships don't exist yet. They where called that by mistake... ccp has said mother ships are not super carriers and they are something we haven't seen yet that will be put in the game some day in the future.

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:39:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Mc Leech
I find it totally hilarious that some people feel that ccp should do something to protect their precious little super carrier against 10 titans hot dropping it. This is EVE ONLINE this isnít wow, this isnít belt miners online. The whole point of this game is for ships to die not so your little supper carrier can live happily ever after in a belt. I sure as hell hope that nearly a trillion isk of ships will be able to hot drop your super carrier after the patch and wtfpwn it laugh at you and fraps it too so we all can watch it and laugh with ccp joining us on it.Twisted Evil


Most importantly this isn't hello kitty online. Twisted Evil

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:47:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Ethan Hunte
perhaps CCP can say...

- allow them to dock

- increase jump range

what does not allowing motherships/super carriers to dock add to the game? And what does allowing them to dock subtract from the game.

What reason is there. Other than to squeeze a few more paid alt accounts out of people. With all the titans and motherships + the alts to move them around, equaling a couple hundred or more than 1000 thats a nice return.

On some current alliance budgets they could afford to replace like 10 - 15 motherships currently anyway a month.

So motherships isn't a problem for certain space holding alliances.




They are too damn big for the inside of a station to dock in the 1st place. They just DON"T FIT INTO THE BLOODY STRUCTURE. You get it now? Rolling Eyes

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:23:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Princess Jodi
Allowing SuperCarriers (stupid name) to dock would instantly double all the SC's in the game. All the alts holding Moms would either be sold or put into a SC of their own. Might even tripple the number of SC's, as there are many pilots would would own one but don't have second account alts ready.

It might be fun... Noob SC Pilots in expensive toys.

Oh, and if Fighter-bombers die easily/do no damage cuz of Smartboms on their intended targets, they kinda lack usefullness don't ya think?


Super carriers are a real life name, history lesson = go back to school.Laughing

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:44:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Twelve Jackals
Originally by: Stealthbug
Edited by: Stealthbug on 10/10/2009 07:56:03
OK soo why can 1 Nyx kill a titan alone? Even if the titan uses the doomsday on it? That's kinda ridiculous....

I cant say i can agree with a super carrier, alone, killing a titan. Incase you are wondering, this was tested by a couple friends of mine on sisi.


Its rather easy.

Nyx can tank 6-7k dps or so

titan deals 5k dps thus nyx can permatank it

nyx deals 12k dps - no titan can permatank it




With guns titans do 10k dps, plus DD another 10k dps. Your not going to tank a titan with your reps. Your reps will take 50mins to fully rep your armor from say 10% armor to 100%. Buffers are more useful with these kind of ships. Reps are useless on super carriers. RR is the way.

Titans will also have 40mill/50mill ehp, they will out buffer you. But yes they both do a lot of dps because they are anti-capital capital ships, that can't be said enough.

Alxea
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:55:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Pantorus Necraliss
Edited by: Pantorus Necraliss on 11/10/2009 15:35:56
Edited by: Pantorus Necraliss on 11/10/2009 15:23:58
Edited by: Pantorus Necraliss on 11/10/2009 15:21:37
Personnally :
1 - I realy think that SC still mustn't have the ability to dock but they realy need to become bigger. For moment they are ridiculous, same side as carrier ?!? Shocked

2 - Bombers are doing too much damage, carrier and dread explose too fast

3 - I'm affraid that big alliance use large number of SC to destroy POS (by this : destroying docked systems defence ships) and easily crush other holders.

They will easily corrupt the primary use of SC, as they've done with Titans, to attack structures and not only carrier-size ship...ugh

--> highly raise structure's heal, highly raise dread's damage (especially the Naglfar, skill need/damage done completely unbalanced; maybe give him a 7.5% bonus to missile damage), lower dread's tracking speed for they can touch only non-moving targets




Where does super carrier being a anti-capital capital ship not compute? A dread and carrier are regular capitals see... and titans and super carriers are the anti ships to capital ships... get why fighter bombers need the dps? Thats about 60% the dps of a titan anyways. Super carriers are fine dps wise where they are at. They do their role as intended, poping capital ships. Any less and a sieged dread could tank fighter bombers, thats just not right. Rolling Eyes

John Zorg
Caldari
The Damned Legion
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:15:00 - [299]
 

Please CCP, if anything... please fix the size of the models, being able to visually hide a Super Carrier behind a battleship is a bit wrong. Maybe a size between a dread and a Titan would be nice.

Also, much respect for finally giving these ships some loving. I agree with the massive amount of DPS they can deal, will make them feared again vs. being a juicy target :P

King Dave
Raven Dynamics
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:20:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: John Zorg
Please CCP, if anything... please fix the size of the models, being able to visually hide a Super Carrier behind a battleship is a bit wrong. Maybe a size between a dread and a Titan would be nice.

Also, much respect for finally giving these ships some loving. I agree with the massive amount of DPS they can deal, will make them feared again vs. being a juicy target :P



werd.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (27)

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