EVE Search - A potential solution to adapting carriers to empire

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

A potential solution to adapting carriers to empire

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Istvaan Shogaatsu	Posted - 2005.12.01 20:50:00 - [1] Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 01/12/2005 20:55:42 In this post, Oveur states that carriers may be considered for empire deployment. If this happens, the carrier's ability to launch remotely controlled fighters will be restricted somehow. Why? Because it presents the opportunity for people with sec levels too low for empire to engage in empire combat by proxy through the carrier. There is a way to reconcile this, though I don't know if the coding can facilitate it: The uplink to the carrier should do a sec level check. If the pilot attempting to assume command of a fighter is too low in security level, he simply cannot operate it. The simple way of doing this would be to prevent pilots below -2.0sec from being able to operate fighters in high security systems - the better and slightly more complicated way, would be to do a gradual check: f.ex. let's say the carrier's in a 0.9 sec system, and two pilots are attempting to activate fighters. One pilot has -2.1 (still able to enter 0.9), the other has -2.7 (unable to enter 0.9). Ergo the pilot who can enter an 0.9 system can also command a fighter there, whereas a pilot whose security level bars him from entering 0.9, can not. Is this even remotely possible? FULLY EQUIPPED CALDARI NAVY RAVEN UP FOR AUCTION.
TotensBurntCorpse	Posted - 2005.12.01 20:54:00 - [2] Would make more sense to make two versions of the carrier. One for exclusively below 0.4 as they intend. And make another that is a BS type ship that fits XL drones. Where the XL drones are not the true carrier drones but a normal type of drone with uber stats. That way you can have the empire carrier work anywhere but the true carrier is stuck where it is supposed to be. TotensBurntCorpse Likes EVE, Starfleet Command Series, Earth & Beyond, Anything Battlefield, MOHAA, Call of Duty. Dislikes Not much.
Baneful	Posted - 2005.12.01 20:58:00 - [3] I think Istvaan's idea definatl has its merits. In fact i think it sounds like a pretty good idea. It would have the desired effect if its implementable. --------------------------
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.01 20:58:00 - [4] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Why? Because it presents the opportunity for people with sec levels too low for empire to engage in empire combat by proxy through the carrier. I wasn't aware that fighters could use gates. Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
TotensBurntCorpse	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:04:00 - [5] Blog doesnt say they can. Only that they can warp to chase targets. BUT they can be assigned to fleet mates to control. Which does leave the possiblility of jumping open?!?!??! TotensBurntCorpse Likes EVE, Starfleet Command Series, Earth & Beyond, Anything Battlefield, MOHAA, Call of Duty. Dislikes Not much.
Dalekplunger Slick	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:06:00 - [6] I thought the problem was what happens when fighters are assigned to attack innocents in empire. Does Concord squish the fighters? Do they hunt down and squish the carrier? What if the fighters are assigned to a gang mate and HE orders an attack on innocents. Does he get squished? What about the carrier that supplied the fighters in that case? If not, disposable alts in shuttles can wreak havoc with carrier assigned fighters. If so, a corp spy who gets assigned carrier fighters can take out the carrier. It's very complex and messy and I think CCP went with the best solution: No carriers in empire.
Istvaan Shogaatsu	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:07:00 - [7] Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 01/12/2005 21:15:16 Originally by: Sarmaul I wasn't aware that fighters could use gates. As far as I understand it, they can't. Oveur's post however indicates the possibility that carriers may be able to. My vested interest lies in enabling this ship for use by my corporation, so I'm trying my best :P Quote: If so, a corp spy who gets assigned carrier fighters can take out the carrier. That. Is. So. Goddamn. Cool. Now I hope they allow it even more! Imagine taking out a carrier through pure subversion! FULLY EQUIPPED CALDARI NAVY RAVEN UP FOR AUCTION.
Saeris Tal'Urduar	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:13:00 - [8] Edited by: Saeris Tal''Urduar on 01/12/2005 21:14:35 Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Why? Because it presents the opportunity for people with sec levels too low for empire to engage in empire combat by proxy through the carrier. I wasn't aware that fighters could use gates. They cant, they are warp capable. Fighters can warp to a planet warp to a moon warp to a station. Fighters cannot jump to another system. Edit: Sorry, and yes this is a great idea.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Originally by: Sarmaul I wasn't aware that fighters could use gates. As far as I understand it, they can't. Oveur's post however indicates the possibility that carriers may be able to. My vested interest lies in enabling this ship for use by my corporation, so I'm trying my best :P then just ask for the fighters to only be assignable to another gangmate in 0.0, and anything above can only be controlled by the carrier pilot. problem solved \o/ Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
babylonstew	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:23:00 - [10] i cant see why thet just cant code in a system sec status check, if sec stat is more then 0.4, you cannot assign drones, works for anchoring, pos etc..., why not for fighters? pretty simple solution id guess? and if they cannot be assigned to players, and cannot use acceleration gates, that kills the mission runners 'problem' for 80% of missions to right? anyway, thats my 0.2 isk

