| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
   |
Posted - 2006.11.30 18:25:00 -
[1]
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.
Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet  However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.
I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.
What do you think?
-Vmir
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 19:15:00 -
[2]
It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that the signature resolution stat is completely counterintuitive. The basic reality in the game is that a carrier has a hard time locking a small ship, while a small ship can lock a huge one quickly. Fine, I can buy the fact that a small ship can lock a large ship quickly, but that same small ship can lock another small ship MUCH quicker than the carrier.
Carriers are massive. Are you telling me that with all of that hull to build on or in, they don't have enough room for electronics and sensors that should make their sensors the strongest in the game? At least for targeting speed and strength. The same applied to all the large ships.
The counterarguement is always "this isn't RL, this is a game and it needs to be balanced". Well, the OP's point stands up well to this argument. The carrier cannot even function as a front line logistics support ship (remote armor/shield rep) due to the fact that they cannot even lock their own people due to enemy damping.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr
eXin Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 00:42:00 -
[3]
I vote to make carriers immune EW...I know motherships are too..but motherships still easily outdo carriers in basically every other aspect.
Yes I do own a carrier and yes I guess I am biased about it..but, I'm still voting for it, cause the OP makes a good point imho.
-Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right |
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 03:18:00 -
[4]
you are, however, assuming that a carrier should be a frontline ship
Cant say i disagree w/ the EW immunity, but cant say that i agree.
Either way works i suppose, the other cap ships are (or can be) immune, that would be best argument for it I would think.
|
Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 03:25:00 -
[5]
Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.
All they are supposed to do, is to provide Capital weapon systems to tech1 tacklingfrigs and eventualy pull back the Modules.... urm Fighters, before the Frig explodes.
It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.<
CCP should enable Fighters to automaticaly warp back into the closest friendly POS in case they are going to get scrambled or start going into armor. The risk of loosing something while attacking a fleeing 80-BS+support Fleet with 5-10 Frigs is still too big >.<
best regards, Skeltek
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 08:23:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 01/12/2006 08:23:28
Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 01/12/2006 08:23:10
 Quote:
Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.
Carriers were always meant to be at the front lines tanking. The unintended side effect of being able to assign fighters means that everybody hides them in a safespot.
From a forum thread:
Originally by: Tuxford
Are you talking about that nobody seems to like any of them except the gallente one?
Well first there is the whole issue of how they are being used. People just park them at a pos or a safespot and have some other dudes control their drones for them. For me that gameplay is a bit boring to say the least.
So why aren't people using their carriers in combat? There is too much risk for too little reward. That is they are too easy to lose and you gain not enough with having them there. So the solution to that is to make them harder to kill and give people better benefits from having them there. To do that I would not like to simply boost the damage.
And instead, he boosted hitpoints. Yes, all ships received some +% hitpoints. But not four hundred percent like capitals.
I think allowing a "different" type of lock on gang mates (so that target jamming or dampening doesn't prevent the carrier from aiding allies, but only from harming enemies). One with instant lock would be nice.
-Vmir
P.S. if the above post by Skeltek was sarcastic, I apologize in advance for it going over my head 
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 18:54:00 -
[7]
Exactly my point. Carriers are too expensive, take too long to build, and offer too little in the way of reward to put them into combat previously. Now, however, you have something that can significantly enhance your fleet's capabilities. The major downside to carriers, imho as a carrier pilot, is that the lock time versus just about every other ship is prohibitively long.
|
Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:59:00 -
[8]
Tuxford mentioned that the Devs are pondering to turn remotereps and similiar modules into ones that don't need targetting, but just give a targeting reticle when you activate them and that start working right away after you click on an ally. Without locking at all. (Which'd also give a BIG boost to logistics. =))
That, and it appears that the Devs are also plotting a full-scale makeover for all capital ships. I'd like to know what exactly they got on their minds. =/
________
Capitalization is the difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off his horse." and "I helped my uncle jack off his horse."
Help the horses, make proper use of that shift button. |
Deikan Frost
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 23:47:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Deikan Frost on 01/12/2006 23:49:14
I'm not that experienced, but I don't think it should mean my opinion doesn't matter... anyway... If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything. What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself. In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines (well, look more at WWII than today but still, talking about large scale wars) precisely because they can't repell massive attacks on their own. They barely have any weapons compared to the other war ships.
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either. I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming. A ship of this size, especially when its main purpose is supporting other ships, should have enough backup systems to counter most jamming.
I do think though, that they should always be used in the REAR of the fleet, and should be sending their fighters forward to assist their main troops at the front, and not the way around.
Do I make sense?
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 02:40:00 -
[10]
Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.
Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?
Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.
True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.
Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines
Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.
Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.
Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore  ) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.
Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.
Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Drutort
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 08:22:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.
Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?
Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.
True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.
Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines
Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.
Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.
Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore ) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.
Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.
Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.
well said, esp with the bugs and fixes that we have been asking for havent come in yet... i like how you put it they are simply a liability, there is not much reward to take them out to the front line at all, its far more effective with the current traditional ie BS and other such ships... to me thats not how eve should be
no ship in eve was meant to stay at a pos and be considered part of the battle... none its just the matter of the fact of how capital ships were and are that is broken, if carriers were meant to be only for pos hugging they would be made very fragile which they are still the most fragile capital ship out there... and all of there bonus and skills and abilities would dictate that... but as you know that is not the case if you look at the skills and items such as capital remotes, the problem is those do not work out very well, due to the limitations of carriers said above... that or they need to implement insta lock or link within a gang for friendly logistics meaning you are immune to all the effects to your own gang... but you in effect would be either jammed or dampend to the enemies... i dont care if its some module that has to be run by a gang member or a warfare link so long as its done
|
Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 09:52:00 -
[12]
Gang mates need to be lockable through a separate set of attributes than enemy ships.
You can allow ECM to affect carriers as long as carriers can still lock gangmates. There is even some reason to believe that gangmates should be "instalockable".
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 15:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Skeltek on 02/12/2006 15:44:39
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.
Carriers were always meant to be at the front lines tanking. The unintended side effect of being able to assign fighters means that everybody hides them in a safespot.
I am so glad that you immediately realized how cynical and ironical my post is ;)
However I can only agree partialy... Carriers were meant to be at the front lines, but not the ones tanking(be in the back of battlefield, in moderately safe distance to your BS fleet). They are meant to give supportfunctions to the fighting fleet, not fight and tank themselves. But I guess that depends on how you view it...
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr
eXin Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 15:49:00 -
[14]
As I said earlier I still think the OP makes a good point..and in all reality, if a carrier losses it's fighters and what not..it is close to useless, apart from assisting it's fleet..so with that in mind I'd still say make it immune to EW altogether..I mean for how much it costs, and what it takes to deploy and move around etc etc...I just feel it deserves at least that.
Thats just my 5 cents :)
-Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right |
umah
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 20:18:00 -
[15]
I agree with this as long as you substitute "mothership" everywhere you use the word carrier.
EVE carriers are more analogous to the "Escort Carrier," which only appeared in WWII to augment fleet air support, and did indeed travel with the gunships.
That said, I agree that it still needs fixing for its role.
EW immunity or non-targeting support module activation (mentioned here and elsewhere) seems a good approach.
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.
Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?
Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.
True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.
Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines
Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.
Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.
Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore ) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.
Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.
Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.
|
fastwind
Caldari
VentureCorp
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 02:19:00 -
[16]
In real life battles a carrier is never and will never be right on the front line it is a support ship with it fighters and other equpiment it can send and it fights at many 100s of miles away plus has a full fleet for support that remin with it throughout an engagment.
Carriers are even in eve i belive designed for this role to be yes in the battleground but far enough away to remain safe and to support the frontline troops. thats just my own personal view on them.
Proud member of D-S-L |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 03:24:00 -
[17]
Quote:
Carriers are even in eve i belive designed for this role to be yes in the battleground but far enough away to remain safe and to support the frontline troops.
The maximum range you can squeeze out of capital logistics mods at carrier L5 is 52.5km. That's considered to be about medium range in modern eve. Hardly far away, and definitely not safe. Not even remaining in a safe is safe anymore
Carriers are intended to be on the front lines but due to game mechanic limitations, they're relegated to hiding in a pos shield. I would simply like the mechanics altered so that they may function properly on the front lines, as intended. Not mobile I-win buttons, but more like a logistics ship that doesn't get oneshotted, or melted in ten seconds, or suddenly permajammed for 10 minutes straight only able to observe the fight and not actually participate in it .......
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Altareis
Caldari
The Silent Rage
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 03:38:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.
Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.
I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.
What do you think?
-Vmir
I think its a nice idea, Vmir. Btw, what happened to your carrier? Lose it a 2nd time? 
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 05:29:00 -
[19]
Quote:
Btw, what happened to your carrier? Lose it a 2nd time? Sad
Nah, just the one so far 
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Tunajuice
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 05:36:00 -
[20]
What would it HURT to make carriers and dreads immune to ewar? Obviously some people say it sucks because that's the main benefit of a mothership... but then add some more goodies to a mothership. It seems to me carriers and dreads shouldn't be turned into a piece of junk by 1 frig. Sure, it's hard to lock and tackle people. That's fine, i don't think they should be solo pwnmobiles. But they should have a little more beefy to them, so they don't get locked down so easy. People would bring them to the front line if they had a chance to warp off...
|
Yertus Kun
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:33:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Yertus Kun on 04/12/2006 09:36:37
. dup post 
|
Yertus Plight
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:34:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.
I believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you 
I re-evaluated my carrier plans after this engagement, so I too agree carriers need more umph to make them less of an easy target without making them solo pwnmobiles. |
Jurushy
SteelVipers
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:36:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Jurushy on 04/12/2006 09:37:43
well
imune to EW sounds nice and would bring the carriers to Frontlines but i would also limit this imune only to target belongings so the carriers could be warpscrambel and web
this means that u bring dreadnoughts to take them down wich go into the siege
also instalock for gangmates is importent
not only for carriers but also for logistik ships
btw a much stronger tanking for capital ships would be need
(20 BS can brake every tank) so i would say only XL guns can harm capital ships and BS need to go the way to takedown first the subsystems of the carrier (capitalship) to kill it
------
REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD
Old Klingon proverb by Khaless the unforgettable.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 11:04:00 -
[24]
My Sig compels me to reply to this thread!
Improvements to carriers I’d like considered:
- either immunity to EW completely, or just enough sensor strength to be able to have a chance of not getting locked down by a few sensor damp frigs.
- enough sensor resolution to be able to lock much more quickly, so that there armor / shield / cap transfers can actually be of some use in a small scale engagement when something other than the carrier gets called primary.
- an option so that fighters do not just automatically warp after there targets.
Improvements I am doubtful about or find possibility unbalancing:
- stronger tank. (400% HP boost might be enough, we’ll see...)
- either cheaper / or tougher fighters
(they cost enough to dissuade you from risking them, but too much for anything more than occasional battles, making them more survivable should achieve the same effect.)
- bigger corp hanger array / ship arrays.
The BIG change to fleet warfare as it stands with the new fleet command system is that fleet-wide bonuses are now handed down from the FC, so to make the best of that ability the FC now has to be flying either a Command Ship, or a Carrier, I think this changes dramatically the role of the carrier post Revelations, and at least some of the above list is in order purely to make it survivable in that kind of situation.
-
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 11:25:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Tunajuice
What would it HURT to make carriers and dreads immune to ewar? Obviously some people say it sucks because that's the main benefit of a mothership... but then add some more goodies to a mothership. It seems to me carriers and dreads shouldn't be turned into a piece of junk by 1 frig. Sure, it's hard to lock and tackle people. That's fine, i don't think they should be solo pwnmobiles. But they should have a little more beefy to them, so they don't get locked down so easy. People would bring them to the front line if they had a chance to warp off...
QFVMT.
(quoted for very much truth)
[yes I made that up]
I’ll just agree with the EW imunity and go straight to the MS’s...
Consider the material costs of a carrier vs. a motherships
1b for a carrier
15b+ for a motherships
fittings:
Carriers – ehhh meh, fully T2 it, that’ll do.
Motherships – Fully Faction Fitted Pimpmobile it or your not doing it right!
Ok, so we’ve established motherships are worth way in excess of 15 times the cost of a carrier, but there isn’t a whole lot that 15 carriers can’t do that one motherships can, and given they cost one half the material cost of an outpost, is there any reason why they shouldn’t basically be flying mini outposts? A mobile staging point for full scale fleet battles? The Titan at least has a few impressive abilities that make it worth building, but motherships....mmmm.... not so much.
Hugely increased corp hanger / ship arrays would be a good start, giving it an ability to have some other kind of weapons beyond fighters would be good too, no carrier in existence today uses only fighters / aircraft as its only defensive weapons, how about a space equivalent of THIS for taking down those pesky tacklers? 
-
|
RoCkEt X
Caldari
The Order of Chivalry
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:29:00 -
[26]
ok having read this topic from top to bottom:
it shocks me that you compare real life carriers to eve carriers, ive never known any real life carrier fit a shield booster. the difference is, a carrier can take a battering, whereas one hit in the right place in RL and u can sink a carrier. a RL carrier is in control of its planes, as should an eve carrier be. a carrier should be able to lock to like 300km and have its fighters run over. they should be very far out, where only the most extreme long range ammo could possibly hit them, but not so far as a POS or safespot.
Carriers should be able to perform thier role whilst under siege. i.e., still locking and stuff. a carrier could be an excellent ship, for example i jumped on test and managed to tank 2 sets of 0.8 sentry guns for 31mins before my tank failed. ALL capital ships should either:
*be sufficiently designed so that they can perform thier role in combat
OR
*be able to sustain a battering to a point so that if they cannot perform thier role they can at least survive against a fairly potent fighting force.
As for immune to Ewar, i would agree, if u pay 1.7bil for a dread, and spend say 350mil fitting it, thats 2.05bil, now insurance pays out 1.4. so u lose 300mil on ship, and 350 on fitting, thats 640mil in total, however with a carrier, you would lose 400mil in fighters 320mil in fitting, so 720mil. Now tell me, how is it right that a ship that costs less than a dread, would mean that if you lost it, you lose more than you would if u lost a dread. a carrier is a very high risk investment, it should have the characteristics reflecting the risks.
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:29:00 -
[27]
Ok.. if you make the carrier immune to EW, your just as well making every other ship in the game immune to EW. Simple solution.. up the sensor strength, make it a bit more of a realistic figure for a capital ship.
Fighters.. i agree make them cheaper.
As for everything else.. I have seen carriers put directly into the action and tanked quite well, infact I'll give props to ER, CDC and PURE for putting their carriers outside pos shields while we were sieging it!
So it can be done..
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
The Nest
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 13:58:00 -
[28]
The Minmatar Carrier needs to be fixed. The others are fine. Fighters need to have drone skills apply to them ore new fighter based skills. At the moment only massive swarms of them work and warp to 0 makes them easy to evade.
Team Minmatar
Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Reborn Dragon
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 17:29:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:36:30
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:32:07
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.
Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.
I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.
What do you think?
-Vmir
I've never flown a carrier but the way I see it is the carrier supports the fleet and the fleet supports the carrier. If you run into a fleet that is using Damps and you don't have sensor boosters or someone in your fleet isn't using remote sensor boosters to help you overcome damps then they were obviously more prepared then you and your fleet and you are going to lose.
Just the way I see it, tbo.
If you want to avoid damps then get someone to jump in a frigate and remote sensor boost you or put some sensor boosters on. There is no I in "Fleet Battles". Work as a team.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 18:51:00 -
[30]
Quote:
believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you Laughing
In the beginning of the fight, there was only the one. Then two came, and my sniper was able to kill it. Unfortunately, it did nothing and I was unable to lock anything at all.
Actually, that's not true. If I was not jammed for 3 minutes straight then I might've locked a taranis and blown it away ... but I don't think that would've mattered. I don't mind being blown up but all my effort to bring it to the front lines to support my fleet was taken away by, as you said, just two lachesis (and just the one after the first was killed). A single lachesis with damps shouldn't be shutting down a carrier all by itself.
-V
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Hellaciouss
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 20:23:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you Laughing
In the beginning of the fight, there was only the one. Then two came, and my sniper was able to kill it. Unfortunately, it did nothing and I was unable to lock anything at all.
Actually, that's not true. If I was not jammed for 3 minutes straight then I might've locked a taranis and blown it away ... but I don't think that would've mattered. I don't mind being blown up but all my effort to bring it to the front lines to support my fleet was taken away by, as you said, just two lachesis (and just the one after the first was killed). A single lachesis with damps shouldn't be shutting down a carrier all by itself.
-V
So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you? They cost way less cap to use then damps. If you're going to go through the trouble to bring it out to help the fleet, don't you think someone should go through the trouble of bringing a ship that will negate dampers?
I think one thing that will really help is giving ships that have bonuses to remote damp effectiveness to get bonuses to remote sensor booster effectiveness as well, allowing them to cancel out that damper. An Eye for an Eye so to speak.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:11:00 -
[32]
Quote:
So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you?
For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Hellaciouss
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:24:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you?
For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster.
Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW.
There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say.
|
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:27:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 05/12/2006 00:29:50
Originally by: Hellaciouss
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you?
For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster.
Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW.
There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say.
You're being ridiculous. This entire thread isn't about carriers. It's about EW STILL being waaaay overpowered.
|
Hellaciouss
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:01:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Hellaciouss on 05/12/2006 01:03:25
Originally by: Davlin Lotze
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 05/12/2006 00:29:50
Originally by: Hellaciouss
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
So why not have someone use remote sensor boosters on you?
For the same reason people don't fit the projected eccm, or why it's far more common for a ship to fit for jamming than for not getting jammed. It would be more beneficial to the fleet to have another dampener than another remote sensor booster.
Ok then someone in your fleet is doing something wrong if you have a damp machine damping you if you've got a damper in your fleet as well. If the enemy damper damps the carrier then have your friendly damper damp him which still gives no reason to make carriers immune to EW.
There are counters to damps, use them, don't ask for immune to EW because no one uses the counters. If no one wants to use them, well, I don't know what to say.
You're being ridiculous. This entire thread isn't about carriers. It's about EW STILL being waaaay overpowered.
How is it overpowered when they give counters to dampers/ecm that take a lot less cap to use then the negative EW effects?
If you're boosting the carrier or begin damping the enemy damper, that makes the enemy damper worthless, no? Educate me, I'm a newb, seriously.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 08:40:00 -
[36]
Quote:
How is it overpowered when they give counters to dampers/ecm that take a lot less cap to use then the negative EW effects?
I'll start off with: because there are no ships that give a bonus to countering dampeners/ecm, and many ships that give a bonus to using dampeners/ecm instead? And as soon as you find a ship not using the counter you have fitted, that slot you have used is wasted, whereas if you had an offensive module there instead it would be effective against most any target?
Although as a previous poster said, it's derailed from being about carriers to being about Ewar. I'll try to focus on what I'm interested in once more:
Why can a single ship stop my capital from being useful, even in a defensive manner? Jam me, damp me, paint me, whatever -- as long as I am not prevented from providing support to my gang members on the battlefield. That's what I'm really after. I should be able to use those capital logistics mods, even if I can't directly harm the enemy.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 08:48:00 -
[37]
EW got nerfed.. big style.. it aint overpowered
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
DriveCrash
The Graduates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 11:45:00 -
[38]
how many mid slots does your carrier have?
Is there a capital sensor booster?
How does sensor strength help vs dampen?
5 frigs with 2 dampners each will overpower a carrier with nothing but sensor boosters in mid (thank you stacking penalty)
add 2 nos battleships + alot of time = dead carrier.
Fleet: What good does it do to have your entire fleet useing remote sensor boosters to boost a ship that cant do anything but rep at crap range (55km) and send some easily killed fighters out to die? 
Sorry but carriers are so borked I've yet to see one on a fleet line. Pos parked, fighters sent, pilot afk since he cant see his fighters hp's anyway, and has to rely on the assigned pilot to send them home if needed.
Even as a mobile repair station (snipers warp to SS to get rep'd).. the lock time makes it pointless.. better off useing a domi with rep drones and 2 of each large rep =( .. lets not even go into how easy SS's are to bust now.. and oh yeah, cant target inside the pos.. so there goes that idea.
Carrier = Iteron MK5 + jumpdrive. yay 
I've contiuned to train up logistics hopeing someday it would get love and made a viable pvp roll.. So far i've used my skills in missions.. rarely.  Carrier was my dream logistics ship.. until i watched one die to 2 bs's and a celestis. I cried.
-DCO
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 12:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: DriveCrash
5 frigs with 2 dampners each will overpower a carrier..
They'll also overpower everyother ship in the game! Lets look at this sensibly people.
Also I have seen carriers in fleet battle (again i say this Props to ER/CDC/PURE for putting theirs in) I just wish i frapsed it.
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 17:17:00 -
[40]
Quote:
As for countering dampners.. its called SENSOR BOOSTERS
Unfortunately, those are of limited use against standard dampeners and worthless when fighting anything with a damp bonus. 3 t2 or phased muon damps can dampen a ship to roughly 13% of original lock range and speed with L4 spec skill and no ship bonus. if I used 3 t2 sensor boosters to counter that, I'd have just under half my original lock range and speed -- which is a very nasty hit for a carrier. God forbid if the ship doing the dampening is a celestis, arazu, or lachesis though -- better off just fitting cap rechargers so you don't die as quickly. It's especially nasty when a rook or falcon gets the odd jam in, and it's impossible to finish locking something before you're jammed again. 100-180 seconds to lock a battleship is pretty nasty.
Jamming is a little more balanced now, but I'm becoming more and more concerned about dampeners instead -- and I specialize in them.
Back to the original discussion again though (since we have once more veered off into the realm of Ewar): can some type of unbreakable "friendly" targeting mode be added, so logistics ships can do their thing even if damped or jammed?
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Hellaciouss
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:14:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Hellaciouss on 05/12/2006 22:32:59
Ok, but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him. It's really not that hard. Tactics. It's all about who is better prepared. When going into fleet battles with big ships, you should know by now that people are going to be using damps, so you need to start requesting people in your fleet to start carrying damps to counter. Absolutely no reason to nerf EW because you or people in your fleet don't want to bring damps/boosters to negate the enemy fleets damps/boosters. Or, you know, have a squad kill the damper? Meh.
Now, I have said this a few times. They need to give ships that have bonuses in EW mods such as dampers a bonus in boosters as well. It will go a long way I think.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 08:05:00 -
[42]
Quote:
but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him.
This thread has kinda gone off topic of what I wanted to discuss. Let's just forget changing ewar for one second and focus on the improvement I'd like to suggest: let's pretend that I'm in a carrier lending support to a smaller fleet (so that we can engage, even if outnumbered a bit).
Current situation) my ship is dampened and rendered ineffective for the remainder of the [short] fight.
Suggested change) I am unable to lock hostile targets due to dampening/jamming, so any nos that I may have fit (or disruptors/webs/etc) are completely ineffective. However, my locks on friendly ships are unaffected by hostile actions and I am able to effectively provide logistic support via capital remotes/transfers.
What do you think of that?
