EVE Search - Why cant players dock in carriers and tag along on jumps?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why cant players dock in carriers and tag along on jumps?

» 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)
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 13:59:00 - [1] This really bugs me, why cannot players dock into carriers and tag along on the jump instead of the current system where carriers can only carry pilotless ships. Imagine the strategic possibilities of actually carrying a small fleet with you, instead of only having pilotless hulls! Incidently it would also improve the Rorqual since people would no longer have to clone jump (with all its limitations) to make the Rorqual work in some remote backwater system. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Van Steiza Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:05:00 - [2] 1 word- Disconections!
Taedrin Gallente Magellan Exploration and Survey Zzz	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:05:00 - [3] /signed. Though I must say that I have never had the chance to pilot a carrier (or any other cap ship for that matter) or even have a friend who pilots one. I just think it would be a cool idea and have interesting implications to be able to use a carrier like one would be used in real life. To carry ships, supplies and personnel to the battlefield.
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:15:00 - [4] Originally by: Van Steiza 1 word- Disconections! I dont see any difference between that and having 20 people jumping in through a gate at the same time. Imo a pilot docked in a carrier should see no more then he does when in a station. Once hes loaded the new system he can undock from the ship, if he gets disconnected he would just log right back into the carrier if its still alive, if it got popped he would get podded along with the carrier. From a gameplay perspective I think the carrier would finally earn its name, at the moment its just a large drone boat that can carry some spare hulls. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Ray McCormack hirr	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:17:00 - [5] Because that is what Titans are for. Proud steward of more public ISK than Motivated Prophet. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans.
ToxicFire Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:17:00 - [6] Edited by: ToxicFire on 10/09/2007 14:20:27 It will happen eventually, think with ambulation the desire for something along those lines will increase, theres already popped up some discussions by the devs about a real interbus in terms of allowing players to book passage from place to place without needing to fly themselves. If you want to extend it beyond that turn capital ships into true capitals not just super ships with a set of slots docked pilots would be able to operate a capital sized turret on the capital ship. While the pilot would perhaps only be able to navigate and control non offensive modules. It would mean that capital ships would need a team to operate rather than just a single pilot. Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Ray McCormack Because that is what Titans are for. This is not a jump bridge, a jump bridge can take any ship along, where as this would be limited to currently docked ships. Considering the size of the ship maintenance bay in a carrier you could bring about 20 pilots in frigates, or maybe 4 pilots in cruisers etc. In other words, its nowhere near a titan and it wont compete with a titan jump bridge. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
TomParad0x Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:46:00 - [8] Originally by: Van Steiza 1 word- Disconections! Just store the player in a 'station' type instance, then when he undocks get the location of the carrier and place him there. Then the character isnt actually jumping, and if the carrier is in jump / warp, dont allow an undock. There are obviously flags to detect that, or else it wouldnt know how to say "You cant do (x) while in warp". /signed - would be a nice addition to capital ships (Carriers / titans, whatever its applied on).
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:51:00 - [9] Originally by: Doxs Roxs Originally by: Ray McCormack Because that is what Titans are for. This is not a jump bridge, a jump bridge can take any ship along, where as this would be limited to currently docked ships. Considering the size of the ship maintenance bay in a carrier you could bring about 20 pilots in frigates, or maybe 4 pilots in cruisers etc. In other words, its nowhere near a titan and it wont compete with a titan jump bridge. Regards /Doxs Yes, but if we allow this, then who's to say that you can't just load your entire alliance - all the pilots - into the carrier? there's certainly enough room. I don't know if that's a bad thing, but the carrier's capacity for personnel is surely bigger than the number of pilots available for the ships currently loaded into its ship maitenence bay. __________________________________
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Terianna Eri Yes, but if we allow this, then who's to say that you can't just load your entire alliance - all the pilots - into the carrier? there's certainly enough room. I don't know if that's a bad thing, but the carrier's capacity for personnel is surely bigger than the number of pilots available for the ships currently loaded into its ship maitenence bay. I dont understand what you mean here? Just like TomParad0x says you should be able to dock just like you do at a station. If a bunch of people want to dock with pods I dont see a problem with that, just balance the amount of space a pod takes and you will have a nice limit on how many pods a carrier can carry. I dont quite see the point of bringing pods along for a jump though, but if someone wants to spend money on jumping pods, be my guest. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...

B1G DAVE Veto.	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:19:00 - [11] And if the carrier pilot gets disconnected? Everyone docked with him has to wait until he reconnects? ___________________________________________ ✖ Our Home, Our Corp, Our VETO ✖ Contrary to popular belief, I do not have sexual relations with sheep!
Saint Luka The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:33:00 - [12] Originally by: B1G DAVE And if the carrier pilot gets disconnected? Everyone docked with him has to wait until he reconnects? The people inside the carrier who login whilst the carrier is offline should be automatically ejected from the carrier and appear in space, just as if they logged off thier.
Captian Internet Lead Bricks	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:38:00 - [13] This would be sweet provided the ships docked in the carrier fit in the maintinece bay etc. Would give the carrier more use than risk free hauling and fighter spam Local Thread 107-b,War ,Navigation Shortcuts
nightslasher	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:40:00 - [14] Originally by: Saint Luka Originally by: B1G DAVE And if the carrier pilot gets disconnected? Everyone docked with him has to wait until he reconnects? The people inside the carrier who login whilst the carrier is offline should be automatically ejected from the carrier and appear in space, just as if they logged off thier. Well, the carrier pilot might have logged out within a hostile station, right? why should I be ejected into space, in that case? I like where you are headed, but it is an incomplete solution needing more thought.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:24:00 - [15] You already have that ability - with Moms and Titans. And the use of the Clone Vat bay on those ships is so limited that CCP is considering removing it. I see too many possible problems with docking active ships on a carrier, and since there is a game mechanism that already allows this I don't see a need for a new one.
Sir Scorpion Black Banners	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:49:00 - [16] Well that is what carriers are supposed to do to be honest, that is what I expected of them first time I heard about them, at the moment they are nothing but big drones ships mixed with big drones and some big logistic cruiser. /Signed, this will be one of the small things that will make EVE even grater
Sir Scorpion Black Banners	Posted - 2007.09.10 17:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Princess Jodi You already have that ability - with Moms and Titans. And the use of the Clone Vat bay on those ships is so limited that CCP is considering removing it. I see too many possible problems with docking active ships on a carrier, and since there is a game mechanism that already allows this I don't see a need for a new one. Ok its been a very long time since I been close to capitals, but I was around for the first one and part of a few escort operations with it. and I am sure that you cant dock into a Titan or a mothership.
Akkarin Pagan Minmatar Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.09.10 20:05:00 - [18] There appears to be a general misconception of what a carrier is for and what it does, as well as a misconception about smaller ship types. Carriers use small single man fighter drones as their main armament, very similar to modern 21st century carriers. Frigates and cruisers on the other hand are quite sizable ships in their own right, and simply wouldn't fit into the fighter launch arrays. The Carrier's main role is to support a front line fleet with fighters and logistics. Look at historical usage of carriers, they operate beyond visual range, and use their fighters to project firepower beyond the horizon. If a carrier is in range of a hostile ship's guns something has gone very wrong for the carrier. This translates slightly differently in EVE, as front line carriers are viable, operating in close support of a battle fleet, as well as sitting near a pos to provide rep and drone support to a fight. They are not designed to allow frigates or cruisers to dock with them in space and be transported with pilot to a new operating area. Motherships to a lesser extent already cover this role anyway, and afaik Moms generally get used as a large carrier with the added bons of being e-war immune. Akkarin Hopefully the mods won't play with this one <3 - Immy
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.10 20:07:00 - [19] Originally by: Taedrin /signed. Though I must say that I have never had the chance to pilot a carrier (or any other cap ship for that matter) or even have a friend who pilots one. I just think it would be a cool idea and have interesting implications to be able to use a carrier like one would be used in real life. To carry ships, supplies and personnel to the battlefield. Real life carriers don't carry ships.
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 20:46:00 - [20] I dont understand why some of you persist in saying that this function is already handled by the titan and mothership class. This is nothing like the jump bridge or clone vat bays. Pilots would have no way of spawning a new pod in the carrier, all that should be available is for ships to dock in it so that they can tag along when the carrier jumps. Akkarin Pagan, saying that this is not a correct understanding of the carriers function is quite funny, since you can dock ships into it today, its just that you cannot dock piloted ships. Whats the reason for not being able to dock a piloted ship? After all, the ship is assembled and complete with fittings, the only thing it lacks is a driver. While the net effect would be that you can move ships and pilots with a capital fleet this is nothing like the titans jump bridge. This is much more limited in its implementation since you can only bring some frigates or a couple of cruisers at most. I think motherships and titans should also be able to use their ship maintenance bays in a similar fashion. Regarding problems with pilots in the carrier when it docks, why not have them transfer to the station? Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...

Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:05:00 - [21] the real reason is that pod-pilot's egos are just too big to fit two of them on a carrier, forcing two aboard the same carrier would cause a distortion in space-time and automatically implode the carrier :P seriously though, it'd be nice if they can add that function in somehow.
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:17:00 - [22] Hehe thats a great idea, would be kewl if i could take my own escort onboard and jump into the great unknown, knowing that i'm not alone CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Philip Stark	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:25:00 - [23] Ok its apparent that you havent seen the size of the Fighter Drones, they are Frig sized (5000m3) when assmblied) So like the person said instead of having clone vat bays, why not just let the pilots dock and enjoy the ride. Think of the possibilites this would bring. This would allow getting more people out to 0.0 as you no longer have to worry about gatecamps. If most of your Alliance is in empire or low sec space, then you could get everyone on board the carrier and have it jump to the front line when an Alliance needed more personnel for an attack or defence. This is something I think should be implmented soon, as it would be a better tool than clone vat bays.
Some Caldari Caldari Shadow Warrioz	Posted - 2007.09.10 22:59:00 - [24] /signed this would be an awesome addition. With ambulation you should also be able to walk around the carrier and beat up the pilot if you think he's not doing a good job too =P ------------ Originally by: Nyphur Mining is women's work, dammit!
Redback911 Malevolent Intentions Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:13:00 - [25] Would be awesome, I think the only reason tehy dont do it is tehc difficulties. Oh well...
velocity7	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:23:00 - [26] /signed
Scrammer	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:25:00 - [27] I approve. In Picard's voice Make it so.
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:35:00 - [28] Player should be able to board ANY ship as the passenger, except for maybe a shuttle. When the ship player is the passenger on docks with the mothership or other capital with docked ships, player should be able to pilot one of his ships there and undock. Hope they implement this with ambulation ... At least it would make sense then.
Tamia Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:55:00 - [29] Balance issues aside, the only major problem seems to be the situation where the carrier pilot logs off with online pilots inside. Someone suggested that in that situation, ships should be ejected, but that could cause a few problems, with pilots not necessarily wanting to be forced to leave the carrier. The easier solution i can imagine is having pilots docked in the carrier have a station-like interface, where they can stay even if the carrier pilot is not logged in. If they choose to undock, then they will appear at the location the carrier was when it logged off. Maybe even make the carrier appear for a few seconds while you undock so your ship doesn't just pop out of nowhere. Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
