EVE Search - Buffing Carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Buffing Carriers

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 12:41:00 - [1] Hey its Knight, the hardcore campaner for balancing of carriers, heres my idea of what a carrier should really be like. they should be the mainstay of the fleet, a foucs point that all ships rather too, and something that they would die trying to protect some will love at this new carrier and go "OMG ITS OVERPOWER WAAAA" but i hope many will go "yeah that looks like a good idea and with a few adjustments it could work" I think capital ships as they stand are broken, and do not live up to what i bet the devs want them to be. now for this to work ther also needs to be changes in a few things 1. gangmates can instalock each other 2. remote transfer arrays work before they cycle 3. fighters mwd back to the carrier/ mothership ( as they stand fighters will NEVER mwd back to you) 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% please note im not asking for carriers to be TEH OMG SOLOPWN SHIP im asking them to become mainstays of fleets, the very core of a fleet and im using the nig as a example because i fly them =P Essentially a pared-down version of its big brother the Hel, the Nidhoggur nonetheless displays the same austerity of vision evident in its sibling. Quite purposefully created for nothing less than all-out warfare, and quite comfortable with that fact, the Nidhoggur will no doubt find itself a mainstay on many a battlefield. 5% bonus to minmatar fighter damg per lvl 5% bonus to fighter tracking per lvl 10% reduction in cap use of remote armour and shield arrays per lvl 10% to rof for xl proj turrets per lvl 10% to cidel torp lanchers per lvl 3% bonus to scurmish warfare mods per lvl 3 turrets 3 lanchers could be 3/3 or just 3 slots 25% reduction to cycle time on cap armour rep 25% reduction to cap use on capital shield boosters Structure 22,500 With Hp boost 90,000 Armour 22,500 With hp boot 90,000 Sheild 22,500 With hp boost 90,000
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.11 12:46:00 - [2] Originally by: Aloysius Knight 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% This is the most important and vital change of your things. Do it now! Also, maybe make it 1000% for titans/moms
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:09:00 - [3] yeah id go wiht 1000% for motherships and titains but no one cares about cap ships =(
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:13:00 - [4] Why make gangmates have to lock each other at all? You should be able to do remote rep modules, etc. through the gang window. (And decouple that from the overview so you have have it big elsewhere on the screen) I'm not keen on giving carriers guns, but the rest looks good.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:13:00 - [5] Originally by: Aloysius Knight yeah id go wiht 1000% for motherships and titains but no one cares about cap ships =( might be becase there are only 0.1% cap ship pilots to 99.9% non cap ship pilots ie, u think its more important to say balance the crappy t1 amarr cruisers which effect at least 1/4th of eves gamers or to fix carriers which effect at most 200people eiter way, i do agree that all cap ships need a much higher buffer -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:24:00 - [6] Originally by: Maya Rkell Why make gangmates have to lock each other at all? You should be able to do remote rep modules, etc. through the gang window. (And decouple that from the overview so you have have it big elsewhere on the screen) I'm not keen on giving carriers guns, but the rest looks good. or we do it like that also why don;'t you like the idea of guns on carrier?
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:29:00 - [7] boosted geylentie Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos. Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose. Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses: 50% bonus to Shield and Armor transfer range per level 5% bonus to deployed FightersÆ damage per level 5% bonus to geylentie drone damg 3% bonus to Information Warfare Links 10% to rof for xl hybrid turrets per lvl up to 6 turrets? 25% reduction to cycle time on cap armour rep dunno what else to add bonus to armour rep amount?
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:33:00 - [8] Carriers are allready quite nasty in smaller combats for the price, the added firepower would be insignificant in fleet but potentially overpowering when only one side can pull one out in say a 10v10 if they had guns as well. (They're only what...4x the price of a Cerb, after all)
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 13:40:00 - [9] well with xl guns most things won't get hit by them
Tomsudy	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:29:00 - [10] I agree with the 400% boost to hp and the 1000% boost for moms and titans because it seems most people sit at a POS in there carrier with there fighters dedicated to someone else. It should be made a mainsaty on the battlefield and not so easy to kill. Also it seems the bonus on nidhoggur is pants compared to the other carriers and should be more balanced. ________________________________________ Warlords corp Core Collective council member

Wizard	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:36:00 - [11] Edited by: Wizard on 11/06/2006 15:37:41 I dont aggree with the idea of boosting capital armour etc. Ships have been designed and to all intensive purposes most stuff in game is balanced, theres a lot of people who because they have trouble fitting somthing or maybe in there carrier they cant take on 10+ bs solo maybe that it sucks. The proposed changes just make them more of a WIN button and make it harder and harder for small outfits such as mine to even contemplate taking on someone in 1. Most people in this thread belong to a big aliance that has pots of isk and tbh no great deal if you loose the ship, easily replaced. Without Reason corp website ^^looking for a PvP corp with little stress then look no further.
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:43:00 - [12] Originally by: Wizard Edited by: Wizard on 11/06/2006 15:37:41 I dont aggree with the idea of boosting capital armour etc. Ships have been designed and to all intensive purposes most stuff in game is balanced, theres a lot of people who because they have trouble fitting somthing or maybe in there carrier they cant take on 10+ bs solo maybe that it sucks. The proposed changes just make them more of a WIN button and make it harder and harder for small outfits such as mine to even contemplate taking on someone in 1. Most people in this thread belong to a big aliance that has pots of isk and tbh no great deal if you loose the ship, easily replaced. hardly, the changes to hp does nothing much then make them last longer and the reduction to the cycle on cap resp turns the damg tank with 2 reps from about 700 to 1k dps all the other stuff is badly needed as carriers are soo unbalanced atm
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:46:00 - [13] Originally by: Aloysius Knight well with xl guns most things won't get hit by them BS, easily enough. I admit that that concern is minor compared to proper bonuses and being able to support properly, though.
UndergrounD	Posted - 2006.06.11 15:50:00 - [14] nice ideas there Knight. The HP boost is probably the easiest to implement and goes in line with CCP's desire to extend combat times. But meh, I'd go without all that for a limited jump portal facility. -----------------------------------------------
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.06.11 17:17:00 - [15] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 11/06/2006 17:17:45 Well I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4 and some form of bonus changes. However, I just don't know about turret points. I think if fighters would actually MWD back to the carrier so that we could switch damagetypes and/or size XL guns, which really do suck unless not in siege mode, guns would be moot. I tell you what. My corps carriers are the reason why we are doing what we are doing. I tell you what... I don't expect BoB, ASCN or LV guys to understand this concept but carriers are more lethal for use by small flotsams with a mission. I am all for a boost and think its well deserved but if they never changed they would still be the most useful ship class I have ever used. They let small corps flip the bird to big alliances with ease. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Ordais	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:01:00 - [16] i think carriers should go in a totaly other direction....no XL-turrets...they are not designed to fight dreads or other caps... they should be, like in most sci-fi films, the flying base in a fleet. that means a large amount of HPs of curse...or extremly high resists. they should only be able to fit small guns (6-8 of them)...for anti-frig defence purpose (they wouldnt scratch a BS at all, and thats good so). No small ship should even think of comming close to such a big ship, but you should need a Fleet to protect them against BSes. ok...too overpowered for complexes? dont let them enter it (easy). too overpowered for deathspace...dont let them use the gates too overpowered for lvl4 missions in normal space? now...its lowsec (they cant jump in highsec)..and you can scan them...so...risk/reward is ok. thats my vision...of big fleetfights...will never happen, but hey...who knows. but as it is now...cap-ships are pathetic.
Judgementday5	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:21:00 - [17] the funniest thing is that freighters have SO big hull and compared to carriers, they are gods if you count only hp
Dragy	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:22:00 - [18] Edited by: Dragy on 11/06/2006 18:24:41 another thing that needs to be considered its carrier's firepower ... i understand the meaning of word carrier, but unfortunately they suck bad in dps. therefore they should have something like 3 turrets/missile bays, but not be able to use siege mode of course so they won't be able to tank that much and kill POSes :)
Woopie	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:53:00 - [19] 1. Instant lock on gang mates /signed
Randay	Posted - 2006.06.11 18:53:00 - [20] Originally by: Aloysius Knight 1. gangmates can instalock each other 2. remote transfer arrays work before they cycle 3. fighters mwd back to the carrier/ mothership ( as they stand fighters will NEVER mwd back to you) 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% ok Quote: please note im not asking for carriers to be TEH OMG SOLOPWN SHIP lies Quote: 5% bonus to minmatar fighter damg per lvl 5% bonus to fighter tracking per lvl 10% reduction in cap use of remote armour and shield arrays per lvl 10% to rof for xl proj turrets per lvl 10% to cidel torp lanchers per lvl 3% bonus to scurmish warfare mods per lvl 3 turrets 3 lanchers could be 3/3 or just 3 slots 25% reduction to cycle time on cap armour rep 25% reduction to cap use on capital shield boosters 42 boni for teh "no." ------------------------------------------- Apparently the Swedish language is against the rules of the forums.

ragewind	Posted - 2006.06.11 19:11:00 - [21] make capital remote shild bosters and remote arrmor repaires AOE kile smark bombs so when active anything in a set range get the boost ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector! advanced industrial ship
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.12 01:56:00 - [22] Originally by: Randay Originally by: Aloysius Knight 1. gangmates can instalock each other 2. remote transfer arrays work before they cycle 3. fighters mwd back to the carrier/ mothership ( as they stand fighters will NEVER mwd back to you) 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% ok Quote: please note im not asking for carriers to be TEH OMG SOLOPWN SHIP lies Quote: 5% bonus to minmatar fighter damg per lvl 5% bonus to fighter tracking per lvl 10% reduction in cap use of remote armour and shield arrays per lvl 10% to rof for xl proj turrets per lvl 10% to cidel torp lanchers per lvl 3% bonus to scurmish warfare mods per lvl 3 turrets 3 lanchers could be 3/3 or just 3 slots 25% reduction to cycle time on cap armour rep 25% reduction to cap use on capital shield boosters 42 boni for teh "no."
