EVE Search - Make Carriers harder to jam...Seriously..

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Make Carriers harder to jam...Seriously..

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Neveren Caldari Setenta Corp Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.21 15:19:00 - [1] 1 cruiser... yes... 1 Cruiser at 20k off my bow... Had me jammed to where I could not do a thing but sit there.. not to mention the 2 frigs that had my Targeting range to about 5k.. 3 T1 ships should not be able to Disable a capital ship to an extent that he cannot defend himself like that.. It was almost sad.. luckily I survived.. but If I got cought in the open like that.. Their is nothing you can do when your jammed and damped by 3 measly T1 ships... STC recruiting!
Jaedar Metron Artificial Horizons YouWhat	Posted - 2007.05.21 15:23:00 - [2] No problem there. A capital ship is not supposed to be caught alone in the open like that. Get some support mate. I firmly believe 1 T1 cruiser and 2 T1 Frigs woulda tipped the favour of the battle to your side, no?
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.05.21 15:33:00 - [3] Yep, get support. luckily you survived? You would have passive tanked them @ about 90%-95 shield. Thats when running a armor tank btw. Serieusly these carriers are getting used way to much imo, we tried to kill a bs, eris and taranis when suddenly 4 carriers were cynoed in . My cruiser could warp out in time though, they got nothing, we got nothing. Sounds like you are doing the same thing, only solo than. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
DarkElf Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.05.21 15:43:00 - [4] ok firstly u should be dishing out ur fighters instanly before anyone can even get a lock on you then then auto agress the first thing to agress you. ecm cruisers die rather quick to 13 fighters. secondly in regards to the title "make carriers harder to jam" well they are. read the dev blogs DE
Corwain Gallente Zero Team	Posted - 2007.05.21 19:57:00 - [5] The beauty of EVE is that stupid people flying expensive ships die to small numbers of smart people flying T1 ships. The day this changes is the day I leave EVE.
Oniko Sengir Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.05.21 20:23:00 - [6] Learn to 'Their' and 'your' please.
Gorion Wassenar Caldari Tsurokigaarai APEX Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.05.21 20:24:00 - [7] And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." ----- results may vary
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.21 20:38:00 - [8] Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:01:00 - [9] Fit a couple eccms and you won't be jammed any more, carriers have tons of slots...
VicturusTeSaluto	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:06:00 - [10] A shame that you survived This game has too many big ships. I would like to see a region where nothing larger than a BC is allowed.
Janu Hull Caldari Order of Z Industries	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:16:00 - [11] Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto A shame that you survived This game has too many big ships. I would like to see a region where nothing larger than a BC is allowed. Empire lowsec is littered with 4/10 complexes. Feel free to visit. This is my sig, there are many others just like it. With me, my sig is worthless. Without (or with even) my sig, I am worthless...
Daelin Blackleaf No Joy Corp Pride - Honor - Duty	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:28:00 - [12] This kind of ingores the non-solo situation where one (or both) sides carriers are rendered useless both for attack and defence by the opossing fleets noobs in maulus'. The fact is Maulus' (well just about anything but Maulu's are the logical choice) can dampen carriers to uselessness on a 1/1 ratio, yes support can take them out but thats a lot of logistical support and firepower kept out of action for quite some time, not to mention the fleet having to concentrate on taking out the low sig radius ships. Of course if you really wanted to screw over a carrier heavy fleet just fit a damp on each ship. It surprises me that more fleets dont already do so for the obvious tactical benefits even against opposing BS... I must be missing some flaw in that plan but even a double (perhaps even tripple) sensor boosted battleship would have it's lock range reduced below the kind of ranges we see fleets exchaning rounds from with a few damps applied.
Rulaigh NicMorrigan	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf This kind of ingores the non-solo situation where one (or both) sides carriers are rendered useless both for attack and defence by the opossing fleets noobs in maulus'. The fact is Maulus' (well just about anything but Maulu's are the logical choice) can dampen carriers to uselessness on a 1/1 ratio, yes support can take them out but thats a lot of logistical support and firepower kept out of action for quite some time, not to mention the fleet having to concentrate on taking out the low sig radius ships. Of course if you really wanted to screw over a carrier heavy fleet just fit a damp on each ship. It surprises me that more fleets dont already do so for the obvious tactical benefits even against opposing BS... I must be missing some flaw in that plan but even a double (perhaps even tripple) sensor boosted battleship would have it's lock range reduced below the kind of ranges we see fleets exchaning rounds from with a few damps applied. Any time dampeners or jammers come into a battle and are used efectively on one or both sides, the battle turns into "who can protect the EW better" There's nothing wrong with that, that's just the way it is, unless they're going to nerf EW out of the game completly, which would tick me off to no end. Get an ever loving Rifter out to the Maulus and it's dead in 20 seconds. How hard is that? Carriers. Must. Have. Support.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf This kind of ingores the non-solo situation where one (or both) sides carriers are rendered useless both for attack and defence by the opossing fleets noobs in maulus'. The fact is Maulus' (well just about anything but Maulu's are the logical choice) can dampen carriers to uselessness on a 1/1 ratio, yes support can take them out but thats a lot of logistical support and firepower kept out of action for quite some time, not to mention the fleet having to concentrate on taking out the low sig radius ships. Of course if you really wanted to screw over a carrier heavy fleet just fit a damp on each ship. It surprises me that more fleets dont already do so for the obvious tactical benefits even against opposing BS... I must be missing some flaw in that plan but even a double (perhaps even tripple) sensor boosted battleship would have it's lock range reduced below the kind of ranges we see fleets exchaning rounds from with a few damps applied. Why damps arent used in fleets? Check the stats. Than check the optimal range bonus you get on the specialised damp ships...oh wait _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Elspeth Vigneron Caldari Phoenix Logistics Industries	Posted - 2007.05.21 21:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Phoenix Logistics Industries
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.21 22:46:00 - [16] stop whining adapt
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.21 23:05:00 - [17] Originally by: Elspeth Vigneron Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Give carriers in game AEGIS, CIWS, RIM-7s, and SRBOCs as well as a realistic jamming system and we'll talk... --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.21 23:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Elspeth Vigneron Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Not really. Linkage CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.05.21 23:45:00 - [19] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. and if you had common sense enough to have support you could have assigned your fighters to friends and those T1 frigs wouldn't matter, however you didn't and almost got what you deserved for thinking carrier was solo pwnmobile "almost" ____________ DubanFP > where ever there is a player that's getting too rich, wherever there's an industrial with too much loot, wherever there is a noob with too much smack we'll be there...
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.22 00:00:00 - [20] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. and if you had common sense enough to have support you could have assigned your fighters to friends and those T1 frigs wouldn't matter, however you didn't and almost got what you deserved for thinking carrier was solo pwnmobile "almost" I wasn't the OP, I do fly with friends, but it is silly because in a larger gang it's impossible to know which of the dozens of ships you're engaging is damping you. Thus your buddies don't know who to kill and your frontline usefulness is nil. Thankfully Triage will fix the frontline uselessness, but at the expense of our damage usefulness. Immunity to damps, massively increased targeting speed and range, way better tank, but we lose all our DPS CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.22 00:07:00 - [21] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. and if you had common sense enough to have support you could have assigned your fighters to friends and those T1 frigs wouldn't matter, however you didn't and almost got what you deserved for thinking carrier was solo pwnmobile "almost" I wasn't the OP, I do fly with friends, but it is silly because in a larger gang it's impossible to know which of the dozens of ships you're engaging is damping you. Thus your buddies don't know who to kill and your frontline usefulness is nil. Thankfully Triage will fix the frontline uselessness, but at the expense of our damage usefulness. Immunity to damps, massively increased targeting speed and range, way better tank, but we lose all our DPS U mean whole 1500dps with good skilled thanatos ? I can get that with my domi... --- Cheap paint ftw
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.22 00:41:00 - [22] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Gorion Wassenar And I quote. "The Carrier was never ment to be a solowtfpwnmobile." But it wasn't designed to be made useless by a pair of T1 frigs either. and if you had common sense enough to have support you could have assigned your fighters to friends and those T1 frigs wouldn't matter, however you didn't and almost got what you deserved for thinking carrier was solo pwnmobile "almost" He should just park his carrier in a POS. The only reason to have a carrier on grid in a gang is to support your allies, a single damper ship can bring the targeting range of a carrier down to practically 0 - even in triage. Triage mode is just "park and wait to die mode" - without EWAR immunity you'll be jammed and dampened, meaning that you can't target your buddies to repair them. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Cyan Gadarin Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.05.22 01:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Elspeth Vigneron Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Not really. Linkage Carriers use RAM, don't they? (useless post 101)
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.22 01:52:00 - [24] Originally by: Hllaxiu Triage mode is just "park and wait to die mode" - without EWAR immunity you'll be jammed and dampened, meaning that you can't target your buddies to repair them. A birdy on the test server told me that Triage would get similar/same Ewar immunity as dreads siege mode. Not sure if it's final though. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2007.05.22 02:19:00 - [25] Umm one gall cruiser could screw you over more. 3-4 damps + 1-2 warp jamms, then pelt you with drones but if you are a tanth of a brian you can use use t1 and t2 and have a dual running cap rep will will take in alot of fire power. Also if one started to attack why didn't ya launch fighters?
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.05.22 03:12:00 - [26] um... smartbombs? duh?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.22 08:59:00 - [27] Originally by: Hllaxiu He should just park his carrier in a POS. The only reason to have a carrier on grid in a gang is to support your allies, a single damper ship can bring the targeting range of a carrier down to practically 0 - even in triage. Not really. A ship with 4 damps and max ship & skillboni will bring a thanatos with 2 sensorboosters and triage down to 30k. Which is just fine for assisiting gangmats and fighters can be delegated if needed.
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.22 15:12:00 - [28] Originally by: MotherMoon um... smartbombs? duh? Which part u didnt understand ? Smartbomb take care of drones and ships that get too close :] --- Cheap paint ftw
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.22 16:13:00 - [29] Edited by: Rigsta on 22/05/2007 16:16:27 Originally by: Vicious Phoenix it's impossible to know which of the dozens of ships you're engaging is damping you. A bar saying "Miscellaneus [Player Name]"(sp) should appear above your HP bars when you're being sensor dampened. It will state ECM if they're using ECM, misc for anything else. Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.05.22 16:27:00 - [30] Carriers are 'measely T1 ships'. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Star Commander
Almarez Setenta Corp Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.22 20:17:00 - [31] People, before you criticize please ask for the rest of the story. First, a carrier is a support ship, sure, but it should be able to defend itself from a small gang. Secondly, there weren't just a couple of small ships, there were BS shooting Neverin also (if it's the incident I'm thinking of), which is why he lost some fighters. Third, what makes Neverin stupid, the fact that he was out in a carrier without a gang of his own? Since when the hell is that a requirement?
Donathan Slade Kay Korporation Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.05.22 21:31:00 - [32] Well, you may want to risk a 1 Bill ship(without fitting) solo, but I sure as hell won't. Carriers i agree should be able to target, without targeting they are nearly worthless unless they again, sit at a POS and assign their fighters to others in a gang. Hell, you can't even tell fighters to attack something if you don't have something targeted. But EW, web it!! Seriously, having motherships and titans preventable from EW is what makes them have the ability to jump out as quickly as they do.
ForumPosterAlt	Posted - 2007.05.22 21:35:00 - [33] From my perspective all of these ships that "should be this should be that" are already too much like a solo pwnwagon and need to be removed.
Megan Maynard Minmatar RONA Deepspace	Posted - 2007.05.22 21:41:00 - [34] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Elspeth Vigneron Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Not really. Linkage Now you are wrong, those were phased out last year by the RIM-116 Airframe missile system. It's at the bottom of the page, the guns were too slow, missiles work better in real life for pvp purposes. hehehehe
Neveren Caldari Setenta Corp Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.22 21:44:00 - [35] You can do whatever you want in this game for enjoyment.. The only time my heart beats is when I put super expensive ships up against odds.. for me now that is using My carrier as a Front line combat unit.. I go point blank and like it that way.. what i disapprove of is how easily it can be jammed and damped to 0.. STC recruiting!
Kermis Caldari Cryo Crypt inc.	Posted - 2007.05.22 23:20:00 - [36] Originally by: Almarez People, before you criticize please ask for the rest of the story. First, a carrier is a support ship, sure, but it should be able to defend itself from a small gang. Secondly, there weren't just a couple of small ships, there were BS shooting Neverin also (if it's the incident I'm thinking of), which is why he lost some fighters. Third, what makes Neverin stupid, the fact that he was out in a carrier without a gang of his own? Since when the hell is that a requirement? Right, so there was more stuff shooting him, that makes it even more fair...
Franconis Gallente	Posted - 2007.05.23 09:52:00 - [37] Originally by: Corwain The beauty of EVE is that stupid people flying expensive ships die to small numbers of smart people flying T1 ships. The day this changes is the day I leave EVE. You're my hero. _________ Gallente FTW
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Revelation Space	Posted - 2007.05.23 10:23:00 - [38] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Elspeth Vigneron Why not? In real life an Exocet missile fired from an airplane can sink a nuclear powered aircraft carrier if it gets a lucky shot. Not really. Linkage Now you are wrong, those were phased out last year by the RIM-116 Airframe missile system. It's at the bottom of the page, the guns were too slow, missiles work better in real life for pvp purposes. hehehehe Good job the Royal Navy was there... let's face it, when the Yanks are shooting each other you need the Royal Navy to intercept enemy anti ship missles.
Ling Lin Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2007.05.23 12:01:00 - [39] I think they are arent they? xxxxxxxxxxxxxx TAKE A CHANCE and win big Isk http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=524751
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.05.23 12:27:00 - [40] Originally by: Almarez People, before you criticize please ask for the rest of the story. First, a carrier is a support ship, sure, but it should be able to defend itself from a small gang. Secondly, there weren't just a couple of small ships, there were BS shooting Neverin also (if it's the incident I'm thinking of), which is why he lost some fighters. Third, what makes Neverin stupid, the fact that he was out in a carrier without a gang of his own? Since when the hell is that a requirement? No, a carrier needs support. Hell, you can't get it out of the system without a gangmate helping you.
Chrysalis D'lilth	Posted - 2007.05.23 12:49:00 - [41] Originally by: Almarez People, before you criticize please ask for the rest of the story. First, a carrier is a support ship, sure, but it should be able to defend itself from a small gang. Secondly, there weren't just a couple of small ships, there were BS shooting Neverin also (if it's the incident I'm thinking of), which is why he lost some fighters. Third, what makes Neverin stupid, the fact that he was out in a carrier without a gang of his own? Since when the hell is that a requirement? First - Why should a carrier be able to kill a smart well fitted small gang? Second - More ships = more chance of getting in over your head, your arguing our point for us. Third - Your trying to imply that if you can do something, you obviously aren't stupid.... your logic is in error, this is exactly what makes it stupid. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean its the clever (read : not stupid) thing to do. Often Bravado and stupidity go hand in hand. It was a stupid thing to do.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.05.23 17:28:00 - [42] What i dont like is how pointless a carrier can be made by a module that is just as good in any other situation. Just think of a 5 vs. 5 fight. One side brings 5 BS, each has a dampener. Other side brings 4 BS and a carrier. Carrier is fit for remote support, lets say capital rep and shield transfer and 3 neuts. In the fight the carrier gets dampened, but being clever has already delegated his fighters to the other ships. Sounds good? Not really. He would have been better of hugging a pos or safespot with gangmods and a cloak fitted, also being at 0 risk. People should be rewarded for bringing capital ships to the frontlines, that was the whole reason for the capital hp buff wasnt it? Why has a carrier such a high sensor strenght if its supposed to be made useless by a pair of frigs? I think its just faulty mechanics at work here, carriers have about 4x the ecm strength of BS, but it wasnt possible to give them 4x the strength vs damps because of the hardcap at 250km range and the way damps work. So ccp just ignored it because it would have required some deeper changes to solve it.
Phrixus Zephyr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.23 18:12:00 - [43] 1) Fighter and drones agress any new cycle of ECM. 2) ECCM would make you almost unjammable. Try testing it. 3) You should have had support. 1 decent 'ceptor pilot would have nailed those two frigs to the wall even with the cruiser shooting at him. 3 T1 ships should be able to disable you if that's what they were fit to do. They adapted to you, maybe you should try the same. Originally by: Benglada And whos going to tackle for them? Jesus?
Christopher Dalran Gallente Deadly Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.23 19:48:00 - [44] Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 23/05/2007 19:59:54 Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 23/05/2007 19:58:02 Carriers are not meant to be solo pvp machines, your damage comes from fighters. You need to have support ships nearby, even a single atron or even an imicus can be assigned fighters while you are being jammed and send them after targets. For christs sake even someone in a POD can be assigned fighters. The problem is not that Carriers need to be better protected from ew, you should not be using them all by themselves. Also in a gang you WANT the carrier to be shot at, that keeps your other ships alive while your massive armor reppers (or shield) on the Carrier reapair the damage. If they damp your carrier and start shooting thats a good thing, now you dont need to worry about remote reping. Your carrier can soak up and repair better than the other ships. What I would probably do with my carrier is store extra fitted cruisers/frigates inside it and sit it somewhere away from the battle. If a ships is badly damaged have it retreat to the carrier to get repaired and return to the battle. If one of your gang mates loses his ship have him flee back to the carrier and jettison a ship from the docking bay for him to board and rejoin the fight. If i could afford a carrier thats most likely what i would do with it. ------------------------------- C.D's Formula for success ------------------------------- Credit Card = Game Time Card Gametime Card = ISK Therefore Credit Card = ISK.
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.05.23 21:13:00 - [45] IMHO: CCP has stated they want carriers brought to the front lines. And I agree with them. But asking players to put a 2 billion isk ship on the line that can be disabled so easily is kind of wacky. I have some random idea's that I think may help: Remove targeting restrictions on gang members, if they are on grid they can be targeted regardless of range and weather you are jammed or not. Maybe also identify ganged ships when targeted I.E. instead of the regular ship picture and shield/armor/hull readout thing maybe give it a border of some sort. While we're on the subject perhaps adding a cap readout to the target icon would be a good idea, with the way combat is currently cap is often more important than armor/shield in small gangs and a lot of the time a cap ships tank only fails when it runs out of cap. Allow drone users the ability of their drones to prioratize targets. You could set your drones to attack people who are EW'ing you, scrambling you, or anyone who is agressing you or just not to agress at all. The drone interface and AI sucks in soo many ways right now and this could be something of an improvement. Boost carriers resistance to EW, maybe give it +2 WCS stregnth and a 50% 'resistance' boost to damps, ecm bursts and ECM. Feel free to flame these ideas our of the sky. _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
Earthan Gallente The Absolutely Amazing Fire Eaters Breidablik	Posted - 2007.05.23 21:44:00 - [46] Originally by: Kodiak31415 IMHO: CCP has stated they want carriers brought to the front lines. And I agree with them. But asking players to put a 2 billion isk ship on the line that can be disabled so easily is kind of wacky. I have some random idea's that I think may help: Remove targeting restrictions on gang members, if they are on grid they can be targeted regardless of range and weather you are jammed or not. Maybe also identify ganged ships when targeted I.E. instead of the regular ship picture and shield/armor/hull readout thing maybe give it a border of some sort. While we're on the subject perhaps adding a cap readout to the target icon would be a good idea, with the way combat is currently cap is often more important than armor/shield in small gangs and a lot of the time a cap ships tank only fails when it runs out of cap. Allow drone users the ability of their drones to prioratize targets. You could set your drones to attack people who are EW'ing you, scrambling you, or anyone who is agressing you or just not to agress at all. The drone interface and AI sucks in soo many ways right now and this could be something of an improvement. Boost carriers resistance to EW, maybe give it +2 WCS stregnth and a 50% 'resistance' boost to damps, ecm bursts and ECM. Feel free to flame these ideas our of the sky. i like these propostions, nice - Killing Eve bullies all over the galaxy
Entilzah Valen 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.05.23 21:44:00 - [47] lol at the comparisons to modern naval warfare. A lucky shot that will never happen. __________________________ Quote: Marko Debreault > I WILL MAKE BROTH FROM YOUR BLOOD AND DRINK IT FROM YOUR SKULL
Christopher Dalran Gallente Deadly Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.23 21:58:00 - [48] I'm completly 100% against giving carriers any form of ew resistance, however i am 100% for allowing instant targeting of GANG members regardless of what is going on. If someone needs a reason lets just say the target ship sends you their position, your computer has to do no work since the target ship sends the data to you. I think that would fix problems but still not make carriers solo killing machines. ------------------------------- C.D's Formula for success ------------------------------- Credit Card = Game Time Card Gametime Card = ISK Therefore Credit Card = ISK.
Isellstuffformymain	Posted - 2007.05.23 21:59:00 - [49] Originally by: Christopher Dalran For christs sake even someone in a POD can be assigned fighters. Good luck putting 5 fighters to use with a pod. The maximum lock range on a capsule is 1m, and last time I checked you couldn't even target things that register at 0m.
Katarina Hetiako Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.05.23 22:51:00 - [50] Would sir like some cheese with this whine? Yup, I'm an alt... if only you could see my main... he's so strong and tough!
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.05.23 22:55:00 - [51] Originally by: Christopher Dalran I'm completly 100% against giving carriers any form of ew resistance, Too late :) CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.05.24 01:29:00 - [52] Tired of being dampened, scrambled and jammed? No problemo! Get a mothership! òòòòòòòòòòòò VIP member of the [23] Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.24 01:49:00 - [53] Originally by: Kodiak31415 IMHO: CCP has stated they want carriers brought to the front lines. And I agree with them. But asking players to put a 2 billion isk ship on the line that can be disabled so easily is kind of wacky. I have some random idea's that I think may help: Remove targeting restrictions on gang members, if they are on grid they can be targeted regardless of range and weather you are jammed or not. Maybe also identify ganged ships when targeted I.E. instead of the regular ship picture and shield/armor/hull readout thing maybe give it a border of some sort. While we're on the subject perhaps adding a cap readout to the target icon would be a good idea, with the way combat is currently cap is often more important than armor/shield in small gangs and a lot of the time a cap ships tank only fails when it runs out of cap. Allow drone users the ability of their drones to prioratize targets. You could set your drones to attack people who are EW'ing you, scrambling you, or anyone who is agressing you or just not to agress at all. The drone interface and AI sucks in soo many ways right now and this could be something of an improvement. Boost carriers resistance to EW, maybe give it +2 WCS stregnth and a 50% 'resistance' boost to damps, ecm bursts and ECM. Feel free to flame these ideas our of the sky. Signed also on friendly locking part, lets say that ppl who broadcast request (via broadcast system, ie they call "need armor") then carrier is able to just lock them, regardless of range whatsoever. --- Cheap paint ftw
Zekk Pacus Caldari StateCorp The State	Posted - 2007.05.24 06:26:00 - [54] Originally by: Almarez People, before you criticize please ask for the rest of the story. First, a carrier is a support ship, sure, but it should be able to defend itself from a small gang. Secondly, there weren't just a couple of small ships, there were BS shooting Neverin also (if it's the incident I'm thinking of), which is why he lost some fighters. Third, what makes Neverin stupid, the fact that he was out in a carrier without a gang of his own? Since when the hell is that a requirement? Since Carriers are not solo ships. Carriers are dropped on people far, far too much - they're supposed to be used to SUPPORT a gang, not 'oh look at us we have capitals run away you peons'. If he got caught by a fair sized gang solo, he'd die. If he got caught by a fair sized gang with support of a few recons and a few BC, his firepower would tip the balance. See the difference?
Bentula	Posted - 2007.05.24 08:10:00 - [55] Originally by: Zekk Pacus Since Carriers are not solo ships. Carriers are dropped on people far, far too much - they're supposed to be used to SUPPORT a gang, not 'oh look at us we have capitals run away you peons'. If he got caught by a fair sized gang solo, he'd die. If he got caught by a fair sized gang with support of a few recons and a few BC, his firepower would tip the balance. See the difference? Ironically its the supporting that gets killed by EW and not the "pwning" the carrier does. See the difference?
hellsknights Hells Angels Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.24 08:34:00 - [56] Edited by: hellsknights on 24/05/2007 08:33:56 Originally by: Vincent Almasy Umm one gall cruiser could screw you over more. 3-4 damps + 1-2 warp jamms, then pelt you with drones but {if you are a tanth of a brian} you can use use t1 and t2 and have a dual running cap rep will will take in alot of fire power. Also if one started to attack why didn't ya launch fighters? Just wondering what this means??? I put brackets to point out my question.. Hells EDIT... Actually from where my bracket starts all the way to the end what the hell does it all mean?
Cathy Penflam	Posted - 2007.05.24 11:40:00 - [57] Well, that could be the beginning of a Golden Age for the maybe most unused module in EVE : Let me introduce the Remote Sensor BOOSTER

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.