Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 20:16:00 -
[1]
As it stands Fighters are the only real Carrier 'Weapon', which is fine, but lacks variety.
I propose that the Fighter skill be changed to Carrier Drone skill, and the following be added:
Carrier Fighters - Current Fighters minus the warp pursuit ability. Can still warp with a friendly ship or to targets locked by the Carrier.
Carrier Bombers - These would be a whole new type of Drone Fighter, they would be larger, slower, and more durable than Fighters. They would carry FireStorm Missiles that do a base 5000 Thermal Damage, but also have a warp scrambling effect for 5 seconds. Refire rate would be in the realm of 30 seconds and CBombers would be helpless against small ships and even CFighters. CBomber orbits the target at 25 km and fires the Missile at 30 km.
Carrier Interceptors - Extremely Fast, but weaker, and less durable than CFighters. Cannot be assigned to friendlies, but can use the warp pursuit ability. Even though they do less damage, they are more accurate with superb tracking and sig resolution.
Additional changes I would consider, are letting Carriers target and engage targets beyond the 250 km limit. And perhaps even 'see' beyond the default 500 Radius Gridsphere. Also, give Carriers and Motherships warp options to Warp to 200, 300, 400, and 500 km.
I also want considered a Subspace Interference module that prohibits the Carrier from jumping in/out, warping, or cloaking, but will do the same to enemy and friendly ships in its radius (50 km or so).
Another change to capitals in general I'd consider would be to increase all hitpoints by a factor of 10, but also limit mid and low slot count to 5. Then give each one 8 hi slots.
Tanking for eternity is fun I spose, but sucks for the game overall.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 20:34:00 -
[2]
I support this. As more and more people get into carriers, more varied fighters would be a great addition.
One class of heavy bombers (slow, good DPS, hits large targets well) One class of interceptors (very fast, little DPS, hits small targets well)
Needs alot more thought and balancing but i really like the idea.
|
NoNah
Marzipan Monkeys Distant Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 20:52:00 -
[3]
Tell me if I'm missing something with your numbers, but youre suggesting a gun that deals out 125k alpha, with a RoF of 30 seconds? Almost 3 doomsdays worth of damage(not AoE ofc) per alpha? Interesting. Not sure there would be much use of the warp scrambling effect on instapoppers of doom.
10 times the amount of hitpoints!?
I support more times of fighters, but dude, your numbers?
Post count: 680853
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 21:21:00 -
[4]
I knew I forgot something:
Carrier Control Point Value (CCPV):
Archon, Chimera, Nidhoggur, and Thanatos Base Control Points:
CInterceptor - 4 CFighter - 4 CBomber - 2
Aeon, Hel, Nyx, and Wyvern Base Control Points:
CInterceptor - 8 CFighter - 8 CBomber - 4
Each Carrier Skill Level and/or Drone Control Unit adds 2 CInterceptor, 2 CFighter, and 1 CBomber Control Point for Carriers and 4 CInterceptor, 4 CFighter, and 2 CBomber Control Points for Motherships. To counter lag generation, the CDrones would be arranged in Type Squadrons of up to 7 units.
For example at Carrier 5 without DCUs:
Nidhoggur could field 14 Minotaur CInterceptors, 14 Einherji CFighters, and 7 Anhilation CBombers in 5 Squadrons
Hel could field 28 CInterceptors, 28 CFighters, and 14 CBombers in 10 Squadrons
To counter lag
Carriers will lose the ability to use traditional drones, yet gain 50% larger drone bays.
Carriers should also have the ability to repair CDrones internally perhaps using a fuel.
The Bonuses from Carrier Drone skill:
CFighters would carry on the 20% Dmg Bonus, CIntercepters would have a 20% Velocity Bonus, and CBombers would get a 20% HP Bonus per level.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 21:22:00 -
[5]
Those number can certainly be tweaked as 7x 5000 Dmg might be too much. Perhaps the CBomber dmg should be reduced to 2000.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Pociomundo
Gallente World Order The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 21:25:00 -
[6]
More variety of Fighters for Carriers Yes.
Slot changes and 10x hitpoints? Nah.
|
Meat Wadd
Caldari Aquateen Hunger Force
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 22:18:00 -
[7]
Agreed on the different types of fighters... but thats about it. I would also like normal drones to have the control range of fighters when used with a carrier. This would allow Carriers to use convetional drones more in the everyday operations and keep the fighters and carrier safe at range.
Just my 2 cents
Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Number 1 in the Hood, G |
GC13
Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 22:43:00 -
[8]
As tempted as I would be to force the bombers to use munitions stored in the corporate hangar, that would murder the server with keeping track of the ammo count for 10+ bombers per carrier...
My bombers, relative to existing fighters: 400m signature resolution 1/2 velocity/orbit speed 2x optimal range, falloff 1/4 tracking speed 3x damage modifier 2x rate of fire (taken together, 1.5x DPS) 30-40% more mineral cost 6,000 m^3
My interceptors, relative to existing fighters: 40m signature resolution 75% the HP 2x velocity/orbit speed 4x tracking speed 0.2x damage modifier 0.5x rate of fire (taken together, 0.4x DPS) 40-50% less mineral cost. 2,000 m^3
Plain old fighters would be dropped to 4,000 m^3, and carriers would have no modification made to their drone bays.
All in all, I'm going for a whole new version of "I will DESTROY you!!!111" with the carriers.
More of a light-hearted suggestion than anything, but feel free to have fun with it.
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 22:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Pociomundo More variety of Fighters for Carriers Yes.
Slot changes and 10x hitpoints? Nah.
Well if it makes any difference, I think tanking in general is too strong, so all ships should be reduced in mid/low slots but also have an hp increase.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Lithalnas
Amarr Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 23:58:00 -
[10]
The only think i really like about this is carrier bombers (higher damage than fighters) and a midsize carrier drone, something thats cheaper and smaller than fighters but still too large for a domi. ------------- Hadean Drive Yards
|
|
James Grand
Phoenix Navy Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 00:30:00 -
[11]
Different types of fighters would be cool. Your specifics and your other ideas are horrible though to be honest. Lag is bad enough as it is, without carriers having to load extra big grids. Ships with over 6mil HP before skills, no thanks. And turning carriers into super-dictors, WTF?
-------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed in my posts are entirely my own. |
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 05:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: James Grand Lag is bad enough as it is, without carriers having to load extra big grids.
That only matters when something is on the grid to be loaded.
Quote: Ships with over 6mil HP before skills, no thanks.
Er...?
The Avatar would be merely 3.5 million HP before skills...and it would tank a lot less.
Quote: And turning carriers into super-dictors, WTF?
It was an idea...but what exactly is wrong with it?
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
musgrattio
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 05:41:00 -
[13]
Different types of fighters would be very cool, and I would agree with have 3 types, just like you said. You have the fighter, general use, tanks well, does good damage, and actually moves. Then the bomber, tanks and hits very well, but goes 500 m/s at best. Then Interceptor fighters, fast but low damage. Any major changes to the structure of carriers would be too much in a single patch.
|
GC13
Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 05:58:00 -
[14]
I wouldn't have the bombers rep all that well. You need to keep fighters from being completely obsoleted.
Perhaps give them a shield/armor rep like the rats have? Keep that away from the interceptors and bombers, have fun with it.
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
Dominik Miethling
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 08:05:00 -
[15]
Carriers are support with weapons, there is no need to put more focus on weapons ie "put more weapons on the Logistics!!!" This sucks because it will improve the carriers for doing things solo or with very little help. And this shouldn't be.
|
Groox
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 08:13:00 -
[16]
How about overheating option for FighterBombers. In other words turning them into "divine wind" [read: kamikaze]
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 08:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Groox How about overheating option for FighterBombers. In other words turning them into "divine wind" [read: kamikaze]
Einherji belonging to Sokratesz crashes into your front docking bay wrecking for 50,000 Damage
|
n0thing
omen.
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 08:31:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Anubis Xian Those number can certainly be tweaked as 7x 5000 Dmg might be too much. Perhaps the CBomber dmg should be reduced to 2000.
500 at most.
Otherwise you can still instapop anything smaller then BS. ---
|
madaluap
Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 09:20:00 -
[19]
We need cheaper and faster fighters. Those fighter interceptors sound awesome. Isnt it a idea to make the warping on fighters a option. So if you untag the option, they wont warp after a target? _________________________________________________ Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Pociomundo
Gallente World Order The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 09:37:00 -
[20]
Bombers intended as just being for Carriers assaulting a POS or another Capital Ship would be lovely.
|
|
Nelius
Gallente Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 10:16:00 -
[21]
Mmm, interresting idea, would love to see something like this ingame, however, i do believe that the carriers are supposed to be logistics ships? Your idea would make them WAY to combat oriented to be logistic ships...
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 13:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Anubis Xian Those number can certainly be tweaked as 7x 5000 Dmg might be too much. Perhaps the CBomber dmg should be reduced to 2000.
500 at most.
Otherwise you can still instapop anything smaller then BS.
That is the problem? Easy enough then, give their missile the same stats as a Citadel Torpedo.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 13:11:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Nelius Mmm, interresting idea, would love to see something like this ingame, however, i do believe that the carriers are supposed to be logistics ships? Your idea would make them WAY to combat oriented to be logistic ships...
Not at all, they can still fullfill their logistics role. And with the rest of my suggestions, they also become easier to kill for non capital fleets, just taking a bit longer to do it is all with a higher possibility for losses.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
GC13
Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 16:30:00 -
[24]
Carriers are supposed to be logistics ships?
I know that, and you know that, but judging from a lot of the setups thrown around these forums do you think most of the forum warriors know that?
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 16:11:00 -
[25]
I plan to use my Carrier to the fullest in battle and after battle, which is why I went for the one I did.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Teani
Gallente omen.
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 20:45:00 -
[26]
It really annoys me (as far as a game can :P) when people go on about carrier being logistics focused , you have the triage mod to do that , why not have the option to make them more offensive based. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit on the forums -Darth Patches |
Teark Valkro
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 20:54:00 -
[27]
New fighter types? Yes please. Your proposed changes? Doesn't make sense in eve.
|
TimMc
The Caldari Confederation
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 22:02:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Teark Valkro New fighter types? Yes please. Your proposed changes? Doesn't make sense in eve.
Indeed.
These FighterBombers sound immensely overpowered, to even reach them being possible options in game they would have to have properties like being only able to fire once, then have to dock, and deal 4000 racial damage from each shot (with at least 75% resistences that most good pvp players use, thats 1000 damage from each fighter). Having to dock up again would make them more of a close range weapon, discouraging blasterboats from getting in close (Anything over 30km and it probably won't be worth the bother).
The FighterInterceptors sound nice but could eliminate the need for new player flying smaller ships to support the carrier - something CCP will not want probably.
I think the other ideas are pointless and irrelevant (Super 'Dictor!?). Would normal Fighters be eliminated once these two classes were add?
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 05:17:00 -
[29]
Originally by: TimMc These FighterBombers sound immensely overpowered, to even reach them being possible options in game they would have to have properties like being only able to fire once, then have to dock, and deal 4000 racial damage from each shot (with at least 75% resistences that most good pvp players use, thats 1000 damage from each fighter). Having to dock up again would make them more of a close range weapon, discouraging blasterboats from getting in close (Anything over 30km and it probably won't be worth the bother).
Further down in the topic are revisions about CBombers.
Quote: The FighterInterceptors sound nice but could eliminate the need for new player flying smaller ships to support the carrier - something CCP will not want probably.
Not exactly, granted I don't know of many Carriers that fly around supported by nubs.
Quote: I think the other ideas are pointless (10x HP and less slots?! sounds like a freighter - inflexible) and irrelevant (Super 'Dictor!?). Would normal Fighters be eliminated once these two classes were add?
Normal Fighters simply lose their warp pursuit ability (which is given to CInterceptors). The hp boost and slot reduction does make them more inflexible...yet the 'Fighter' Changes definately makes them much more versatile...and that is the way Carriers should be felixible...in deployment options, not tanking options. Tanking in Eve is too powerful anyway.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 05:22:00 -
[30]
Fighters are expensive. There should be an increase in hitpoints to show for how expensive they are, but should not be so much that it takes forever to pop one. I say somewhere between two and four times their current hit points.
As far as different fighters, YES please. Fighter bombers see to be what everyone would like to see. Maybe they take up more space, say 10km3 to 15km3 and do launch those big citidel torps. The damage type would be reflected depending on the race. I have heard a lot of people want warp scrambling fighters. Sounds good but can you imagine how super uber they would be. If something like that was put out there then I say give it half of the current fighter hitpoints and make them really fast but when they get in orbit of the target they slow down. Maybe make them like 2.5km3 but I don't know, that would make the carrier very, very powerful.
And one more thing, something where we can tell the fighters to defend the carrier or something in case we are dampened/jammed. They are like 18 mill each, so I am sure they have some radio in those things that can hear the captain yelling "Help me!!"
Oh, and another high slot on the motherships and carrier please :) lol, again, maybe to much.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |