| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Luc Boye
Evolution
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2006.08.23 23:47:00 -
[31]
what slothe is saying is "bring back 2003" 
---
|
Bainie
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 23:59:00 -
[32]
I am all for this aspect of carriers if it reduces the amount of gank squads bubble camping gates and holding bottleneck systems which i think is ridiculously stupid.
It makes playing the game much less fun when you see that going on...and it cant be all that fun to sit there and shoot the one poor person who comes along however often they come. At some point it must be demeaning and less than fulfilling to gate gank people, there is no honor in doing it, and frankly somewhat cowardly. It is kind of like going hunting for a deer in the woods, but killing one tied to a tree that 30 other people are shooting at too. Sure you can say you killed something...but ReAlLy? The poor guy who runs into your blob doesnt even come out of warp for crying out loud...he just wakes up in a station due to lag in some of those systems.
If a carrier jumping reduces the effectiveness and profitability of gate gank squads then i am all for them jumping everywhere in eve. CCP had to give some thought to jump drives before they introduced them. They add a new aspect to the game, so adapt.
***** about it or train for it as they always say.
If you took away the jump drives from the ships....would they then travel through stargates....like all the rest? Also if they did so...then why couldnt they go into empire...i can see the next wave of mission whoring now....carriers in a lvl 4 now. Carriers are just fine...if you want to train for it and pay for it....then use it in whatever way you want...even to mine if you really want.
As to the red alliance thing...that was a great idea...i support them for having done that. My personal opinion is only take as much space as you need...and can defend...not muster a defense of it if the need arises...but have people there to use the system....or **** expect someone else to take it...learn to use what you have...or learn to share...or learn to lose it...simple really.
If this change ushers in a new way of supplying 0.0 in a safer fashion....thats great...and might actually spawn more people willing and eager to pvp...if they dont spend all their time hauling crap back and forth and constantly getting blown up, and can get stuff in 0.0 then that might encourage more pvping and less time spent to support the logistics to support the pvp. This is not a problem people, however if you dont have carriers in place to do this...or if you are a gate ganker i can see why you wouldnt like it.
Adapt.
|
Shayla Sh'inlux
Millennium
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 01:00:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Shayla Sh''inlux on 24/08/2006 01:01:37
Start with giving capitals a drastically large "fuel array" so they can actually make more than a 2 jump roundtrip with Jump Fuel Conservation trained to lvl 4. A fuel array only stores the racial isotopes for your capital and they cannot be jettisoned. I think it's utterly stupid that you need to refuel it every 4 jumps.
Then increase the size of PoS modules so you simply can't take towers and stuff with them (like, large tower is gonna be 50K). Then give freighters the ability to scoop PoS components.
I dont really mind people jumping fuel in and out cos you can't really take THAT much fuel with you. Sure, you can take a loaded Mark V and then fill up the ships hangar arrays, but escorting a 2-3 Mark V's isn't much harder, saves your supplier (or you) a run to 0.4 plus the jumps costs some isk as well as needing a 900mil ship (who made up that 3b figure anyway...)
What I do mind is the ability to do what RA has been doing for ages which is basically jump a few carriers loaded with PoSes and fuel into a system, Zerg up 30 towers during the night with nothing you can do about it. No scouting routine in the world is gonna prevent that.
Then add to that load of crap that is the whole PoS/Dread/reinforced/etc situation and we're looking at an utterly silly "claiming space" game.
 |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 01:24:00 -
[34]
 Originally by: LadyFaile
Originally by: slothe
Possibly going to be the least popular petition ever.
The Scenario
Increasingly it has become evident that capitals are being used to haul pos fuel. It makes perfect sense for this to happen. its a quick easy and safe way to transport large volumes of materials.
The Problem
The problem in my view is that it effectively can take the risk out of 0.0 which devalues 0.0.
/rant over
Life sucks, get a ******* helmet
A carrier is a logistics ship.
Next time you rant over it being able to carry ships to the front in 0.0 too so you cant gategank them wtf
Carriers are designed for these operations, and (shock) that is what they do.
Carriers are designed to move stuff around with almost 0 risk in 0.0? That's good to know. This entire time I thought they were fleet support ships. Guess Tux should change those remote repair bonuses and replace fighters with cargo drones.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 03:17:00 -
[35]
I think the issue isn't that there's a logistics ship able to transport stuff quickly and efficiently, but rather that there isn't some way to stop said ship from doing exactly that. What if they made some kind of new warp disruption bubble -- but call it a jump disruption bubble, have it show up as a beacon (that cannot be warped to! we just want everyone to know it's there) in the system and add a new option to scan probes to scan for said jump disruption bubble. This way, you can slow down and/or prevent carrier-pos-zergs, as was pointed out in a post before this. There are all kinds of issues with this still (how can you still let friendlies through, standings? Should it simply stop everyone?) but I think it would go a long way towards fixing the situation.
Ah well, my $0.02
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
bldyannoyed
Standard Operations Building Services
Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 03:30:00 -
[36]
The problem has nothing to do with carriers and capital haulers and everything to do with the mechanics of POS.
At the moment a Deathstar Large tower with a carrier to run fuel is basically unkillable, but not because a carrier can refuel it, but because no-one can kill it in one go.
POs are hideous to run, they are bugged all to hell, rarely work properly and are regrettably ESSENTIAL for 0.0. Using capitals to move fuel takes a little bit of the sting out of running one, but make no mistake they still have plenty of sting.
The thing is, even without a carrier, cunningly measured amounts of strontium can ensure that ur POS comes out of reinforced during ur prime time and the time ur enemy is least likely to have a capable fleet ( as ably demonstrated by RA, the ultimate maechanics exploiters). As i said, this doesnt need a carrier, a corp hanger array can hold a lot of strontium , having a carrier just makes it even harder to kill.
Untill the POS mechanics are fixed so that a fleet of sufficient fire power can ensure its own ability to wipe out a POS, the game is bust.
ATM the only way to kill a large tower is to hope the guy that owns it screws up, which is just dumb.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 03:35:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kashre
Edited by: Kashre on 23/08/2006 23:03:32
Originally by: HankMurphy
gonna have to agree w/ slothe on this one
yes, its damn convinient, preferred method of moving fuel when ya need it fast....
...but if ccp really intended carriers to be used for this, your freighter would have a jump drive on it. Its taking a critical risk of maintaining a 0.0 empire out of the equation. You have 'nearly' no chance at restricting your enemies supply lines
HankMurphy once punched Lindsay Lohan right in the face
The critical risk in maintaining a 0.0 empire is that if you don't have enough manpower to protect your own POSes someone with 50 dreads and 100 BS is going to waltz in, knock them all over and take your space that way.
There's nothing wrong with using a dread or carrier to haul.. in fact, they get called on so seldom for actual fighting that the only way to get your 3 bil out of a dread is to haul with it.
Its a THREE BILLION isk ship. I think someone who spends that kind of money on a ship deserves to do something with it other than look at it in station and maybe pull it out for a week or two every 3 months during a big war.
Tell you what, you can assign me 5 fighters and I'll run some complexes, k?
|
FawKa
Gallente
Nova Elements
The Phantom Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 04:38:00 -
[38]
... and what would you like to do about it? Ppl has done this since the carriers arrived afterall, you just tell us - again.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=369662&page=1#10
Link to banner |
Infinity Ziona
Apostasia
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 06:00:00 -
[39]
Slothe, welcome to EzE - The Next Carebearation.
Click Me
|
Shadowsword
Gallente
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 06:10:00 -
[40]
Hypothetic scenario with your proposal (more or less based on recent facts):
- Say that alliance A, and a few small-sized friends, attack alliance B for the control of a few conquerables. B has a lot of big, powerfull friends. A can make fleets of 100 or so, on average, B and friend can easily gather 200-250 pvpers, on normal days.
- Alliance A succeed in securing the systems and put 20 or so large POS. B and friends gather their forces.
- Now, A organize a convoy to fuel their POS. Because large POS take a lot of fuel, and because you don't want to make convoys every day, you need, say, 30 haulers for it to be worthwhile. So A's escort is 70 ships. B, being smart, bubbled a gate to death and wait for the convoy to use it.
You get to fight at 1v3 odds, taking most of the lag jumping in a gate camp, and if you decline to do that and just wait, then B and their buddies are free to bring out thier Dreads and start pounding the hell out of A's POS.
So, if you were alliance A and wanted a conquerable, and got your proposal, what would you do? (and no, "learn to lick boots" isn't a correct answer.
Do you want to death of 0.0 pvp, or what?
------------------------------------------
Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward?
Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy. |
twit brent
Dark Centuri Inc.
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 06:58:00 -
[41]
Its easy to cry nerf when you see something that works better than intended but what do you expect CCP to do? Lets just re design carriers and dreads so they cant hold more than 1000m3 just so someone has to use a hauler instead? Carriers are support ships and need their holds for ammo modules and other neat things. Dreads need their holds for stront and ammo for siegeing POS. The only way I can see CCP stopping POS fueling with capitals is by nerfing these ships bays into oblivion and making them worse at what they do.
So instead of whining that these are too good at POS fueling maybe suggest a way that this can be changed because I realy cant see one.
|
twit brent
Dark Centuri Inc.
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 07:03:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Bainie
I am all for this aspect of carriers if it reduces the amount of gank squads bubble camping gates and holding bottleneck systems which i think is ridiculously stupid.
It makes playing the game much less fun when you see that going on...and it cant be all that fun to sit there and shoot the one poor person who comes along however often they come. At some point it must be demeaning and less than fulfilling to gate gank people, there is no honor in doing it, and frankly somewhat cowardly. It is kind of like going hunting for a deer in the woods, but killing one tied to a tree that 30 other people are shooting at too. Sure you can say you killed something...but ReAlLy? The poor guy who runs into your blob doesnt even come out of warp for crying out loud...he just wakes up in a station due to lag in some of those systems.
If a carrier jumping reduces the effectiveness and profitability of gate gank squads then i am all for them jumping everywhere in eve. CCP had to give some thought to jump drives before they introduced them. They add a new aspect to the game, so adapt.
***** about it or train for it as they always say.
If you took away the jump drives from the ships....would they then travel through stargates....like all the rest? Also if they did so...then why couldnt they go into empire...i can see the next wave of mission whoring now....carriers in a lvl 4 now. Carriers are just fine...if you want to train for it and pay for it....then use it in whatever way you want...even to mine if you really want.
As to the red alliance thing...that was a great idea...i support them for having done that. My personal opinion is only take as much space as you need...and can defend...not muster a defense of it if the need arises...but have people there to use the system....or **** expect someone else to take it...learn to use what you have...or learn to share...or learn to lose it...simple really.
If this change ushers in a new way of supplying 0.0 in a safer fashion....thats great...and might actually spawn more people willing and eager to pvp...if they dont spend all their time hauling crap back and forth and constantly getting blown up, and can get stuff in 0.0 then that might encourage more pvping and less time spent to support the logistics to support the pvp. This is not a problem people, however if you dont have carriers in place to do this...or if you are a gate ganker i can see why you wouldnt like it.
Adapt.
Just read you post and I think you are clueless.
I think you have been ganked at a gate too many times by the sounds of your post. The reason we put up gate camps is to stop people coming into our space not to fight us but gank our miners and haulers. Most gate camping isnt fun and it is boring just like you said but the reason its done isnt always because of free kills but to actualy secure our space.
|
Hayabusa Fury
Caldari
Wu-Tang Financial
Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 07:07:00 -
[43]
So the OP is saying that a smaller fleet is moving POS stuff in 0.0. Well sounds like you scout these guys out and take them out. should be easier that they think it is so easy and will have less support.
If a corp goes to all the trouble of setting up a frieghter convoy it is almost untouchable if you run acroos it by chance. But this tactic you speak of sounds like a perfect target of oppurtunity that will cost the target plenty.
I say if you don't like it, kill those that do it and they will stop. We, as players, can solve our own problems and we don't always need a Dev nerf. That is the beauty of this game and the tools/weapons they have given us.
Let us rise as players to make change in game and let go of the Dev teet.
----------------
"I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes |
Burlock Ironfist
Celtic Anarchy
Black Reign Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 09:08:00 -
[44]
Dont let cynofields be opened with 100km of stations or POS's and you have the risk v reward. That would give a chance for a fleet to at least try and stop a cap ship jumping straight inside a POS, or docking with out evere riskign there ship.
