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.

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.

Posted - 2009.12.22 08:55:00 - [247]

 

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

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.

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:)

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

---

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.

This 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....

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..

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.

---

..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.

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

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

Posted - 2009.12.22 14:48:00 - [267]

 

Thank you Abathur

Del

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

 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

---

Originally by: Teck7

---

Originally by: CCP Abathur

---

Fighter Bomber survivability

---

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