Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place.

Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved

Carriers can take gates now.

Do they not have scouts and webs where you live?

Wait you point is that you can't travel around from one end of new eden to the other risk free?

If so then working as intended.

new carrier fighters don't need target locks

read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers

Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention?

I guess it works.

Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.

So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow.

Force Aux = FAUX

Force Aux Pilot = FAP

I didn't train for a goddamn Force Auxiliary

either way, it ends up nerfing all capitals more for the sake of making more "options", which, following CCP's record at balancing, means one thing will be outstandingly good, and the other two will languish in disuse because CCP isn't very smart.

All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements.

The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place.

The idea of changing the triage mechanic to a totally different capital ship is crazy, and not in the good way. Like was mentioned in the blog, many of us bought and use our carriers specifically because it is a capital logistic platform.

Carriers and Supercarriers will now become obsolete, as dreadnoughts will become the DPS platform, with carriers serving no role. Yes, supercarriers have the remote ECM, but now... that's really the only thing going for it.

This is a horrible idea to create a new ship class, stripping carriers of their one good trait.


However, if you gave carriers greatly increased damage/hp bonuses to fighters and drones, all may not be lost.

Do not nerf the hitpoints... capital ships are, well, capital ships, and shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a few tackled orthrus'.

I just have one question:

Will the existing ratting carrier still be functional? (A Carrier that rats with its fighters and remote reps them or that takes part in team ratting as a repair platform.)

That's what a lot of people are going to complain about going away since they've trained skills to use it for that purpose. As a non-cap pilot, I've been training in that direction because it seems like a fun form of gameplay.

Will the Carrier class still be able to use remote repair modules? Hell, even L sized Battleship ones (that T2 Logi can use)?

Also, will "Fleet Auxiliaries" have to be in triage mode to use ANY remote reps, or only Capital class remote reps? Will they be able to use weaker ones without nerfing themselves into the dirt (since I can think of no other way to describe "intentionally become immobile AND completely subject to EWAR simultaneously")?

And will this "great gameplay" decision also apply to ships putting out damage? Will Titans and Dreadnaughts be forced to only be able to deal damage in siege mode and be unable to conduct their primary role without activating a module that makes them a sitting duck?

...sorry if I'm coming on a little heavy there, but this is just annoying after all the SP I've put into going for a functional ship that's about to be not functional anymore.

.

...also, as a person that likes playing healing roles in games, I hate it when people go about nerfing healing classes while buffing damage dealing classes or not subjecting them to the same conditions (e.g. in WoW, making healers super mana dependent while removing mana management from damage classes, or here, making healing dependent on triage mode while damage dealing is still possible outside of siege mode.)

I just like things being handled equally.

.

EDIT: Okay...that was more than one question. My apologies. ^_^;

On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so?

Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game.

ps. I have an Archon which has CCC rigs, I also have a Revelation that's useless to me since the Nag/Moros are so much better for what I need. *shrugs*

CCP historically does not refund skillpoints for skills that are still in-game, but fall out of favor. The usual argument is that you got value out of the skill, before the change was made. Now something new/better/different has come along - everyone is in the same boat.

CCC rigs on Carriers MIGHT actually get moved for us, via a one-time conversion of carriers with triage fitted, into Force Auxilliary ships - suggested (but not promised) in an early developer comment in this thread.