These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Test Server Feedback » Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page2930313233Next pageLast page

Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Charles Edisson

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 30

#601 - 2011-11-26 16:32:22 UTC

Vincent Gaines wrote:

Charles Edisson wrote:

so really a carrier can refit a SC with fighter bombers in a minute or two. I must have missed either their corp hanger increase to 100K m3 or their ability to hold fighter bombers.

seriously you must just troll for the sake of it.

you carry 15 fighters/FB in your bay. You can hold 5 in your corp hanger. You can hold 6 in the corp hanger of a rorq. You can hold 5 in the hanger of another carrier.

You must have misread what you quoted.

You implied a carrier could be used to refit a SC. a carrier can not hold FB in it's drone bay, a carrier only has a 10K corp hanger so can only hold 2 Fighters/FB if it has nothing else in it's hanger like fule. The Aeon only has 20/10 capacity so to use one of these would require 5 carrier corp hangers to accomodate a swap to FB from fighters or visa versa.

Charles Edisson

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 30

#602 - 2011-11-26 16:33:38 UTC

Sameyaa wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

Sameyaa wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

your time it took to have a rorqual or carrier swap out fighters/bombers takes less time than it takes for a subcap to prep for a fleet battle. .

LOL so... what does a subcap pilot have to do exactly? ... get in ship and join fleet.

Did you forget what it's like to fly a ship in PvP?

Here's a hint: It involves more than right click -> jump, right click -> launch drones -> ctrl+F.

Nope, according to killboard i have almost 10 times more experience than you in fighting subcaps with subcaps. So your arguement is invalid. Try again.

You need to ignore him, he's a dusche, will post anything to get a ride out of you.

Sigras

Conglomo

Likes received: 1,109

#603 - 2011-11-26 20:03:58 UTC

Demon Azrakel wrote:

Can we get a response on the state of the Chimera's CPU? The Chimera is near useless because of the limitations its CPU imposes on it that every other carrier does not have a problem with or can work around at least (assuming in the case of the thanny and nid that you run 3x of one type and add a shield or armor one in for those o-**** moments. Also, for those other two you will be disadvantaged if you only have an armor or shield booster in fleet given the near requirement to mix tanks).

This should fit, given that the equivalent (dual rep dual eanm) fits on the Archon.
[Chimera, T2]
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Capital Shield Booster I
Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II

Triage Module I
Capital Energy Transfer Array I
Capital Shield Transporter I
Capital Shield Transporter I
Capital Shield Transporter I

Large Capacitor Control Circuit II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I

Scratch that, turns out that an Archon can run four capital remote reps. The Chimera needs a massive CPU boost (10% minimum, it could go as high as 20%)

ummm Capital Shield Booster * 4 Capacitor Power Relay II = fail

Morgaine Mighthammer

Rational Chaos Inc.

Brave Collective

Likes received: 85

#604 - 2011-11-26 21:02:59 UTC

Charles Edisson wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

Charles Edisson wrote:

incorrect sir, a carrier can hold fb's in it's bay, but it is not allowed to launch them due to lack of enough drone bandwidth

Demon Azrakel

Garoun Investment Bank

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 101

#605 - 2011-11-26 22:53:58 UTC | Edited by: Demon Azrakel

Sigras wrote:

Demon Azrakel wrote:

ummm Capital Shield Booster * 4 Capacitor Power Relay II = fail

You actually want the beta reactor control: Capacitor Power Relay I (or whatever), but I had initially forgot about that bit (was taking the faction / meta 2 / deadspace boost amp fit I had and making it T2; I cannot remember the last time I actually fit a ship with any type of capacitor power relay other than faction).

Here:
[Chimera, T2]
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I

Capital Shield Booster I
Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II

Triage Module I
Capital Energy Transfer Array I
Capital Shield Transporter I
Capital Shield Transporter I
Capital Shield Transporter I

Large Capacitor Control Circuit II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I

That better?

If, however, your issue was with the capacitor power relay in general, show me your wonderful shield triage carrier (Chimera, nid, or, in some cases, a thanny) using cap flux coils or power diagnostics systems.

stagz

Perkone

Caldari State

Likes received: 30

#606 - 2011-11-27 00:08:48 UTC

Waukesha wrote:

Roboticus420 wrote:

Phunnestyle wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters?

Nyx is the only super able to have 35,so your quote is narrow minded just in those regards,as you would be refering to the other supers as 10Fighters GTFO of here troll
1stly Supers will have optimal amount of fighters due to being intercepted by Subcaps, it happens often enough now, but after the patch alot more Subcap fleets will have the ballz & new compositions to play with to go ballz deep on Supers.
2ndly Fighters are easy enough to take out in various ways. You your self should know that MM has a good bomber wing (the only good thing they have) and 1 of the focus's especially after the patch is going to be to take out Fighters. Alot of alliances if they havn't already are making bomber wings. At least with 20 Fighters you have the numbers out there for a majority to survive and still be somewhat effective.

In the Original patch comments, when some clueless noobs posted about decreasing the drone bay, there wasn't any serious opposition to it. The reason for that is beacuse no1 thought that such stupid comments would be listened to by CCP so didn't think anything of it. Rediculious to think that it was changed & we are now trying to sort the mess out.
Thats what happens when you listen to people who have no idea of the mechanics in question, but only wish to pass biased opinions of how they can make a super as useless as possible to benifit there particular aspect of game play. Listen to the Super pilots, they deserve the benifit of the doubt as alot of us experience every aspect subcap/capital & supercapital alike.

A lion cub wouldn't learn to hunt & kill from a snail, the snail has no experience or knowledge involving those regards.
This analogy applys to Supers, why should those who have no experience or knowledge of mechanics in question have a resounding say over Super pilots. Doesn't make any sence!

Need room for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters in drone bay CCP <-- plz read & plz do.

Signed

signed

Headerman

Native Freshfood

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,026

#607 - 2011-11-27 01:29:03 UTC

stagz wrote:

Waukesha wrote:

Roboticus420 wrote:

Phunnestyle wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

So I ask again, why do you need more than 15 fighters?

Signed

signed

Signed.

I would also like to go forward and say that super carriers, due to their now diminished versatility with only fighters and FBs, needs to be able to dock and the pilot get out of the ship.

In fact, i would be happy to have ANY safe harbour that does not involve the following:

- A POS
- CSMA
- Safe Spot
- SC sitting alts

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062

State War Academy Caldari State 5,978
Marlona Sky State War Academy Caldari State Likes received: 5,978	#608 - 2011-11-27 01:32:16 UTC 1 Super Carriers: 1. Give them back their original fright bay m3 back. 2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus. 3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range.

LacLongQuan

Doomheim

Likes received: 17

#609 - 2011-11-27 07:31:56 UTC

Demon Azrakel wrote:

confirmed Chimera has terrible CPU/PG

Edsback

MineOne

Likes received: 3

#610 - 2011-11-27 12:44:09 UTC

all carriers still need for both a small Capacitor boost and cpu increase. all the carrier are in need of a Capacitor boost.
Carrier are in despite need of some work the boost is needed but if you look at this ship in combat then you will notice once a carrier is in triage its a sitting duck and often killed in 1 shot by a group of battleships , so maybe boost the shield/armor of them,.

Daedalus Arcova

The Scope

Likes received: 271

#611 - 2011-11-27 13:22:38 UTC

Headerman wrote:

I would also like to go forward and say that super carriers, due to their now diminished versatility with only fighters and FBs, needs to be able to dock and the pilot get out of the ship.

In fact, i would be happy to have ANY safe harbour that does not involve the following:

- A POS
- CSMA
- Safe Spot
- SC sitting alts

Yes, because everyone wants to play station games with supercarriers.

If you can't see the obvious stupidity of that idea, why should anyone take your whining about fighter bays seriously?

Phunnestyle

Doomheim

Likes received: 132

#612 - 2011-11-27 13:47:40 UTC | Edited by: Phunnestyle

Daedalus Arcova wrote:

Headerman wrote:

Yes, because everyone wants to play station games with supercarriers.

If you can't see the obvious stupidity of that idea, why should anyone take your whining about fighter bays seriously?

[quote=Phunnestyle][quote=Vincent Gaines][quote=Sameyaa]

Exactly the scenario is bullshit, the scenario that you wished to force on us, at least your starting to see sence.
Having 3 less what are you smoking dude, will be 10-5 less ROFL who didn't finish maths at school.
As for you blindly saying Super pilots wish to use Supers as solo pawnmobiles, is your biased judgement really that far gone that you believe that.
The pinging aggro timer on its own, makes sure that all supers but the most stupid will not be flying solo at all. Supers if you hadn't noticed won't be able to loggoffski. Pinging aggro timer dude. Supers can't afford after the patch to go gun ho soloing, coupled with only able to use Fighters as an offensive ploy against Subcaps, it makes soloing a very unadvisery thing to do. Its not like we can bail out sentrys an get rid of the HIC/DIC.A half drunk DIC pilot would be hardpressed to not be able to keep a Super pinned down indeffinately. You really do have a huge lack of knowledge.

So you say we the Super pilots want everything, your own words.
That ofc includes us wanting the pinging aggro timer, & the change to only Fighter Bombers & Fighters.
We accept the HP nerfs although its not strickly a good representation of what the nerf should be, the nerfs generalized rather than individually focused on each Super, so what your saying is we are wrong to want all this. Us wanting this is wrongly biased as it only benifits Super pilots does it?!?!? Think befor you speak.
This benifits us all, we want it as much as every other person, gives GFs and puts to rest solopawnmobile labels. Develops supers into more structured support reliant roles. You seem to have not understood or read that at all.
Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20Fighter bombers & Fighters for all those reasons over the last several pages have stated.
More than enough to justify the ammendment, but absolutely nothing to explain why 20/20 should'nt be implimented.

Ill tell you a fact, the reason it is so easy to reply to you is becuase im right & your wrong, doesn't get any simpler than that. I don't have to make anything up, whilst you evidently do, as has been said, it only makes you look more of a fool.

LOL&U again, loving your emo rage, but wish you could give a serious conversation rather than nonescence.

Edited -> P.S. read your post again & LOL@U again

This applys to you Daedalus, your no different from Vincent, you have too much I hate supers syndrome, it clouds your judgement.
Although I half agree with you about Supers docking, would need a small docking ring on the station so Supers could get fairly easily bumped off station. Need to develop the idea more b4 its even considered, as I also wouldnt want Supers playing station games either, but now Supers/titans will be extreamly vulnerable when trading & selling off, moving them to a destination to get delivered etc.
Being able to jump to a station cyno & dock would at least allow for safer travel, otherwise I forsee many hularious Super/titan travel fit deaths. As I said though idea would need to be developed before considered, to make sure station games where not on a Supers agenda!

Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 595
Vincent Gaines Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State Likes received: 595	#613 - 2011-11-27 15:51:16 UTC \| Edited by: Vincent Gaines I don't hate supers, and I love mine thank you Not a diplo. The above post was edited for spelling.

Headerman

Native Freshfood

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,026

#614 - 2011-11-27 23:11:04 UTC

I also had an idea of the station or docking facility for super carriers would be a destructable service. If incapped, then no carrier could dock or undock.

As with all station services they are not invulnerable, and this docking facility could have a low HP number due to it being large and complex?

And small docking ring as above.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062

Vincent Gaines

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 595

#615 - 2011-11-27 23:34:35 UTC

Headerman wrote:

And what about NPC stations?

Not a diplo.

The above post was edited for spelling.

Headerman

Native Freshfood

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,026

#616 - 2011-11-27 23:57:32 UTC

Vincent Gaines wrote:

Headerman wrote:

And what about NPC stations?

I think if there was going to be a station docking facility it would have to follow a pretty decent list of conditions:
- Sov to 5
- needs to be built on top of a foundation, pedetal and monument add-ons
- Very long construction time
- limited number of docking slots
- Timer for docking and undocking, about a minute each way or more
- Possibility of offlining modules to dock
- Only 1 SC allowed to dock/undock at a time

etc etc

Just an idea mind.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062

Isbariya

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 82

#617 - 2011-11-28 00:44:44 UTC

Headerman wrote:

Vincent Gaines wrote:

Headerman wrote:

And what about NPC stations?

So SC in large alliances were given even more safety then ever before and the small podpilot has to stay outside with his holding alt ? I don't think that would be a good idea, it should be either docking everywhere, no matter if it's an NPC Station or a POS, or it stays the way it is, no docking for supers at all.
I would prefer the first one, though CCP would have to come up with a plan to stop sc from playing station games somehow, as that's the only problem I see with that.

Kaeser

Stimulus

Rote Kapelle

Likes received: 5

#618 - 2011-11-28 03:29:25 UTC

For the love of god CCP, this !

Marlona Sky wrote:

Super Carriers:
2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus.
3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range.

Did all of the intelligent thought on SC balancing between the races leave with Seleene and it's been put in the too hard basket ?

...and yes I own and fly a sh*tbox Hel on one of my alts. Oops

Vincent Gaines

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 595

#619 - 2011-11-28 04:51:10 UTC

Kaeser wrote:

For the love of god CCP, this !

Marlona Sky wrote:

Super Carriers:
2. Change the Hel bonus from remote armor and shield amount to the same fighter and fighter bomber damage bonus.
3. Remove the bonus for remote repair/cap transfer range.

Did all of the intelligent thought on SC balancing between the races leave with Seleene and it's been put in the too hard basket ?

...and yes I own and fly a sh*tbox Hel on one of my alts. Oops

Then add in the shield sets, that way you have 2 tank and 2 gank.

Not a diplo.

The above post was edited for spelling.

Jfox15101

Deltole Deltole Deltole

Likes received: 0

#620 - 2011-11-28 07:04:10 UTC

VeloxMors wrote:

Can't get on sisi since nobody ever re-enables accounts, but my impressions based on what I've read:

Carriers are getting screwed. DDs not targeting subcaps and dreads getting buffed leave carriers with the short straw. T2 triage is nice, but triage continues to be a death sentence to a carrier in most situations and most carrier pilots will continue to not bother with the triage module at all.

Moros getting buffed AND getting better hybrids? Seriously? The Naglfar seriously needs some love with its high slots, and the Phoenix just needs some serious professional help all around. The Moros was a solid dread before this, and could have definitely waited on getting the buff (especially with hybrids being tweaked).

SCs are messed up. I agree the nerf on the Aeon and Nyx was a step in the right direction, but the Hel and Wyvern are just pathetic now.

The wyvern is really not affected to an extensive degree, with the drones being lost, being the biggest drawback, its tank is still strong. IMO, a properly fit wyvern can still be hard to kill, maybe as much as an aeon before nerf. Being that the wyvern isnt an armor tank, it laughs at the nerf, shields remain the same, resists will make that ship be the new aeon.

Now the phoenix, well lets just say with "Correct skilling" it is a royal pain in the ass. Unless neuted out, this ship can take a beating and keep throwing torps with its only downfall being range. Plenty more of this post for me to ramble on about, but i wanna go play eve :)

First pagePrevious page2930313233Next pageLast page