EVE Search - Carrier/Supercarrier Adjustment

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Carrier/Supercarrier Adjustment

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.20 00:56:00 - [1] First, remove the ability to assign Fighters to a player entirely. Second, allow Carriers/Supercarriers to operate in up to 1.0 space. Third, change drone skills to apply to Fighters. Fourth, give Carriers the ability to use Clone Vat Bays. Fifth, keep the ability for Fighters to warp independent of the Carrier/Supercarrier, but also allow the option to have them remain on station in the Carrier/Supercarrier's grid. Sixth, get rid of this 'Mothership' thing and tell it like it is: Supercarrier Click Above
Rajon Kelper Omacron Militia	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:06:00 - [2] ummm sounds a bit unbalancing to me, what would the point of those changes be? --------------------------------------------------- "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving."
Kybane Atreides Malum Vir	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:08:00 - [3] Edited by: Kybane Atreides on 20/07/2006 01:08:51 1.) Don't let people get in yours 2.) No reason too, also why would Concord want a threat to them in 1.0? 3.) Never been attacked by a fighter so don't know if this is reasonable 4.) No, this is for bigger ships. A carrier is to cheap for the capability 5.) I think it is dumb they can warp after people since normal ships can't 6.) Mothership makes perfect sense, would only be a super carrier if everything you want was put into play Overall, my opinion is no ------------------------ Malum Vir Pirate Corporation Recruitment I'm too sexy for my Cyclone...
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:13:00 - [4] Edited by: Eximius Josari on 20/07/2006 01:14:19 Originally by: Kybane Atreides 1.) Don't let people get in yours Er...what? Quote: 2.) No reason too, also why would Concord want a threat to them in 1.0? Why does CONCORD let any ship with weapons in 1.0? Quote: 3.) Never been attacked by a fighter so don't know if this is reasonable Neither have I. Quote: 4.) No, this is for bigger ships. A carrier is to cheap for the capability Too cheap to be good gang support? Quote: 5.) I think it is dumb they can warp after people since normal ships can't I still think Interceptors should be able to follow people into warp. Naturally make them far less damaging since that isnt their role. Quote: 6.) Mothership makes perfect sense, would only be a super carrier if everything you want was put into play Mothership would have you believe it is capable of being a self supporting vessel that never needs to dock once it is online. That is not the case. Click Above
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Eximius Josari First, remove the ability to assign Fighters to a player entirely. no, this is the best feature besides jump drives that they have Quote: Second, allow Carriers/Supercarriers to operate in up to 1.0 space. for what? empire wars? I really don't know why you'd wanna go there. Quote: Third, change drone skills to apply to Fighters. no they are pretty powerful as they are Quote: Fourth, give Carriers the ability to use Clone Vat Bays. excellent idea... oh wait Quote: Fifth, keep the ability for Fighters to warp independent of the Carrier/Supercarrier, but also allow the option to have them remain on station in the Carrier/Supercarrier's grid. absolutely more drone control 4tw Quote: Sixth, get rid of this 'Mothership' thing and tell it like it is: Supercarrier I like mothership tbh Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:37:00 - [6] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Eximius Josari First, remove the ability to assign Fighters to a player entirely. no, this is the best feature besides jump drives that they have I think its crap. Basically lets you sit at a POS and kill people without even having to be at the keyboard. Quote: Quote: Second, allow Carriers/Supercarriers to operate in up to 1.0 space. for what? empire wars? I really don't know why you'd wanna go there. I don't actually, but moving them would be a little easier. Quote: Quote: Third, change drone skills to apply to Fighters. no they are pretty powerful as they are I won't disagree with that, but only having one skill affect them is...disappointing. Quote: Quote: Fourth, give Carriers the ability to use Clone Vat Bays. excellent idea... oh wait Quote: Quote: Fifth, keep the ability for Fighters to warp independent of the Carrier/Supercarrier, but also allow the option to have them remain on station in the Carrier/Supercarrier's grid. absolutely more drone control 4tw Quote: Quote: Sixth, get rid of this 'Mothership' thing and tell it like it is: Supercarrier I like mothership tbh Yeah? Well I...uh don't! Click Above
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:47:00 - [7] Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Eximius Josari First, remove the ability to assign Fighters to a player entirely. no, this is the best feature besides jump drives that they have I think its crap. Basically lets you sit at a POS and kill people without even having to be at the keyboard. Not true, when in hostile territory and your fighters are assigned you are a sitting duck because you cannot cloak or log while your fighters are in space unless you wanna loose 300+ mil investment. Anyone who bought m0o's Supersafespotbuster will make your life a living hell. Also, this makes massive fleets moving in on your system make you run and hide which means that once again bigger numbers win out over capital ships. Might as well tell the wingman to warp to a planet then back to you ( as to not give away your current heading ) and have him fit a cloak and you both listen to the smack talk in local about how your carrier can't help you and you gotta hug a safespot until you get reinforcements. Basically... there is a whole sort of tactics to for and against it and if you don't like this aspect of carrier piloting then you simply can put it on the front line with officer gear and hope for the best. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:49:00 - [8] Firstly, it's a mothership, not a "supercarrier". Then.. 1/ If the problem is POS, then POS shields should block fighter control. Fixing the issue, not removing functionality entirely. 2/ Implications for highsec wars mean I doubt this is even worth discussing since I don't think CCP will allow it. 3/ They're allready powerful enough. 4/ No, Clone vats are one of THE major reasons to get a Mothership. 5/ A "don't warp off" option? yea, be nice 6/ It's a Mothership. CLONE VAT. Sigh.
Rajon Kelper Omacron Militia	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:53:00 - [9] before this thread gets any further, can the original poster please explain what the point of this thread is? Why change a system for the worse when it's already perfectly fine? --------------------------------------------------- "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving."
Waragha	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:53:00 - [10] You want carriers on the battlefield with their current tanking capabilities?

Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:58:00 - [11] Originally by: Waragha You want carriers on the battlefield with their current tanking capabilities? Yes, why else would they have tanking bonuses? Click Above
Jovius Marginus	Posted - 2006.07.20 01:59:00 - [12] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=366865 I had a different idea to get Carriers on the battlefield. Give them the ability to fit Capital class weapons.
Ubel	Posted - 2006.07.23 13:02:00 - [13] I say screw the capitol class weps. Let them mount Large and lower weps but don't give them any bonuses. This gives them some capability but not enough to be truely owning. If you look back in time to WW II, both the US and Japan had carriers with cruiser sized weapons on them. Now, they proved impractical, but at the time of their creation, it was thought that they would have a place in the Line Of Battle. Likely, I would mount med/small weps on a carrier if I had the option or heavy missiles, just to swat the annoying frigs.
CelestialWind	Posted - 2006.07.23 13:23:00 - [14] Originally by: Kybane Atreides Edited by: Kybane Atreides on 20/07/2006 01:08:51 2.) No reason too, also why would Concord want a threat to them in 1.0? lol thats been tested many a time even dreads in sige mode dont bother concord and then they go pop with easy so concord would proberly tanke out titans rather easyerly
CelestialWind	Posted - 2006.07.23 13:27:00 - [15] Originally by: Ubel I say screw the capitol class weps. Let them mount Large and lower weps but don't give them any bonuses. This gives them some capability but not enough to be truely owning. If you look back in time to WW II, both the US and Japan had carriers with cruiser sized weapons on them. Now, they proved impractical, but at the time of their creation, it was thought that they would have a place in the Line Of Battle. Likely, I would mount med/small weps on a carrier if I had the option or heavy missiles, just to swat the annoying frigs. look at the moderen carriys they have full weapons load out that rival and beat nearly every ship out there, so yes they need there weapons
aeti	Posted - 2006.07.23 14:24:00 - [16] soo basically what will happen is a load of ppl in npc corps running missions in their nyx in 1.0 ¼_¼
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 19:18:00 - [17] Originally by: aeti soo basically what will happen is a load of ppl in npc corps running missions in their nyx in 1.0 ¼_¼ How would that npc corp person get one?
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.07.23 20:13:00 - [18] I'm purchasing my Chimera tomorrow from mission running in high sec. _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 20:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Fuujin I'm purchasing my Chimera tomorrow from mission running in high sec. And?
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:22:00 - [20] Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: aeti soo basically what will happen is a load of ppl in npc corps running missions in their nyx in 1.0 ¼_¼ How would that npc corp person get one? _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions

Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Fuujin Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: aeti soo basically what will happen is a load of ppl in npc corps running missions in their nyx in 1.0 ¼_¼ How would that npc corp person get one? A Nyx is a little harder than a Chimera to obtain.
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:41:00 - [22] Not nearly impossible. There are many traders that could purchase one. _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:51:00 - [23] Originally by: Fuujin Not nearly impossible. There are many traders that could purchase one. Okay, how would they get the mission?
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.07.23 21:53:00 - [24] the mission? _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 22:58:00 - [25] Originally by: Fuujin the mission? Yes, how would the Nyx pilot get the lvl 4 missions?
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.07.23 23:03:00 - [26] getting out of his ship, docking and accepting _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.23 23:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Fuujin getting out of his ship, docking and accepting And the loot? Or how about we jump to the punch...why would anyone do this with a Nyx over their Raven?
Locke Ateid Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.23 23:14:00 - [28] You two do know carriers can dock right?
Rawthorm Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.24 00:20:00 - [29] Originally by: Locke Ateid You two do know carriers can dock right? Motherships cant. And to the due who says he'd eject and dock to get a mission...my character will be waiting to jack your nyx the second u get out of it :p (Not an issue as you'd never get one)
Locke Ateid Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.24 00:41:00 - [30] Originally by: Rawthorm Originally by: Locke Ateid You two do know carriers can dock right? Motherships cant. My bad, got a little confused along they're argument when one mentioned a carrier and the other a Mothership. Not that it's a mute point anyway, MS can only be flown in 0.0 space.



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.