EVE Search - hi sec carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

hi sec carriers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lugh Crow-Slave 3915	Posted - 2017.05.11 21:40:22 - [31] - 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
Unseen Spectre Shadow Eye Ops 49	Posted - 2017.05.11 22:37:29 - [32] - Quote @Lugh I respect your opinion concerning the necessity for a hisec carrier to fill a specific niche and that fighters on ships should be restricted to low/nullsec, but I just disagree. The light carrier would be a damage dealer as much as any other combat vessel just with its own mode of delivering the damage and since fighters are already in hisec I do not see why it should not also be possible to use them on ships in hisec. However, I do agree on the matter of resources which is also why I wrote that I doubt that we will see any such ship for a foreseeable future. Though I am confident that a suitable balance can be achieved, I am fully aware that designing and implementing the ship (including stats, art design etc.) will require resources at CCP - resources which are limited and need to be prioritized for other tasks at hand. We can discuss all the ideas that we want, but in the end it comes down what CCP prioritizes and decides.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5505	Posted - 2017.05.11 22:46:30 - [33] - Quote There isn't a niche. It's a droneboat with expensive and fragile drones. What do you think you can do with a light carrier that you cannot do with a rattlesnake or a dominix? or even an ishtar?
Unseen Spectre Shadow Eye Ops 49	Posted - 2017.05.11 22:58:36 - [34] - Quote @Danika As I mentioned in one of my previous comments the point is to have a ship with fighters in hisec and not drones. Both of them will be damage dealer, however, in my mind the range of the carrier ship will have a much longer range + some of the special fighter abilities. While drone boats may appeal to some, the carrier type ship may appeal to others. It is a matter of diversity. Just because you can do the same with both type of ships does not mean that the other cannot exist. I happen to disagree with the argument that a hisec carrier should not exist just because you can do the same with a drone boat. If you prefer a drone boat then you are of course free use that type of ship rather than a hisec carrier (should such a ship ever come to exist). Eve is a sandbox and you can play it like you want to .
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5505	Posted - 2017.05.11 23:14:16 - [35] - Quote Kindly explain to me what the difference is between a droneboat and a carrier. Use small words, I am the bitterest of bittervets and years of dlying carriers has left me unable to tell why one type of drone is different to another type of drone in any meaningful way. Seems to me that they are both ships that project their damage by using drones, and that carrier drones are more fragile and more expensive than regular drones, which can be repped in flight. There is as much diversity in damage between a dominix and a thanatos as there is between a dominix and an ishtar. As I keep asking and none of you can actually answer, what do you want to do with a carrier that you can't with a battleship? Is it literally just range? Fit range mods to your domi and you can get to 165km without rigs, or 200+ with. Is that long enough range, or do you really think you're going to get NSA range out of a battleship?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.12 00:33:14 - [36] - Quote Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters: - light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones - support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities - heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type. You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use. Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 3032	Posted - 2017.05.12 05:33:18 - [37] - Quote Unseen Spectre wrote: It is a matter of diversity. And here you got this wrong: High sec does not need this diversity. This diversity is one of the pushing factors that makes people want to leave High sec in order to experience more of the game. Removing these pushing factors just to please some afraid people's desires is not a good justification to implement such a broken and unnecessary feature. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5506	Posted - 2017.05.12 06:15:38 - [38] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters: - light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones - support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities - heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type. You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use. Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me. Like light, medium, heavy and ewar drones you mean? Do remember that heavies are supercarrier only as well, and that your 2 or th3 abilities are 'shoot, go fast, shoot a little bit harder' (or 'use ewar, go faster' for supports). They are no more diverse than drones, and they are only more complex in that you can make them go faster on the way to their target. Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers. What niche are you going to pretend these fill?
Unseen Spectre Shadow Eye Ops 49	Posted - 2017.05.12 11:37:03 - [39] - Quote @Rivr I understand your position, but I do not agree. I think this is a matter where I think we can agree to disagree. I may have agreed with you before the Citadel expansion when the fighters were introduced to hisec, but that expansion changed my view. I do not think a hisec carrier will have a significant impact on the flow of people going to low/nullsec. It may for some, but overall I think that for most people going to low/nullsec would have done so anyway because they like that kind of gameplay, and those more prone to stay in hisec will stay in hisec. To fly the carrier you will need to invest close to 1 bill isk for the skills alone (+training time) and 1-2 bill isk on ship and fittings. For some these amounts may be pocket change but for me at least these are significant amounts. For a character that prefers hisec, to go to low/null just to pilot such a ship and likely just to be blown up quickly (because a carrier will be a juicy target, and inexperience with the ship) is neither fun for the pilot nor worth the investment. You could join a corp/an alliance to learn how to pilot it, but if you more prone to stay in hisec, I doubt this will happen. End result the character stays in hisec. It is true that you can train the skill on Singularity (though it may eb easier said than done). You will still need to train the necessary skills and (depending on when you start the training) this may be reset when a new mirror is put on Singularity. Personally, I have another character where I consider training the necessary skills on Tranquility in order to have the skills available on Singularity in order to try out a carrier on Singularity. However, this will not change my playstyle on Tranquility in any way. Rather than a detriment to the flow of characters to low/nullsec this could be an opportunity. Some people may want to go to low/nullsec to fly a true carrier after having experienced the mechanics in a cheaper hisec carrier. Personally, I would like to see a hisec carrier added to the game although this is not likely to happen GÇô for the foreseeable future at least. If things stay as they are that is fine with me but that does not mean that I will go to low/nullsec to fly a carrier GÇô rather I will just not bother trying out that mechanic. I know that some people would like to force more players to low/nullsec. However, I cannot see how this can be done if people do not want to. Eve is a sandbox and people can play it the way they want. A large part of EVEGÇÖs player base is located in hisec and seriously changing hisec could pose a large risk to the income of CCP from the paying players playing in hisec. Likely, things will remain as they are, and as I said above, that is fine with me. I know you likely disagree with me on these points and you are fully entitled to have your opinion - as I am to have mine. @Danika Based on your latest comments I can see that on this matter we can only agree to disagree. Nothing that you or I say will change that. You feel that a new ship should fill a specific niche/role. I do not think this necessarily should be the case. You do not think that those things that set fighters apart (e.g. the controlling mechanics and special abilities) from drones is enough to create a new ship. I think it could be. Anyway thanks for your insights into the matter.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.12 11:52:28 - [40] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers. What niche are you going to pretend these fill? Super carriers have the bonus of being able to use heavy fighters. Carriers get bonus for support fighters. Escort carriers could get bonus for space superiority effectiveness: they can counter other carriers better while having significantly weaker tank, they can be used to counter the citadels' fighter defense everywhere including hi-sec and cyno zones. Also, if I start to train carriers (which takes about 2 months) on the test server today, can you guarantee that the test server's character database won't be mirrored from the main server before I can try how fighters work? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Lugh Crow-Slave 3917	Posted - 2017.05.12 11:52:48 - [41] - 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
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 98	Posted - 2017.05.12 12:19:53 - [42] - Quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncgoPKklVE
Unseen Spectre Shadow Eye Ops 49	Posted - 2017.05.12 14:27:02 - [43] - Quote @Lugh If used for ganking at gates or in Jita or wherever ganking will takes place in hisec, the ship is going to be destroyed by Concord as is already the case. That is not new. If used as part of an ongoing war you I guess you can do the gatecamping the same way in hi/low/nullsec. I once saw a gatecamp on youtube where a regular carrier was used to shoot things coming through (I do not recall whether it was low/nullsec). That represents the same problem as you describe above. But I do not think it means that carriers will be removed from those areas. Capsuleers are resourceful and I am sure they will find a way to handle that as well. As for the range, I do not think a hisec carrier would be able to lock thousands kms away. I stated in one of my previous comments that a hisec non-capital carrier should not have a lock range even close to regular carriers - I was thinking more in the range of 200-300 km and it will not have the nearly the same punch or tank as a regular carrier. I am not saying that a non-capital hisec carrier will be added (because it is likely that it will not happen any time soon). However, I am saying that I think that it can work if the ship is carefully balanced (as any other ship in the game). And yes, there are many aspects to consider and take into account so it will not be easy but that is not the same as saying that it could not work. There are people who will say categorically say that such a ship should never exist! And they are entitled to their opinion, but I just disagree. One of the main reasons I do not believe it will be added to the game is mainly that the design and implementation of such a ship requires resources - resources which are likely limited and are prioritized (and rightly so) on other much more pressing things on CCP's task list. If CCP at some point says that such a ship will never exist then it is end of story, but until then the idea (whether you like it or not) is still on the table.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.12 14:41:14 - [44] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 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. If you gate camping and initiate an illegal battle, you will lose your ship to concord anyways, the difference here is that you will lose about 300 million per ship instead of 10-25 million. And a battleship sized carrier shouldn't have the targeting range of a regular carrier. More like double or maybe triple of a normal battleship. Also, why is one person camping a gate with a carrier who has to micro-manage the fighters constantly worse than the same person logged in from 10 accounts camping the same gate with frigates and/or cruisers? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 3032	Posted - 2017.05.12 14:50:11 - [45] - Quote These ships won't get killed by CONCORD if a war is raging. Instead of having to risk expensive tackle ships on gate where people can actually fight back and create surprises, they can just have these ships at extreme range with the fighters orbiting the gate while cheap tackle grabs the target. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.12 16:28:08 - [46] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: These ships won't get killed by CONCORD if a war is raging. Instead of having to risk expensive tackle ships on gate where people can actually fight back and create surprises, they can just have these ships at extreme range with the fighters orbiting the gate while cheap tackle grabs the target. These carriers would be penalized in hi-sec because concord won't like them either. I'm thinking about 25-50% HP and damage reduction. I'm too lazy to actually calculate it, but a squad of light fighters should have about the same damage that 5 heavy drones can deal. And you would probably lose them faster than you would lose heavy drones. The ability to operate in hi-sec is an extra that comes with their size, they don't need to efficient there. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3918	Posted - 2017.05.13 05:40:45 - [47] - 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
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.13 10:17:15 - [48] - Quote How about this one: Escort carrier skill bonuses: - 2.5% fighter damage and HP (less damage than a carrier gives) - 5% racial space superiority fighter effectiveness - 200% bonus targeting range Battleship bonuses: - racial defense (these ships should be upgrades on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom) ... Role bonus: - can use light and support fighters - can fit NSA, with reduced fitting and activation cost ... - the escort carrier bonuses don't apply in hi-sec No nerf needed and heavy drones will be better in hi-sec if they get bonus from their controlling ship. Set the base targeting range to 100km and you actually need to be in "sniper range" in hi-sec, while you can have 1100km everywhere else. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3918	Posted - 2017.05.14 08:01:17 - [49] - 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
Marika Sunji Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine. 16	Posted - 2017.05.14 10:08:46 - [50] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 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? Come on, it'll work just like insta-nyxing, except everywhere and against anything. How could that possibly be a bad thing is beyond me.

Ramukan Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2017.05.14 11:36:30 - [51] - Quote New maurader: can use 10 super-light fighters (to make balancing easier so you dont have to balance around existing drones or fighters.), must bastion to apply maximum damage, assigns fighters like a carrier, has no other weapon systems and most importantly named: Ramukan ! (this must become a thing)
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.14 12:08:02 - [52] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 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? Okay, I was careless here. The 2.5% would be the Gallente version's trait only, Thanathos also gives 2.5% HP and 5% damage. This case the HP is the same, but the damage bonus is the half. The Minmatar version would get 2.5% damage and velocity, and the Amarr and Caldari nothing... their carriers have bonus resistances, which overlaps with the battleship bonus in my plan. So... weak fighters with a really hard to destroy ship? Interesting. But I don't boost E-war. E-war fighters are the Cenobite, Scarab, Siren and Dromi. These also get 5% bonus from their faction carriers, so even if I would boost E-war, they would be exactly as strong. I boost space superiority fighters instead, which are Equite, Locust, Satyr and Gram. I think the NSA is necessary because battleships normally need a lot of time to lock on fighters and drones, which are the targets of the boosted fighters. This is a big ship designed to counter a carrier, which means a lot of really small targets. The NSA would make it lock about as fast as a destroyer does. We can make a small version of the NSA, specially designed for these ships, if you think it's better. By the way the Nidhoggur (Minmatar carrier) has the same scan resolution as the Rokh and the Navy Scorpion, so it probably wouldn't be too OP if you balance it well. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3919	Posted - 2017.05.14 13:05:12 - [53] - 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
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.14 13:49:14 - [54] - Quote I don't want Gallente and Minmatar to be better than the other two, but their current carriers get fighter bonus, while Amarr and Caldari get resistance bonus. Super carriers follow the same pattern: Gallente and Minmatar have offensive bonus, Amarr and Caldari have resistance bonus with minimal extra damage. Drop the NSA then and ship skill or give role bonus for sensor boosters maybe? This actually sounds much better to be honest. No other ship has sensor booster bonus right? The tank bonus would come from the ships they are based on. These ships shouldn't have other weapons and I didn't have a better idea. According to their description, space superiority fighters are good against drones and other fighters, but not against bigger targets. I don't know how effective they actually are against frigates and destroyers, but those are supposed to be targets of the attack fighters. Who would use them? I don't know. These are cheaper and faster to learn than carriers. These use gates, so you can deploy them in cyno systems. If the incoming enemy fleet is using carriers then you can use these to make them weaker instead of risking your own capitals. I don't think too many people would use 1b+ battleships to gate camp, I think frigates, cruisers and bubbles would be more effective and infinitely cheaper. These may not be necessary, but definitely won't be useless in my opinion. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3919	Posted - 2017.05.14 13:58:33 - [55] - 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
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2017.05.14 17:22:38 - [56] - Quote 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. Also, I heard that capitals (aside from haulers) can only use region gates. I should read more in this topic. Anyways, here is the new version: 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. Escort carrier bonuses: 5% bonus to faction space superiority fighter effectiveness 150% bonus to sensor booster scan resolution effectiveness 1000% bonus to sensor booster targeting range effectiveness +1 target Battleship bonuses: Faction defense from the base ship Role bonus: Can launch light and support fighters Fighter support unit powergrid need reduced by 95% Escort carrier bonuses don't apply in hi-sec In hi-sec they are T2 battleships with 2 fighter squads. The tank bonus applies so you should be able to have a "stable" fit. 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, and the maximum targeting range would be roughly 3000km which is still shorter than the carriers' base targeting range. You need 2 sensor boosters to have both. 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. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3919	Posted - 2017.05.15 02:47:29 - [57] - 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 - [58] - 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
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2017.05.15 08:57:21 - [59] - Quote I think the main reason why I don't understand most of the mechanics is because I personally couldn't try the carriers. I'm more comfortable in cruisers than in battleships, so I'm not really trying to get into capitals yet. But I really enjoy trying to figure out how this mini carrier could work. I took Danika's suggestion though, I had 2 million unused SP from the last public test, that I put into the Thanatos. So I only need about one more month to try it. Hopefully the characters won't get mirrored during this time (more exactly during the last week of learning - that's how my luck usually goes). This is also a reason why a small carrier that's easier to get into would be good. By the way fighter manufacturers would love these ships too. Unexperienced pilots with easy-to-lose equipment are good for the busyness you know. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3919	Posted - 2017.05.15 09:02:54 - [60] - 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



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.