| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zverofaust
Gallente
Locus Industries
   |
Posted - 2010.09.08 05:37:00 -
[1]
I'd like to see carriers made cheaper, weaker and more affordable, and thus more popular; placed into the role of "super drone battleship" instead of "carefully protected mega-expensive super logistics".
The problem is mainly that capital ships, while being super-expensive and such, have become so common (particularly SCs and Titans) that there's a distinct M.A.D. balance going on in lowsec, where people are afraid to use capitals off stations because of the risk of some bored corp or alliance dropping 17 moms on them. So the most they're seen of in lowsec is hugging stations giving logistic support and nothing more. They might as well not even have fighters. That's pretty boring.
Leave Dreadnoughts as they are, but I'd like to see carriers becoming a more common and viable battlefield asset using both fighters and logistics in large fleets. And let them jump through gates! Most aren't much bigger than Hyperions and Apocs and freighters.
___________________________________________
The Hero of Kamela
The Terror of Tararan
The Executioner of Ezzara |
Major Galdari
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 08:23:00 -
[2]
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
|
Intigo
Amarr
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 08:33:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Major Galdari
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
___________________
|
Silence iKillYouu
Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 09:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Intigo
Originally by: Major Galdari
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
|
Raeza
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 09:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Silence iKillYouu
Originally by: Intigo
Originally by: Major Galdari
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
|
Steve Celeste
Overdogs
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 09:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Raeza
Originally by: Silence iKillYouu
Originally by: Intigo
Originally by: Major Galdari
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 09:43:00 -
[7]
What they are trying to say with the pyramid quoting is that Carriers cost less than most faction BS with chosen modules determining final price.
|
BacardiDesire
The 8th Order
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 11:11:00 -
[8]
The only thing I would like to see changed is the ability to deploy fighter bombers in lowsec, either completely remove it or adjust it's use in the same context as the fighter assignments
It heavily unbalancing the warfare in lowsec when your deploying normal carriers or dreads.
kind regards, BD
---
Crazy dutch mofo |
fatmanpaul
Royal Order of Security Specialists
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 12:49:00 -
[9]
I agree with Zverofaust. The game is out of balance. Its a resource imbalance really, generally the older players have access to much more wealth than the "new generation". That distinction then stomps on the developer intention of getting people to move to 0.0 by pushing them through "Training/exposure" to low sec or Faction Warfare. It is a game structure issue really.
I would not allow supper caps into low sec. then we would see more carrier hulls in low sec fights. OR add a new sub cap version of the carrier or mini carrier perhaps to toy with. 
To those that sacrifice, we honor you....
I'm only as strong as my brother, therefore I ensure that my brother is strong.
Do the damn thing! At all times. In all places. At all cost...
NON C |
Laktos
Beyond Redemption Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 13:04:00 -
[10]
Make Carriers more affordable? Are you kidding me?
Carriers are already far too affordable. Just about any corp with a decent isk income can buy and outfit a carrier to drop on any fleet in low sec and have a "win-by-default" moment.
Personally I would prefer to see the price of all capitals raised so that they're treated by most people as the rare and special ships they're supposed to be.
|
Fat Uncle
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 13:27:00 -
[11]
Haven't you heard, all the cool kids use Guardians these days. I'd love to see more carriers to kill; you don't need a mom to do that.
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari
Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 13:47:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Hidden Snake on 08/09/2010 13:48:39
Originally by: BacardiDesire
The only thing I would like to see changed is the ability to deploy fighter bombers in lowsec, either completely remove it or adjust it's use in the same context as the fighter assignments
It heavily unbalancing the warfare in lowsec when your deploying normal carriers or dreads.
kind regards, BD
this ... entities with moms completely OPs locals in low sec. Even ownership of bigger number of caps will not help against one or two moms.
omg i agree with Bacardi ... end is near
"There is no honor in war" |
Machiavelli's Nemesis
Angry Mustellid
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 14:52:00 -
[13]
IMO the imbalance between carriers and supercarriers isnt the cost (700-800 mil for a fully insurable hull plus a couple of hundred mil fittings isn't really that much for a half decent player), but more the skill training.
Aside from the triage module and fighter-bombers (which requires fighters V, something all carrier pilots should get ASAP anyways) the difference between carrier and supercarrier training is two levels of the racial carrier skill.
Rather than making carriers cheaper so marauding gangs of supercarriers dont hurt your wallet as much, i'd like to see supercarriers needing much higher skill costs, sort of like the gap between dreads and titans. Even something like making them need capital ships V rather than capital ships III would be a start.
|
Merdaneth
Amarr
Sovereign Hospitaller Order of Saint Katherine
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 16:59:00 -
[14]
Carriers are ****ty ships for general PvP.
One carrier automatically means the hostiles need to bring a fleet (or a supercap) to beat it since the gap between capitals and non-capitals is so high. In essence, a carrier used for general low-sec PvP is a big sign saying 'blob me, drop me or don't fight me'.
I don't thing the choice between blobbing, dropping and not fighting is a right signal to send for EVE PvP.
Blob-dropping MOMs is another problem altogether.
I'd actually prefer CCP scrap the entire capital ship line and rethink what they were aiming for.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 17:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Machiavelli's Nemesis
Rather than making carriers cheaper so marauding gangs of supercarriers dont hurt your wallet as much, i'd like to see supercarriers needing much higher skill costs, sort of like the gap between dreads and titans. Even something like making them need capital ships V rather than capital ships III would be a start.
Yeah, I'd rather give older players even more of an advantage in low sec warfare. :/
It's also nice that you can't build a super carrier unless you have sov, but you can't maintain sov without a super carrier fleet.
Great balancing feature there. It really encourages younger players to rise up and take some 0.0 space for their own.
|
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 18:35:00 -
[16]
What often limits deployment of caps isn't money, but the skill requirements. I've been able to afford dropping caps for ages now, but I don't want to do the 6 months of training required to do so.
|
Aihwa
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 19:16:00 -
[17]
If I had 10 isk for every "carefree" carrier pilot in EVE I could buy one myself.
|
Kephael
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 20:12:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Zverofaust
I'd like to see carriers made cheaper, weaker and more affordable, and thus more popular; placed into the role of "super drone battleship" instead of "carefully protected mega-expensive super logistics".
The problem is mainly that capital ships, while being super-expensive and such, have become so common (particularly SCs and Titans) that there's a distinct M.A.D. balance going on in lowsec, where people are afraid to use capitals off stations because of the risk of some bored corp or alliance dropping 17 moms on them. So the most they're seen of in lowsec is hugging stations giving logistic support and nothing more. They might as well not even have fighters. That's pretty boring.
Leave Dreadnoughts as they are, but I'd like to see carriers becoming a more common and viable battlefield asset using both fighters and logistics in large fleets. And let them jump through gates! Most aren't much bigger than Hyperions and Apocs and freighters.
Lowsec is terrible, it's your fault for living there.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 20:13:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 08/09/2010 20:14:40
I think you are looking at it from an incorrect point of view. You are right that supercaps have thrown off the balance in lowsec quite a bit, but I dont see how a more affordable carrier would off-set that.
After all, the only reason why you are not getting hotdropped by supercaps in a battleship fleet is that it isnt worth the effort, if it was people would do it.
It just happens that your battleship fleet is simply flying below the radar of entities that have scores of supercaps at their disposal.
Having said that, I always liked the idea of having an escort carrier sort of ship, basically a scaled down variant of the normal carrier, same fighter drone capability but without triage, grid limitation to prevent cap-rep heavy setups, less room to carry assembled ship (limit to a few cruisers maybe), and EHP around the high-end battleship area (200-300k maybe).
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 21:06:00 -
[20]
It's super carriers that need their fighter bombers to not be deployable in lowsec (like titans can't doomsday), not carriers that need to be adjusted.
If you can't build them in lowsec, they shouldn't be fully functional in lowsec.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 22:28:00 -
[21]
Originally by: chatgris
If you can't build them in lowsec, they shouldn't be fully functional in lowsec.
Well said.
|
Agallis Zinthros
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 22:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Major Galdari
Carriers are already cheap and affordable.
It's not piracy, its surprise PVP. |
BacardiDesire
The 8th Order
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 00:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hidden Snake
omg i agree with Bacardi ... end is near
Save the woman and childeren while we still can
---
Crazy dutch mofo |
Irae Ragwan
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 02:19:00 -
[24]
Originally by: X Gallentius
It's also nice that you can't build a super carrier unless you have sov, but you can't maintain sov without a super carrier fleet.
Great balancing feature there. It really encourages younger players to rise up and take some 0.0 space for their own.
That's a founding principal of EVE, so you're quite unlikely to see any changes to sov or solutions to the problem of getting any kind of meaningful new(ER)-player influence into 0.0.
If it's any consolation though, i've been the owner of supercaps in the past and played the sov. game for years. It's not worth the headache and on a good day it's half as fun as roaming in lowsec (imo).
|
Dimitryy
Gallente
Ever Flow
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 10:37:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Zverofaust
I'd like to see carriers made cheaper, weaker and more affordable, and thus more popular; placed into the role of "super drone battleship" instead of "carefully protected mega-expensive super logistics".
>Carefully Protected
>mega-expensive
oh lawd
------------------------------------------
Jack Blackstone > Dimitryy I hope you die. |
Limvala Adur
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 11:21:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Limvala Adur on 09/09/2010 11:21:48
Originally by: X Gallentius
Originally by: chatgris
If you can't build them in lowsec, they shouldn't be fully functional in lowsec.
Well said.
This makes sense, because? There are anomalies in lowsec which prevent the fighter bombers to launch from the Super Carrier?
In short, simply work around the SC threat or find a way to fight them, like getting some of your own.
Also, to the OP: Popular? Regular? Are we playing the same game? The only thing I see as over *****d, over used and boring is a huge fleet of amarr HACs with 8+ Guardians (great ship diversity there)which moves faster then any Cap. Ship around several systems, eating everything that comes near it.
Super Carriers, common ? No.... There to provide fear and respect for the corp/alliance which fields them? YES!!!
Lim
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 11:46:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Limvala Adur
In short, simply work around the SC threat or find a way to fight them, like getting some of your own.
You seem incapable of grasping what is being said; low-sec does not have the population to outblob blob-sec, low-sec does not have means to combat capital blobs, low-sec cannot "get some" since it requires sovereignty (or piles of ISK handed over to blob-sec) .. what do you suggest is used to fight capital blobs? Harsh language?
Low-sec fleets that are dropped on frequently have less people in them than the amount of capitals the bored blob-seccers send in .. seeing the picture yet?
Originally by: Limvala Adur
Also, to the OP: Popular? Regular?
The fist has lots of easy counters available, the reason it is dominating is because the null-sec citizenry either lacks the imagination or have too few pilots that are not tied to a super-capital 
Originally by: Limvala Adur
Super Carriers, common ?
Hmmm .. the denial is strong in this one.
The 4-5 times more expensive Titan now has 320+ hulls flying around. Even if using a conservative multiplier like a lowly three (3) that is still almost 1000 Super Carriers.
Would actually be interesting for someone in the COAD cesspool to do a tally/poll to see just many of the things there are .. personally think its in excess of 2000.
|
Limvala Adur
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 13:32:00 -
[28]
So, what you're basically saying is that people playing together with one another, call it capital blobs if you wish, are getting successful hotdrops over people who aren't? Jeez, guess having friends really does make a world of difference.
350/1000 are only high numbers, when you don't take into consideration how many people actually play this game. 50k on average at any one given time (this number may vary, depending on your location) and over 300 000 subscribers. I say 350 is still pretty darn low, which is good.
Lim
|
Andre Vauban
Gallente
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 13:51:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Limvala Adur
So, what you're basically saying is that people playing together with one another, call it capital blobs if you wish, are getting successful hotdrops over people who aren't? Jeez, guess having friends really does make a world of difference.
350/1000 are only high numbers, when you don't take into consideration how many people actually play this game. 50k on average at any one given time (this number may vary, depending on your location) and over 300 000 subscribers. I say 350 is still pretty darn low, which is good.
Lim
That is not the argument, that is just a petty whine. The problem is not that some people are getting hotdropped by much more powerful people. That is the natural course of things in Eve.
Most of use lowsec dwellers realize we are medium to big fish in the very little lowsec pond. The problem is, that there is no, none, zero path forward for the less powerful people to ever be able to compete. If you gave them infinite isk and skillpoints, they still cannot fight super capitals as nothing other than super capitals can counter a critical mass of super capitals and there is no way for a lowsec entity to acquire super capitals. The only way an entity without super capitals to obtain them is to become subservient to an existing 0.0 powerbloc who is willing to sell some super capitals.
It is really not that big of a deal. It just means nobody in lowsec can really deploy their capitals for more than the super capital blob response time (5-15 min). The heart of the complaint is that lowsec dwellers must stay in BS and below to stay under the radar. Carriers and Dreads are worthless to deploy, because they will get eaten alive unless they have a super capital force to back them up.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 14:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Limvala Adur
So, what you're basically saying...
What I am saying is that people, who chose a playstyle that is boring them to tears, are purposefully ruining the fun others are having with their choice.
Kindergarten behaviour at its finest, the other guy is having more fun than me so I have to ruin it by pushing him around and/or break his toy.
Originally by: Limvala Adur
350/1000 are only high numbers...
Taking into consideration that super-capitals were never meant to exceed a few dozen or so is a much better indicator of how out of hand it is.
Ships designed to be alliance assets are personal assets today .. will you really pretend that is not out of whack?
Ease of manufacture -> low-prices -> blobs. Since changing price/ease will probably result in half of null-sec dying from holding their breath in protest, we have to find another way of limiting the CCP created imbalanced economy from spilling over and breaking an even bigger part of Eve. Quite simple.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |