Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
kurowscara
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:25:29 -
[1] - Quote
whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5483
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:30:08 -
[2] - Quote
Why? |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1354
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:31:06 -
[3] - Quote
That question comes up regularly and it's regularly explained why this would be a terrible idea. Forum search is your friend.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
1125
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:51:38 -
[4] - Quote
The regions of space are designed to be different, with different rules and different gameplay. You have choices - carriers and other capital ships are available everywhere except highsec, though the only way to get them into the smaller wormholes would be to build them there. That's 75% of space - caps OK, 25% not allowed.
It's not clear what role "baby carriers" would fill. They couldn't be more powerful than existing battleships or they would automatically become the goto platform for PVE content like missions and incursions.
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3910
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 22:02:23 -
[5] - Quote
Domi, geddon, orca and soe battleship thingy.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Cade Windstalker
1514
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 22:15:38 -
[6] - Quote
In general? Because it would be horribly imbalanced on multiple levels and for multiple reasons. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1160
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 00:19:47 -
[7] - Quote
so...orcas and DSTs? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47697
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 07:46:26 -
[8] - Quote
They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.
The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.
By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them. |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 10:37:23 -
[9] - Quote
kurowscara wrote:whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea
Basically, the power levels in HS are reasonably well balanced.
Adding a minicarrier, would tend to assume it would be more powerful to make it worthwhile.
There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.
But then why would anyone actually want one? |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 10:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.
The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.
By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.
Of course any corp EVEN ONCE seen with a carrier in HS would be permanently wardecced. So that negates that.
But it still would be absurdly overpowered, or crippled in HS ensuring they were of no real value.
So thats a big no to carriers in HS |
|
Tabyll Altol
Vision Inc Hole Control
185
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 13:45:52 -
[11] - Quote
kurowscara wrote:whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea
Why stopping at carrier? Why not a super ? Why no Titan ?
-1 |
Cade Windstalker
1515
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 14:15:35 -
[12] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.
The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.
By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.
Don't forget camping the 4-4 undock with about 150 corps wardec'd. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
559
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 14:38:57 -
[13] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote: There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.
But then why would anyone actually want one?
I was firmly 100% in the camp of "no carriers in HS" right up until you said this... and it actually got me thinking.
Marauders are essentially mini-dreadnoughts, bastion vs siege modes, long range high damage, local reps etc. Flying a Marauder in HS isn't going to teach you everything you need to know about flying a Dreadnought, but it will give you a basic foundation in what to do.
There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones. the more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind seeing a T2 battleship, similar to a marauder, that uses light fighters instead of drones. I'm sure that things could be balanced in such a way as to put them more or less on par with a marauder (off the top of my head i'm thinking more dps but lower tank???)
Personally I would love to fly something like that, not only would it give more options for T2 battleships, but more importantly it would let me learn fighter mechanics in relative safety before jumping into a multi-billion isk ship. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3023
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 15:04:10 -
[14] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones. And why should there? Isn't your low sec in Solitude or Syndicate null sec campus the best test environment to figure these things out? Why should this testing phase be possible to do in high sec?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
559
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 15:20:42 -
[15] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Bjorn Tyrson wrote:There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones. And why should there? Isn't your low sec in Solitude or Syndicate null sec campus the best test environment to figure these things out? Why should this testing phase be possible to do in high sec?
yes those work just fine. so we should get rid of marauders as well then right? because why should people get the chance to try out and learn the basics of how dreadnoughts work in HS? |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3024
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 19:36:49 -
[16] - Quote
Basics? A Dread uses fuel to start their siege, a Marauder does not. A carrier uses fighters, which are improved drones, and the ships are about managing and assigning drones to targets. Any drone boat teaches you the basics about how you use and manage drones/fighters.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
325
|
Posted - 2017.05.07 16:06:24 -
[17] - Quote
Carriers in High Sector would allow High Sector and Alliances to demolish other corporations, especially new corporations founded by rookie CEO's.
The absolute destruction that a High Sector Carrier Group would bring would satisfy many corporations engaged in ship and module manufacturing.
War Dec's would be never ending as well and High Sector would become more volatile than even Drifter Space.
Carriers in High Sector would mean absolute madness....which some might like.
Maybe not Carriers...but a ship slightly smaller than a Force Auxiliary with the ability to fly three fighters or bombers along with the normal drones upto Heavy TII would solve the problem.
Not to much firepower but enough. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3904
|
Posted - 2017.05.07 22:59:52 -
[18] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.
The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.
By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them. Of course any corp EVEN ONCE seen with a carrier in HS would be permanently wardecced. So that negates that.
You may want to take more than a few seconds to thunk about what you just said
I'll just ignore npc corps that completely negate your point.
So many corps would have these in hs if it were allowed that would be like saying "any Corp seen with a freighter would be permanently wardecced.
Real problem would be the station games. Good luck killing one of these camping you in station within a weapons timer
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 19:33:58 -
[19] - Quote
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:Alderson Point wrote: There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.
But then why would anyone actually want one?
I was firmly 100% in the camp of "no carriers in HS" right up until you said this... and it actually got me thinking. Marauders are essentially mini-dreadnoughts, bastion vs siege modes, long range high damage, local reps etc. Flying a Marauder in HS isn't going to teach you everything you need to know about flying a Dreadnought, but it will give you a basic foundation in what to do. There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones. the more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind seeing a T2 battleship, similar to a marauder, that uses light fighters instead of drones. I'm sure that things could be balanced in such a way as to put them more or less on par with a marauder (off the top of my head i'm thinking more dps but lower tank???) Personally I would love to fly something like that, not only would it give more options for T2 battleships, but more importantly it would let me learn fighter mechanics in relative safety before jumping into a multi-billion isk ship. I would also like to try how fighters work, they look fun, but currently I would need to spend about 2 months to learn something that I may not like at all. As marauders are similar to the dreadnoughts, the idea of an escort carrier as BS sized fighter platform pops up regularly, because it's a logical idea. The problem and common argument against them is that a single squad of light fighters is OP in hi-sec, but I think I found a solution for this - thanks to CONCORD Aerospace. The role "bonus" of the escort carriers is actually a penalty to the fighters HP and damage if they are in hi-sec: they won't be much stronger than the heavy drones, but they will keep their mechanics so people can try them. The required skills should be a Battleship 5 and the Fighters 1 skills, I think these two take enough time to have it close to the other T2 battleships.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 20:05:09 -
[20] - Quote
Personally, I would like to see some kind of light carrier usable in hisec, but whether that will actually happen is for CCP to decide.
In terms of balancing, I think that there are so many variables (both on the ship and the fighters themselves) that can be adjusted that I am confident a reasonable balance can be found in case a light carrier is ever made.
For those asking for a light carrier for hisec I have often seen the comment to "get a Domi". Before the fighter changes I might have agreed with this comment, but after the changes to controlling fighters, the ways for controlling drones and fighters ARE different and a light carrier would be an opportunity to learn to control fighters without the need to invest in a full carrier or citadel.
I have also seen comments concerning the role of a light carrier. However, personally I am not so sure that it needs a specific role that is much different than a normal battleship - it can just be a long-range damage dealer. I have also seen other people suggest that it could have a defensive purpose for escorting vessels such as freighters. Recently, I suggested an cloak hunter role in another thread. But I am sure there are many other ideas out there. Personally, I do not worry too much about the role.
Anyway, whether a carrier will ever see the light of day will, in the end, depend on what CCP decides. But we can always hope . |
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5501
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 20:30:27 -
[21] - Quote
if you people are worrying about 'learning to use fighters', then go on the test server. A gimmicky as hell battleship that puts out less damage than a rattlesnake is not a good replacement for a carrier. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 21:06:39 -
[22] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:if you people are worrying about 'learning to use fighters', then go on the test server. I don't think that would work. The test server characters are "regularly" mirrored for the main server, so even if I set up a completely different skill queue that takes months to learn, all progress will be lost and replaced with the skills I'm actually learning. At least that's what I got from how it works.
Also, fighters work completely differently than drones now. Also also, it's not rally fair to compare the potential damage of this mini carrier to a battleship that has 2 remote-controlled cruisers. The damage should be about the same as the marauders' damage.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5501
|
Posted - 2017.05.10 21:24:03 -
[23] - Quote
You will learn fighter mechanics in about half an hour, maybe an hour. Then you will never undock your gimmick battleship again.
Please define 'the same as a marauder's damage' for me. Is that the same ~1k damage you get out of a rattlesnake?
What role does this light carrier thing actually fill? A droneboat with expensive, fragile drones and no more dps than a regular droneboat? |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 11:50:23 -
[24] - Quote
It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things. These wouldn't be drone boats. Fighters are not capital drones anymore. Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either. You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3032
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 13:59:37 -
[25] - Quote
One way or another, capital ships and fighters are not needed in High sec and no whatsoever warped training purpose to "learn fighter mechanics" make capitals or either overpowered or useless ships more plausible.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5503
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 17:26:54 -
[26] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things. These wouldn't be drone boats. Fighters are not capital drones anymore. Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either. You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads.
So, what is it's role? What niche does it fill? What does it do that is not covered by 'attack another ship by sending waves of smaller ships at it'? What is the point of flying one, other than 'to learn fighter mechanics!!1' in a manner that is worse than killing half an hour on the test server?
I bought my first carrier in 2011, it was a droneboat then and it's a droneboat now. The drones just changed. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 18:36:12 -
[27] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Dior Ambraelle wrote:It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things. These wouldn't be drone boats. Fighters are not capital drones anymore. Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either. You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads. So, what is it's role? What niche does it fill? What does it do that is not covered by 'attack another ship by sending waves of smaller ships at it'? What is the point of flying one, other than 'to learn fighter mechanics!!1' in a manner that is worse than killing half an hour on the test server? I bought my first carrier in 2011, it was a droneboat then and it's a droneboat now. The drones just changed. The way I can imagine these: - as a battleship based fighter platform, these are able to use any gates, and move through hi sec, this also allows you to send fighter support to a fleet that got caught in a cyno-jammed system (historically escort carriers were used to protect convoys and to provide air support at places where carriers weren't able to go) - bonus for space superiority drone effectiveness: while the capital carriers do the battle, the escort carriers focus on keeping the space clear from drones and hostile anti-fighter fighters, something that current carriers have no bonus for - able to use light and support fighters - no command burst ability, NSA maybe
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5503
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 18:57:12 -
[28] - Quote
...Err...why fighter support for a subcapital group when subcaps are already pretty good at shredding subcaps? What do you think a wing of fighters can do that a handful of Jackdaws can't do?
You...don't know much about capital combat, do you. Carriers are for shredding subcaps, if you have hostile caps on grid then you are dropping dreads on them, not carriers.
This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no niche here. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3915
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 19:11:01 -
[29] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:
You...don't know much about capital combat, do you. Carriers are for shredding subcaps,
well in theory anyway. in practice they use is now rather niche. most cases what ever you try to use them for can be done better by something else. they may have had a strong place if not for HAW but they are too expensive too vulnerable and too SP incentive for most things. people thought it was ridiculous that a large swarm of ECM drones could keep a dread jamed yet carriers are allowed to be jammed out by a pair of ibis
BLOPS Hauler
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 19:57:59 -
[30] - Quote
I accept that there are people that hate the idea of some kind of carrier that can use fighters in hisec for whatever reason - and they are fully entitled to their opinion. However, there are also people that like the idea, otherwise I doubt that this idea would keep coming up in some form or another.
In my mind a type of carrier that can be used in hisec is a subcapital ship that can use fighters at significant longer ranges (though nowhere near the ranges of normal carriers) than any drone boat can and the dps should probably be comparable to a high-end battleship.
Some will say that fighters should not be usable in hisec, but the already are available in hisec via citadels GÇô the citadel expansion opened that door. Furthermore, there is also precedence for using GÇ£oversizedGÇ¥ weapons for GÇ£undersizedGÇ¥ ships, e.g. heavy drones usable on cruisers or large sized guns on battle cruisers. I think using fighters on a subcapital carrier will fall into the same category.
As for existing ships which can be utilized for some of the same tasks that potential hisec carrier there may be some overlap, but I think this is also case with existing ships. If there should only be one ship for one specific task, then I think quite a few of the existing ships should be taken out of the game. As such a hisec carrier would just be another tool in the tool box that will appeal to some and not to others. And the idea is to here is to have a ship that uses fighters and not drones.
For those that do not like such a ship or think that another ship can do the job better, then simply do not invest in or fly the ship. Nobody will be forcing you to. Instead use whatever other ship (drone boat, destroyer, cruiser or whatever) that you prefer and think is suitable for the task at hand and what suits your play style.
Some will see a hisec carrier as over powered for hisec but this is matter of balance, and, as I mentioned earlier, there are some many parameters on the ship and the fighters themselves that I am sure that a reasonable balance can be found - although the balancing would have to be evaluated carefully.
I know hisec carriers are a controversial issue and probably will continue to be. Though I personally think a hisec carrier is a good idea and would like to see it implemented, I doubt that we will see any such ship for a foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |