| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
   |
Posted - 2007.08.10 18:31:00 -
[1]
Fine, no additions or changes
Dreadnaught class:
Fine, no additions or changes (other than normal balancing tweaks needed to bring all dreads in line with each other such as more CPU for the phoenix.)
Carrier Class:
Tier 1: CCP desperately needs to give these more defined roles. Currently CCP has already tried to do so with the implementation of logistics modules. This would indicate that the primary use of a carrier should not be fighter bomber tactics and should not be used as a weapons platform. The recent GSC nerf (this was a nerf and not a balance/code fix despite what CCP would have you believe) in haulers specifically related to carriers would also suggest that carriers are not supposed to be used in a logistics(hauling) capacity either. Thus leaving us with the simple answer that the carrierĘs primary use should lay in its repair capabilities and its ability to perform as a limited resupply ship (i.e. carrying frigs and cruisers to the front lines)
The problem: The carrier is currently shoe horned into other roles because of problems with other parts of the game
Unfortunately, this is not a problem that is easily solved.
The first issue is pos logistics. A lot of people continue to feel that the problems created by pos have far outweighed their ōfun factorö and are regarded as nothing more than time sinks for both carebears and PVPers alike. The problems range for fueling to destruction to anchoring.
I propose a number of different solutions to pos mechanics in specific regards to negate some of the need that carriers supply. In addition to the proposed changes CCP has already slated for the next content release (such as differing fuel bays and increased fuel storage)
First decrease the weight of pos fuel by an order of 5-10. Also decrease the raw material weights and any pos related material by the same order. In some cases this decrease almost wouldnĘt be enough. (make sure to adjust pos fuel bays of course to keep max fuel at desired levels) This would help solve the fueling time sink that is pos as decrease some of the logistical burden of pos. Anyone can attest as to constant care and attention any large production pos or PVP pos needs in order to stay up. This change in conjunction with the fuel bay increase would greatly decrease the PVE time sink pos currently are. I also think that on the same level if this change were implemented that the total max fuel bay of each pos should be exactly 15 days instead of the proposed 30.
But again, that is only one side of the equation. In contrast PVPerĘs need the same type of love as well. I am not sure if everyone believes this, but I am sure that A LOT of pvperĘs still feel that pos warfare is broken and will continue to be broken in the foreseeable future.
Currently carriers are still involved in this type of warfare because of the ōpos spamö tactics as they are called. I believe that this might be addressed simply as a stacking nerf to pos. It would work on the deploy times for a pos. So the first pos you deploy would be under normal rules, the second pos would take twice as long to deploy and so on down the line just like mods do.
I would hope that this would be an incentive for people to stop the pos spam but and thus the need to haul a few pos on a fast basis due to pos spam deployed (note this would apply to both sides of the conflict in contested zones) But I am curious as to the arguments that would be deployed against a change such as this.
Of course we havenĘt actually addressed the role of the carrier yet, just ancillary problems. I believe the problems could be alleviated by further restricting the current carrier to a more defined role instead of it being a poor substitute for many different roles, and introduce a carrier to fit combat roles to appears the pvp types.
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 18:32:00 -
[2]
Current carrier changes: Take away most of its current trappings. (read whole post before flaming please) Since CCP has obviously tried to limit its combat capabilities it would seem to me the preferred role of this is a capital version of the current t2 logistics class. Thus I would try to make the carrier fit this role better.
Proposed changes
1. Take away the use of combat fighters and decrease drone bay size accordingly
2. Tailor the ship fittings like you would the logistics class. For example give it decreased cap usage and range of cap logistics mods, give it extra cpu/grid whatever to fit these mods on each race, plus allow them to fit at least 4 and be able to maintain them plus a very strong tank (i.e. one cap rep and 3-4 hardners) make sure they have the cap ability to do this (remember this ship wonĘt have the resists that the logistics ships do, or the agility, so they NEED to be able to tank and rep at the same time unlike their cruiser counter parts)
3. Add special repair fighters
4. Get rid of the siege mode or change it (wonĘt have fighters so it wonĘt need to take that ability away, and will have the increased range and targeting ability already because of the bonuses given to the remote mods like the cruisers do) A lot of people already think the skill reqs are an un-needed burden to the already exceedingly long train times of a carrier versus a dread. The problem with doing away with it is that it takes away the coveted ECM invul that carriers need to actually rep things without getting damped. I can see the point of this argument, and so would suggest if itĘs not removed that the siege mod ONLY gives that ability and readjust the skill reqs accordingly.
5. Remove the ship maint. bay.
7. Remove gang bonuses
8. Maybe decrease some of its hitpoints
9. Remove refitting in space ability
I know, PVPerĘs already hate this change as well as industrialistsą. DonĘt worry I have solutions to both those gripes.
ADD another carrier class (make the logistics carrier a tier 1 carrier, and the mother ship a tier 3 carrier) thus leaving us with a tier 2 combat carrier.
1. Allow it to use combat fighters
2. Allow it to use cap neuts and nos
3. Allow it to use cap webber and scrams (obviously these mods need to be added)
4. Give it some extra hitpoints
5. Give it some type of fighter bonuses and resist bonuses (maybe 5% per lvl or something)
4. DO NOT give it a maint. bay
5. DO NOT give it bonuses to ANY type of logistics ability.
6. DO NOT give it gang bonuses
7. DO NOT give it refit in space ability
Add a tier 2 freighter/carrier
1. DO NOT GIVE IT ANY TYPE OF COMBAT OR LOGISTICS (I.E. REMOTE REP ABILITY, OR FIGHTERS)
2. Give it a ship maint bay. (600-700k) (to fill its intended role better)
3. Give it a repair bay.
4. Give it jump drives (keep it out of empire)
5. Give it bonus to range of drives and or fuel consumption
6. Give it a clone bay (on a side note give the mother ship class a nice clone bay bonus so as not to diminish its role)
7. Do not give it freight ability above 50-100k
8. Give it minimal fittings (not seen in combat afterall)
9. Give it refit in space ability
10. Possibly restrict hauler class from being put in ship bay (use the cargo bay instead)
11. give it no restrictions to picking up junk in space like freighters or carriers.