Leighanne	Posted - 2007.09.11 00:28:00 - [30] I think this would be a good idea - the idea of a clone vat bay and jumping to a carrer/ms/titan only works if you can do it at will not once every 24hours. I think that being able to dock with a capital ships (excluding dreads) would be very cool. I can see the problems with having the pilot log off and trapping all other pilots inside. I think this can be solved one of two ways. 1) Limit this ability to Titans/MS only since they cannot dock in the first place meaning they always remain in space and if the pilot was logged off then they can still undock normally as they would do with a station. 2) When a disconnect is detected - all docked ships with a POD in them immediately get forcibly ejected into space. Any ships without a pod remain in the hanger and disappear with the carrier. I highly doubt this is going to happen but it would be very cool if carriers/ms/titans became more like movable stations rather then simply fighter escort. This would make them truely fulfil their role as fleet support and resupply. Also note that a station environment would not contain any stations services such as fitting or repair or anything of the like (except a medical facility if the ship has a clone vat bay online and activated). It must also be possible for the carrier pilot to forcibly eject any ship with or without a pod in it into space at will. Yes this opens the possibility for greifing - but this is a freeform game and if you choose to trust a carrier pilot by docking with him then thats the risk you take. Might be able to work in with ambulation - I'm a bit worried that since Titans and MS can't dock they won't have staterooms or anything like carriers and below will. This would be very disappointing since I would assume that supercaps would have the most luxuary accomodation of any ship - in particular a titan. - Leighanne

Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.11 00:52:00 - [31] Edited by: Hllaxiu on 11/09/2007 00:52:14 Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Taedrin /signed. Though I must say that I have never had the chance to pilot a carrier (or any other cap ship for that matter) or even have a friend who pilots one. I just think it would be a cool idea and have interesting implications to be able to use a carrier like one would be used in real life. To carry ships, supplies and personnel to the battlefield. Real life carriers don't carry ships. No, but they can have a large complement of boats. Tier 1 carriers have a fighter complement similar to that of an amphibious assault ship (the American Wasp class is an example). These ships have a large section of their hull devoted to carrying landing craft - it would not be out of the question for a scaled up version of a ship like this to have room for a large complement of "ships". --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.11 07:54:00 - [32] Originally by: Leighanne When a disconnect is detected - all docked ships with a POD in them immediately get forcibly ejected into space. Any ships without a pod remain in the hanger and disappear with the carrier. Great idea, I think thats a good solution. Wether one wants them to get ejected before or after the carrier warps to safe is up for debate, but I like the general idea. Originally by: Leighanne Also note that a station environment would not contain any stations services such as fitting or repair or anything of the like (except a medical facility if the ship has a clone vat bay online and activated). I got to disagree with you here, carriers already have fitting services today. Why remove them, especially since it goes along nicely with the carriers fleet support role. I would even go so far as to suggest that carriers could add repair services by fitting a repair services module. Thus they could sacrifice a slot to enhance their logistic capabilities. Originally by: Leighanne It must also be possible for the carrier pilot to forcibly eject any ship with or without a pod in it into space at will. Yes this opens the possibility for greifing - but this is a freeform game and if you choose to trust a carrier pilot by docking with him then thats the risk you take. I got to agree here, othervise a carrier might end up with his ship maintenance bay clogged with logged off players. I think the solution is simple yet effective. Just have ships that are logged off warp to a safespot and dissapear when ejected from the carrier, just like disconnected players ships do today. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Virgil Son	Posted - 2007.09.11 08:06:00 - [33] Great idea, let's see this implemented next week!
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.11 08:31:00 - [34] Would perhaps be overpowered for carriers to be able to do this - no-one would ever get cought in a gatecamp again moveing to/from 0.0 but for motherships... mabey, they probaley need a bit of a boost since the dictorbubble boosts etc. Though i must say being able to jump in on some random hostiles and launch about 20 corpmates in interceptors / AF's and a cloud of fighters would be sooo very cool, though i would probaley have to rename my carrier "Galactica", and that would be just game breaking - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Solokar	Posted - 2007.09.11 10:32:00 - [35] This idea sure would help with the insanely annoying jump clone timer. It would be nice to hop a ride on one of the logistics carriers instead of clone jumping.
Eva Katrin	Posted - 2007.09.11 10:40:00 - [36] When carriers were first mentioned by the devs long ago, this was the original function I thought they would have. Not some over sized drone boat. Only reasons I can think why they didn't do this is game mechanics limitations or they didn't have the skills to program it that way.
Maglorre	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Philip Stark If most of your Alliance is in empire or low sec space, then you could get everyone on board the carrier and have it jump to the front line when an Alliance needed more personnel for an attack or defence. Yeah, great idea, flash blobs in EVE.
cal nereus Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:08:00 - [38] I like it. It's a nice idea. Needs more thought and/or work, and I think CCP should take up the baton from here.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:14:00 - [39] Originally by: Maglorre Originally by: Philip Stark If most of your Alliance is in empire or low sec space, then you could get everyone on board the carrier and have it jump to the front line when an Alliance needed more personnel for an attack or defence. Yeah, great idea, flash blobs in EVE. You fail at sarcasm. Also wtf not? Wars are blobby ffs. Name a war that wasnt. People dont line up on the front lines in nice spacious formations. No ! humans blob! the cause of blobbing is being human. So to summarize players don't like blobs and want CCP to nerf being human? "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein A blog of truth (not mine)
BrutusIW Eternal Pheonix Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2007.09.11 12:22:00 - [40] Originally by: Alski Would perhaps be overpowered for carriers to be able to do this - no-one would ever get cought in a gatecamp again moveing to/from 0.0 but for motherships... mabey, they probaley need a bit of a boost since the dictorbubble boosts etc. Though i must say being able to jump in on some random hostiles and launch about 20 corpmates in interceptors / AF's and a cloud of fighters would be sooo very cool, though i would probaley have to rename my carrier "Galactica", and that would be just game breaking this would be soo sweet, you can imagine the hostiles faces as they find a lonely carrier (with the corp mates in local) and decide to attack only to see all hell undock from it! /me needs a quiet place now.

Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:23:00 - [41] Originally by: Hllaxiu Edited by: Hllaxiu on 11/09/2007 00:52:14 Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Taedrin /signed. Though I must say that I have never had the chance to pilot a carrier (or any other cap ship for that matter) or even have a friend who pilots one. I just think it would be a cool idea and have interesting implications to be able to use a carrier like one would be used in real life. To carry ships, supplies and personnel to the battlefield. Real life carriers don't carry ships. No, but they can have a large complement of boats. Tier 1 carriers have a fighter complement similar to that of an amphibious assault ship (the American Wasp class is an example). These ships have a large section of their hull devoted to carrying landing craft - it would not be out of the question for a scaled up version of a ship like this to have room for a large complement of "ships". First of all, those are special carriers for amphibious operations. Regular aircraft carriers only have fixed wing aircraft and helicopters (Eve equivalent is fighter drones). Secondly, no carrier in history has been able to carry war ships around. Not even corvettes, let alone frigates, destroyers and cruisers.
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:33:00 - [42] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Hllaxiu Edited by: Hllaxiu on 11/09/2007 00:52:14 Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Taedrin /signed. Though I must say that I have never had the chance to pilot a carrier (or any other cap ship for that matter) or even have a friend who pilots one. I just think it would be a cool idea and have interesting implications to be able to use a carrier like one would be used in real life. To carry ships, supplies and personnel to the battlefield. Real life carriers don't carry ships. No, but they can have a large complement of boats. Tier 1 carriers have a fighter complement similar to that of an amphibious assault ship (the American Wasp class is an example). These ships have a large section of their hull devoted to carrying landing craft - it would not be out of the question for a scaled up version of a ship like this to have room for a large complement of "ships". First of all, those are special carriers for amphibious operations. Regular aircraft carriers only have fixed wing aircraft and helicopters (Eve equivalent is fighter drones). Secondly, no carrier in history has been able to carry war ships around. Not even corvettes, let alone frigates, destroyers and cruisers. Look at the eve ship size chart again. (Here). As far as relative scales go, I wouldn't consider anything smaller than a battlecruiser a blue water navy ship, if we peg eve capitals as modern day capitals. Frigates and cruisers in game are more like small boats in real life. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
proffen	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:38:00 - [43] think its more deeply burried in the engine, we heard about syncron bugs before from the devs and i think it might be burried somewhere in there. Perhaps something new we will see with a new engine in place are multiplayer ships and stacked motherships jumping and traveling in space. being able to set owner on items would change a lot for this game, with a corp vote a ship could be voted corporation as owner and any member with access could enter and pilot them, it would at least remove the danger of a carrier pilot logging off and trapping his corporation inside. offcourse being able to set ownership would solve tons of other problems as well for items shared in shared hangars.
Reem Fairchild	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:49:00 - [44] Originally by: Hllaxiu Look at the eve ship size chart again. (Here). As far as relative scales go, I wouldn't consider anything smaller than a battlecruiser a blue water navy ship, if we peg eve capitals as modern day capitals. Frigates and cruisers in game are more like small boats in real life. Small boats aren't combat ships. And a real life carrier could also, if it wanted to, carry a few (real life) frigates around. It's large enough to do it. It just doesn't. So any defending this idea with "that's how real life carriers work", is bull **. (Not to mention that it is bull ** just by virtue of being irrelevant even if it were true).
Zarph Asguard Security Service Angels Of Discord	Posted - 2007.09.11 17:02:00 - [45] Spacing Guild Heighliners FTW. (I guess maybe this is your cap freighter also) Can't move other than jumping. Can't jump to a destination within .5 au of any terrestial body excepting a friendly transport (new tower type?) pos, basically if the cyno can be near a station but the jumpin point will automatically be an auto safespot in that system. Transportee's get standard gate cloak on jumpin Has no offensive power. Can't Dock. Does not protect occupants from attack unless in mid jump. (they are not sealed from open space) Limitation on size, (can't hold a standard freighter or larger). Has only small cargohold for actual items. (all transportable freight needs to be in another ship) hi/lo sec restricted? Ships aren't sealed in and the heighliner is either at point A or B atomically so there is no disconnection policy. Will not jump a ship with a offensive weapon system online (or perhaps it automatically offlines all your modules when you jump). Fairly limiting jump timer, you won't be dropping a blob of ships into hostile territory and making a speedy getaway. Just for the heck of it no armor or shield, and somewhat heavy structure
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.11 17:18:00 - [46] Originally by: Tamia Clant The easier solution i can imagine is having pilots docked in the carrier have a station-like interface, where they can stay even if the carrier pilot is not logged in. If they choose to undock, then they will appear at the location the carrier was when it logged off. Maybe even make the carrier appear for a few seconds while you undock so your ship doesn't just pop out of nowhere. This would promote invisible log-in traps. Although I don't have a better idea atm other than what has already been proposed: forcible ejection. - Got grief?
Mithrantir Ob'lontra Gallente Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.09.11 17:30:00 - [47] Edited by: Mithrantir Ob''lontra on 11/09/2007 17:32:37 Edited by: Mithrantir Ob''lontra on 11/09/2007 17:32:15 Originally by: Andargor theWise Originally by: Tamia Clant The easier solution i can imagine is having pilots docked in the carrier have a station-like interface, where they can stay even if the carrier pilot is not logged in. If they choose to undock, then they will appear at the location the carrier was when it logged off. Maybe even make the carrier appear for a few seconds while you undock so your ship doesn't just pop out of nowhere. This would promote invisible log-in traps. Although I don't have a better idea atm other than what has already been proposed: forcible ejection. I thought that the idea of the log on trap was that one is logging in (thus appearing in local) when the trap is sprung. Here you have not quite the same setup since the pilots online will be visible in local. The carrier pilot won't be online and not visible in local. Also as an idea is a good one, don't know if it's easy to implement though. And maybe not for Carriers (or they have a very limited capacity), but for Motherships and Titans is something that should give their role a certain level of fulfillment. ------- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it.
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.12 10:27:00 - [48] Originally by: Andargor theWise Originally by: Tamia Clant The easier solution i can imagine is having pilots docked in the carrier have a station-like interface, where they can stay even if the carrier pilot is not logged in. If they choose to undock, then they will appear at the location the carrier was when it logged off. Maybe even make the carrier appear for a few seconds while you undock so your ship doesn't just pop out of nowhere. This would promote invisible log-in traps. Although I don't have a better idea atm other than what has already been proposed: forcible ejection. Pilots should be forcibly ejected if they are logged in and the carrier logs off. This is to prevent people being able to see local from inside a carrier that is no longer in space. However , if the pod pilot is also logged off when the carrier logs off I see no need to eject him. If he logs on when the carrier is still logged off Id say he should appear in space at the carriers last known location, just as if he had logged off there himself. These are very simple rules and I see no game breaking features or logon traps coming from this potential change. It will allow carriers to carry their own escorts though, and thats my point. I would not like to see this limited to titans and motherships, while they are technically easier to get a hold of these days, I feel it will limit this to the larger alliances out there. My vision is for this to be used by smaller corps and alliances as well, and dont forget, a carriers ship maintenance bay is very limited in size compared to a mothership or a titan, you cannot carry all that much with you. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Navek Krone Caldari Old Farts Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.09.12 11:36:00 - [49] me likes this idea signed
Lord Timelord Artifex Dynamics New Eden Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.12 11:54:00 - [50] If CCP would do this... it would be a damn good reason to ante up for EVE for a full year at a time! SO SAY WE ALL! __________ My Corporation's Website

Kade Jeekin Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.09.12 13:52:00 - [51] Sorry Philip Stark but fighters 5000m3 compared to Frigates 5000m3 packaged. Not sure I'd like to be in a packaged Rifter (assembled 27289m3 much preferable). This is not arguing against the OP though. I like his ideas. If built frigs can be inside carriers then why not piloted built frigs (programming limitations aside ofc). /signed --------------------------------------- Outface the depths of evil with clarity ---------------------------------------
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Kade Jeekin If built frigs can be inside carriers then why not piloted built frigs (programming limitations aside ofc). This is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks for a short version of my rabble If built and in the carrier, why not bring the pilot as well! Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Secret Shopper	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:50:00 - [53] The question is, do the pilots inside of the carrier show up in local?
Meepie	Posted - 2007.09.13 15:04:00 - [54] This kinda thing will be possible in Infinity
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.13 15:28:00 - [55] Originally by: Secret Shopper The question is, do the pilots inside of the carrier show up in local? Ofcourse they should, you dont dissapear from local becouse you dock at a station, do you? Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Khandara Seraphim	Posted - 2007.09.13 15:49:00 - [56] I think this idea is great. Alliances and corporations with the resources to spend on carriers and cyno ships SHOULD be rewarded by not having to jump into a gate camp just to meet up with their carrier. If you're worried about instant blobs, then limit the number of pods/ships per carrier. If the enemy is coordinated enough to jump in 5 carriers full of warships, then frankly that was really well planned and you deserve to lose. I think this elevates the carrier from a glorified drone ship to the realm of a true logistics/support capital ship. Depending on the number of ships that could be carried and the abilities in the docking bay (repair, medical etc) I would even consider something drastic like removing Fighter drones altogether and replacing that offensive capability with player controlled combat vessels. This definitely hurts the carrier's solo ability but EVE is a social game anyway. Personally my ideal solution for this would be to limit the number of pods per ship to something like 5 or so, so you could carry additional ships for the pod pilots to use but you cant swarm 20 corpmates at people either.
kimish	Posted - 2007.09.13 16:08:00 - [57] Originally by: Doxs Roxs This really bugs me, why cannot players dock into carriers and tag along on the jump instead of the current system where carriers can only carry pilotless ships. Imagine the strategic possibilities of actually carrying a small fleet with you, instead of only having pilotless hulls! Incidently it would also improve the Rorqual since people would no longer have to clone jump (with all its limitations) to make the Rorqual work in some remote backwater system. Regards /Doxs overpowering feature. that is why _____ _____ "When the moderators are gone, the trolls dances on the table."
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.09.13 16:10:00 - [58] Originally by: Van Steiza 1 word- Disconections! No no no, the word of the day is node-reboot.
Eemaavi Amarr	Posted - 2007.09.13 16:16:00 - [59] Hmmm Disconnections don't seem to bother other games with vehicles...(Planetside ahem..) That said it shouldn't be too to much to put a Travel Flag on a Char. So if they get discoed they either A. Respawn in the "lounge" of the ship they were traveling in. B. Respawn in a Pod in their last known location. (RP as a ship malfunction and you were ejected to "save" you. C. Respawn in Nearest Friendly station. (See B. and you were "Rescued" by Concord) You can Do it CCP! Yeah I'm an Alt- Go cry elswhere
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.14 13:23:00 - [60] Originally by: kimish overpowering feature. that is why Interesting, why do you think this would be overpowering? Is it really that bad to be able to bring a small escort with a capital ship? Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.