Dirtball	Posted - 2006.06.12 02:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Aloysius Knight 1. gangmates can instalock each other 2. remote transfer arrays work before they cycle 3. fighters mwd back to the carrier/ mothership ( as they stand fighters will NEVER mwd back to you) 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% 1. yes, but make sure you dont insta lock your gangmate with your guns on 2. no 3. yes, as long as they can also be scrambled so if you let them warp away you might be losing them all 4. no
Aloysius Knight	Posted - 2006.06.12 03:02:00 - [24] Originally by: Dirtball Originally by: Aloysius Knight 1. gangmates can instalock each other 2. remote transfer arrays work before they cycle 3. fighters mwd back to the carrier/ mothership ( as they stand fighters will NEVER mwd back to you) 4. boost the hp of all capital ships by 400% 1. yes, but make sure you dont insta lock your gangmate with your guns on 2. no 3. yes, as long as they can also be scrambled so if you let them warp away you might be losing them all 4. no why not 2 and 4?
Phaese	Posted - 2006.06.12 03:32:00 - [25] A lot of good ideas here. There definitely needs to be an improvement to the way remote repairers work... First, definitely make them work at the start of their cycle, not the end. Second, reduce cycle times and repping proportionatly (though in many cases, now that I think about it, the greater alpha heal of a long cycle would be better). Third, create a seperate GUI for remote repping gangmates; instalocking gangmates it a start but too often would you end up shooting at gangmates. I also think the HP buff is a good idea... I like the idea of a long, continuous fleet engagement revolving around capital ships; improving how long they can survive is a first step to this idealistic kind of battle.
James Draekn	Posted - 2006.06.12 04:09:00 - [26] Since Carriers, Motherships and Titans are supposed to be mobile stations (POS). I think 400% hitpoint boost is rather pathetic. Personally I'd like to see the Carrier get the same hitpoints as a small tower(8.75/2 mil), a Mothership get the same as a medium tower (17.5/4 mil) and a Titan get the same as a large tower (35/8 mil). NO TURRETS/ NO NOS/ NO SMARTBOMBS. The only defense that this ship class can get is the Drones or fighters it carries. Now remember its defenses can be blown away (you can kill fighters), and it doesn't have reinforced mode, so a Dreadnought can kill it. As it stands right now carriers are called primary in most fleet fights, with this change they would only be called primary once their support fleet is gone. One change that this will require is that MOMs and Titans can be warp scrambled and jump scrambled. These ships are supposed to be able to support corps large AND small in ALL space to provide a mobile base of operations. Another requirement this will bring about is the opening up of empire space to carriers, as well as the requirement to drastically expand the size of the corp hanger array in the carriers and the ablity for carriers to use jump gates. These ships shouldn't be relegated to a safe spot for fights the should be supporting the fleet from the front. The disadvantage that these ships have is that they don't have direct damage weapons, they have to tell drone/fighters to kill things for them, once your opponent kills your drones/fighter complement your a sitting duck. This will not make them solopwn machines, they still will require massive fleet back up to survive, they just won't do the 1 billion isk pop in 3-4 minutes. MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS CAPITAL, NOT JUST A BIG BATTLESHIP.
Equinox II	Posted - 2006.06.12 05:46:00 - [27] What I would like to see is a reason for carriers to be on the front line and the means to survive it. The obvious problem with remote repping is the locking time, so why not make a capital size area of effect repper? like a repair smartbomb.. I like the idea of area of effect and there are many different things you can do. Like some sort of active module that makes ships inside of 10 km of the carrier hard to hit (reduces sig radius), etc, etc. Also boost hitpoints by like 400% VIDS: Raven Showdown \| Contraband Inc \| Rogue Titan
ELECTR0FREAK	Posted - 2006.06.12 08:48:00 - [28] As long as the final result is a set of balanced carriers, my vote is in. I as well am not a big fan of XL guns on Carriers, as-is they're cheaper than dreads, and if you make them gun platforms then dreads will become a bit overshadowed. The other ideas I certainly like though. I'm a big fan of having carrier bonuses primarily effect the fighters they deploy. -Electrofreak Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula
Fogy	Posted - 2006.06.12 11:11:00 - [29] I like the AOE (smartbomb) thing with capitol reppers.. and in adition, i think they should have a fix amounght or HP they can repair in each cyle.. say 5000 or 10000 so if there's 10 shipps in the proximity, they get 500 or 1000 hp repaird each. but you can also focus the repper thingie like with the scanner. and this way, consentrate the repair "Beam" to say a 30 degree angel. and reduse the shipps in the AOE to 2 or what ever, wich will result in the repair amounght to increas for them. (2500 or 5000 but 0 for the rest) In a hectic fight, this could result in to much delay, for the shipp who needs repair. or the carrier pilote screews up, and manage to hitt nothing.. so he waste a cycle with his repair. learning to use this in a eficient way, will be a huge bonus for the gang. not knowing how to use it, will be a big drawback and result in ineficient use of the reppers. Cheers! Fogy "From my rotting boddy flowers shall grow and I am in them, and that is eternity" New Direction New Area New Victims


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.