SIDE NOTE : Remove all silly restrictions on clone bays to make them more usable on cap ships (keep the number of pods stored down however)
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 18:33:00 -
[3]
Ore capital ship:
This ship already has problems before itĘs even released as outlined by several postersą.
It seems like it suffers from the same problems the current carrier class does nową trying to do too much at once.
1. DoesnĘt need bonus to cargo scanners or survey scanners. (this SHOULD be handled by another ship class)
2. ShouldnĘt provide gang bonuses (again this SHOULD already be handled by another class)
3. Only have a special bay to hold 4 barge type vessels of any type (to limit abuses since we should have the carrier/freighter class added
4. Special bay for compressed ore only (should not be used as a deep space freighter)
5. Get rid of the stupid siege mode (not the assembly lines) The horrible agility already makes it hard to get out of a tough situation as it is. The 10 min timer will keep this ship away from its true function (P.S. should have minimal fittings as well to echo its vulnerability like a freighter since it wonĘt be stuck in place)
6. Keep the clone bay (needed to be a true deep space miner)
7. Keep/give it a repair bay and a ship fitting ability
8. Give it bonus to range/fuel consumption of jump drives
9. Minimal drone bay (200-300)
10. Minimal corp hanger (2-5k)
Mothershipsą
Def need bonuses to number of pods held in clone bay (IĘd suggest 5 per level)
Not sure of other changes at the moment because I havenĘt played with one yet.
Titansą
DonĘt care since most people canĘt fly them or afford them :)
This way every ship has a defined role and purpose.
|
Gendis
Bunny Rabbit Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 19:34:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
this was a nerf and not a balance/code fix despite what CCP would have you believe
Stopped caring after that part
And whining about a ship that doesn't even has it's model yet is about as dumb as it gets
So is not going into titans for your so called "solution" to capitals BTW
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.11 15:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gendis
Quote:
this was a nerf and not a balance/code fix despite what CCP would have you believe
Stopped caring after that part
And whining about a ship that doesn't even has it's model yet is about as dumb as it gets
So is not going into titans for your so called "solution" to capitals BTW
Let me be clear, I could care less about the change to GSC in carriers... I have a carrier mind you and this didnt affect me one bit. What I did care about was the how/why that CCP made the change. Personally I think they should just covert all cans to the space they take up and not give any extra room... but that is not for this thread.
Second, none of this was a whine, but of course I wouldnt expect you to understand a well thought out and reasoned post seeing as you lack the ability to form one yourself.
Third Titans just got balanced and are still in the phase of people trying to figure out what to do with them. Personally, I do think alot of changes need to be made to them.
1. Keep the 10 min Jump timer but dont let them be stoppable by bubbles. It makes no since that a ship the size of a small moon would be able to be stopped by a bubble.
2. They need to adjust bump mechanics, a frig bumping a titan to keep it in place is stupid.
3. They need to allow titans to move objects they bump against, (like corpses, cans, and ship wreks... again for the same reason as number 1)
Now that I have addressed all your points please stfu or come back with an actual post.
|
Gendis
Bunny Rabbit Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 16:09:00 -
[6]
Well let's see here, you say carriers need fixing, which they don't
And you claim the ore ship needs fixing aswell, which isn't even out yet
So the changes of you getting a decent post actually responding to anything you said is pretty much 0%
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 04:02:00 -
[7]
I like to laugh at naive people. 3 Months ago no body had a thing to say about my proposed changes... but now that carriers and moms are getting the nerf bat hard everyone and their mother wants to use arguements I came up with two months ago while everyone at the time was saying that carriers and the like were fine...
My how the forum community is fickle.... I shall feast on your misery and love it all!!!!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=624096
|
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 04:20:00 -
[8]
Take fighters away? If i want to fly a logistic ship that can't defend itself and is expendable i would fly... well a logistic ship.
I'm flying a carrier here buddy. If i want to unleash 15 fighters on some poor noob's Battleship (anything else has ample time to warp away) then i have the full right to do so.
Oh and last time i checked (that was 1 hour ago), logistic modules for capital ships suck so much they are good for one thing... repair the POS and station facilities. Funnnnn...
So CCP, start by cutting the CPU need of the capital shield transporter by half (yay i can fit 2 now on my chimera) and cut the cap need by at lest 50% (yay i can fix people and not die out of cap!).
Does that make them to uber? Well ******* decide, you want us to rep people or not???
|
Relnala
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 05:44:00 -
[9]
Somebody didn't read the whole post like he asked before they started flaming.
Originally by: Icome4u
Take fighters away? If i want to fly a logistic ship that can't defend itself and is expendable i would fly... well a logistic ship.
I'm flying a carrier here buddy. If i want to unleash 15 fighters on some poor noob's Battleship (anything else has ample time to warp away) then i have the full right to do so.
Oh and last time i checked (that was 1 hour ago), logistic modules for capital ships suck so much they are good for one thing... repair the POS and station facilities. Funnnnn...
So CCP, start by cutting the CPU need of the capital shield transporter by half (yay i can fit 2 now on my chimera) and cut the cap need by at lest 50% (yay i can fix people and not die out of cap!).
Does that make them to uber? Well ******* decide, you want us to rep people or not???
|
Riley Craven
Caldari
Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Relnala
Somebody didn't read the whole post like he asked before they started flaming.
Yeah reading seems to be a lost art these days....
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |