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.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3915
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 21:40:22 -
[31] - Quote
okay there are also some people who think it would be a great idea to give titans powerful smart bomb style DDs that can be shot through cynos.
as for this idea its not just "some overlap" i have yet to see something posted where this HS carrier adds to the overall balance in eve or brings in something new. basically what is the niche that it would fill
it seems to me the people who want it just want to play with fighters but don't want to invest in a carrier.... that is not a good enough reason to add more ships to eve. remember each ship added does not just take time and resources to be implemented but also adds a permanent draw on balancing and art. this is why the "because it would be cool" argument doesn't work
BLOPS Hauler
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 22:37:29 -
[32] - Quote
@Lugh I respect your opinion concerning the necessity for a hisec carrier to fill a specific niche and that fighters on ships should be restricted to low/nullsec, but I just disagree.
The light carrier would be a damage dealer as much as any other combat vessel just with its own mode of delivering the damage and since fighters are already in hisec I do not see why it should not also be possible to use them on ships in hisec.
However, I do agree on the matter of resources which is also why I wrote that I doubt that we will see any such ship for a foreseeable future. Though I am confident that a suitable balance can be achieved, I am fully aware that designing and implementing the ship (including stats, art design etc.) will require resources at CCP - resources which are limited and need to be prioritized for other tasks at hand.
We can discuss all the ideas that we want, but in the end it comes down what CCP prioritizes and decides. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5505
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 22:46:30 -
[33] - Quote
There isn't a niche. It's a droneboat with expensive and fragile drones.
What do you think you can do with a light carrier that you cannot do with a rattlesnake or a dominix? or even an ishtar? |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 22:58:36 -
[34] - Quote
@Danika As I mentioned in one of my previous comments the point is to have a ship with fighters in hisec and not drones.
Both of them will be damage dealer, however, in my mind the range of the carrier ship will have a much longer range + some of the special fighter abilities.
While drone boats may appeal to some, the carrier type ship may appeal to others. It is a matter of diversity. Just because you can do the same with both type of ships does not mean that the other cannot exist. I happen to disagree with the argument that a hisec carrier should not exist just because you can do the same with a drone boat.
If you prefer a drone boat then you are of course free use that type of ship rather than a hisec carrier (should such a ship ever come to exist). Eve is a sandbox and you can play it like you want to . |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5505
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 23:14:16 -
[35] - Quote
Kindly explain to me what the difference is between a droneboat and a carrier. Use small words, I am the bitterest of bittervets and years of dlying carriers has left me unable to tell why one type of drone is different to another type of drone in any meaningful way.
Seems to me that they are both ships that project their damage by using drones, and that carrier drones are more fragile and more expensive than regular drones, which can be repped in flight.
There is as much diversity in damage between a dominix and a thanatos as there is between a dominix and an ishtar.
As I keep asking and none of you can actually answer, what do you want to do with a carrier that you can't with a battleship? Is it literally just range? Fit range mods to your domi and you can get to 165km without rigs, or 200+ with. Is that long enough range, or do you really think you're going to get NSA range out of a battleship? |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 00:33:14 -
[36] - Quote
Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters: - light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones - support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities - heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type.
You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use.
Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me.
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 - 2017.05.12 05:33:18 -
[37] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote:It is a matter of diversity. And here you got this wrong: High sec does not need this diversity. This diversity is one of the pushing factors that makes people want to leave High sec in order to experience more of the game. Removing these pushing factors just to please some afraid people's desires is not a good justification to implement such a broken and unnecessary feature.
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
5506
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 06:15:38 -
[38] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters: - light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones - support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities - heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type.
You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use.
Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me.
Like light, medium, heavy and ewar drones you mean?
Do remember that heavies are supercarrier only as well, and that your 2 or th3 abilities are 'shoot, go fast, shoot a little bit harder' (or 'use ewar, go faster' for supports).
They are no more diverse than drones, and they are only more complex in that you can make them go faster on the way to their target.
Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers.
What niche are you going to pretend these fill? |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 11:37:03 -
[39] - Quote
@Rivr
I understand your position, but I do not agree. I think this is a matter where I think we can agree to disagree. I may have agreed with you before the Citadel expansion when the fighters were introduced to hisec, but that expansion changed my view.
I do not think a hisec carrier will have a significant impact on the flow of people going to low/nullsec. It may for some, but overall I think that for most people going to low/nullsec would have done so anyway because they like that kind of gameplay, and those more prone to stay in hisec will stay in hisec.
To fly the carrier you will need to invest close to 1 bill isk for the skills alone (+training time) and 1-2 bill isk on ship and fittings. For some these amounts may be pocket change but for me at least these are significant amounts.
For a character that prefers hisec, to go to low/null just to pilot such a ship and likely just to be blown up quickly (because a carrier will be a juicy target, and inexperience with the ship) is neither fun for the pilot nor worth the investment. You could join a corp/an alliance to learn how to pilot it, but if you more prone to stay in hisec, I doubt this will happen. End result the character stays in hisec.
It is true that you can train the skill on Singularity (though it may eb easier said than done). You will still need to train the necessary skills and (depending on when you start the training) this may be reset when a new mirror is put on Singularity. Personally, I have another character where I consider training the necessary skills on Tranquility in order to have the skills available on Singularity in order to try out a carrier on Singularity. However, this will not change my playstyle on Tranquility in any way.
Rather than a detriment to the flow of characters to low/nullsec this could be an opportunity. Some people may want to go to low/nullsec to fly a true carrier after having experienced the mechanics in a cheaper hisec carrier.
Personally, I would like to see a hisec carrier added to the game although this is not likely to happen GÇô for the foreseeable future at least. If things stay as they are that is fine with me but that does not mean that I will go to low/nullsec to fly a carrier GÇô rather I will just not bother trying out that mechanic.
I know that some people would like to force more players to low/nullsec. However, I cannot see how this can be done if people do not want to. Eve is a sandbox and people can play it the way they want. A large part of EVEGÇÖs player base is located in hisec and seriously changing hisec could pose a large risk to the income of CCP from the paying players playing in hisec.
Likely, things will remain as they are, and as I said above, that is fine with me.
I know you likely disagree with me on these points and you are fully entitled to have your opinion - as I am to have mine.
@Danika
Based on your latest comments I can see that on this matter we can only agree to disagree. Nothing that you or I say will change that.
You feel that a new ship should fill a specific niche/role. I do not think this necessarily should be the case.
You do not think that those things that set fighters apart (e.g. the controlling mechanics and special abilities) from drones is enough to create a new ship. I think it could be.
Anyway thanks for your insights into the matter. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 11:52:28 -
[40] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers.
What niche are you going to pretend these fill? Super carriers have the bonus of being able to use heavy fighters. Carriers get bonus for support fighters. Escort carriers could get bonus for space superiority effectiveness: they can counter other carriers better while having significantly weaker tank, they can be used to counter the citadels' fighter defense everywhere including hi-sec and cyno zones.
Also, if I start to train carriers (which takes about 2 months) on the test server today, can you guarantee that the test server's character database won't be mirrored from the main server before I can try how fighters work?
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.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3917
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 11:52:48 -
[41] - Quote
Another thing that breaks fighters in hs is gate camping you can sit there with 10+ guys wait for a wt to come through and blap
Unlike with any other hs weapon system you can do this from thousands of km off gate constantly aligning to a warp point.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
98
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 12:19:53 -
[42] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncgoPKklVE |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 14:27:02 -
[43] - Quote
@Lugh
If used for ganking at gates or in Jita or wherever ganking will takes place in hisec, the ship is going to be destroyed by Concord as is already the case. That is not new.
If used as part of an ongoing war you I guess you can do the gatecamping the same way in hi/low/nullsec. I once saw a gatecamp on youtube where a regular carrier was used to shoot things coming through (I do not recall whether it was low/nullsec). That represents the same problem as you describe above. But I do not think it means that carriers will be removed from those areas. Capsuleers are resourceful and I am sure they will find a way to handle that as well.
As for the range, I do not think a hisec carrier would be able to lock thousands kms away. I stated in one of my previous comments that a hisec non-capital carrier should not have a lock range even close to regular carriers - I was thinking more in the range of 200-300 km and it will not have the nearly the same punch or tank as a regular carrier.
I am not saying that a non-capital hisec carrier will be added (because it is likely that it will not happen any time soon). However, I am saying that I think that it can work if the ship is carefully balanced (as any other ship in the game). And yes, there are many aspects to consider and take into account so it will not be easy but that is not the same as saying that it could not work.
There are people who will say categorically say that such a ship should never exist! And they are entitled to their opinion, but I just disagree.
One of the main reasons I do not believe it will be added to the game is mainly that the design and implementation of such a ship requires resources - resources which are likely limited and are prioritized (and rightly so) on other much more pressing things on CCP's task list. If CCP at some point says that such a ship will never exist then it is end of story, but until then the idea (whether you like it or not) is still on the table. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 14:41:14 -
[44] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Another thing that breaks fighters in hs is gate camping you can sit there with 10+ guys wait for a wt to come through and blap
Unlike with any other hs weapon system you can do this from thousands of km off gate constantly aligning to a warp point. If you gate camping and initiate an illegal battle, you will lose your ship to concord anyways, the difference here is that you will lose about 300 million per ship instead of 10-25 million. And a battleship sized carrier shouldn't have the targeting range of a regular carrier. More like double or maybe triple of a normal battleship. Also, why is one person camping a gate with a carrier who has to micro-manage the fighters constantly worse than the same person logged in from 10 accounts camping the same gate with frigates and/or cruisers?
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 - 2017.05.12 14:50:11 -
[45] - Quote
These ships won't get killed by CONCORD if a war is raging. Instead of having to risk expensive tackle ships on gate where people can actually fight back and create surprises, they can just have these ships at extreme range with the fighters orbiting the gate while cheap tackle grabs the target.
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.
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 16:28:08 -
[46] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:These ships won't get killed by CONCORD if a war is raging. Instead of having to risk expensive tackle ships on gate where people can actually fight back and create surprises, they can just have these ships at extreme range with the fighters orbiting the gate while cheap tackle grabs the target. These carriers would be penalized in hi-sec because concord won't like them either. I'm thinking about 25-50% HP and damage reduction. I'm too lazy to actually calculate it, but a squad of light fighters should have about the same damage that 5 heavy drones can deal. And you would probably lose them faster than you would lose heavy drones. The ability to operate in hi-sec is an extra that comes with their size, they don't need to efficient there.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3918
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 05:40:45 -
[47] - Quote
if you have to put heavy restrictions on an idea its generally a sign that you need to go back to the drawing board.
nerf the hp all you want i grantee you if i don't have to put these things even close to tackle range on a gate i'm using them in wars and laughing at the poor sobs that cant touch my risk averse ***
then if you nerf the fighter hp and damage to that of heavies or less i'm not using them for anything but what i listed above. or have you not bothered to look at the cost for fighters?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 10:17:15 -
[48] - Quote
How about this one:
Escort carrier skill bonuses: - 2.5% fighter damage and HP (less damage than a carrier gives) - 5% racial space superiority fighter effectiveness - 200% bonus targeting range Battleship bonuses: - racial defense (these ships should be upgrades on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom) ... Role bonus: - can use light and support fighters - can fit NSA, with reduced fitting and activation cost ... - the escort carrier bonuses don't apply in hi-sec
No nerf needed and heavy drones will be better in hi-sec if they get bonus from their controlling ship. Set the base targeting range to 100km and you actually need to be in "sniper range" in hi-sec, while you can have 1100km everywhere else.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3918
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 08:01:17 -
[49] - Quote
you just made them stronger than standard carriers in terms of E-war also 2.5% is more than 2/4 carriers give to their fighters and you do understand that carriers were made to not insta lock for a reason give the NSA to these things and they become worse than scripted Hics when it comes to gate camps even w/o the fighters.
now was all of this intentional or do you just not have a firm grasp on the mechanics?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Marika Sunji
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
16
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 10:08:46 -
[50] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:you just made them stronger than standard carriers in terms of E-war also 2.5% is more than 2/4 carriers give to their fighters and you do understand that carriers were made to not insta lock for a reason give the NSA to these things and they become worse than scripted Hics when it comes to gate camps even w/o the fighters.
now was all of this intentional or do you just not have a firm grasp on the mechanics?
Come on, it'll work just like insta-nyxing, except everywhere and against anything. How could that possibly be a bad thing is beyond me. |
|
Ramukan
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 11:36:30 -
[51] - Quote
New maurader: can use 10 super-light fighters (to make balancing easier so you dont have to balance around existing drones or fighters.), must bastion to apply maximum damage, assigns fighters like a carrier, has no other weapon systems and most importantly named:
Ramukan !
(this must become a thing) |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 12:08:02 -
[52] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:you just made them stronger than standard carriers in terms of E-war also 2.5% is more than 2/4 carriers give to their fighters and you do understand that carriers were made to not insta lock for a reason give the NSA to these things and they become worse than scripted Hics when it comes to gate camps even w/o the fighters.
now was all of this intentional or do you just not have a firm grasp on the mechanics? Okay, I was careless here. The 2.5% would be the Gallente version's trait only, Thanathos also gives 2.5% HP and 5% damage. This case the HP is the same, but the damage bonus is the half. The Minmatar version would get 2.5% damage and velocity, and the Amarr and Caldari nothing... their carriers have bonus resistances, which overlaps with the battleship bonus in my plan. So... weak fighters with a really hard to destroy ship? Interesting.
But I don't boost E-war. E-war fighters are the Cenobite, Scarab, Siren and Dromi. These also get 5% bonus from their faction carriers, so even if I would boost E-war, they would be exactly as strong. I boost space superiority fighters instead, which are Equite, Locust, Satyr and Gram. I think the NSA is necessary because battleships normally need a lot of time to lock on fighters and drones, which are the targets of the boosted fighters. This is a big ship designed to counter a carrier, which means a lot of really small targets. The NSA would make it lock about as fast as a destroyer does. We can make a small version of the NSA, specially designed for these ships, if you think it's better. By the way the Nidhoggur (Minmatar carrier) has the same scan resolution as the Rokh and the Navy Scorpion, so it probably wouldn't be too OP if you balance it well.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:05:12 -
[53] - Quote
restriction after restriction how is this not telling you the idea would be a bad one.
now you want to give the gal and minm ones extra bonuses over the other two races?
these would be cheaper and faster than carriers making it much easier to fit sebos over things like tank AND you want to give them tank bonuses. these things will be primary tackle for ever gate camp
the superiority bonus gives them ~86 damage specific dps with perfect application at just about any range. that may not sound like much but just a couple of these in your fleet and enemy frigates/DDs start to melt.
yes the nid (best scan res) has the same scan res as the caldari (worst scan res) BBs and that is what the NSA is built around.
you still haven't addressed if we do manage to stop what makes op who is going to use them? fighters are extremely expensive and are perma jammed by rookie ships.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:49:14 -
[54] - Quote
I don't want Gallente and Minmatar to be better than the other two, but their current carriers get fighter bonus, while Amarr and Caldari get resistance bonus. Super carriers follow the same pattern: Gallente and Minmatar have offensive bonus, Amarr and Caldari have resistance bonus with minimal extra damage.
Drop the NSA then and ship skill or give role bonus for sensor boosters maybe? This actually sounds much better to be honest. No other ship has sensor booster bonus right?
The tank bonus would come from the ships they are based on. These ships shouldn't have other weapons and I didn't have a better idea.
According to their description, space superiority fighters are good against drones and other fighters, but not against bigger targets. I don't know how effective they actually are against frigates and destroyers, but those are supposed to be targets of the attack fighters.
Who would use them? I don't know. These are cheaper and faster to learn than carriers. These use gates, so you can deploy them in cyno systems. If the incoming enemy fleet is using carriers then you can use these to make them weaker instead of risking your own capitals. I don't think too many people would use 1b+ battleships to gate camp, I think frigates, cruisers and bubbles would be more effective and infinitely cheaper. These may not be necessary, but definitely won't be useless in my opinion.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:58:33 -
[55] - Quote
okay you just said that they would be getting tank bonuses from the hulls they were based on but the gal minm also get extra bonuses to their fighters? or do they not get the tank bonuses?
superiority fighters have a 90% damage reduction when used against ships/structures and can not use the tackle ability.
1. most of the carriers cost comes from fighters 2. a carrier hull is not much more than a t2 BB so these are not much cheaper 3. a carrier would still be more cost effective to use against other carriers. if these can only use one flight they don't stand a chance. 4. carriers can use gates.... 5. we used an onyx that cost way more than 1b to camp gates it's not all that much
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 17:22:38 -
[56] - Quote
Hey, I saw something that looked like a pattern for carriers, and I tried to follow it. If it makes no sense, that's not necessarily my fault. I think this goes back to when fighters were actually capital drones, that's why Gallente gets bonus for them. Also, I heard that capitals (aside from haulers) can only use region gates. I should read more in this topic.
Anyways, here is the new version:
The hull is a T2 battleship, with base targeting stats closer to the higher values of the category. These ships however should have few high slots. They won't have special modules, weapon hardpoints or command burst abilities (I never intended to give them), so 4 high slots should be enough. They get extra mid slots for the sensor boosters instead. 2 fighter squads can be used at a time, support fighters are limited to 1 squad at a time.
Escort carrier bonuses: 5% bonus to faction space superiority fighter effectiveness 150% bonus to sensor booster scan resolution effectiveness 1000% bonus to sensor booster targeting range effectiveness +1 target Battleship bonuses: Faction defense from the base ship Role bonus: Can launch light and support fighters Fighter support unit powergrid need reduced by 95% Escort carrier bonuses don't apply in hi-sec
In hi-sec they are T2 battleships with 2 fighter squads. The tank bonus applies so you should be able to have a "stable" fit. If I was calculating correctly (using scripted T2 sensor booster), outside hi-sec with max escort carrier skill, they should have about the same scan resolution that carriers get with NSA, and the maximum targeting range would be roughly 3000km which is still shorter than the carriers' base targeting range. You need 2 sensor boosters to have both. The fighter support units cost a lot of PG, even with reduced need, you can fit 4 T1 versions and have barely any PG left for defense, and probably won't be able to fit 4 T2 units at all.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 02:47:29 -
[57] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Hey, I saw something that looked like a pattern for carriers, and I tried to follow it. If it makes no sense, that's not necessarily my fault. I think this goes back to when fighters were actually capital drones, that's why Gallente gets bonus for them.
yes the gal/min get fighter bonuses and the amarr/cal get tank. that is fine its not just some hold over the problem was you wanted to give the gal/min tank AND fighter bonuses.
Quote: The hull is a T2 battleship, with base targeting stats closer to the higher values of the category. These ships however should have few high slots. They won't have special modules, weapon hardpoints or command burst abilities (I never intended to give them), so 4 high slots should be enough. They get extra mid slots for the sensor boosters instead. 2 fighter squads can be used at a time, support fighters are limited to 1 squad at a time.
the scan res thing is okay though it does take away from one of the unique features of the black ops hull line. so now they get 2 fighter squads???????????????? this gives them 2/3 the DPS of a carrier that would be far more than any battleship currently in the game over 2kdps and ~1.2k dps with just the turret attack. that alone will break them in HS or LS.
Quote: Escort carrier bonuses: 5% bonus to faction space superiority fighter effectiveness
this was broken when I thought we could only use one at a time w/o any FSU now its just silly. frigs and desi will melt against just one of these escort carriers with this bonus.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 02:48:17 -
[58] - Quote
Quote: 150% bonus to sensor booster scan resolution effectiveness 1000% bonus to sensor booster targeting range effectiveness +1 target
okay so an NSA only boosts scan res by 500% with this bonus and is balanced by the carrier being unable to use any form of local E-war. this bonus gives them a total of 510% on a single scripted T2 with no local E-war restriction.
Quote: In hi-sec they are T2 battleships with 2 fighter squads.
again this is over 2k dps
Quote:
If I was calculating correctly (using scripted T2 sensor booster), outside hi-sec with max escort carrier skill, they should have about the same scan resolution that carriers get with NSA.
they will have higher and be able to use non-drone points as well as scrams. something that is a huge balancing factor of the nsa.
Quote: The fighter support units cost a lot of PG, even with reduced need, you can fit 4 T1 versions and have barely any PG left for defense, and probably won't be able to fit 4 T2 units at all.
that over 2kdps number I gave was using 4 T1 FSU.
Quote: The last role bonus is there to prevent insta-lock and 100k km targeting range. Logis can help to boost these values in hi-sec, but will be ignored everywhere else. ECCM isn't affected.
if only one module can effect scan res at a time they will not be insta lock on frigs and DD but will be damn near close. ECCM is pointless when you are in a carrier as the FIGHTERS are easily perma jammed having only 7 streangth on the T2 without an nsa. even an ibis can get over that on their ECMs and a griffen can do it with multis.
you only made all the issues with the OP nature of these worse. I don't think you knew the draw backs used to balance the NSA I don't think you know how much DPS fighters put out. I don't think you understand how vulnerable fighters are. I don't think you understand to a deep level how gate camps operate.
now I really like the IDEA of a sub cap carrier. I am some one who is in love with carriers irl and whos first goal in eve was to get a Nid and that was before the mechanic changes. the problem is they are capital ship weapons and they are balanced around being just that. while the mechanics may be fun to get into the hands of more people they are by no means prohibitive in the current game. it's only about a year of training and it should take about that long to afford one anyone (not buy but have the income to afford). If you join a group that uses them regularly you also have plenty of chances to use them once they are trained.
maybe if we try coming at it from a different direction. currently there are no true E-war BBs that line dies at cruisers. (no the scorp and geddon are not true E-war platforms) at the same time support fighters are dramatically under utilized outside of the gallente line. why not build these to be support carriers and build them around support fighters.
give them 3 launch bays
T1 hull bonus to T1 E-war damps WD TP range (we'll come back to this caldari will be tricky) t2 bonus to the t2 e-war on the support fighters cap drain Point range webs strength.
the caldari local bonus will be hard in order to keep it in line with the other three and not step on the scorpions toes. something to do with the ECM burst would probably be best. but I will need to think on it more.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 08:57:21 -
[59] - Quote
I think the main reason why I don't understand most of the mechanics is because I personally couldn't try the carriers. I'm more comfortable in cruisers than in battleships, so I'm not really trying to get into capitals yet. But I really enjoy trying to figure out how this mini carrier could work. I took Danika's suggestion though, I had 2 million unused SP from the last public test, that I put into the Thanatos. So I only need about one more month to try it. Hopefully the characters won't get mirrored during this time (more exactly during the last week of learning - that's how my luck usually goes). This is also a reason why a small carrier that's easier to get into would be good. By the way fighter manufacturers would love these ships too. Unexperienced pilots with easy-to-lose equipment are good for the busyness you know.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 09:02:54 -
[60] - Quote
you could use the same reasoning for Dooms days.... it's not a good one.
working towards a goal is a good thing that's how progression works and keeps a game interesting. may seem like a long way off but it's not really. I know instant gratification has become the norm with the younger generation but eve isn't the place for that and time and effort make things that much more worth it.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 19:52:05 -
[61] - Quote
@Lugh
I like your idea with the support fighters on the sub cap carrier.
I would probably leave the with the ability to field one squadron of light fighters for at least some damage and self-protection.
As for the fighters themselves I could see some balance points that could be used to tweak the balance, i.e. squadron sizes, cycle/cooldown times, and number of charges to the fighter's charged abilities. I am sure there are more.
I just thought of another support fighter which currently do not exist. I was thinking of a refueling support fighter that would have a charged ability to refuel other fighters in flight so that they not have to return to the carrier to refuel. This is probably a bad idea, but I would like to hear your opinion about this. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 20:11:54 -
[62] - Quote
one flight of light fighters is a lot of DPS for a BB let alone an E-war plat form. i could see letting it feild some sub cap drones but other than that it's fleet should be defending it so it does not need self defense.
as for changing fighter cool down and abilities for this ship over the last couple of years ccp has stated over and over they want to move away from edge cases and special rules
BLOPS Hauler
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 20:23:31 -
[63] - Quote
To be honest, I am not even sure what the dps is for non-bonused light fighters.
Do you have any idea what a squadron of a space superiority fighters would do in terms of DPS? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 21:48:27 -
[64] - Quote
Lol read over the last page petty sure we went over the various damage numbers and why superiority fighters will start to break things do to the perfect application
BLOPS Hauler
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 21:50:24 -
[65] - Quote
Will do =ƒÿü=ƒÿé |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 10:32:02 -
[66] - Quote
It was mentioned multiple times (elsewhere too) that carriers aren't as good for PVP as they used to be. Maybe a solution could be a PVP-centric rework of all carriers including these sub-caps, and creating a rock-paper-scissors standup.
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.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 12:19:42 -
[67] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:It was mentioned multiple times (elsewhere too) that carriers aren't as good for PVP as they used to be. Maybe a solution could be a PVP-centric rework of all carriers including these sub-caps, and creating a rock-paper-scissors standup.
It's not so much that they are not good for PvP it's that there is almost always a better option. Outside a few edge cases a proper fleet can make far better use of a dreads HAW than a carriers fighters. The HAW are also far less vulnerable add they can not be jammed and can not bee destroyed. HAW also doubt have that good awful reload time making their over all dps much much higher. Not to mention a fully fit dread is also cheaper than a fully fit carrier considering the price of fighters made worse by the fact the carrier will almost always lose a few of them. All though cumbersome it is also possible for dreads to refit to anti capital guns mid fought. This is Ann option carriers don't have.
Carriers become better in large high dps fights as they have better buffer and can receive remote logistics. In high numbers fighters also become less vulnerable. Problem is at this level you are better of bringing super carriers rather than stagnated ones.
Really i don't understand ccps thought possess of making carriers fully anti sub cap and at the sane time add HAW. They seem to be two ideas they individually developed and put little thought into the balance between them. HAW being added to ensure dreads could still fill their anti sub role and dedicating carriers to anti sub cap to differentiat themselfs from other capitals.
Another issue carriers have is they can't mix flights. What this means is you can only really bring one fighter type with you in your limited hanger. If you bring two toy will be met with a situation where you may have enough fighters for several flights but unable to frills even a single full one. This however seems to be more of a technical limitation rather than a balance one.
Making fighters much harder to jam when under the effect of an NSA lowering their build cost (particularly the t2) and making them harder to kill would go a long way into making them viable. Now all of these or a combinations of these would go a long way.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |