Ruareve wrote:The idea of a combat carrier is indeed intriguing and I like the BS sized weapons being an option. However, what you are creating is basically a super BS or an undergunned dreadnought. I'm not sure there is a need for such a ship in the game.
When talking about a change to carriers the question is what role or ability needs to be added.
Carriers already offer the option of offense or defense based on layout. Layout can be changed on the fly as well so I think carriers already fill a utility role in a capital fleet.
Is there room for a utility role in a subcap fleet though?
The answer is probably not given all the different utility options already out there.
I think if any class of ship needs some looking at the Dreadnought should be next up on the list. The original intent of a dreadnought was a smaller ship with big guns. It would be nice to see a capital class ship mounting supercap sized weapons. Something needs to be done about supercap proliferation and a true dreadnought might just be the answer.
Could I play devils advocate and point a finger to the t3 battlecruisers?
Why were they "needed"? Why did you create mini paper tank battleships when battleships were good enough?
Your logical answer would be "its a cheaper capital killer!". Well, yes, it is.
So why would we want a more expensive sub-cap killer with hybrid weapon systems and a phat tank as a capital support ship?
Well, because we can...... it will expand the capital class, which is sorely needed.... and it will upset all our glorious drake/cane/t3 blobbers who enjoy the entreched support superiority position granted to them by the severe crappyness of caps against sub-caps on their own at this time. And it moves us away from this one way road where every new ship proposed by pro-sub cap lobbyists has to be a sub cap, with strong anti-capital ship firepower and zero chance of getting ganked by a carrier....
Much better answer than "its a cheaper killing machine"... plus its an isk sink for a ship that will still go down if you run up against bigger groups of players without support.
If capital ships were given hulls that were themselves anti-sub cap support, then we'd start seeing a more seemless transition between sub-capitals and capitals not only in terms of cost and value, but also in terms of player preference.
The flipside of this battle carrier would be its use against capital ships and supers alike. The increased DPS would allow these ships to stand against sieged dreads (with backup of course) as well as be used against super caps. Thats granting power tot he capital class without killing sub caps, or nerfing supers. And again, that is sorely lacking in Eve online.
Some players will moan that people who want these ships don't know how to use existing carriers and that our logi blob carriers work perfectly with target painting assistants in smaller ships....
My counter would be the people who wanted t3 bcs were just too space poor to afford battleships and demanded that CCP fix it so they can get in on kills they couldnt afford to before...