Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 12:05:53 -
[1] - Quote
I know most people are raging over the new Carrier Buffs however I think the real issue is the networked Sensor arrays. Basically turned Carriers into subcap slaughters which I am fine with however they should not be able to near insta lock from 100+km away.
My Proposal:
Networked Sensor Arrays should be scripted with a penalty applied
With 900% scan res Lock range should be severely reduced: 70-80km?
Without script Scan res 400% but capable of locking from current ranges.
I know the counter to this is more Sensor boosters however that is perfectly fine as it forces pilots to further gimp their fits
Thoughts?
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
SHADOWWALKER shadows
The Unforgiving. The Initiative.
15
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 12:09:59 -
[2] - Quote
Seems ideal, however I would add that the cycle time of a NSA needs to be increased so you are commited as a dread is via siege, being commited for 1 solid minute does not add much risk when piloting your carrier. |
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 12:12:28 -
[3] - Quote
SHADOWWALKER shadows wrote:Seems ideal, however I would add that the cycle time of a NSA needs to be increased so you are commited as a dread is via siege, being commited for 1 solid minute does not add much risk when piloting your carrier.
Ah yeah that is a great Idea. However the capacitor requirements might need changing maybe ill add it
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat FETID
3043
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 12:17:32 -
[4] - Quote
maybe the sensor array should produce a beacon like a cyno, that'd be fun
FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations | lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID
Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
|
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 12:37:07 -
[5] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:maybe the sensor array should produce a beacon like a cyno, that'd be fun
LOL that would be pretty funny
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
Anthar Thebess
1526
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:29:15 -
[6] - Quote
Carrier is grid control ship, giving mandatory module a lock range penalty is simply bad. You need NSA to lock other drones and fighters.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
170
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 14:53:36 -
[7] - Quote
The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1232
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 21:14:53 -
[8] - Quote
No, nope, nope!
First, the NSA is watching over all of mankind and fighting terrorism all over the world, where they don't even have jurisdiction. Hence the name National Security Agency or NSA for short.
If you want to talk about the Network Sensor Array, WRITE IT DOWN.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
1091
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 15:46:50 -
[9] - Quote
SHADOWWALKER shadows wrote:Seems ideal, however I would add that the cycle time of a NSA needs to be increased so you are commited as a dread is via siege, being commited for 1 solid minute does not add much risk when piloting your carrier.
Excellent idea.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 16:40:30 -
[10] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster.
lol the DPS is absolutely fine. The Locking Range and Distance capable for the DPS is the issue.
Networked Sensor Array is the reason for this. Forcing carriers to use their Fighters at a closer range is much more viable
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
|
Galaxy Raid
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 20:06:38 -
[11] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Carrier is grid control ship, giving mandatory module a lock range penalty is simply bad. You need NSA to lock other drones and fighters.
Then why not only have it apply to drones and fighters? |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
14
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 22:56:18 -
[12] - Quote
Dai Kyoko wrote:Shalashaska Adam wrote:The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster. lol the DPS is absolutely fine. The Locking Range and Distance capable for the DPS is the issue. Networked Sensor Array is the reason for this. Forcing carriers to use their Fighters at a closer range is much more viable That's what carriers/fighters are all about; the ability to apply damage over long distances. The carrier is in a decent place atm, imo.
|
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 23:18:58 -
[13] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:Dai Kyoko wrote:Shalashaska Adam wrote:The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster. lol the DPS is absolutely fine. The Locking Range and Distance capable for the DPS is the issue. Networked Sensor Array is the reason for this. Forcing carriers to use their Fighters at a closer range is much more viable That's what carriers/fighters are all about; the ability to apply damage over long distances. The carrier is in a decent place atm, imo.
I agree however locking frigates near instantly and killing them just as fast while being 100+ away from the gate is not a good game mechanic. At this rate what is to stop 10 carriers from camping a gate as the gate camp meta would just simpl shift to insta locking carriers that can point and blap 100 away
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2089
|
Posted - 2016.06.02 03:46:08 -
[14] - Quote
Dai Kyoko wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Dai Kyoko wrote:Shalashaska Adam wrote:The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster. lol the DPS is absolutely fine. The Locking Range and Distance capable for the DPS is the issue. Networked Sensor Array is the reason for this. Forcing carriers to use their Fighters at a closer range is much more viable That's what carriers/fighters are all about; the ability to apply damage over long distances. The carrier is in a decent place atm, imo. I agree however locking frigates near instantly and killing them just as fast while being 100+ away from the gate is not a good game mechanic. At this rate what is to stop 10 carriers from camping a gate as the gate camp meta would just simpl shift to insta locking carriers that can point and blap 100 away
I think it already has changed to this - am I missing something in real time? |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
15
|
Posted - 2016.06.04 17:11:39 -
[15] - Quote
Dai Kyoko wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Dai Kyoko wrote:Shalashaska Adam wrote:The NSA needs to stay as it is, for the above reasons.
What should change, is the fighter attacks.
The primary attack should apply its damage like the secondary attack does, and the secondary attack application changed to that of the primary attack. You should have a rapid fire auto repeat main attack with a low alpha, and the burst dps limited alpha attack should be used against larger ships in the BC-BS range, not used to alpha frigs and cruisers.
Makes no sense that the limited use high alpha attack, has twice the application on frigates as the repeating blaster. lol the DPS is absolutely fine. The Locking Range and Distance capable for the DPS is the issue. Networked Sensor Array is the reason for this. Forcing carriers to use their Fighters at a closer range is much more viable That's what carriers/fighters are all about; the ability to apply damage over long distances. The carrier is in a decent place atm, imo. I agree however locking frigates near instantly and killing them just as fast while being 100+ away from the gate is not a good game mechanic. At this rate what is to stop 10 carriers from camping a gate as the gate camp meta would just simpl shift to insta locking carriers that can point and blap 100 away Even with today's jumping handicapp, that will be like asking to get jumped. I'm not saying it won't happen but they probably won't be able to keep it up for extended periods of time.
|
Tsukino Stareine
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1508
|
Posted - 2016.06.05 04:37:45 -
[16] - Quote
one terrible pilot in a super that does not understand how to recall fighters does not make NSA balanced. |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
15
|
Posted - 2016.06.06 22:12:32 -
[17] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:one terrible pilot in a super that does not understand how to recall fighters does not make NSA balanced. If OPs claims are true then there won't be that many bombers on multiple carrier kill mails. They would simply explode if the carrier looked at them funny, but ,alas, there are many carriers being killed on a daily basis, even with bombers, so OPs claims are just hot air. |
Ormarr Kai
Doughboys
27
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 01:59:31 -
[18] - Quote
Stop all this nerf nonsense... Carriers work as intended now, if you don't like it adapt or drop dreads. |
Dai Kyoko
Battle-Axe Cohortes Triarii
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.11 22:11:22 -
[19] - Quote
success they reduced the scan res
BAX Trading, Investing, and Third Party Services
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1168
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 09:57:43 -
[20] - Quote
maybe there should be no such thing as networked sensor array?! I wonder why CCP thought that carrier needs to fast lock small things.. |
|
CowQueen MMXII
49
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 11:30:48 -
[21] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:maybe there should be no such thing as networked sensor array?! I wonder why CCP thought that carrier needs to fast lock small things..
Maybe, it's because they are carrying and commanding groups of even smaller things to fight those small things and to command those smaller things to do so, the carrier pilot has to lock the small things (as per EVE game mecahnics, not per logic).
Ormarr Kai wrote:Stop all this nerf nonsense... Carriers work as intended now, if you don't like it adapt or drop dreads. Despite the fact that this isn't true (if you look at the announced changes to the NSA), it is also always valid to question the intention itself.
Moo! Uddersucker, moo!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1169
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 12:43:53 -
[22] - Quote
CowQueen MMXII wrote: Maybe, it's because they are carrying and commanding groups of even smaller things to fight those small things and to command those smaller things to do so, the carrier pilot has to lock the small things (as per EVE game mecahnics, not per logic).
Battleship carrying warriors in its drone bay doesnt justify a module for battleship to fastlock small ships, warriors are inteded for. |
Ormarr Kai
Doughboys
28
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 19:01:34 -
[23] - Quote
ITT a bunch of people that got killed by a carrier...
They are designed to kill subcaps and there are plenty of counters to them.. Just don't try to tackle one in a ceptor |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |