open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Balance Supercarriers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.20 19:19:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 20/04/2011 19:21:18

What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter-bomber wielding supercapital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct über deathbringer.

How to do it?

Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and we‘re sure CCP will nerf it:

Change the way fighter-bombers work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighter-bombers you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a supercarrier can launch 5 fighter-bombers, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.

This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighter-bombers from a supercarrier and send them all to incinerate a Thanatos in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 5 fighter-bombers to each of your lil‘ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury.

Remember, we‘re not proposing messing with the final total amount of fighter-bombers you can launch and delegate, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also launch 5 fighter-bombers and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.

But wait! There‘s more!

Not only do we propsoe limiting the amount of fighter-bombers you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and supercarrier just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time.

Seriously, the reason we are proposing something like this is that we feel that supercapital ships are being used way too much as better-than-everything-at-everything ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-have-totally-insane-tanks-but-provide-others-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist of the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.

Remember that this is still just an proposal and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.20 19:28:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Mynas Atoch
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 20/04/2011 19:21:18

What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter-bomber wielding supercapital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct über deathbringer.

How to do it?

Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and we‘re sure CCP will nerf it:

Change the way fighter-bombers work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighter-bombers you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a supercarrier can launch 5 fighter-bombers, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.

This sounds curiously familiar from somewhere....

Sir Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.20 19:31:00 - [3]
 

I would rather have the dreads buffed into supercap killers imho your solution sounds a bit too complicated for easy realization.

Merrik Talorra
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.20 20:32:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Merrik Talorra on 20/04/2011 20:32:23
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 20/04/2011 19:21:18

What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter-bomber wielding supercapital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct über deathbringer.

How to do it?

Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and we‘re sure CCP will nerf it:

Change the way fighter-bombers work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighter-bombers you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a supercarrier can launch 5 fighter-bombers, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.

This sounds curiously familiar from somewhere....



zuluzulu

Shocked

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:15:00 - [5]
 


lol, and what was the reason these changes did not get implemented on carriers?

Personally, the two things that need to happen to SC's:

1.) Limit the damage they can deliver to structures.
If SC's cant declaw POS's and shred IHUBS, Stations, and TCU's, dreads become the workhorse of nullsec again. Reduce fighter damage output by 20%, and make it so fighterbombers can't hit structures.

2.) Increase their vulnerability to subcaps.
A fleet of 30 dreadnaughts should crap their pants at a 10 man SC drop, a 100 man BS fleet should be able to cope, and a 100 person AHAC gang should laugh as they declaw the sc's without losing a ship. To do this, slow down and increase the sigs of fighters and fighterbombers to make them susceptible to BS weapons and sb bombs. Then split the capital and subcap drone bays so they can't carrier infinite amounts of drones....


Unfortunately, if you remove their sub-fighter drone bays on all carriers/scs, people will quit ratting with them.... We don't want that!!!!!

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:16:00 - [6]
 

i like the idea of the normal drones

but having to assign the fighter bombers to fleetmembers is not really a good idea cause what happens if that fleetmember gets blown up ?

Forever A Clone
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:18:00 - [7]
 

Good idea regarding assigning bombers, bad idea nerfing fighters and below.

Dreads still need a buff but this is a nice outside-the-box idea to start with

bartos102
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:22:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: bartos102 on 20/04/2011 21:22:31
zuluzulu

did anyone bother to look at the date of that devblog ???

they knew there was a problem in 2007 yet they didn't change anything :(

edit: damn alt setting on the forum :(

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.20 21:32:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: bartos100
i like the idea of the normal drones

but having to assign the fighter bombers to fleetmembers is not really a good idea cause what happens if that fleetmember gets blown up ?


The same thing that happens now.. the fighters go back to the SC to await further instructions. If there are more subcaps out there, the SC can reassign those fighters to another.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.21 00:39:00 - [10]
 

Hating this idea with the white hot heat of a million suns. Much as it was flamed the first time something like this was suggested.

What was it? Two threads, each with over 20 pages of flame against the idea? I remember there being some creative suggestions for the demise of the CCP staff member who suggested it, too. Poor guy. Whatever happened to him? Oh, yeah…………….he got promoted. I’m fairly certain it wasn’t for this idea, though.

Merrik Talorra
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.21 03:27:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Hating this idea with the white hot heat of a million suns. Much as it was flamed the first time something like this was suggested.

What was it? Two threads, each with over 20 pages of flame against the idea? I remember there being some creative suggestions for the demise of the CCP staff member who suggested it, too. Poor guy. Whatever happened to him? Oh, yeah…………….he got promoted. I’m fairly certain it wasn’t for this idea, though.



110 pages on the one. Pretty epic threadnought.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.04.21 11:56:00 - [12]
 

How about
1) ban use of FBs in low sec
2) introduce a siege-like mechanism for SCs required to deploy FBs

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.21 12:25:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
How about
1) ban use of FBs in low sec
2) introduce a siege-like mechanism for SCs required to deploy FBs

And then still you havent fixed the core of the problem, SCs are ridiculously overpowered. Making them not overpowered in low sec and fixing them in a position for a couple of minutes to be overpowered doesnt remove the actual problem that they are overpowered.

Rika Jones
Amarr
Warp Storm Industries
Posted - 2011.04.21 16:10:00 - [14]
 

Want to make dreadnoughts effective in PvP vs. Supercarriers?

Add two new modules:

[a] Capital Warp Disruptor, with SCs not immune to it.
[b] Propulsion-Inhibitor Sphere. Much like an interdiction sphere, but it reduces all propulsion within 30km of the dreadnought by 75%. Can only be used in Siege mode.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.21 16:20:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Rika Jones
Want to make dreadnoughts effective in PvP vs. Supercarriers?

Add two new modules:

[a] Capital Warp Disruptor, with SCs not immune to it.
[b] Propulsion-Inhibitor Sphere. Much like an interdiction sphere, but it reduces all propulsion within 30km of the dreadnought by 75%. Can only be used in Siege mode.


any idea how long 1 SC with FB needs to kill a sieging dread ?

i think it was somewhere around 30-60 sec

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.04.21 17:03:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: bartos102
..did anyone bother to look at the date of that devblog ???..

There has been two major changes to SCs since then I believe, first making them POS ornaments and the other making them OPness-on-a-stick.
So they have tried, but back then they made the mistake of running it through the maggot farm (ie. us) first and the emo-rage when e-peen is on the block has always been significant Very Happy

Makes no sense that they can't control anything themselves though, surely one flight is manageable Smile

Support on the slowing down and increasing of signature on F.bombers and to a lesser extent Fighters ..
Ideally I'd want capitals to be as helpless as drunk puppies when venturing out without support and "let the worlds tremble" when with.

While limiting their anti-structure ability sounds good on paper, it will make them purely anti-capitals which risks mothballing them again .. so they'd need a secondary function.
Perhaps gang-bonuses in the same vein as that of Titans or ability to drag X amount of ships with them when they jump.

Rika Jones
Amarr
Warp Storm Industries
Posted - 2011.04.21 18:28:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: bartos100
Originally by: Rika Jones
Want to make dreadnoughts effective in PvP vs. Supercarriers?

Add two new modules:

[a] Capital Warp Disruptor, with SCs not immune to it.
[b] Propulsion-Inhibitor Sphere. Much like an interdiction sphere, but it reduces all propulsion within 30km of the dreadnought by 75%. Can only be used in Siege mode.


any idea how long 1 SC with FB needs to kill a sieging dread ?

i think it was somewhere around 30-60 sec


Any idea of how long it would take a battlecruiser to kill an interdictor?

You still bring them, though, don't you?

It would be idiotic to propose buffing the dreadnought to the point where it could stand toe-to-toe with a SC. The idea is to give the Dreadnought a reason to be used in the fight and to make it so the dread's presence helps the rest of the fleet.


bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:05:00 - [18]
 

true but there is a difference in prize between an interdictor and a dread

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:29:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: bartos100
true but there is a difference in prize between an interdictor and a dread

And a SC is around 10x the cost of a dread. Add to it that because it costs so much, you would be an idiot to put non-faction modules on it. Add to that insurance.

Huge difference.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:39:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: bartos100
true but there is a difference in prize between an interdictor and a dread

And a SC is around 10x the cost of a dread. Add to it that because it costs so much, you would be an idiot to put non-faction modules on it. Add to that insurance.

Huge difference.



true but the role for a SC (as i see it) is to kill capital ships

not to kill sub-capital ships by the dozens

the fact that a SC can kill off anything except more SC/titans is where the problem is

or do i have it wrong ?

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:49:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 21/04/2011 19:56:01
Originally by: bartos100
Originally by: Bagehi
And a SC is around 10x the cost of a dread. Add to it that because it costs so much, you would be an idiot to put non-faction modules on it. Add to that insurance.

Huge difference.



true but the role for a SC (as i see it) is to kill capital ships

not to kill sub-capital ships by the dozens

the fact that a SC can kill off anything except more SC/titans is where the problem is

or do i have it wrong ?


Fighters/Bombers should have their own bay and the normal drone bay should be more constricting. I shouldn't be able to carry 100+ medium drones (on top of a full compliment of fighters and bombers) in my SC and throw them 20 at a time at an enemy. I agree. Fighters should still kill BSs or they would be useless drones.

However, the other big problem with an SC is that a dread is worthless in comparison. As in not even worth the 1/10 price comparatively. If you can save up the 1.5b, you should just keep saving. A dread provides no benefit to the player that owns it, while an SC can. A dread is a one-dimensional ship that is outclassed by the multi-dimensional SC.

Zero incentive to train for or own a dread. I don't blame SCs for that. I blame dreads having existed since, what, 2004(?) with almost no change (in fact, they've been nerfed at least once). It comes as no surprise that they have become obsolete.


 

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