Professor McFly	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:46:00 - [11] Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? __________________ Retard's handbook

TomB	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:46:00 - [12] Carriers won't be capable of going to high secure space for few reasons and the biggest current reason being enough for not allowing them for RMR: Fighter control delegation & security standing loss of owner of the fighters, could possibly be disallowed in High Secure space but like Oveur said: we have entered code freeze. Limiting this to security of the carrier pilot wouldn't help when his gang mate tells his fighters to attack someone innocent, and CONCORD coming to gank the carrier. .

Idara	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:49:00 - [13] Originally by: Professor McFly Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? Corp wars? -------------------------------------------------------- Lance Corporal BSC Military
Professor McFly	Posted - 2005.12.01 21:53:00 - [14] Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? Corp wars? Then the same argument applies to all capital ships surely __________________ Retard's handbook
Idara	Posted - 2005.12.01 22:12:00 - [15] Originally by: Professor McFly Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? Corp wars? Then the same argument applies to all capital ships surely Seeing how POSs are 0.4 and under, uhhhh....nope. -------------------------------------------------------- Lance Corporal BSC Military
Christopher Scott	Posted - 2005.12.01 22:17:00 - [16] Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? Corp wars? Then the same argument applies to all capital ships surely Seeing how POSs are 0.4 and under, uhhhh....nope. That is no longer the case in RMR, or so I've heard. The carebears got their way.
Professor McFly	Posted - 2005.12.01 22:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Originally by: Idara Originally by: Professor McFly Edited by: Professor McFly on 01/12/2005 21:46:12 Why do you need capital combat ships in high sec? Corp wars? Then the same argument applies to all capital ships surely Seeing how POSs are 0.4 and under, uhhhh....nope. What have POSes got to do with corp wars __________________ Retard's handbook
Istvaan Shogaatsu	Posted - 2005.12.01 22:41:00 - [18] Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 01/12/2005 22:41:24 Professor McFly: I want carriers in high sec because a.) a lot of my corporation's wars are at least partially in high sec, and b.) because my corporation favors rapid deployment, generally avoiding battleships in favor of inty/hac and soon recon cruiser packs. We travel a lot, often pulling 200 jumps a day during a hectic war, and we feel a carrier might afford us even greater mobility - but only if it can operate throughout all of Eve. Anyway, this is all moot now that TomB hath spoken :\| FULLY EQUIPPED CALDARI NAVY RAVEN UP FOR AUCTION.
Draaken	Posted - 2005.12.01 22:45:00 - [19] In my humble opinion, there is a very simply RP reason for not allowing Carriers (or any other Capital Ship, to be honest) into high-sec space and that is: why would any of the Empires allow a non-Empire entity (read: anything but their Navy) to bring such an incredible threat to the general populace into their densly populated regions? ____________________
Torquemanda Corteaz	Posted - 2005.12.01 23:16:00 - [20] so you want the carrier mainly for its ship hangar and jump drive? I can sort of understand that...

Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.01 23:53:00 - [21] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 01/12/2005 22:46:27 Professor McFly: I want carriers in high sec because a.) a lot of my corporation's wars are at least partially in high sec, and b.) because my corporation favors rapid deployment, generally avoiding battleships in favor of inty/hac and soon recon cruiser packs. I thought you were a corp "asset relocation" organization... Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.01 23:54:00 - [22] Originally by: Christopher Scott That is no longer the case in RMR, or so I've heard. The carebears got their way. except they can't use the Moon Miners or Reaction Makers in high-sec Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
Antic	Posted - 2005.12.02 00:15:00 - [23] Originally by: TomB Carriers won't be capable of going to high secure space for few reasons and the biggest current reason being enough for not allowing them for RMR: Fighter control delegation & security standing loss of owner of the fighters, could possibly be disallowed in High Secure space but like Oveur said: we have entered code freeze. Limiting this to security of the carrier pilot wouldn't help when his gang mate tells his fighters to attack someone innocent, and CONCORD coming to gank the carrier. Well surely such a solution as the OP mentions could be patched in afterwards? Or enter through kali?. Carriers would spice up corp wars alot. Also carriers in high sec might give dreads a reason to be there, to pop the carriers.
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2005.12.02 01:05:00 - [24] Originally by: Antic Originally by: TomB Carriers won't be capable of going to high secure space for few reasons and the biggest current reason being enough for not allowing them for RMR: Fighter control delegation & security standing loss of owner of the fighters, could possibly be disallowed in High Secure space but like Oveur said: we have entered code freeze. Limiting this to security of the carrier pilot wouldn't help when his gang mate tells his fighters to attack someone innocent, and CONCORD coming to gank the carrier. Well surely such a solution as the OP mentions could be patched in afterwards? Or enter through kali?. Carriers would spice up corp wars alot. Also carriers in high sec might give dreads a reason to be there, to pop the carriers. I think that is what he is trying to say. Basically, Carriers pose some complex problems in High sec, and they haven't figured out how to solve all of them in time for the patch. The implication is, if in future they find good solutions to Carrier's problems, they may patch them and allow them into hig hsecurity space. It does sound like the big problem is other pilots can control the carrier's fighters, even though they are bound to the carrier itself, and that, as the code currently stands, if any of them violat Concord rules, Concord treats them as all violating its rules. This may mean they aren't even allowed into 0.4-0.1 space either, simply because of the problems of standings loss. Of course, one question is, what does the Carrier gain by allowing other players to control its fighters? Ca nthe carrier effectively float more Fighters if players take control of some, or does it come out of the Carriers foat allotment? Harry Voyager ____________________ I'm not an idiot; I just play one on the forums.
Professor McFly	Posted - 2005.12.02 01:24:00 - [25] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 01/12/2005 22:46:27 Professor McFly: I want carriers in high sec because a.) a lot of my corporation's wars are at least partially in high sec, and b.) because my corporation favors rapid deployment, generally avoiding battleships in favor of inty/hac and soon recon cruiser packs. We travel a lot, often pulling like, 200 jumps a day during a hectic war, and we feel a carrier might afford us even greater mobility - but only if it can operate throughout all of Eve. Anyway, this is all moot now that TomB hath spoken :\| Fair enough. Although I dread the day when people start mission running with them in Jita __________________ Retard's handbook
digitalwanderer	Posted - 2005.12.02 02:43:00 - [26] How about an even simpler solution,wich i'm not sure if it was mentioned or not,but limit them to use XL drones while operating in empire space...Their inherent bonuses apply no matter where they operate though.
SeeD IX	Posted - 2005.12.02 03:57:00 - [27] Oveur mentioned in that linked post that they could simply make remote deployment not possible for the small carrier to allow it in Empire Space. With that particular solution, the carrier would act like any other drone ship currently available. What many people seemed to misunderstand in the other post is that 'remote deployment of fighters' refers to the carriers ability of sitting at a moon and having its fighters warp to the battlefield. This idea seems to have a lot of support. Making remote deployment a mothership only ability. Quote: Why? Because it presents the opportunity for people with sec levels too low for empire to engage in empire combat by proxy through the carrier. The problem with your Sec Check is that as we all know, security status has little to do with what that player will make his drones do :( Besides, I may be reading the idea wrong, but you seem to imply someone can literally 'fly' a fighter from 0.0 space? As I understand it, remotely controlled fighters are assigned to someone IN system. (the example they used mentioned having a frigate at a gate command the fighters while the carrier sat at a moon)as opposed to having them literally being controlled by some random corp mate across the galaxy. I thought about suggesting a code change to make the Fighter controller entirely responsible, but then you could just make a 1 day old character and give him all your fighters to gank anybody you wish in Empire (It would cost the fighter amount and the rookie ship the player was in :P). Ofcourse the ideal solution is to kill 'remote deployment' in empire space and have it work in low sec, but if that wont work I am all for making carriers work in empire by losing remote deployment. Above post: Quote: How about an even simpler solution,wich i'm not sure if it was mentioned or not,but limit them to use XL drones while operating in empire space...Their inherent bonuses apply no matter where they operate though. the change oveur proposed off the top of his head is to make carrier fighters work just like drones. That is to say only the carrier controls them. (so why take away fighter ability? ) Finally, yes mission running would be unnacceptable lol.They could sustain an insane tank on somebody with the stupid NPC agression (first to take it keeps it). but it seems simple enough to kick them out of mission DS gates. (not that i have a clue how those things are coded) Originally by: Ikvar The Vengeance NEEDS to be nerfed. It's ability to die FAR outclasses ANY OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME! One time, I engaged one and it went down in seconds, any other AF that can do that? Not r


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.