|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3904
   |
Posted - 2017.05.07 22:59:52 -
[1] - Quote
Alderson Point wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.
The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.
By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them. Of course any corp EVEN ONCE seen with a carrier in HS would be permanently wardecced. So that negates that.
You may want to take more than a few seconds to thunk about what you just said
I'll just ignore npc corps that completely negate your point.
So many corps would have these in hs if it were allowed that would be like saying "any Corp seen with a freighter would be permanently wardecced.
Real problem would be the station games. Good luck killing one of these camping you in station within a weapons timer
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3915
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 19:11:01 -
[2] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:
You...don't know much about capital combat, do you. Carriers are for shredding subcaps,
well in theory anyway. in practice they use is now rather niche. most cases what ever you try to use them for can be done better by something else. they may have had a strong place if not for HAW but they are too expensive too vulnerable and too SP incentive for most things. people thought it was ridiculous that a large swarm of ECM drones could keep a dread jamed yet carriers are allowed to be jammed out by a pair of ibis
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3915
|
Posted - 2017.05.11 21:40:22 -
[3] - Quote
okay there are also some people who think it would be a great idea to give titans powerful smart bomb style DDs that can be shot through cynos.
as for this idea its not just "some overlap" i have yet to see something posted where this HS carrier adds to the overall balance in eve or brings in something new. basically what is the niche that it would fill
it seems to me the people who want it just want to play with fighters but don't want to invest in a carrier.... that is not a good enough reason to add more ships to eve. remember each ship added does not just take time and resources to be implemented but also adds a permanent draw on balancing and art. this is why the "because it would be cool" argument doesn't work
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3917
|
Posted - 2017.05.12 11:52:48 -
[4] - Quote
Another thing that breaks fighters in hs is gate camping you can sit there with 10+ guys wait for a wt to come through and blap
Unlike with any other hs weapon system you can do this from thousands of km off gate constantly aligning to a warp point.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3918
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 05:40:45 -
[5] - Quote
if you have to put heavy restrictions on an idea its generally a sign that you need to go back to the drawing board.
nerf the hp all you want i grantee you if i don't have to put these things even close to tackle range on a gate i'm using them in wars and laughing at the poor sobs that cant touch my risk averse ***
then if you nerf the fighter hp and damage to that of heavies or less i'm not using them for anything but what i listed above. or have you not bothered to look at the cost for fighters?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3918
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 08:01:17 -
[6] - Quote
you just made them stronger than standard carriers in terms of E-war also 2.5% is more than 2/4 carriers give to their fighters and you do understand that carriers were made to not insta lock for a reason give the NSA to these things and they become worse than scripted Hics when it comes to gate camps even w/o the fighters.
now was all of this intentional or do you just not have a firm grasp on the mechanics?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:05:12 -
[7] - Quote
restriction after restriction how is this not telling you the idea would be a bad one.
now you want to give the gal and minm ones extra bonuses over the other two races?
these would be cheaper and faster than carriers making it much easier to fit sebos over things like tank AND you want to give them tank bonuses. these things will be primary tackle for ever gate camp
the superiority bonus gives them ~86 damage specific dps with perfect application at just about any range. that may not sound like much but just a couple of these in your fleet and enemy frigates/DDs start to melt.
yes the nid (best scan res) has the same scan res as the caldari (worst scan res) BBs and that is what the NSA is built around.
you still haven't addressed if we do manage to stop what makes op who is going to use them? fighters are extremely expensive and are perma jammed by rookie ships.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:58:33 -
[8] - Quote
okay you just said that they would be getting tank bonuses from the hulls they were based on but the gal minm also get extra bonuses to their fighters? or do they not get the tank bonuses?
superiority fighters have a 90% damage reduction when used against ships/structures and can not use the tackle ability.
1. most of the carriers cost comes from fighters
2. a carrier hull is not much more than a t2 BB so these are not much cheaper
3. a carrier would still be more cost effective to use against other carriers. if these can only use one flight they don't stand a chance.
4. carriers can use gates....
5. we used an onyx that cost way more than 1b to camp gates it's not all that much
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 02:47:29 -
[9] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Hey, I saw something that looked like a pattern for carriers, and I tried to follow it. If it makes no sense, that's not necessarily my fault. I think this goes back to when fighters were actually capital drones, that's why Gallente gets bonus for them.
yes the gal/min get fighter bonuses and the amarr/cal get tank. that is fine its not just some hold over the problem was you wanted to give the gal/min tank AND fighter bonuses.
Quote:
The hull is a T2 battleship, with base targeting stats closer to the higher values of the category. These ships however should have few high slots. They won't have special modules, weapon hardpoints or command burst abilities (I never intended to give them), so 4 high slots should be enough. They get extra mid slots for the sensor boosters instead. 2 fighter squads can be used at a time, support fighters are limited to 1 squad at a time.
the scan res thing is okay though it does take away from one of the unique features of the black ops hull line. so now they get 2 fighter squads???????????????? this gives them 2/3 the DPS of a carrier that would be far more than any battleship currently in the game over 2kdps and ~1.2k dps with just the turret attack. that alone will break them in HS or LS.
Quote:
Escort carrier bonuses:
5% bonus to faction space superiority fighter effectiveness
this was broken when I thought we could only use one at a time w/o any FSU now its just silly. frigs and desi will melt against just one of these escort carriers with this bonus.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 02:48:17 -
[10] - Quote
Quote:
150% bonus to sensor booster scan resolution effectiveness
1000% bonus to sensor booster targeting range effectiveness
+1 target
okay so an NSA only boosts scan res by 500% with this bonus and is balanced by the carrier being unable to use any form of local E-war. this bonus gives them a total of 510% on a single scripted T2 with no local E-war restriction.
Quote:
In hi-sec they are T2 battleships with 2 fighter squads.
again this is over 2k dps
Quote:
If I was calculating correctly (using scripted T2 sensor booster), outside hi-sec with max escort carrier skill, they should have about the same scan resolution that carriers get with NSA.
they will have higher and be able to use non-drone points as well as scrams. something that is a huge balancing factor of the nsa.
Quote:
The fighter support units cost a lot of PG, even with reduced need, you can fit 4 T1 versions and have barely any PG left for defense, and probably won't be able to fit 4 T2 units at all.
that over 2kdps number I gave was using 4 T1 FSU.
Quote:
The last role bonus is there to prevent insta-lock and 100k km targeting range. Logis can help to boost these values in hi-sec, but will be ignored everywhere else. ECCM isn't affected.
if only one module can effect scan res at a time they will not be insta lock on frigs and DD but will be damn near close. ECCM is pointless when you are in a carrier as the FIGHTERS are easily perma jammed having only 7 streangth on the T2 without an nsa. even an ibis can get over that on their ECMs and a griffen can do it with multis.
you only made all the issues with the OP nature of these worse. I don't think you knew the draw backs used to balance the NSA I don't think you know how much DPS fighters put out. I don't think you understand how vulnerable fighters are. I don't think you understand to a deep level how gate camps operate.
now I really like the IDEA of a sub cap carrier. I am some one who is in love with carriers irl and whos first goal in eve was to get a Nid and that was before the mechanic changes. the problem is they are capital ship weapons and they are balanced around being just that. while the mechanics may be fun to get into the hands of more people they are by no means prohibitive in the current game. it's only about a year of training and it should take about that long to afford one anyone (not buy but have the income to afford). If you join a group that uses them regularly you also have plenty of chances to use them once they are trained.
maybe if we try coming at it from a different direction. currently there are no true E-war BBs that line dies at cruisers. (no the scorp and geddon are not true E-war platforms) at the same time support fighters are dramatically under utilized outside of the gallente line. why not build these to be support carriers and build them around support fighters.
give them 3 launch bays
T1 hull bonus to T1 E-war
damps
WD
TP
range (we'll come back to this caldari will be tricky)
t2 bonus to the t2 e-war on the support fighters
cap drain
Point range
webs
strength.
the caldari local bonus will be hard in order to keep it in line with the other three and not step on the scorpions toes. something to do with the ECM burst would probably be best. but I will need to think on it more.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 09:02:54 -
[11] - Quote
you could use the same reasoning for Dooms days.... it's not a good one.
working towards a goal is a good thing that's how progression works and keeps a game interesting. may seem like a long way off but it's not really. I know instant gratification has become the norm with the younger generation but eve isn't the place for that and time and effort make things that much more worth it.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 20:11:54 -
[12] - Quote
one flight of light fighters is a lot of DPS for a BB let alone an E-war plat form. i could see letting it feild some sub cap drones but other than that it's fleet should be defending it so it does not need self defense.
as for changing fighter cool down and abilities for this ship over the last couple of years ccp has stated over and over they want to move away from edge cases and special rules
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.17 21:48:27 -
[13] - Quote
Lol read over the last page petty sure we went over the various damage numbers and why superiority fighters will start to break things do to the perfect application
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3922
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 12:19:42 -
[14] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:It was mentioned multiple times (elsewhere too) that carriers aren't as good for PVP as they used to be. Maybe a solution could be a PVP-centric rework of all carriers including these sub-caps, and creating a rock-paper-scissors standup.
It's not so much that they are not good for PvP it's that there is almost always a better option. Outside a few edge cases a proper fleet can make far better use of a dreads HAW than a carriers fighters. The HAW are also far less vulnerable add they can not be jammed and can not bee destroyed. HAW also doubt have that good awful reload time making their over all dps much much higher. Not to mention a fully fit dread is also cheaper than a fully fit carrier considering the price of fighters made worse by the fact the carrier will almost always lose a few of them. All though cumbersome it is also possible for dreads to refit to anti capital guns mid fought. This is Ann option carriers don't have.
Carriers become better in large high dps fights as they have better buffer and can receive remote logistics. In high numbers fighters also become less vulnerable. Problem is at this level you are better of bringing super carriers rather than stagnated ones.
Really i don't understand ccps thought possess of making carriers fully anti sub cap and at the sane time add HAW. They seem to be two ideas they individually developed and put little thought into the balance between them. HAW being added to ensure dreads could still fill their anti sub role and dedicating carriers to anti sub cap to differentiat themselfs from other capitals.
Another issue carriers have is they can't mix flights. What this means is you can only really bring one fighter type with you in your limited hanger. If you bring two toy will be met with a situation where you may have enough fighters for several flights but unable to frills even a single full one. This however seems to be more of a technical limitation rather than a balance one.
Making fighters much harder to jam when under the effect of an NSA lowering their build cost (particularly the t2) and making them harder to kill would go a long way into making them viable. Now all of these or a combinations of these would go a long way.
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
| |
|