EVE Information Portal

Watching Big Bigger Biggest (c) on NGC last night and im pretty sure suppercarriers developed since midway have realized that with such precious cargo (ie the most expensive heaviest drones in the game FBs) you need some way to protect against threats of all kinds including point defense as a last resort. Granted your first line of defense is a fleet around you to support you which should always exist in some manner, but this will be fixed by the nerf to loggoff timers as has already been stated. No reason to nerf anything, you want super populations to go down, they will with the changes to logoff timers, change one thing, give it time and see what happens. While your at it i guess you could even out shield SCs/ and minmatars capitals but dont nerf the most powerful ships in the game just because a dedicated group of players banded together to wipe out the biggest zerg/blob ever seen in this game. I know mittins wants you to reduce the lag so he can pile hundreds more of his pets into systems in order to establish the classic goon iWin button approach, but when the biggest fleets ever seen band together to move across the map, united across multiple timezones, then it should not be viewed as a reason to reduce the ships effectiveness. Evolution would show that balancing should require upgrades to technology (like dreads or carriers or more t2/t3 BS) to combat the growing threat of things like the supercap fleets that seem to run things for a few months. They do take YEARS to train for and cost hundreds of dollars, no loggoffski is already enough for people to say f*** it and cash out, be done with the game, and move on. Dont screw over your most loyal dedicated fans/players just to appease a small outcry of noobs who QQ that they cant face the biggest ships ever created. It has been seen that small subcap fleets can easily pick off unprotected supers if bumped (by a spy) or whatnot and with no loggoffski this will happen even more. I mean seriously i dont want to give you all the counters but if someone wanted to invest in a fleet of 100 hics/dics 50 logis 50 t3s and some recons for nueting, add some bombers in their as well, and SC fleets would melt and be unable to escape for hours my point is if the fleet is too big and can DD your hics/dics (which they seem to also be changing) then bring more, its and extra 50-150 m per ship (as much as a fully fit BS) and you will likely get on some SC kills, seems worth it. R&K do it all the time with a few t3s and nueting bhallghorns.

gg wall of text
TL:DR game evolves not regresses, ships should be evolved to counter (t3 bs? t2 carrier/dread? new type of capitals?) that which seems unbeatable (massive SC fleets)
and with the Loggoff change SCs will be dying much more often already, no other nerf needed (except small re-balancing obviously)

This is a great point

Yeah no the opposite, because the person you're replying to doesn't understand the change.

CCP could you enlighten us on if you plan to adjust the BPO requirements for dreads and titans to reflect their lack of drone bays? Last time I logged into the test server the BPOs were still requiring Capital Drone Bays in the build requirements.

I understand all the changes very well. Stating otherwise will not change that. You're confusing me with someone else in one of my corps who misspoke. I, however, am very well nuanced with all the rules of aggression and logging mechanics. Ad hominem replies aside, please give good reasons why the changes I've suggested are bad/unfair.

@ the morsus mihi person a few pages back.


Calm down, read it carefully. My compromises on the motherhips are reasonable. If you split up the drone bays for carriers and motherships to where you have a drone bay and a fighter bay. YOU LIMIT what they are capable of. Limiting the sizes limit the effectiveness.

Ill just briefly repeat what i suggested for the supers earlier, should be near what Obsidian is thinking as well
- Decrease fighterbombers dps by approximately 50% to be inline with dreads
- 1 Drone pr level, for max total of 10 drones / fighters / fighterbombers: less drones vs subcaps, less sentries vs poses. Reduces lag
- Add a 100% role bonus to fighterbombers and possibly also fighters
- Let them have at least one full set of both fighters and fighterbombers
- Reduce jumprange and increase jumpcost to reduce their power projections
- Remove Cap Remote rep so they wont be "safe" on their own

I dont think its possible to just create a seperate dronebay, cus the supers will just bring different drones in the corp hangars and refill the dronebay as needed. Power projection is also much much more troublesome than their damage, so CCP really needs to look into that, even if thats hurting the way we fight in PL. Hotdrops must be harder and distances in EVE must be further apart.

If it was up to me id go ahead witih the fighterchanges just so ppl stop ratting in their carriers and supers. the economy is whats most problematic with this game... ISK comes by way too easy

Motherships were being used waaaay back and they only did twice the dps of a carrier. They were still being used because or ew immunity, rr ability, and the fact that nothing could keep it to the field beside bumping. But at that time they were balanced with having like twice the EHP of a carrier. Then came the dictors and hictors and they stopped being used cus they were to fragile and now we have this. As long as these ships can put out 10k dps, dreads wont be used for anything but ninja reinforcements. Motherships / SCS must be brough back to what they were before where their damage wasnt so abnormally high. If you remove their RR ability, leave their dps at dread level, if you dont remove the RR ability then make fighterbombers do twice the damage of normal fighters, lower the size of the fighters and fighterbombers so they are easier to switch out and bring replacements for campaigns (given that you nerf the bay so you can only hold one full flight plus a few spares).

The same goes for the doomsday, it needs to be switched out to something else: neut, web, ecm, point bomb of some sort, or dreads wont be used much at all...

I don't know why people keep asking this question - CCP removed the clone vat bay reqs from SC's when they were changed, so it's just as reasonable that they'll remove drone bays from dreads and titans.

A 20bil isk ship should be able to deal with any situation, even if its to a limited degree.

it meeting halfway.

IT's a very limited swiss army knife. Sure it would have all the tools but only 2 of the blades are metal, the rest are plastic.

25 light / medium / heavy / sentry / ewar drones. IF that seems to be too extreme limit it to a full fighter bay of 25 of fighters and FB and have a seperate drone bay that's 1250m³ for regular drones. That seems like a lot of drone bay but a full flight of 25 heavies is 625m³.

Anyway, Im trying to work for a well balanced compromise here. Sure they will be versatile but not as much as they are now. As for the comment of a swiss army knife, yes it would be a swiss army knife still, except it would have 2 blades and the screwdriver, wine opener, scissors would all be made of plastic.