open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Capital Ships in Dominion 1.1
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (34)

Author Topic

CCP Abathur


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.22 07:35:00 - [241]
 

Edited by: CCP Abathur on 22/12/2009 07:43:41
Originally by: DamienEx
First, while happy that the Naglfar is getting its bonuses back, it seems that dropping the launchers for the third hard point seem to be popular amongst everyone. Can we address whether or not this is going to be looked into, considered, or if there is some reason that the Naglfar still has two weapon systems.


This is not being looked into. Let me be very clear on this: the Naglfar is not getting a third turret. The Art reasons for this have been explained previously. Matari ships having split weapon systems is nothing new. With the 1.1 changes we are putting the focus back on the turrets and making the missile system supplementary. If you play with the setups you'll see that the Naglfar is a very flexible ship now in terms of what it can do and has excellent DPS compared to its counterparts.

Quote:
Second, can you provide an official guesstimate for the price of supercarriers seeing as ive seen anything from 6Bil to 20Bil as a cost.


The 200 Clone Vat Bay components are being removed from the build cost. Other than that, there are no other adjustments.

Quote:
Third, ive seen a few post made in regards to Caldari pilots training two skills for capital weapons systems, and three for Minmatar (Cit torps/cruise). Can you address the possibility of reducing this to one skill to be in line with the other capital weapons systems.


There are no plans ATM to combine the two skills into one.

Quote:
Fourth, the Leviathan's CPU output.


It's being considered. No promises. The biggest issue with this is obviously the Capital Shield rep with its big CPU requirement. Considering that this module's ability to repair damage is not scaled to ships with millions of EHP, perhaps it might be best if that CPU usage is spent elsewhere?

Quote:
Also, Will fighter bombers be able to be used in low sec.


I know of no such restrictions.

Quote:
Sixth, Remote ECM-Burst needs a boost, period.


It's being considered. No promises. (obvious paste)

Cpt Jagermeister
United Systems Navy
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.12.22 07:40:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: ThormozOK
I dont actually like that fighter-bomber idea. I think you moving motherships into a wrong way.

My idea is - ForceField generator for motherships. That would give them a completely new role. Different from a bigger stronger carriers.

With a forcefield generator you can use Mothership as a mobile base behind enemy lines. You can restock ammo, refit etc in a safe place.

To prevent caps from insta jumping when forcefield generator cycle ends you can make 50% capacitor penalty inside a forcefield. So you cant enable generator near bubled friendly titan and instantly jump after cycle finishes.
I know you can tune this up, but I think that would give a new life to a Motherships.

PS Sorry not native English speaker.



Your english isn't an issue, i understand it can be difficult and i applaud you for taking the time to post. But are you ****ing high on drugs? Your idea is ludicrous and completely against the streamlining of cap ship warfare. Mobile base? There's more then 3 or 4 of these things running around you know. Cap ships need to be worth the investment but at the same time not game breaking because we all know that if its good, it shall become abundant.

Natasha Nikolaev
Posted - 2009.12.22 07:48:00 - [243]
 

Edited by: Natasha Nikolaev on 22/12/2009 08:13:16


First off: thank you, thank you, thank you!

Originally by: CCP Awesome
They are also set to orbit at 7.5k which puts them outside of all but the most powerful smart bomb range.



orbit really should be upped to 8000m. mere faction emp smarties (which are not terribly uncommon on carriers and would certainly improve in popularity with FBs in game) shouldn't be in range. this would unfortunately also take hakim's and thon's out of the running but every other officer SB that could hit them at 7500m orbit would be unaffected.


Quote:
The design team is of the opinion that this issue is less about the Fighter Bombers and more about the Stealth Bombers / Smartbombs


Certainly AoE damage sources (especially bombs) are the main threats. However a few close range bs w/ at least one web present or a sniper hac gang will pop FBs fairly quickly. Losing FBs as fast as plated thorax at an uninsured ~20m a pop will get expensive and annoying really fast. Would a 50% boost stop FBs from dying? No, but it may turn out that killing FBs becomes less efficient than focusing on something else in a good number of situations, and at the very least it will take 50% longer to lose each fighter to subcap direct fire or smarties. Does it need such a boost? Maybe. that's what testing is for. As such I implore you to at least keep the idea on the table.

Zeveron
Exiled Gathering
HELL4S
Posted - 2009.12.22 08:14:00 - [244]
 

Quote:
It's being considered. No promises. The biggest issue with this is obviously the Capital Shield rep with its big CPU requirement. Considering that this module's ability to repair damage is not scaled to ships with millions of EHP, perhaps it might be best if that CPU usage is spent elsewhere?



Lets say the sensor booster is required.
Target painter maybe?
Since w/o a webber I cannot hit small **** orbiting me, whats the point?
And with the 20km webber range its also useless.
Even with full hardeners setup I waste 2 slots bcs 2 of the reisists go fairly more than 90% which is the resist cap.
Cap recharger is useless (or better said not that much usefull anymore w/o a booster).
And u missing the point that shield tanker have to boost for 20 mins or more to get the damn 37.5% own bonus..........
Armor tankers get it instant and dont have to to rep.
They put 8 CHEAP hardeners on the lows and can put on the midslots whatever they want and still have 50+ millions of ehps. Shield tankers cannot have that much with whatever setup you want.

hcydo
Posted - 2009.12.22 08:19:00 - [245]
 

Quote:
The 200 Clone Vat Bay components are being removed from the build cost. Other than that, there are no other adjustments.


How about increasing Drone Bay components so that price would stay the same.

Linas IV
Posted - 2009.12.22 08:54:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

This is not being looked into. Let me be very clear on this: the Naglfar is not getting a third turret. The Art reasons for this have been explained previously.



Ok, i kinda understand the Art reasons for not Adding another turret on a already clustered Model, (even though its not that much work)
but what is stoping you from adding simply a 50% Dmg-Role-Bonus that many of us here already mentioned in the past?

Isn't it just a bit more work than changing some values? And it would fix this issue (finaly...)


Or ist there some golden rule that says that the Naglfar MUST have split weapons?

Scavok
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.12.22 08:55:00 - [247]
 

MS will still be able to fit gang mods, correct?

Martha Bellaris
Posted - 2009.12.22 09:29:00 - [248]
 

Why no response on the Titan questions?

- Are you happy with the gun damage the way it is?
-- Any thoughts on number of guns, damage bonus vs command links if you dont increase the damage output?

- Optimal range / missile velocity bonus?

Susa Ou
Posted - 2009.12.22 09:35:00 - [249]
 

Edited by: Susa Ou on 22/12/2009 09:35:54
Edited by: Susa Ou on 22/12/2009 09:35:12
As a Nid pilot and future Hel (depending) alt, I would argue that the rep amount bonus is great. It gives pilots who choose a carrier chooses in terms of what they think a carrier should be. The two tanking bonuses (Archon/Chimera) ships mirror their Logistics cruisers - and this is great. The Nag and the Thanatos trade the great tank for more logistical flexibility and the more defensive Nag and the more offensive Thanatos give the pilots a choise.

Instead of looking around for a secondary bonus for the Nag/Hel - why not just boost the RR bonus (for both) to 7.5% and make the Thanatos fighter damage also 7.5% per level. This would offset the great 5% stacking-free resistance per level. Otherwise, don't change it imo - the rep bonus is great, and there are other chooses for people who want more tank or more gank. . .

tl;dr -> Boost the rep bonus to 7.5% or keep it the same.

cpu939
Gallente
Volatile Nature
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.12.22 09:46:00 - [250]
 

when i did my 1st post i did believe it was in the information portal as this is a rule of what we are going to do, now that i have looked again and fine it in the test server forum i believe this is an only what might happen. can we get a statement from the lead game desinger dev that these changes to the mothership will take place and not just we are going to do this, then get us on to sisi to try it out give you feed back for you to waste our time again.


also what is the likely cost of each fighter bomber?
is the price for the skill book going to be in line with other capital weapon skills or is it going to be a wow it's 3.5b for that skill

Commander Predator
UNITED STAR SYNDICATE
Posted - 2009.12.22 09:51:00 - [251]
 

I had a crazy idea on super carriers/titans .... they should act as permanent cynosural fields... so long as their not in warp or in a pos field... you should be able to jump to them as a cyno... that would be cool:)

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:05:00 - [252]
 

Well, to the people complainign about smartbombs. GAme wise that is not bad in fact. With bombers and the new increased usage of sbombers with bombs, we might enter on a phase were fleets start to need a escort screen of smartbomb battleships, just like FLAK ships in real life that protect other ships.

Might need balance, yes, but its a good EXTRA component on fleet combat.


But on the mothership bobmers, maybe would be better if they didnīt orbit, but would make passes.. throwign their torpedos form a distance like 20 km and they slowly approach the target ( like 1 km/s, giving time for screens to try destroy them). Then bombers return to mothership to reload. YEs that would PLUMPED dps to very low levels, that is why the bombs damage would need to be increased. MOtherships become the alpha strike of capital ships.

RedClaws
Amarr
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:11:00 - [253]
 

With Triage reduced to 5 minute cycles with 250 consumption, will you also change the Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration skill.Currently it gives -50 stront used per lvl, which would make the consumption quantity of the module 0 at lvl 5.

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:33:00 - [254]
 

Edited by: RoCkEt X on 22/12/2009 10:34:21
hmm... dev response has been really excellent in this thread so far.

any ETA on dominion 1.1?

Iloni Atoriandra
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:37:00 - [255]
 

One thing that would be good would be a model size increase since atm moms are pretty tiny and do not properly represent e-peen.

Theophilis
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:53:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Iloni Atoriandra
One thing that would be good would be a model size increase since atm moms are pretty tiny and do not properly represent e-peen.


I second this notion. Even if you have to stretch the textures. Please make them bigger. 3/4 the size of a Titan would be awesome :)

I agree, don't want my Mothership dockable. Whole reason I trained up an alt. Will Fighters V still be a requirement like before?

LoveKebab
Caldari
LOST IDEA
C0VEN
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:05:00 - [257]
 

Edited by: LoveKebab on 22/12/2009 11:15:15
Originally by: Fire Hawk

Idea 1: give them their own siege module with the same penalty as a dread and 300% damage bonus?

Idea 2: increase their leadership bonuss by 2 if they are present on the same grid.

Idea 3: reduce the DD timer to 5 minute

In regards to the leviathan it needs 150 cpu more, and you need to look at the instant damage.

In regards to ragnarock: its effective EHP needs to be boosted by 20/30 % to make it lvl with the other titans


i dont know if i should laugh or cry...
60k dps leviathan any1 ?

there was a reason behind increasing DD timer to 10 minutes...

but hey, at least u didnt say u want lowsec-DD back...

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:45:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: LoveKebab


but hey, at least u didnt say u want lowsec-DD back...


I'll do it in his place..

BRING BACK LOWSEC DD!





ps.

<3

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:59:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: LoveKebab


but hey, at least u didnt say u want lowsec-DD back...


I'll do it in his place..

BRING BACK LOWSEC DD!





ps.

<3


no, thx

CCP Abathur


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:19:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: CCP Abathur on 22/12/2009 12:19:44
Originally by: Scavok
MS will still be able to fit gang mods, correct?


Yes.

Originally by: cpu939
also what is the likely cost of each fighter bomber?


Build cost will be approximately 25% higher than normal fighters.

Originally by: RedClaws
With Triage reduced to 5 minute cycles with 250 consumption, will you also change the Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration skill.Currently it gives -50 stront used per lvl, which would make the consumption quantity of the module 0 at lvl 5.


Fun answer - Nah, we want everyone to get free Triage at L5!

Proper (boring) answer - The skill is being changed to work properly with the reduced cycle time of the module.

Originally by: Iloni Atoriandra
One thing that would be good would be a model size increase since atm moms are pretty tiny and do not properly represent e-peen.


Yeah, I've always wondered how five Hyperions are supposed to fit inside a Nyx or a Wyvern... I'm not sure the Art Dept. has an e-peen meter to scale their sketches by, but we should probably change that.

Originally by: Theophilis
Will Fighters V still be a requirement like before?


To train Fighter Bombers? Yes. I also think there should be a Supercarrier skill that you should have to train Carrier to L5 for, but that genie is already out of the bottle. Sad

Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:03:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur


Originally by: Theophilis
Will Fighters V still be a requirement like before?


To train Fighter Bombers? Yes. I also think there should be a Supercarrier skill that you should have to train Carrier to L5 for, but that genie is already out of the bottle. Sad



Totally agree on the Carrier lvl5 and the SuperCarrier skill, unfortunately you guys at CCP have had a bad habbit of making things way to easy to fly so people whould really have to give up 1 thing to fly something else.

Jump freighters is a awesome example (racial freighter skill lvl5 was proposed).
Black Ops are another perfect example (Cloaking lvl5 was proposed).

Not to mention the requirements for Advanced learning skills and Cybernetics bieng changed aswell from there original stats.

ExclamationThis is not technically relevant but there is a fine balance between wanting more players and just making it plain easy to get into new bloted ships that you want to give attention.
I would blame this for the populerity contest that MS's have been enjoying as the low sec pirate tool number 1.
And also the blame for why there are 302 titans in the game - not that the skill reqs are not steep, but they are not steep enough.

When you have to choos 1 thing over another some people might chose to more common road, and leave the extraordinary ships to limited large scale alliance use - also the reason why the MS today have been changed to the super carrier to make room for a real implementation of a MS the was it was originally intended - properly more as a Independence Day version of a MS with much more limited offensive capabileties and more defensive capabileties.

....Just something to keep in mind....

Groot T
The Scope
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:06:00 - [262]
 

YAY for super carriers being about to use 20 fighters or 20 fighter bombers. CCP, thank you.

On another note, I would like to ask two question;
1) Why were Titans allowed to DD in lowsec with the initial release of Dominion?
2) Would it be seen as "imbalanced" to allow them to DD in low-sec with dominion 1.1?

Thanks,

Groot

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:43:00 - [263]
 

Edited by: Misanth on 22/12/2009 14:14:21
You've opened another can of ****storm here Abathur, but I wish you luck anycase, for all of our sake.. Cool

Overall, the HP boost was a necessity, the jump range is 'nice' (and a necessity if you want to see these ships fielded with cap fleets), while the addition of FB has boths pros and cons. To not further derail and spam this with words noone will read, I'll just quote your replies to those concerns..:

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Fighter Bays

This is something we are looking into. If we cannot get this in for 1.1 then increasing the size of the current drone bays may happen.

Having said that, yes, we're aware of the issues concerning shield supercapitals / gang bonuses, etc... and are looking into possible solutions that does not include giving them zomg self-repair.

Fighter Bomber survivability

This is a tricky one because Fighter Bombers are already hovering around 20k raw hit points plus resists. That's more EHP than, for example, T2 fit Thorax. In that respect they are already fairly tough. They are also set to orbit at 7.5k which puts them outside of all but the most powerful smart bomb range. The design team is of the opinion that this issue is less about the Fighter Bombers and more about the Stealth Bombers / Smartbombs. No nerfs imminent, just letting you all know that we're looking at this problem from a larger perspective. Smile


..those are pretty much keys points regarding FB yes/no's.
* FB damage is good, but only vs capitals, at this point the Fighters are still the main choice vs most targets.
* FB survivability isn't really higher than regular Fighters, but you touched that point here. The key for me as mom pilot here is the numbers of Fighters I reasonably can put out. As Carrier-pilot I used to field multiple t1-sentry flights over Fighters because of a) lag b) lag c) lag d) slow recall of Fighters, which with the popularity (and easier SB-training) makes it even worse now, and e) lag.

I can see this is not something you guys can solve in a simple way, just putting it out there; please keep the extremely low survivability of Fighters/FB under consideration. FB's arn't overpowered in any way either, no matter how much dmg they deal vs capitals, they are still (virtually) useless against battleships - and evenmoreso vs smaller.

One option would be to add a FB-bay, and make them big enough, and construction cheap enough, so that we could have multiple flights and worry less about risking them. I'm talking in the range of 50-70 FB's, at a reasonable price (5mil? a pop). They will only be fielded in laggy and/or capital environments, is that really unreasonable to ask for? I think not.

Fighters, and the regular drones, will still be my #1 choice even if I do have the choice of FB's. It's just a cool toy vs capitals. That's it.

dracice
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:46:00 - [264]
 

welcome to october/november, and i await the reversal of these propositions.

Seth Rock
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:52:00 - [265]
 

I have such a mancrush on you right now sel/abathur.

The only other thing for ms needing tweaked would be how to help fbs survive against smartbombs but maybe we can mass test some ideas on sisi so long as you promise to keep nozh away Wink

well maybe increase the size of moms too, it's kinda like a clown car fitting all those big ships inside it.

Rejected Enlightenment
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.12.22 14:35:00 - [266]
 

Are you considering reinstating lowsec DD?

Del Girl
Resilience.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.12.22 14:48:00 - [267]
 

Thank you Abathur Surprised

Del

Misaki Yuuko
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.22 14:54:00 - [268]
 

Simple solution to FB survival: increase orbit radio to 30km's or a bit more (up to 50km?). This will negate most SB carriers blobing or reduce it quite enough, also given the orbit radio the spread of FB should be higher so effective use of bombs agains them would be much more difficult, but they would still be vulnerable to support without any HP increase.

As for the Hel, I agree with suggestions of bonus to FB velocity and/or sig radious. I would like in general that targetting your own fighters would be faster, and a boost of repping range (and rep amount maybe, highlly inferior to triagle carriers but higher than current rep power).

darkmancer
Posted - 2009.12.22 15:09:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Teck7
Originally by: CCP Abathur

Fighter Bomber survivability

Smile


The point in case is not that fighter bombers can orbit outside the range of all but officer smarties, that really is only a point of contention when your talking about ganking one or a couple of carriers/supercaps.... Putting a mother ship into an actual capital fleet engagement was the point made, that fighters/fighter bombers sent to attack primary targets or any targets within the hostile capital blob will die almost immediately to the massive area of coverage of the capital groups smart bombs. Example would be 50 enemy caps, 20 carriers, the carriers are always going to be very spread amongst the blob creating a very large area of effect washed with smartbomb damage that waxes anything that comes into it. Its not unlike the crappy tactic of using a smartbombing carrier blob to take out clustered group of modules on a pos, hitting up to 15-20 modules at a time or more (just using this as an example of the power of smartbombs in capital groups).


Actually, that's exactly the point my reply was addressing in that we believe the problem to be less about Fighter Bombers and more about just the scenarios you describe.


What about giving fighters & fighter bombers smartbomb imu


Marmios
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.12.22 15:29:00 - [270]
 

Edited by: Marmios on 22/12/2009 15:31:27
Good thread so far, thumbs up!

Abathur would like to eloborate why you raised the ROF of the Citadel Torp launchers again?


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (34)

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