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Hellaciouss
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 10:10:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Hellaciouss on 06/12/2006 10:16:40
Edited by: Hellaciouss on 06/12/2006 10:14:45
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
but you people arguing that EW is overpowered are forgetting one point. If a celeste is damping your carrier, have a friendly (celeste) damp him.
This thread has kinda gone off topic of what I wanted to discuss. Let's just forget changing ewar for one second and focus on the improvement I'd like to suggest: let's pretend that I'm in a carrier lending support to a smaller fleet (so that we can engage, even if outnumbered a bit).
Current situation) my ship is dampened and rendered ineffective for the remainder of the [short] fight.
Suggested change) I am unable to lock hostile targets due to dampening/jamming, so any nos that I may have fit (or disruptors/webs/etc) are completely ineffective. However, my locks on friendly ships are unaffected by hostile actions and I am able to effectively provide logistic support via capital remotes/transfers.
What do you think of that?
Meh. Imo, I wouldn't let that either because locking down a carrier is a legit tactic. Carriers are very powerful support. As I said before, the carrier supports the fleet and the fleet supports the carrier. If you don't want to be damped then I suggest getting people to counter enemy dampers or assign them as main (or assign a single squad to do it, he'll warp out most times unless someone gets a scram on him) target and get him down fast, or have someone damp him.
I can't stress this enough;
There are counters to damper ships. Just because people don't want to play that counter role doesn't mean you should buff the ship (carriers in this case). Work as a team. Remember, The Carrier Supports the Fleet and the Fleet Supports the Carrier. (or any big ship for that matter)
Don't really know what else to say.
|
Astarte
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 10:25:00 -
[44]
As a carrier pilot i also had the problem with the lock times especially own gang members it is now nearly impossible to support them in a battle, you are better off with a support cruiser or Battleship.
Although i would love to see EW immunity just an increase in locking range to 250 km and better scan resolution would do the trick nicely.
For your information modern carriers are actually tested by exploding a waterbomb under them before they are comissioned so they can take more then 1 hit, WW2 carriers still were fragile.
The thing i would like to seewould be a HP increase in my 20 mil investment per piece in the fighter drones. They are slightly out of proportion now and PLEASE give me a chance to see if my lovely corp mate treat them right, Give me a chance to see their status and Hitpoints!
But thats merely my personal opinion.
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 11:47:00 -
[45]
Ok lets look at this logically.. your saying that you cant use the carrier in fleet because of EW/Damp/jammers etc..
Ok logically speaking primary targets in fleets are EW, so if your getting jammed its in THEIR best option to kill those targets for your continued support..
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 01:01:00 -
[46]
Quote:
Ok logically speaking primary targets in fleets are EW,
Correct. Usually, the fleet with ewar left at the end will obliterate the other. The outcome is decided at that point.
Quote:
Ok lets look at this logically.. your saying that you cant use the carrier in fleet because of EW/Damp/jammers etc ... so if your getting jammed its in THEIR best option to kill those targets for your continued support..
I see. In other words, as soon as my fleet kills the other fleet's ewar, I'll be able to support my allies. Unfortunately, once the enemy fleet's ewar is toast the outcome is decided and I'm just part of the "repairing any damage that we can't repair ourselves" crew, which I can do from a safespot much more easily and safely.
So, logically speaking, if I cannot affect the outcome of the battle by being there, then why did I bring a carrier in the first place? Would you go to a fight, unable to use your guns until it was decided who was going to win -- and then you could shoot? And if you were going to lose, then you still can't shoot at all and you just watch yourself die a slow, inescapable death? I don't think so. I think you would be pretty upset at this, too.
None of this "have your fleet's ewar/guns pwn their ewar", because if we're outnumbered and my carrier is the balancing factor, then my fleet will always get owned because I can't help them. On the other hand, if we outnumber the enemy, then their fleet is going to get pwned instead and I will have done no good at all. One ship or module shouldn't criple an entire capital ship as easily as that.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:32:00 -
[47]
Quote:
Would you go to a fight, unable to use your guns until it was decided who was going to win -- and then you could shoot? And if you were going to lose, then you still can't shoot at all and you just watch yourself die a slow, inescapable death? I don't think so. I think you would be pretty upset at this, too
Yes.. been there and done that many a times and it doesnt bother me.. I've seen carriers help turn the tide.. you wouldnt believe what 20 people in frigs with fighter and carrier support can do against 50+ in a mix of bs and hacs.
If you want a ship that is immune to EW keep saving and buy yourself a mother ship. I've agreed figthers are outrageously expensive and need to be cheaper.. but as for the carriers needing EW immunity..no chance they are fine as they are!
My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 21:14:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 07/12/2006 21:14:18
Quote:
but as for the carriers needing EW immunity..no chance they are fine as they are!
I highly doubt you fly carriers, if you really believe that. If one lachesis can nullify my carrier's abilities completely, why wouldn't I bring a lachesis myself instead of a carrier and nullify 2 or 3 of their ships instead? I don't want to be cannon fodder only.
I'm not asking for complete immunity, only a new system where a lock on a friendly ship cannot be broken as easily using dampeners or jammers. It's nearly impossible to be useful on the front lines now, due to the abundance of dampeners and the very, very slow lock time of carriers.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Mitchman
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 05:35:00 -
[49]
I'm pretty sure even CCP is considering a instant/support lock option on gang members. The problem is that I know it's be "considered" for a long time. Now is your chance, CCP, to finally make fights longer and more tactical. And it is truly ridiculous that a single dampener ship, overpowered as that module already is, can lock down a carrier indefinately.
For those that like to compare it to real life, would you like to see a torpedo boat jam a carrier from doing anything useful?
|
Talaan Stardrifter
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 09:42:00 -
[50]
How about this:
Give carriers a 10% resistance to EWAR effects per carrier level?
This will reduce the effects of dampeners, decrease the effectiveness of target jammers and warp scramblers.
|
Mitchman
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 14:41:00 -
[51]
Make it based on signal strength of the targetted ship.
|
Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 21:29:00 -
[52]
Kali has increased Cap on all ships afaik. Why don¦t you drop 2 cap rechargers and fit ECCM instead? A Carrier with such a sensorstrenght would be stupid to spend 10 Scorpions on for jamming... especialy since EW was nerfed that much...
|
WildAmishRose
Caldari
Vale Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 23:55:00 -
[53]
Oh, he flies carriers. Where we're from, carriers change the tide of battle. Why? They don't lose to a couple dampner ships then cry 'make me immune' about it.
|
umah
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 03:51:00 -
[54]
Carriers need a boost,
First change the name to "escort" carrier,
so there's no confusion with RL carriers,
which really fit the role of mothership.
EVE carriers are capital drone ships,
EVE fighters are drones.
A mothership coming in a dropping real ships
with real pod pilots fits the RL carrier role.
The problem with the EVE carrier,
is it should not be capital,
it needs to have the stats and
cost of a BS with the ability to maneuver,
lock, and mix it up with the other ships
so it can stay on the battlefield
Otherwise, its just a big fat capital
target waiting for the easy 3B isk takedown.
Originally by: Reborn Dragon
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 18:00:47
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:36:30
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:32:07
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.
Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.
I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.
What do you think?
-Vmir
I've never flown a carrier but the way I see it is the carrier supports the fleet and the fleet supports the carrier. If you run into a fleet that is using Damps and you don't have sensor boosters or someone in your fleet isn't using remote sensor boosters to help you overcome damps then they were obviously more prepared then you and your fleet and you are going to lose.
Just the way I see it, tbo.
If you want to avoid damps then get someone to jump in a frigate and remote sensor boost you or put some sensor boosters on. There is no I in "Fleet Battles". Work as a team.
What could really help is adding bonuses to remote sensor booster strengths to the same ships that have remote sensor damper strengths.
|
Mitchman
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 04:07:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Skeltek
Kali has increased Cap on all ships afaik. Why don¦t you drop 2 cap rechargers and fit ECCM instead? A Carrier with such a sensorstrenght would be stupid to spend 10 Scorpions on for jamming... especialy since EW was nerfed that much...
How about reading the post you are replying to? This is not about jamming, it's about sensor dampening.
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 07:28:00 -
[56]
Quote:
Oh, he flies carriers. Where we're from, carriers change the tide of battle. Why? They don't lose to a couple dampner ships then cry 'make me immune' about it.
If you don't really understand what the issue is, then you should refrain from posting meaningless comments such as the one I quoted. This is a discussion, not a whine thread. I didn't lose to a couple dampener ships, I lost to one cruiser. Yes, they brought in more dampener ships in the end but I already couldn't lock anything at all and the battle was a foregone conclusion from that point. It was just a matter of watching them break my tank.
Also, since dampening is becoming so common in a fleet now I can only assume that you use your carriers from a pos or safespot judging by your comment, since you haven't experienced the frustration of being completely worthless despite risking so much. I'm a firm believer that risks should be taken and a carrier should really mean something when it's on the front lines, rather than a "sweet, we can gank that when we're done with them!" bonus for the other side. Most people vastly overestimate the power of a carrier, a couple skilled bs pilots can take one down with very little trouble. I'm not asking for immunity for ewar, I'm asking for a new system in which a logistics ship is more than cannon fodder; that it has at least a chance of mattering as much as a combat ship. Give me that chance.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Lexandrius Megens
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 13:00:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Lexandrius Megens on 10/12/2006 13:05:04
Edited by: Lexandrius Megens on 10/12/2006 13:02:49
Quote:
I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it).
Uhmm... did i miss something or are you blind?
You got 2 types of carriers, the "small" and the big ones. The small ones have no EWAR immumity, the big ones do!
So why are you posting this as the big carriers DO HAVE immunity to all forms of Electronic Warfare!?!
Check this link (it also shows on market in game):
http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/ships/carriers/gallente/23913.asp
And in case ur to laisy to press the mouse button to read that specs i paste then here for ya:
Quote:
Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Shield and Armor transfer range per level
10% bonus to deployed FightersÆ damage per level
99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
Can deploy 3 additional Fighters per level
Can fit 1 additional Warfare Link module per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range
Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare
___________________________________________
SAVE EVE, JOIN THE WAR AGAINST MACROMINERS!
1- exploit petition them
2- loot the cans
3- can trap them
4- kill them
_______________________________ |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 06:47:00 -
[58]
Quote:
hmm... did i miss something or are you blind?
You got 2 types of carriers, the "small" and the big ones. The small ones have no EWAR immumity, the big ones do!
So why are you posting this as the big carriers DO HAVE immunity to all forms of Electronic Warfare!?!
You're absolutely, completely right! I shouldn't have purchased that one billion isk ship that really isn't all that useful since it's locked down easily, but instead sprung for the 16-24 billion isk ship that only takes a month or two and a specialized starbase to build! It's also way better!
Now why didn't I think of that?
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Bozl1n
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 07:58:00 -
[59]
Quote:
It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.<
I LoL'd
Lots
|
insulubria
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 12:23:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Bozl1n
Quote:
It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.<
I LoL'd
Lots
heh me too :D
|
tribalmax 1991
Gallente
IronPig
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 08:55:00 -
[61]
IMO i think that the carriers are strong enough for now... they shouldnt be like.... imune to EWAR, i think if you go to the battlefront in a carrier that you should have enough support to be able to, and if you get jammed, live with it, and do something about it, let the rest of your fleet shoot the jammer(s) or that a supportship boosts your sensor streingth or something. i just think that ppl have to stop with the whining that their ships arent strong enough and try to figure solutions for it, as that is indeed a part of the gameplay in eve
greetz tribal
------------
only the weak steal from the stupid.... damn what have i met a lot of weak people :( |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Omniscient Order
The Sani Sabik
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 09:44:00 -
[62]
Quote:
IMO i think that the carriers are strong enough for now... they shouldnt be like.... imune to EWAR, i think if you go to the battlefront in a carrier that you should have enough support to be able to, and if you get jammed, live with it, and do something about it, let the rest of your fleet shoot the jammer(s) or that a supportship boosts your sensor streingth or something. i just think that ppl have to stop with the whining that their ships arent strong enough and try to figure solutions for it, as that is indeed a part of the gameplay in eve
Clearly, you are not a carrier pilot or you have not taken yours onto the front lines yet. Jamming isn't nearly as much of an issue because there's a chance for you to get a lock and a carrier has a very high natural sensor strength. The problem is with dampeners. There is no viable defense, no way for you to avoid being shut down by the nearest tier 1 celestis. Sensor boosters are far too weak to be an excusable defense for dampeners, and dampeners always work on everything within range and disregarding any sensor strength they might have. Carriers in particular are vulnerable to it because a few damps reduce a horrendous lock time down to something that simply is unacceptable -- the slowest anything can lock anything else is 180s and I see that all the time flying mine just trying to provide the kind of support logistics ships promised but fail in nearly all cases to provide.
Carriers are meant to provide remote support but it's extremely difficult to provide it when there is need of a carrier in the first place, thanks to the uncounterable dampener.
I don't understand all this animosity towards allowing carriers to do what they're meant to do? Is there a hidden reason for it?
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Jurushy
SteelVipers
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 10:16:00 -
[63]
jep
imunity to Ewar belongint to sensor or target would be nice
or a reduction of the efficience per level lets say 20% reduction in enemy sensordumper efficency per carrierlevel so at level 5 u are imune to damper
or simply gangmates and friendly targets like the own fighters can locked instant and this lock is not effected by Ewar
the 3rd way would be perfect for suporter like logistic ships and carriers and it would give them a importent role in a fleet
i like the role of the "healer" and i am willing to bring my carrier in aktion to help my mates aktive in a fight
but atm it is useless due to gamemechanik
------
REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD
Old Klingon proverb by Khaless the unforgettable.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr
eXin Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.21 10:14:00 -
[64]
As far as I'm aware, it has already been stated by CCP that there is "THE PLAN(tm)" in the workings surrounding carriers, which is supposedly to boost their effectiveness in some form or another.
I can't remember where I read it, but it was in a thread like this one.
-
-Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right
- ....*steals a cookie from the ISD cookie yarr* >_> |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |