|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jovius Marginus
   |
Posted - 2006.07.19 19:55:00 -
[1]
If you ask most experianced capital ship pilots they will tell you that capital ships especially carriers are one of the most boring ships in the game. You just sit at a POS and assign fighters.
Most people would like to see Carriers take a more important role in the game as the support ship they were intended to be so I came up with a few ideas.
First increase the price of carriers to something CCP decides but I would say around 2-3b. Next boost Carriers ability to field moblie fleets. They should be able to use clone jumping for something around 20 people. Also it should be easy to change those clones so if a group at station want to go on a gank run its easy to setup. Carriers should be able to hold a small cruiser/frig fleet. Something like 10 cruisers/20 frigs or 5 BC or 2 BS. Setup like this it would be easy to get together a small cruiser/frig fleet and jump into enemy territory for some fun fights.
This still doesnt address Carriers ability to actually support these fleets instead of sitting at a ss. First Carriers need the hp boost that CCP has said is comming. Next I would give carriers the ability to fit capital class weapons. This would need careful balancing (Not dread powerful but enough to make it worth using them and good enough tracking to effect your afferage gang battle.) This could also be the new bonus on Matar Carriers.
I would also do something similar with Motherships but keep the price the same and allow more clones and a larger fleet(10BS 25 cruiser). Also give Motherships the ability to use a siege Module and let them fit more capital weapons.
If changes like this were made Carriers would not only be more fun to use but it would be much easier to get together small gangs for some fun fighting. Dreads would still be much more useful for POS killing so they still have an important role. Also if you want you can still fit all drone control mods and sit at a ss like you do now. I know most of this probably wont be changed but I thought it would be good to let CCP know my ideas so we might seem some nice Capiral changes with Kali comming.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 21:10:00 -
[2]
I know its important to respond to the 4 ECM whine threads a day (*hint* Its going to be fixed stop the whines) but nobody finds any of these ideas even slightly interesting?
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 21:58:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jovius Marginus on 19/07/2006 22:03:15
Yes but that fleet would be all cruisers and you would be risking 20 carriers. You would be depending on the carriers for dps which you could do now(20 carriers with fighters). The reason you dont see it done is good fleet would kill atleast 5 carriers before going down. Thats 15b ISK. Thats assuming the carriers werent just at a ss like they do now. In reality no-one would ever jump 20 carriers just to form a large fleet of cruisers.
Also you could always just move the fleet seperate from the carrier like alliances do now so its not that much of a huge boost. I simply think it would boost the ease of forming and moving small attack gangs.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 23:21:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Noriath
I think carriers need a boost, but I don't think they need to be able to clonejump people. You have to bring at least one covops through the gate to make a cyno anyways, so why not just take the whole frigate gang there and then jump the carrier in?
I would like to see two more highslots on carriers. 5 is a joke with drone controll mods out. Any atempt to get carriers away from the POS and to the front lines is a fruitless effort if a carrier that's maxed out for fighter support can't have even one remote repper on it...
Remote units on carriers have to be boosted. If possible I'd like to see them being a little less effective, but instead of being a targeted module work like a smartbomb in a 20km radius (+bonus for carrier level) on everyone in your gang.
Also I'd like to see a new defense system for carriers. It should be a powerful energy field that shifts polarity rapidly, and creates phantom sensor images of the ship all around itself and thereby confuses tracking systems at a distance. They have a lock, but the target appears to be jumping around rapidly. As you get closer to the ship it becomes easier to pick out the acctual target though, since you can get more accurate readings and use visual ID to fill in the gaps.
Basicly when you have that thing activated people need to be within ~50km of you to land good hits with guns and missiles.
Why such a crazy idea? To shake up the boring long range monotony of fleetbattles of course.
Well with my way its easier to move the fleet quickly. Also it encourages people to use carriers more which leads to great opportunities for defending alliances aswell (3b carrier kills).
Also whats wrong with the capital size guns idea. They would do less damage than dreads but more than having the extra drone control modules and with better tracking than a dreads guns. This would provide excelent BS defence support but lead to the risk of losing a 3b ISK ship to a good BS fleet.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.20 00:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Wheya
I dont like the ideas of the OP.
I would like to see a HP boost and an additional bonus which enables the carrier to target his gangmembers (only gangmembers of course) faster so it can play its role of a support ship.
Not much a responce tbh =/
Try responding with a reason why you dont like my ideas.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.20 01:55:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Count Rayken
When i said 20, i didn't literaly mean 20, just a large number (for example, 5 carriers, carrying your 20 jump clones is 100 men, and 100 men in HACs and t2 friggys is a force to rekon with, not just some gank squad). <--- Directed at the dude that said laughable at best: I dont think that fleet coming in behind your alliances back lines is laughable, do you?
I'll keep it simple, carriers should not be allowed to clone jump people, but should definatly get hp boost (x3 sounds very nice ) and i kinda like the "not quite capital" guns.
Yes but still 5 carriers would be 15b ISK without fittings. You really want to have your entire alliances carrier fleet protected by cruisers and frigs. If you did that you wouldnt have carriers to worry about for long.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.20 06:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Noriath
Originally by: Jovius Marginus
Well with my way its easier to move the fleet quickly. Also it encourages people to use carriers more which leads to great opportunities for defending alliances aswell (3b carrier kills).
Also whats wrong with the capital size guns idea. They would do less damage than dreads but more than having the extra drone control modules and with better tracking than a dreads guns. This would provide excelent BS defence support but lead to the risk of losing a 3b ISK ship to a good BS fleet.
A fleet should not move quickly, and a strikeforce that has a carrier at its core should not move faster then one without carrier.
Defensive alliances don't need 3b carrier kills, defensive alliances need static defenses that make people think twice about atacking just for the hell of it.
Guns on a carrier make no sense, there really is no reason for it. What varriers really need to be effective is a way to defend against fleetganks that doesn't make them completly immune to small gang atacks, and increased ability to use remote systems and command modules.
So what your sugjesting is that every good alliance gate camps every enterance to their space with 20 people 24/7? All Im saying is making Carriers you increase risk but you get a new tool to easily form and move small gank fleets.
It still has its role as a ss warrier but you can expand its role to do something more than assign fighters. Under this system it would be able to do everything to actually support a fleet. It could safely assign firepower or be used in the middle of a small gang battle. Also a strikeforce would move no faster than the one ship needed to be moved in to form a cyno.
This could easily be balenced by making it so the Carrier could jump only once every 10 minutes when carrying clones or something along those lines.
|
Jovius Marginus
|
Posted - 2006.07.20 07:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Noriath
Alliances should not have to gatecamp to keep random gankers out of their space who have no base of operations from where they can mount a serious atack. Static defenses means things like turrets for shooting people, and listening posts to make it impossible to safespot and log out in a sovereignty system.
Carriers have their role, they just don't work quite like they are intended in it currently. What needs fixing about carriers is their ability to withstand the firepower of a fleet, which would be best accomplished by making them not atackable from extreme range, and their ability to use remote modules effectively during fleet engagements.
So your saying alliances should have 100% control of every region they own. Personally that would make the game very boring if every fight had to be blob vs blob. Thats in important part of alliance life but small attack gangs are just as important and fun. If an alliance truly controls its space they can control it themselves.
The last thing 0.0 is somekind of alliance concord to make it more safe. Cant be aware enough to avoid gank gangs and dont have an alliance good enough to respond with force then you dont belong in 0.0
|
|
|
| |
|