BOOBIES! |
twit brent
Dark Centuri Inc.
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 09:17:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Burlock Ironfist
Dont let cynofields be opened with 100km of stations or POS's and you have the risk v reward. That would give a chance for a fleet to at least try and stop a cap ship jumping straight inside a POS, or docking with out evere riskign there ship.
Prety good idea but it might screw over smaller corps and stuff that cant afford to keep a watch every time they move a carrier. I dont think that carriers hauling POS fuel is a huge problem. I got a carrier myself and i use it for hauling much more than PvP simply because its a pain in the ass to pvp in.
|
Sensemann
Minmatar
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 09:35:00 -
[46]
as long as Login-Traps threaten Frighters, you will not see a change :)
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 09:41:00 -
[47]
Hooray!
Carriers are meant for, yes that is right, carrying stuff around.
So that is their intended purpose.
IMHO, it's the way it was meant, is supposed to, and should be.
Mind control and tin hats |
Brodie
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 10:42:00 -
[48]
Well i actually got a question for all you people who agree with this ridiculous whining you'd have to be @ the POS the AAA had in near n-crel teritory a bit back to see the lag this guy were introducing by the sheer ammount of putting GSC to anywhere in the sys and then you need to tell me thats its safe forr big alliances and **** like that to procted the fleet of their freighters, if everyone used that tactic i believe it would be lame anyhow thats my opinion.
|
Tokar Lorell
Gallente
Mercatoris Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 10:52:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Tokar Lorell on 24/08/2006 10:55:53
Originally by: Laboratus
Hooray!
Carriers are meant for, yes that is right, carrying stuff around.
So that is their intended purpose.
IMHO, it's the way it was meant, is supposed to, and should be.
Could've fooled me...I always thought of it like an aircraft carrier. You fly it into battle and send your fighters out to blow stuff up.
If it was meant to be a hauler and nothing more, then wouldn't they call them freighters? 
EDIT: Yay, hauler drones!1
|
Xendie
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 11:06:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Agito Wanijima
It is actually quite clever and ingenuitive. I doubt anyone here who owns/wants-to-own a station, would be willing to risk millions of ISK of fuel in a convoy, billions on freighters and escort fighters, and more manhours getting multipule people together for a most likely boring escort event. All that just so it might be "fair" (Fair is relative, nothing is fair in war) for a possible pirate gang or rival corperation to raid their convoy.
Nope... I don't see it. Jump Drives are a game mechanic for multi billion ISK ships, and people are using it within the non-exploiting limits CCP has set for the players.
god forbid that they would have to use teamwork and planning to accomplish anything.
Quote:
Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
|
Malakash
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 11:38:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Malakash on 24/08/2006 11:38:58
Stop crying, capital hauling is a strategy for pos in 0.0 and sieges, you dont need a petition, you need a counter strategy.
Set a long term siege on the target pos, put more than 1 rival corp pos¦es in reinforced mode, this is going to demand a lot of resources, trips and money, therefore sooner or later you will force them to starve (like middle ages long term sieges).
|
Fi T'Zeh
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 12:00:00 -
[52]
Hauling using capital ships is just a symptom of the fubar POS / Sov game mechanics. Cure the disease, don't treat the symptoms.
....
POST WITH YOUR MAIN !!!!11111one
Real men use blasters |
Jackkal
Order of Melekel
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 12:00:00 -
[53]
i think its a legal tactic and should stay. Why can't we ban gate camping. Empire gamking. logon traps and a few other things. We have to have other means to deal with griefers and this is just one of them for use smaller corps.
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 12:05:00 -
[54]
hold the horses slothe, youre shooting flies with deathstars again.
Currently the Pos system is broken, not the carrier refueling.
If a pos strontium amount cant be manipulated anymore the ability to "recharge and refill at will" will become obsolete and hence refueling via carriers will only work in day to day business. Something which is a good thing.
As much as the odd gatecamper and chokepoint camper would like it, 0.0 is already underdeveloped, anything which would hamper the just starting growing process with pos / starbases / major hauling would be very counterproductive.
Why run a pos 50 jumps from empire ? risk vs reward ? not really. Especially not if you talk about "time vs reward".
You want eve 2003 back where apart from the few stationsystems 0.0 was completely useless. Please lets not go there because i honestly doubt ppl will put 40 bln isk outposts up if they know it will require a weekly fulltime job to haul around the fuel for the protective poses.
Last but not least, anything which cuts down "boring task time" (read hauling stuff, moving ships, refueling pos) and gives ppl more time to play eve (the fun side of it) is good and shouldnt be nerfed.
|
Burlock Ironfist
Celtic Anarchy
Black Reign Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 12:15:00 -
[55]
i agree that the POS system is more broken that the carriers hauling fuel. but then i hate the current POS wars.
BOOBIES! |
Imhotep Khem
Vortex.
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 15:31:00 -
[56]
POS takes perhaps 8 man-hours to erect. POS takes about 2400 man-hours to bring down.
When you mix in carriers you make blockades pointless, you make taking a system prohibitive. Not to mention devalue the transport ships and freighters.
How about a "Disruption" POS that is WEAKER than other POSes, but prevents any cynofields in the system while it is present.
P.S. one can't really complain about RA as they not only hold system but expand into other system where same tactic is not effective against them.
____
"If your not dyin' your not tryin'."
"Are you prepared to go all the way, Alexi?" DuGalle |
Derran
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 15:45:00 -
[57]
There is one way to stop 'POS wars'. I'm not sure how great an idea it is but why not something similiar to the way Empire is. You can't anchor one in a claimed system there unless you have good standing with the alliance that holds sovereignity over it. It would still allow an enemy to take over an outpost as they would have to remove the POSs in system anyway.
|
Midnighter
Minmatar
Liberal Trading Co
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 15:56:00 -
[58]
If people have an issue with a group spending a couple billion isk to ensure they have a strong and secure supply line, then maybe you should try changing your tactics.
Spend a few billion isk and put together a force to kill the POS.
Get smartbomb battleships in place to kill Cyro Field Generator.
Hit the POS that generates the resources.
If you can not afford to deal with this problem, or can not formulate ways to deal with it, your enemy is just playing on a different level to you.
If that's so you need to either step your game up a level, or pull back and look elsewhere for a challenge, you're obviously not up to the task.
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 16:50:00 -
[59]
POS warfare needs to be changed... not the logistics of carriers or dreads.
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Shamis Orzoz
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 17:20:00 -
[60]
Agree with the problem, but not your solution. Here are my 2 posts regarding this subject from Nafri's "To Pos Spam or not to pos spam" thread:
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved.
Anything that prevents people from having to deploy lots of disposable pos's is a good thing.
The other problem I see with pos's is that strontium and regular fuel need to have separate storage compartments. Strontium should be restricted to a total supply of about 2 days, whereas other fuel should be able to be stockpiled to about a 2 weeks supply. This would allow people to fuel their pos's less often, making them less 'work', while still preventing them from putting like 1 week of strontium inside.
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
Earlier I mentioned having a cap on the number of POS's that can contribute to sov. Some people raised issues with that. And I wanted to clarify.
If you cap the number of pos's that can actively contribute to sov, then the owners of the system have the OPTION of deploying more pos's which would take over when their original ones are destroyed, but if a hostile force comes in, they can't just deploy 50 pos's and wait for sov to switch, they would have to actually blow up enough of the enemy pos's so that they could deploy their own and take sov. I also think a point system should be used. rather than a bigger pos is > all system.
Example: (Assume all pos's are of the same size, no need to complicate the example) Lets say the cap is set at 5 pos's. So alliance A has 7 pos's deployed. The first 5 will secure sov, and the extra 2 will be stored chronologically as the backups. So if a hostile alliance (B) comes and deploys 8 pos's they don't get sov. But if they deploy 8, and then blow up 5 out of the original 7, they could take sov. If alliance A then tries to deploy more pos's, they would have to first destroy 6 out of the 8 pos's deployed by alliance B, before their new pos's would be able to claim sov.
This system would promote pos destruction, and limit the need for so much pos spammage. So the winner isn't the guy with the deepest pockets, but the guy who can defend his pos's the best.
Shamis
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |