| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Der Ewige
   |
Posted - 2006.03.15 12:19:00 -
[61]
I htink you all overlook the main reason why carriers are not allowed to use jumpdrives.
When carries are allowed to use jumpegates, there is no way to prevent them from entering 0.5+ space, within the current gamemechanics.
A rewrite of the jumpgate-sessionchange code would be neccecary to allow this and I'm very sure that this is not high on priority for CCP.
Now you can argue, that there would be no problems with carriers in 0.5+.
But there is a very serious problem! Let's say carier A asign his Fighters to Player B and Player B commits a crime, then Carrier A would get concordokend. Even when somone shoot on player B and the fighters only react to the attack it could happen that the carrier A gets concodokend.
Some GM/DEV's already stated that carriers won't be allowed in 0.5+ space until this problem is resolved.
This statement allone already shows, that CCP originaly wanted carriers to use jumpgates as the only way to enter 0.5+ are jumpgates as cynosusfields are not allowed in 0.5+.
|
Jurushy
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 12:40:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Der Ewige
I htink you all overlook the main reason why carriers are not allowed to use jumpdrives.
When carries are allowed to use jumpegates, there is no way to prevent them from entering 0.5+ space, within the current gamemechanics.
A rewrite of the jumpgate-sessionchange code would be neccecary to allow this and I'm very sure that this is not high on priority for CCP.
Now you can argue, that there would be no problems with carriers in 0.5+.
But there is a very serious problem! Let's say carier A asign his Fighters to Player B and Player B commits a crime, then Carrier A would get concordokend. Even when somone shoot on player B and the fighters only react to the attack it could happen that the carrier A gets concodokend.
Some GM/DEV's already stated that carriers won't be allowed in 0.5+ space until this problem is resolved.
This statement allone already shows, that CCP originaly wanted carriers to use jumpgates as the only way to enter 0.5+ are jumpgates as cynosusfields are not allowed in 0.5+.
i am not interessted in charebering in the ******* empire whit the carrier or an other capital ship
I WANT TO MOVE WHIT MY FLEET INTO THE BATTLE AND SUPORT THEM OR ENGAGE THE ENEMY WHIT THEM IN ONE OF THIS ******* BIG SHIPS!
we pay billions of isk for the blueprints and building
be patient becouse the buildtime is 72 tims bigger than one of the battleship (only the ship not the components!) lern the ******* expensive shills which are mostly 12 or 14 and for what?!?
we get a ship that have NO REAL USE FOR FLEETS
NOT AS SUPORT
NOT AS FIGHT VASSEL
NOT AS MOBILE BASE
it maks more sens to build up a POS in the enemy system
it is cheaper
faster buildet
and it has bigger defenspower
and this all becouse we have a damn cynofield jump system
and YES I AM ANGRY
|
Sol Rodreques
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 13:09:00 -
[63]
Quote:
we pay billions of isk for the blueprints and building
be patient becouse the buildtime is 72 tims bigger than one of the battleship (only the ship not the components!) lern the ******* expensive shills which are mostly 12 or 14 and for what?!?
we get a ship that have NO REAL USE FOR FLEETS
NOT AS SUPORT
NOT AS FIGHT VASSEL
NOT AS MOBILE BASE
Ouch, should have really thought about what you were building a bit more ay :/
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 13:33:00 -
[64]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 15/03/2006 13:35:24
Carriers, and cap ships in general are great.
They give you home ground advantage.
They're potent, but less mobile. So anyone bringing the fight to you, is fighting uphill, which IMO is exactly as it should be.
Quote:
it maks more sens to build up a POS in the enemy system
it is cheaper
faster buildet
and it has bigger defenspower
No, it doesn't. I can't project power from a POS. If you come to a system to which I'm asserting a claim, you can quite happily never go near my starbases and go rampaging through several systems killing everyone you see.
Before carriers (and other cap ships) the attacking force has all the advantages. Choice of location and time, means a 'defender' has to maintain relatively more power to repel attacks - simply because 'defense' is really rather boring. Now thought, you can station a couple of carriers in a system, and have a very rapid and effective response to incursions. Especially when your carrier is parked at a POS - it doesn't move fast, but can be used to break up attackers.
--
We are recruiting
We sell carriers. |
Scalor Valentis
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 13:38:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Scalor Valentis on 15/03/2006 13:38:00
How cyofield assault shuld be done is:
1) Build a small pos, put enought stront into it to last a wile, few turrets and stuff.
2) cyo the dredds/carriers into pos with 0% risk
3) Wach as all the carebares whine on forums as cariers can assign fighters inside pos force field to even t1 friggie 
WTB: The Correct DreadÖ |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 13:49:00 -
[66]
"Carriers can only be built in .4 and below. I believed they also changed production rules so they same thing is true of a dreadnought."
Gah, i stand corrected then ^^ i recall there was couple dreads built in secure systems all way up to 1.0, wasn't aware they did change it after all...
|
Robet Katrix
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 13:52:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Robet Katrix on 15/03/2006 13:56:58
as has been stated on numerous occasions, Carriers have ZERO ability to help offensive fleets and next to zero zero capability to help defending fleets because a unless the enemy comes to the system you have that carrier in, it wont get used.
For those of you who DONT understand the usage of the carrier, it was meant as a Support ship. almost a movable ship maintenance/corp hangar with some fighters for a little bit of offensive ability.
The fact is to move in a carrier you currently need a cyonusural field. A cyo field instantly says to your enemy that you are bringing in capital ships, and the second one goes up in ANY warzone system there is usually 1 or 2 if not more covert ops instantly on it.
If there are two fleets, the one that DOES NOT own the carrier will either go BBQ it, or run to another system. No smart fleet commander is going to fight a fleet with a carrier if he can fight a fleet without one.
To all the people worried about empire etc or general SUPER BS abilities let me explain some things to you.
1. Anyone who CAN afford a carrier, already has more than enough money to not worry about (non-deadspace) lvl 4's
2. PPL can ALREADY mine with it. Only idiots DO.
3. Just make it so the carriers are denied entry to .5+ systems. the godamn traffic control sure as hell aint controlling much else for traffic.
also
Quote:
Before carriers (and other cap ships) the attacking force has all the advantages. Choice of location and time, means a 'defender' has to maintain relatively more power to repel attacks - simply because 'defense' is really rather boring. Now thought, you can station a couple of carriers in a system, and have a very rapid and effective response to incursions. Especially when your carrier is parked at a POS - it doesn't move fast, but can be used to break up attackers.
how exactly does having carriers in a system increase response? Carriers cant fight on their own. they are FLEET support ships. when someone sends an offensive fleet in it is not always to take down a station or POS's although that happens at least for a good portion of the big fleet battles. and moving one system away to negate a large amount of enemy power is a highly preferable choice.
|
Lirt
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 16:14:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Edited by: Robet Katrix on 15/03/2006 13:56:58
as has been stated on numerous occasions, Carriers have ZERO ability to help offensive fleets and next to zero zero capability to help defending fleets because a unless the enemy comes to the system you have that carrier in, it wont get used.
But thats exactly the point! Carriers ARE defensive support. Lets say enemy wants to take your conquerable station, then he HAS to destroy your POSs, which are guarded by your carriers. So the enemy HAS to fight your carriers, else he cant claim sovereignity. Thats the use of the carriers or another use maybe is camping gates with bubble or something else i dont know im not that expert.
Their use is not to go solo gangs and camp agtes with your ubersuper carrier. You use them in core systems and locations of strategical importance. If you want to use your carrier you will need help from mates, either by supporting you or setting you the cyno field.
But as i said all you guys want is use your new carrier as you use every other ship, while you forget that a carrier has so much power exactly because its hard to move.
But noone ofc will agree from those that want to go through gates with their carrier. They know its imba and thats why they want it.
|
OrangeAfroMan
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 16:24:00 -
[69]
Originally by: OrangeAfroMan
Here is a very good way for Carriers to be used!!! I even made a pic for you all!!!!
CARRIERS FTW!!
Posted again as people dont seem to be reading anything but OPs......
And the guy above me is correct, they are defensive, as illustrated in my drawing..
|
Commander Nikolas
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 17:09:00 -
[70]
Everybody here who is posting about how carriers are viable weapons/support for "small-medium" fights either has no experience with them or has a very different idea about what "small-medium" is.
Cyno fields spell death for anything other then large fleets. I personally think the carriers should be viable weapons/support for groups of 10-15 ships. However because you need a Cyno to move them you need to have at 3 people dedicated just to the carrier (carrier pilot, enterance cyno generator, and oh **** run cyno gnerator). That is alot of people for a small group to dedicate just to the operation of 1 ship that is really limited in all of its support/offensive abilities.
|
Nadec Ascand
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 17:22:00 -
[71]
did i miss something.
U cant just jump to a systeme coz player will wait for ya.
But a mothership with a valid fitt should be able to let player just clone jump on it and instantly go out with multiple bs (actually it dont work at all so pls ccp fix that beside anything)
OMG our war have been hijack -eris
What 0_o LMAO Nadec 4TW - Vanamonde
Here start a new WAR => X - Wrangler
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 18:17:00 -
[72]
@The Idea of Cyno Fields being fear inducers...
If they [your enemy] will not fight you because you have a cyno field up... then put more up. Let them come to you. Itchy trigger fingers, and pod lust doesn't make an argument stick. Capitol Ships are logistical tools. While I feel Carriers need dual acces using gates AND jump drivers the fear inducing arguments are lackluster.
j0 is right. Capitol Ships came with a built in nerf. These nerfs need to be loosened. These topics should not be e-peen... they should be scenarios of all kinds that project the state of the ship into a constructive argument that the DEVs will listen to. Right now... half of these threads attempt such an outcome and the other half are just childish bickering.
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
Mercedes BZ
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 18:36:00 -
[73]
I thought Carriers don't have turret hardpoints? Don't mining lasers require a hardpoint?
Originally by: j0sephine
You can do this already, since carriers can be build in high security systems just fine... while they can't move to another 0.5 system, it means little since ore in these places is just the same, and with few mining lasers and few drones with no bonus to mining yield it's going to take a while to make even a dent in regular belt.
quote]
|
shakaZ XIV
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 18:42:00 -
[74]
In 2 or 3 months, about half of the "big alliance" players will be able to fly carriers. If carriers are no different than battleships as far as logistics go, guess what these players will choose? 
Carrier-only fleets for the win? It's a good thing these ships have some restrictions, otherwise whole shipclasses could become obsolete.
(And yes, i realise there are things that prohibit carrier-only fleets, such as fighter cost and carriers' not-all-that-great DPS as well as other factors, but if carriers could use stargates, its entirely within the realm of possibility to use massive amounts of them, and not a lot else.)
I still see capital ships as ships to lay siege with. You know which systems you want to attack or defend. Not ships for "oh look! big blob in X-7omu, lets jump our capital ships in and do some shootie shootie!".
|
Commander Nikolas
|
Posted - 2006.03.15 19:24:00 -
[75]
Originally by: shakaZ XIV
In 2 or 3 months, about half of the "big alliance" players will be able to fly carriers. If carriers are no different than battleships as far as logistics go, guess what these players will choose?
Carrier-only fleets for the win? It's a good thing these ships have some restrictions, otherwise whole shipclasses could become obsolete.
(And yes, i realise there are things that prohibit carrier-only fleets, such as fighter cost and carriers' not-all-that-great DPS as well as other factors, but if carriers could use stargates, its entirely within the realm of possibility to use massive amounts of them, and not a lot else.)
I still see capital ships as ships to lay siege with. You know which systems you want to attack or defend. Not ships for "oh look! big blob in X-7omu, lets jump our capital ships in and do some shootie shootie!".
You can easily jump around carrier only fleets in a sense. A bunch of Carriers a couple recon ships and a few ceptor pilots. Even with the Cyno system.
|
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2006.03.16 08:34:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Terradoct on 16/03/2006 08:37:55
Let's look at some of the carrier stats:
5.000 m^3 corp hangar:
- That's one day worth of ammo of NPC hunting with my Machariel using dual 650mm AC. Not that good as say using it as supply depot for fleet isn't good, avarage BS hase 600-665 m^3 cargo hold, this allows carrier to support 10 BS with ammunition & charges. That's medium size fleet, not including to support escort craft's ( frig, inty, crusier ). This drops nuberms to support 5 BS with ammunition & charges. that's medium size fleet.
500.000 m^3 maintaince hangar:
- BS have volume of 85.000 m^3 - 115.0000 m^3. that's you can squess 5 BS fitted and ready for combat as soon as pilot take it from maintance. Again that's is siutble for medium size fleet.
Now for description:
quote from description of Thanatos carrier - "Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements". Well it's say's all.
Now back to reality ( I mean to TQ ). What we have now is that carrier need's a cynosural field to jump in other system or just for travel, this restrict it to:
A) travel through systems that are deserted, just not to be cought unguard in hsi weaked state after jump.
B) have large suport fleet 10+ BS plus support cruisers, frigs and e.t.
Conclusion:
Carrier doesn't have stats' for support large fleets, to make it able for such role you need several of them. That's restrict players to use them in nubers. But it's tanking ability do not allow them to support large fleet engagments.
Carrier is not capeble to fill the role of supporting small to medium engagments due to current jumpdrive system.
The ways out of this situation is:
A) increase there tanking ability and support ability to allow them support large fleet. For example allow them use of siege module or make special modul that they can fit, and it will act as small POS force field.
B) change the current travel system for them, allowing use jumpdrive and stargate, or remove jumpdrive ability, but allow them use of stargate. Or let them able to jump w/o cynosural field , like using stargate and some racial isotop they can calibrate gate for them to jump through several system ( ofcourse they are limited to jump drive range in l.y. ).
|
BOBHOPE
|
Posted - 2006.03.16 09:14:00 -
[77]
i havent read all the entire thread, just part way into the second page but it all seems to be along the same lines.
has anyone thought that maybe the lack of mobility for carriers, hell, any capital ship, is more than made up for when it comes to static defense?
if one has a large enough investment in a specific part of space ie, an outpost or something, and a fleet of 100 or so pilot in everything upwards to bs' etc come down to pick a fight what better thing to have than 5 or so carriers perched in system to support probably a smaller defense force.
The idea would not to be chasing your enemy, more along the lines of keeping them out of you back yard. 
/me crawls back into his cage.
the 2 cents and ramblings of a crazy fool 
|
Hohenheim OfLight
|
Posted - 2006.03.16 09:54:00 -
[78]
The deavs have said that they would let carriers in to empire if they coudl figure outa way of disabling giving you fighters away in 0.5 up. I think once this is solved you may jsut see them using gates.
As it stands now the carier is prity limited for such a huge investment. And still falls into the "alliance toy" catigory rather than the "all small corps can have one" as was orignal said.
----------------------------------------------
|
|
Chribba
|
Posted - 2006.03.16 10:58:00 -
[79]
/signed
This would enable me to actually have my Veld-Mining-Carrier in 1.0
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Monitor this Thread |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |