| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2287
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 08:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lapine Davion wrote:There are two tiers for carriers. They're called "Carriers" and "Supercarriers".
There are only 2 Classes of carrier.... Capital and Super.
And within those classes, they only have 1 tier each. Tech 1 stock standard.
Kthanx. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |

Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2288
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 08:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
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... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
397
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 09:30:00 -
[33] - Quote
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. If such a ship is to be added to the game, maybe it should be a dreadnought rather than a carrier? Perhaps carriers should be left with their two roles on one ship, and dreadnoughts should be expanded to be a siege vessel while in siege mode, but a powerful anti-battleship craft when not. (less tracking than battleship weapons, but more tracking than current capital weapons) -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |

Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 09:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: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...
So if I follow what you are saying you like the idea of a capital ship designed to engage sub-caps. Part of your argument seemed to be there was no need for the tier 3 BC's so why not put in a new capital ship there is no real need for as well.
Perhaps the question at this point should be whether or not a capital fleet should require sub-cap support or not.
Personally I think capital fleets should require sub-caps the same as supercaps should be dependent on both caps and sub-caps.
That said, I think the tier 3 BC's were a mistake because they invalidated every other BC designed around long range combat. The new designs should have been focused on close fighting and not stand off.
Back to the capital subject though, I agree there should be more diversity in the capital class ships.
Instead of making the attack carrier have turrets why not make the carrier completely focused on fighter deployment. 2 utility high slots for neuts or drone bonuses. Innate drone bonus to allow 15 fighters with max training, no control units required. No triage, no capital reps, no ship bay or maintenance bay. Instead make the attack carrier a bit faster and more agile, maybe create a capital level AB or MWD.
Then have a logistics carrier which can only fielding drones, no fighters. Beef up the innate tank some to make it more defensively oriented.
Training would equal out for the two because one would be focused on drone skills while the other worked on support.
Dreadnaughts could also benefit from having some options.
Anti-super dread with damage bonus, tracking penalties, and boost tanking.
Anti-cap dread is current design but add a bonus to neuting and beef up power output as well.
This would provide the same basic options as current but making them better through specialization. Maybe not the best solution but it would cater to more playstyles and make capital fe
Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |

Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 12:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ok so I was using EvE HQ's HQF Editor and made copies of the Chimera and Thanatos and modified their fitting Slots, PG, CPU and Ship Bonuses to give you all a rough idea of the stats of the proposed Assault Carriers, if you want the see a Minmatar and Amarr ones as well just ask and il make those and post them as well.
Caldari: http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s594/grunnax/CaldariPrototypeAssaultCarrier_zpsd7453838.png Gallente: http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s594/grunnax/GallentePrototypeAssaultCarrier_zps7bdbb14b.png Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |

Lotus Sinistra
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 01:17:00 -
[36] - Quote
sweet statistics on the ships might be tinkered a bit with if damage should be more or less allround it looks pretty good as a start and i love that its down graded to large weapons is quite a good choice as XL would seriously compete with the big boys,
i would like to see more stats with all races and maybe pirate factions only so for this jewel to gain one should cross train for the hull wich makes it super harder to obtain and being usefull,
in that order then it even can be a bit more bulky or brawling damage dealer, etc this gives us a lot to imagine about,
ps: i am for sale |

Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
28
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 03:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Ok here are the other two Assault Carriers
Amarr: http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s594/grunnax/AmarrPrototypeAssaultCarrier_zps608bd002.png Had to modify the damage bonus to 35% per level as its damage was lacking a lot in compassion to the Gallente and Caldari ships.
Minmatar: http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s594/grunnax/MinmatarPrototypeAssaultCarrier_zpsc5bba795.png Had to modify the damage bonus to 40% per level as its damage was lacking a lot in compassion to the Gallente and Caldari ships. Had to modify the Shield Boost amount to 10% per level as the tank was lacking a lot in compassion to the Gallente and Caldari ships.
Lotus Sinistra wrote:sweet statistics on the ships might be tinkered a bit with if damage should be more or less allround it looks pretty good as a start and i love that its down graded to large weapons is quite a good choice as XL would seriously compete with the big boys,
i would like to see more stats with all races and maybe pirate factions only so for this jewel to gain one should cross train for the hull wich makes it super harder to obtain and being usefull,
in that order then it even can be a bit more bulky or brawling damage dealer, etc this gives us a lot to imagine about,
ps: i am for sale
Thanks for the idea i am currently working on ideas for pirate faction versions right now.
Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
402
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:29:00 -
[38] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Had to modify the damage bonus to 35% per level as its damage was lacking a lot in compassion to the Gallente and Caldari ships. Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Had to modify the damage bonus to 40% per level as its damage was lacking a lot in compassion to the Gallente and Caldari ships. The damage differences are there for a reason. The lasers might be a tiny bit low due to the lack of a tachyon pulse laser, but also pulse lasers have quite a bit more range than blasters or torpedoes. Autocannons also have decent range, excellent tracking, and can swap damage types better than lasers or hybrids.
I don't know why torpedoes have such insane damage. I think they should be nerfed. 8 launcher raven does too much DPS? Don't blame the raven, blame the launchers. Sheesh. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |

Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
28
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
when i say severly lacking it was lacking about 1000dps to the other two carriers
EDIT: Torps are not OP, they have low explosion velocity and high explosion radius Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |