EVE Search - !EXTRA! The Amazing Carrier Killer Module!

All Channels

Ships and Modules

!EXTRA! The Amazing Carrier Killer Module!

» 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)
Phelan Lore Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.09.24 05:50:00 - [31] Has detaurus graduated from a raven to a chimera? -
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.09.24 07:10:00 - [32] Carriers are so damn powerfull... Ships in combat should not be able to leave the field as easily as they do today, so why should carriers be any different? Yes they are skillintensive and costly - But why fly it if you can't risc it? You might not be able to escape through gates BUT you can cyno out rather easily even before trouble starts gathering... I believe CCP are atm constantly considering capital ship classes so lets see what they work out. I don't mind specific modules to tie a capital to the battle but why shouldn't a frigate be able to do the job with proper gear? Pinky - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2007.09.24 08:12:00 - [33] Carriers and Dreadnoughts shouldnt be able to be warp scrambled at all. There is no way a tiny device fitted on a poorly fitted frigate should be able to do anything to a Dreadnought or a Carrier at all. The last time i talked to a carrier pilot he said that not only would a warp scrambler prevent you from warping it would stop you from cynoing out too. www.eve-players.com
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.09.24 08:28:00 - [34] This is one of many threads that points out a perceived problem without offering any real solution. You would have warp scramblers not effect capital ships? Fine. Then what would we do about capital ships in low sec? Ah, that's right, they'd be just like motherships are now. Virtually invincible. The carrier is not a solopwnmobile. You were not intended to fly the carrier on your own. The remote repping bonuses, the massive drone bay, the triage module, fighter assignment- don't you get it yet? The carrier is a logistics capital. The carrier is not the primary weapon, it is the fleet's backbone. If a fleet with carrier support wins a battle, then that carrier need not worry about scramblers. If a fleet with carrier support is defeated, then the victorious fleet is entitled to a carrier kill for their efforts. If there's anything that doesn't need a nerf, it's the warp scrambler.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2007.09.24 10:12:00 - [35] Capital ships should then have a statutory warp scramble defense strength. This wouldnt have to be much just a single point perhaps. This would make the chances of a lone frigate or similar ship holding down a ship that is 700 times large than it much more difficult. www.eve-players.com
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.24 10:18:00 - [36] Every ship, no matter how small, should be useful. And every ship, no matter how big, should be vulnerable when it isn't properly supported by other ships. Combined arms.
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2007.09.24 10:21:00 - [37] Get over it and fit a WCS! snip Do not use your signature to troll or insult other EVE players even if the little dweebs deserve it! -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected])
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.24 12:32:00 - [38] Edited by: Arana Tellen on 24/09/2007 12:35:18 Edited by: Arana Tellen on 24/09/2007 12:34:21 Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson Get over it and fit a WCS! /signed You can dock in a carrier therefore you can also be warp scrammed. OR Make bubbles usable in low sec and make all capitals non warp scrammable/Have a special bubble that only stops capitals that can be used in low sec. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz, 2GB Gskill DDR2 5400 @ 800mhh 4-4-4-12, Abit fatality mATX F-I90HD @ 334mhz, 8800GTS 320mb 2x250GB 7200.10s Raid 0, Vista 64 Home.
Aerin Cloudfayr Extreme Addiction Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.09.24 12:46:00 - [39] how bout battleship "sized" Warp scrams? I'm sure there's one in the db somewhere. still, worth a look into.
Scav Silver Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.24 13:15:00 - [40] If ya plan to run, ya already dead.. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Scav est procul Porta!!" -=Pimary=- "Tonight you dine in....BKG?" -=Ashemi Darkhold=-
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.24 15:01:00 - [41] Edited by: Odium47 on 24/09/2007 15:01:13 ...a similar issue are the stasis webs ! Who in the hell can a ship with 100 000 displacement HOLD an 150 000 000 displacement... ??? Its like s fishing boat could HOLD the Titanic ? How the hell is that possible ? Its the dumbest thing in Eve !!! Make a special ship that can do that if u wanna be at least plausible ...
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.09.24 15:11:00 - [42] Edited by: madaluap on 24/09/2007 15:16:14 Originally by: Bentula Originally by: madaluap I cant say i entirely disagree with it. If i get scrambled by an disrupter crow when im in a bs, even without mwd and 5 plates on it, i can move back to the gate and jump. Every ship in eve can do this, the 1.5 bil isk carrier cannot. Tbh i find it completly irrelevant wether a single crow could keep you from cynoing or not. If you get caught by a single interceptor, with no one near to help you against that little ship, you deserve to die for that alone. Yes every ship can fly back to the gate and jump, if you are at the gate. Since a lone carrier should never be at a gate anyway, he should never get into a position where he encounters a ceptor. There is really no imbalance here, carriers fly always with support if used for fighting. And if they travel they have the option of jumping to a pos or station instead of having to fly through camps'R'us, aka gates. Why is it so wrong to use a carrier for frontline fighting? To use my remote reps and help people. Ill turn this the other way around: Carrier should be @ the frontline assisting and making sure that people stay alive. Asigning fighters is worthless, you do more damage being on the frontline in a lachesis than station/pos hugging and assigning fighters. I also dont care about what tackles, if its a BS or inty. Problem is, i think that having 1 warpscrambling point on a carrier should not stop it from cynoing out. I just had a pretty good idea (imo). Why not make each point add 5% to the ammount of cap you need to cyno out! so @ lvl 5 its 70% cap required to jump out. With 6 points on your carrier you need to be @ 100% to cyno out. Thats 3 warpscramblers. Perfect solution imo. And again, this is not about warping a carrier its about cynoing. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Saint Luka The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.24 15:13:00 - [43] Originally by: Terianna Eri warp scramblers can keep capitals from cynoing out? since when? I wish people would properly distinguish between 'warp' and 'jump'... I dont flame much but, erm clue? -
Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.09.24 15:28:00 - [44] Originally by: madaluap Edited by: madaluap on 24/09/2007 15:17:04 Originally by: Bentula Originally by: madaluap I cant say i entirely disagree with it. If i get scrambled by an disrupter crow when im in a bs, even without mwd and 5 plates on it, i can move back to the gate and jump. Every ship in eve can do this, the 1.5 bil isk carrier cannot. Tbh i find it completly irrelevant wether a single crow could keep you from cynoing or not. If you get caught by a single interceptor, with no one near to help you against that little ship, you deserve to die for that alone. Yes every ship can fly back to the gate and jump, if you are at the gate. Since a lone carrier should never be at a gate anyway, he should never get into a position where he encounters a ceptor. There is really no imbalance here, carriers fly always with support if used for fighting. And if they travel they have the option of jumping to a pos or station instead of having to fly through camps'R'us, aka gates. Why is it so wrong to use a carrier for frontline fighting? To use my remote reps and help people? Ill turn this the other way around: Carrier should be @ the frontline assisting and making sure that people stay alive. Asigning fighters is worthless, you do more damage being on the frontline in a lachesis than station/pos hugging and assigning fighters. I also dont care about what tackles, if its a BS or inty. Problem is, i think that having 1 warpscrambling point on a carrier should not stop it from cynoing out. I just had a pretty good idea (imo). Why not make each point add 5% to the ammount of cap you need to cyno out! so @ lvl 5 its 70% cap required to jump out. With 6 points on your carrier you need to be @ 100% to cyno out. Thats 3 warpscramblers. Perfect solution imo. And again, this is not about warping a carrier its about cynoing. Good idea as long as warp disruptor bubbles still stop 'em from cyno'ing out. _______________
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2007.09.24 16:00:00 - [45] Edited by: Shaemell Buttleson on 24/09/2007 16:01:08 Originally by: Odium47 Edited by: Odium47 on 24/09/2007 15:01:13 ...a similar issue are the stasis webs ! Who in the hell can a ship with 100 000 displacement HOLD an 150 000 000 displacement... ??? Its like s fishing boat could HOLD the Titanic ? How the hell is that possible ? Its the dumbest thing in Eve !!! Make a special ship that can do that if u wanna be at least plausible ... Don't think of it as as a small ship ancoring or holding the larger ship down, think of it as something that effects the others engines instead. I have a fishing boat and have several times had to remove a fairly small peice of rope that has fouled the props. snip Do not use your signature to troll or insult other EVE players even if the little dweebs deserve it! -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected])
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2007.09.24 17:20:00 - [46] There have been cases where larger ships at sea have caught smaller ships in their wake and destroyed them. www.eve-players.com
Randolf Sightblinder Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.09.24 17:41:00 - [47] Originally by: ViolenTUK There have been cases where larger ships at sea have caught smaller ships in their wake and destroyed them. Yes, and it happens in the air around b-52s and 747's as well. This is because of turbulence in air or water caused by the displacement of the material. Space has no turbulence on a scale that would effect any sort of ship, of course if eve modeled engine flare (do eve ships even use reaction drives?) then you might still have to stay away from the engine exhaust depending on ship sizes. Randolf
Daelin Blackleaf No Joy Corp Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.24 17:44:00 - [48] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Still think best implementation woudl be make ships up to Cruiser have 1 point warp streght BC and BS have 2 Carrier have 4 Dreads have 8 Super capitals have 16 (but no imunity to to scrams, can keep imunity to REAL EW) Agreed.
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 17:46:00 - [49] Originally by: madaluap I just had a pretty good idea (imo). Why not make each point add 5% to the ammount of cap you need to cyno out! so @ lvl 5 its 70% cap required to jump out. With 6 points on your carrier you need to be @ 100% to cyno out. Thats 3 warpscramblers. Perfect solution imo. And again, this is not about warping a carrier its about cynoing. Not a bad idea if dictor bubbles still work. I'm just remembering the time I tackled a dread with a Stiletto.. heh heh. Liang Yarr?
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 17:47:00 - [50] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Kagura Nikon Still think best implementation woudl be make ships up to Cruiser have 1 point warp streght BC and BS have 2 Carrier have 4 Dreads have 8 Super capitals have 16 (but no imunity to to scrams, can keep imunity to REAL EW) Agreed. I disagree. It would completely kill piracy in lowsec - and it would also kill an interceptor's role. Liang Yarr?
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:21:00 - [51] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Kagura Nikon Still think best implementation woudl be make ships up to Cruiser have 1 point warp streght BC and BS have 2 Carrier have 4 Dreads have 8 Super capitals have 16 (but no imunity to to scrams, can keep imunity to REAL EW) Agreed. I disagree. It would completely kill piracy in lowsec - and it would also kill an interceptor's role. Liang Do you pirate hunt Carriers in low sec? So what is the problem? A simple ceptors usually field a 2 poitn scram (since a 20km one is cap heavy ) and that would hold a BS. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:23:00 - [52] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Kagura Nikon Still think best implementation woudl be make ships up to Cruiser have 1 point warp streght BC and BS have 2 Carrier have 4 Dreads have 8 Super capitals have 16 (but no imunity to to scrams, can keep imunity to REAL EW) Agreed. I disagree. It would completely kill piracy in lowsec - and it would also kill an interceptor's role. Liang Do you pirate hunt Carriers in low sec? So what is the problem? A simple ceptors usually field a 2 poitn scram (since a 20km one is cap heavy ) and that would hold a BS. WTF? Have you ever flown a ceptor dude? You simply do not get in web range. No, this scheme is madness and would kill lowsec piracy even more than it already is. Oh - and yes, I DO hunt carriers in lowsec... do you? Liang Yarr?
Jacob Holland Gallente 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:25:00 - [53] I have to say that the situation which keeps occurring to me is one of a single, low damage but high speed ship tackling a carrier, the carrier pilot has corpmates online with cynoships in range and the carrier's passive shield recharge is capable of holding the tackler's damage output. The Carrier is in no real danger theoretically. The tackler is also in no danger, it's fast enough to outrun the Warrior IIs which are the carrier's only defense and orbitting outside web range. So either pilot could easily go AFK and find their ship still in the same situation when they return... If the Carrier's corpmates come to help him out then he could get clear but... Isn't it the same as putting your shuttle in the path of a Freighter and bump ransoming it? madaluap I think has the best solution - by boosting the cap requirements you ensure that a frontline ship which is actually under threat isn't going to be able to escape the consequences of the choice (tanking, remote tanking and gang mods would all be dropping the ship's cap and its ability to cyno out). The lowsec Carrier can be prevented from warping by a single Disruptor but if you intend to kill it then it doesn't take much to ensure that some of your close rangers have disruptors fitted does it? -- Originally by: cordy Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:29:00 - [54] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Kagura Nikon Still think best implementation woudl be make ships up to Cruiser have 1 point warp streght BC and BS have 2 Carrier have 4 Dreads have 8 Super capitals have 16 (but no imunity to to scrams, can keep imunity to REAL EW) Agreed. I disagree. It would completely kill piracy in lowsec - and it would also kill an interceptor's role. Liang Y Do you pirate hunt Carriers in low sec? So what is the problem? A simple ceptors usually field a 2 poitn scram (since a 20km one is cap heavy ) and that would hold a BS. WTF? Have you ever flown a ceptor dude? You simply do not get in web range. No, this scheme is madness and would kill lowsec piracy even more than it already is. Oh - and yes, I DO hunt carriers in lowsec... do you? Liang you don't need a ceptors to tackle a carrier.. you know even a hauler can "nntercept" a carrier. The whoel discussion is about the stupidity of a single ceptor holding a carrier. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Terazuk Amarr Rogen's Heroes Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:33:00 - [55] Edited by: Terazuk on 24/09/2007 18:35:07 Originally by: chimera fund the current annoying situation, aka, where i undock, and get held down by ONE ANNOYING FRIGATE!!! ECM/Damp/Neut drones perhaps??? No Lock, No range, No cap, a lone frigate can't really tackle all that much like that. Originally by: "Johho Bulon" ...for god sake please inspire us instead of the seemingly constant downgrading of anything that works.
Saint Luka The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:34:00 - [56] Edited by: Saint Luka on 24/09/2007 18:36:16 Last hauler that i attacked in my carrier lasted all of about 1.5 seconds with 12 ogres his way. And an interceptor is an easy fix, neutralizers+warriors anyone? Now personally i do fly a carrier to PVP with however i dont believe making them able to become solo machines is needed. The mechanics are fine just the way they are. Granted a dreadnought can be tackled far too easily however, when will a dread be on its own apart from outside of a station? -
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:37:00 - [57] Originally by: Kagura Nikon you don't need a ceptors to tackle a carrier.. you know even a hauler can "nntercept" a carrier. The whoel discussion is about the stupidity of a single ceptor holding a carrier. Interceptors are... what were they again? Interceptors? Hmph. How peculiar. If you're flying a carrier around solo in lowsec and get tackled by a ceptor, you deserve what happens to you. Carriers are support ships. Repeat it with me.... carriers are support ships. All you have to do is force the ceptor out of scram range and cyno the carrier out - it's not that big a deal or that difficult. That said, my beef isn't with tackling carriers with 4 points of scram... its tackling BS with 2 points. Though, I think that 4 points of scram on a carrier/dread is just a little excessive tbh. That would mean it requires four ships from a roving gang to tackle it. If you think people actually run 2 point disruptors in roving gangs you'd be sadly mistaken. Wait, I might agree to this if you give my Arazu/Lachesis +2 points of warp disruptor strength per level of recon, and my inties +1 point of warp disruptor strength per level of interceptor. ^_^ Liang Yarr?
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson Edited by: Shaemell Buttleson on 24/09/2007 16:01:08 Originally by: Odium47 Edited by: Odium47 on 24/09/2007 15:01:13 ...a similar issue are the stasis webs ! Who in the hell can a ship with 100 000 displacement HOLD an 150 000 000 displacement... ??? Its like s fishing boat could HOLD the Titanic ? How the hell is that possible ? Its the dumbest thing in Eve !!! Make a special ship that can do that if u wanna be at least plausible ... Don't think of it as as a small ship ancoring or holding the larger ship down, think of it as something that effects the others engines instead. I have a fishing boat and have several times had to remove a fairly small peice of rope that has fouled the props. If it affects engines, these should close completly, not work at a certain procentage. But I think they originally thought of it of a way to slow down small ships, not big ships... Anyway, if stasis web would work as a full engine stop maneuvre, it will be EXCELLET, because a sitting target, doesnt matter the signature, can be destroyed buy any ship (indifferent of the size or weapon) at almost any range, though it will bring BALLANCE to the ships hierarchy !!! Which should be natural !
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2007.09.24 18:47:00 - [59] Originally by: Randolf Sightblinder Originally by: ViolenTUK There have been cases where larger ships at sea have caught smaller ships in their wake and destroyed them. Yes, and it happens in the air around b-52s and 747's as well. This is because of turbulence in air or water caused by the displacement of the material. Space has no turbulence on a scale that would effect any sort of ship, of course if eve modeled engine flare (do eve ships even use reaction drives?) then you might still have to stay away from the engine exhaust depending on ship sizes. Randolf I know that that wasnt the point i was making. My only point was how ineffectual smaller ships are against larger ships. I had no intention of drawing a real world analogy to ship fluid mechanics. Typicaly ships that are 700 times smaller in weight would be unlikely to have any true purposefull design effect on their larger counterparts. If we were to take an analogy to a barge used to help guide, tow and direct larger vessels will typicaly have a 3rd the displaced weight not 1/700th the displaced weight. I cant see a small 2 man fishing vessel stopping a luxury liner. www.eve-players.com
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:11:00 - [60] The 2nd WW Kamikaze Zeros were loaded with explosives. The ones who accidently crashed before the kamikaze maneuvre begun didnt made any real damage. In Eve, there are elecromagnetic shields that protecs from any form of impact. So yes, indeed, a small ship crashing would be like a mosquito would hit you with all its force. By the way: Energy on impact= speed of the object * mass of the object (calculated at impact) SIZE DOES MATTER !!!

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

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