open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Supercaps out of hand ? Possable solution without nerf
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Eyeama Spy
Posted - 2011.04.26 10:52:00 - [1]
 

Supercaps are getting out of hand, they are just to common . Proof;
nullhttp://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=9499304

A simple solution will be to make fighter bomber drones player flyable, Only allow them to fit the mini citadel torps on weapon racks, so a fleet of 100 near noobs can make the supercap flyers loose their current i win, or at least you cant kill me state of mind.

Eyeama Spy
Posted - 2011.04.26 10:55:00 - [2]
 

sorry i messed up the link Crying or Very sad, but i trust you'r smart enough to find it copy and paste

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:04:00 - [3]
 

Was brought up way back when in the early days of capitals.
CCP said the code/database throws a fit if a player is within another player which is the case of piloted fighters/bombers.

Not sure how cramming more noobs into already laggy fights could act as a balancing mechanism either way.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:35:00 - [4]
 

i think he means a ship with close to the same stats as FB meaning:
-small sig
-big tank against subcaps
-huge anticap DPS

that way a group of 25 pilots can put out close to the same dps as 1 maxed SC while being completely useless agains anything not capital

i like the idea there is a SB against BS

but atm the only way you can kill a suppercap fleet is a bigger suppercap fleet

Jayson Lee
Minmatar
Universal Exports
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:37:00 - [5]
 

I feel the only way to limit the number of supercaps is by raising the consequences of flying them. I know this idea will be universaly panned, but make it so that once a pilot is in a super cap, they are there for good and can not exit the ship, and if the ship goes the pilot dies, permanently. Or least a massive skill point reduction. You can say that do to the ships size and complexity that the current cloning technology wont allow a player's mind to fully be transfered to a new clone on destruction of the ship.

You will not be able to stop the numbers of super caps as EVE currently has too much money and too many minerals in circulation. Supercaps are looked at as a type of end game for a lot of pilots, lets make that true in more ways than one.

The only way I see to limit super caps is to raise the risk, and I dont think you can do that by adjusting the production side. I think CCP's only option is to limit the amount of pilots that can/will fly one.

Cycotic Maniac
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.04.26 12:45:00 - [6]
 

No, just fix lag. It will balance itself like market does. If there is no lag there will be more big whelps.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.04.26 12:48:00 - [7]
 

For those of you that dont want to count. 139 supercarriers, approx 90 of which were nyxes, and 30 titans. granted it was still 3:2 nc people vs russian people. But somehow when the russians come with 1/3 their fleet supercarriers vs maybe 50 dreads and carriers combined I think they lose the right to talk about it.

I'd love say even a tech three stealth bomber that can shoot citadel torps.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.26 13:21:00 - [8]
 

a heavy bomber that can use citadel torps would do well against caps

if you give it a dammage bonus and an Explosion Radius nerf so they are not too powerful against normal caps it would become the ship to bring if suppers are on the field

but make it completely useless in damaging any subcaps so you would still need a normal fleet to keep your heavy bombers from getting blown up

but i think stealth would make it overpowered

ilammy
Red Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.26 13:35:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul
I'd love say even a tech three stealth bomber that can shoot citadel torps.
I think it should not be a T3-frigate, rather that T2 cruiser-size stealth bomber.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.26 13:47:00 - [10]
 

i was more thinking of T2 BC
(LOL T2 drake )

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.04.26 14:37:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: ilammy
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
I'd love say even a tech three stealth bomber that can shoot citadel torps.
I think it should not be a T3-frigate, rather that T2 cruiser-size stealth bomber.


Stealth might be over powered like the rage guy said the post before yours. and i was just going with frigate as the model is there for a small ship to have stupid huge guns. I guess we could send the Cerb to the shop, but not sure what would get upgraded for min, gal and amarr.

And have you ever tried to shoot a citadel torp at a subcap out of siege. raven can laugh off a phoenix. now if you have a stack of 10 phoenix that might do something. but a stack of ten t2 stealthbombers can kill a bs easy anyways. Tl:dr pretty sure the damage system would already account for the size diff.

TuRtLe HeAd
Apocalypse Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.26 14:48:00 - [12]
 

The Answer is simple.

Doomsday Device Frigates.

Gerrick Palivorn
Posted - 2011.04.26 19:50:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: bartos100
i was more thinking of T2 BC
(LOL T2 drake )


I really really like the sound of that

Cantabar
Posted - 2011.04.27 01:11:00 - [14]
 

I like this idea. But maybe supercarriers should lose All ability to field regular drones. Once they can only use fighters and fighter-bombers they wont be as overpowered.
And yes being able to use normal drones is a source of the power of a super carrier. (Target Painter drones + fighter bombers to insta pop bs's anyone?)

Shiroi Kiba
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:20:00 - [15]
 

Bring back the AOE DD but with a script. Be a nice way to remove the super carriers DPS in one hit. People may not be willing to throw them around if they risk loosing 300 mil a pop.

or...

Introduce an explosive device that can only fit in a freighter and is only activated once in 0.0. If you get the freighter close enough to a group of supers and the freighter is destroyed the explosives within the cargohold destroy anything within a 15km radius.

Creetalor
Caldari
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:35:00 - [16]
 

I personally like the sound of a T3 Frigate the WH market can use a new thing to do and if you make it that it simply holds the launchers and 1 mid slot and maybe 2 lows but for that 5 highs with 4 Citadel launchers one and 1 for cloak or 6 highs and 6 launchers for a subsystem without cloak. It could be used in different ways lower dps but cloak and higher dps without cloak but with speed differences as well it could be a quick ship without ewar like SB which makes them good.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.27 14:57:00 - [17]
 

i just had a great idea to counter suppercaps without having to change a lot to the game

compact citadel torpedo's

those are torpedo's that are used by fighterbombers

if we would ba able to make those ourself and fit them in normal torpedo launchers

as ballance it might be an idea to only allow those torps on SB and not on other ships

any idea's about this ??

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.04.27 15:28:00 - [18]
 

You can't fix supercapitals without nerfing them.

For what supercarriers should be, look at dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts are well balanced because they have a specific role, they have to commit to a fight and can't just teleport out when Things Go Bad, and because they're very vulnerable to subcapitals and hence require a support fleet.

Supercarriers have none of these attribute. They don't have a role, they don't need to commit to a fight and they're not exactly vulnerable to subcapitals. Proposing new ships as a supercapital counter is absurd - the counter should be subcapitals.

So to make them vulnerable to subcapitals, supercarriers should be able to launch FBs only - not fighters or drones - with FBs tweaked so that they're close to useless against BS and smaller, and are easier to kill. Supercarriers should not be immune to normal tackle, although the other-ewar immunity can probably stay. The 15 min disappear-with-aggro-upon-logoff timer should be increased to an hour for supercapitals.

Making them commit to a fight is trickier. Requiring some sort of siege mode to be active to be able to control FBs is a possibility. It wouldn't prevent movement, only warping or jumping. They could still receive RR. Short cycle time, maybe as short as 2-3 mins. FBs return automatically upon deactivation. This might have problems with lag. Hmmm. Confused

ilammy
Red Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.27 18:09:00 - [19]
 

Supercaps can't fight supercaps without a support fleet.

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.27 21:50:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: ilammy
Supercaps can't fight supercaps without a support fleet.


the only subcaps a suppercap fight needs is a load of dictors/hictors

and i would like to put up a challenge for all those who find that suppercarriers are OK as is

find me 1 KM where a fitted supper was killed without any suppercaps to kill it

Goose99
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:59:00 - [21]
 

New module: Drop all resists on a single target to zero. Only mountable on t3. Drawback is same as cyno. Sacrifice a t3 to make a supercap no longer invincible.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.04.27 23:25:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Goose99
New module: Drop all resists on a single target to zero. Only mountable on t3. Drawback is same as cyno. Sacrifice a t3 to make a supercap no longer invincible.


please no, this would be usable in other situations as well. imagine a conventional ganking. now imagine the victim has no resists.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.04.27 23:28:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Jayson Lee
I feel the only way to limit the number of supercaps is by raising the consequences of flying them. I know this idea will be universaly panned, but make it so that once a pilot is in a super cap, they are there for good and can not exit the ship, and if the ship goes the pilot dies, permanently. Or least a massive skill point reduction. You can say that do to the ships size and complexity that the current cloning technology wont allow a player's mind to fully be transfered to a new clone on destruction of the ship.

You will not be able to stop the numbers of super caps as EVE currently has too much money and too many minerals in circulation. Supercaps are looked at as a type of end game for a lot of pilots, lets make that true in more ways than one.

The only way I see to limit super caps is to raise the risk, and I dont think you can do that by adjusting the production side. I think CCP's only option is to limit the amount of pilots that can/will fly one.


i like this idea best, but permadeath and bound pilots are too harsh. i'd rather it be like t3s where ship death is pod death and they will lose some skills related to capital ships.

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
Posted - 2011.04.27 23:49:00 - [24]
 

I'm down with either a T3 Frigate, or a new T2 BC which is capable of doing massive point-to-point damage on capitals only. A ship which, relatively speaking, has a low sp-entry and is far cheaper.

I wouldn't suggest that this ship be capable of cloaking, but it's smaller size (in comparison) to the capitals would make it capable of engaging in relative safety, with the exception of smaller defensive ships fighting against it.

As far as the weapons of choice, we could either use citadel torps as mentioned above, or create new weapon classes unique to each race to fill the gap (I.E. a Wave Laser capable of doing massive damage, but only effect capital vessals other than freighters).

Nnamuachs
Caldari
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.28 00:00:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:02:06
Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:00:12
Originally by: bartos100
Originally by: ilammy
Supercaps can't fight supercaps without a support fleet.


the only subcaps a suppercap fight needs is a load of dictors/hictors

and i would like to put up a challenge for all those who find that suppercarriers are OK as is

find me 1 KM where a fitted supper was killed without any suppercaps to kill it


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534343&nolimit

and another one:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534645

one of the 5 listed on the main caps losses page for the high isk kills.. can we have a harder challenge?

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.04.28 05:55:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Nnamuachs
Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:02:06
Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:00:12
Originally by: bartos100
Originally by: ilammy
Supercaps can't fight supercaps without a support fleet.


the only subcaps a suppercap fight needs is a load of dictors/hictors

and i would like to put up a challenge for all those who find that suppercarriers are OK as is

find me 1 KM where a fitted supper was killed without any suppercaps to kill it


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534343&nolimit

and another one:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534645

one of the 5 listed on the main caps losses page for the high isk kills.. can we have a harder challenge?


thx i didn't think it would be possible to kill a supper without cap ships

but can anyone tell more about how it happened and if any of those where given back by ccp ?

just to make sure they didn't die cause of a bug somewhere :)

ps: are there any more ?

Nnamuachs
Caldari
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.28 06:35:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: bartos100
Originally by: Nnamuachs
Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:02:06
Edited by: Nnamuachs on 28/04/2011 00:00:12
Originally by: bartos100

the only subcaps a suppercap fight needs is a load of dictors/hictors

and i would like to put up a challenge for all those who find that suppercarriers are OK as is

find me 1 KM where a fitted supper was killed without any suppercaps to kill it


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534343&nolimit

and another one:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9534645

one of the 5 listed on the main caps losses page for the high isk kills.. can we have a harder challenge?


thx i didn't think it would be possible to kill a supper without cap ships

but can anyone tell more about how it happened and if any of those where given back by ccp ?

just to make sure they didn't die cause of a bug somewhere :)

ps: are there any more ?


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9439763

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9439702

Statistically, theres likely many more, but i'm not going to continue digging through eve-kill just to continue to prove a point.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.04.28 07:50:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: bartos100
thx i didn't think it would be possible to kill a supper without cap ships...

Both ship classes that can tackle them are sub-cap, so with tackle in place: as long as you have enough dps to overcome shield recharge you can technically kill them with frigates (there's a challenge, recommend Slicers for range > smart bombs Very Happy)

Those Panda Legion mails illustrate the point of OPness quite proficiently:
- Neither has 'SC swarms', one has two the other is alone (token Drake ignored Very Happy)
- Both reports has roughly ten tacklers (HICs/DICs).
- Both involve 20:1+ blobbage and probably done by Titan bridge after initial tackle.

Strange thing is that Titan's are fairly well designed/balanced; lots of direct oomph, vulnerable to most things with 'soft' abilities to augment fleet performance (bonuses, bridge) .. Titan's are what SCs should be (sans the DD naturally) Very Happy

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.04.28 08:37:00 - [29]
 

Nerfing will not solve it, that's the problem CCP and many players don't understand. Nerfing just creates a new alpha.

What needs to happen are technological leaps. (New ships and mods designed to counter the threat). That's what happens in real warfare, and should happen in games but doesn't because its easier to make minor tweaks than the code whole new ships etc.

To deal with the plethora of fighters/fighter-bombers you need an effective anti drone ship. Same with Drakes and Tengus you need an effective anti missile ship. Defender missiles have always been horribly broken, good in concept poor in coding. You put those kinds of ships and mods in the game and you nullify the problem (Yes it will take time as folks build the ships/mods and then folks skill to use them but in the end it will solve the problem in a logical manner). I think the best way to go would be to take the bubble mechanism of the warp bubbles, and copy the code with a tweak removing the disabling of warp drives and instead allowing it to deal damage to the missiles or drones. (Note missile rigs that increase missile speed might help avoid the bubble :), or Drone Rigs give enough hp to the drones/fighters/fighter-bombers to allow them to be somewhat effective). The problem would be having someone at CCP left that is familiar enough with that portion of the code to make the changes needed to give it broader application.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.04.28 08:46:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Nerfing will not solve it, that's the problem CCP and many players don't understand. Nerfing just creates a new alpha.

What needs to happen are technological leaps. (New ships and mods designed to counter the threat). That's what happens in real warfare, and should happen in games but doesn't because its easier to make minor tweaks than the code whole new ships etc.


IN case you haven't noticed, this isn't real life. What you're describing is power creep that serves only to obsolete ships. In a game, this is bad enough when done unintentionally; doing it deliberately is just moronic.


Pages: [1] 2

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