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)
chimera fund	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:26:00 - [1] And! I have a rant. Simple I want to present YOU (the citizens of EVE) with the problem and THEM (the makers of Eve) with a plausible solution. So let us begin. First of all This was written from a random, non-descript character so that the citizens of Eve may vote/sign with NO BIAS. Begin Problem: I, with one of my characters which is approaching the use of a carrier, was absolutely DEVASTATED! to hear, that the Common Warp Scrambler, loved and hated by the masses, shall be able to STOP A CAPITAL SHIP FROM JUMPING! This is an outrage to above owner, who is a lover of the SciFi therefor! I will present some grounds, and arguments why this is Incorrect, and some grounds, and arguments, why this should be Changed. The warp scrambler, from a RP point of view, jams the computer of a Ship from being able to Translate the math involved in warping, and etc etc etc. Therefore the ship does not warp. Above said computer on a carrier, is very likely to be more powerful. Therefore, it is redundant, to say nicely, that a computer jammer/virus transplanter/whatever jams the computer is powerful enough to jam a capital-sized navigational computer... LAME! Scientifically speaking, Warping, is the act of locking unto a distant object of sufficient gravitational size (planets, sun, gates, stations) or using these large objects to triangulate and warp, in a straight line, to other positions ( bookmarks, ships, pods, etc ) Jumping, involves one ship opening a rift in space using a Cynosural field generator, and the other ship, having a Jump Core, or Jump Drive installed, locking onto that Rift, and Jumping, (insert techno babble here ) across multiple light years. The scientific differences alone! should merit that this current system of preventing jumps be changed. Why would it be that the tiny frigate be able to prevent the all powerful carrier/mothership/titan that has powergrid, slots, CPU, and capability's exponentially larger than the frigate, should be able to stop it from performing a wholly unique ability? why? Why? WHY!?? I know, very weak argument, however, argument nonetheless. How To Fix It! Create dedicated module that blocks capital ships from jumping, not the average scrambler, (possibly) the Capital Ship Jammer Module...Or something to that effect. Create a Module that would "boost" its resistance to navigational jamming of any kind, or only jumping (cynoing) This could only be fitted on capital ships obviously, and give you, say, a +10 to warp resistance to jumping. or something along those lines. yes. Lastly, at the extreme, give the Carrier an inherent +25 to jamming, the Mothership an inherent +50, the Titan an inherent +100. This is most likely option that CCP would take (and i would recommend) because it allows current fleets to take down Capital ships without much reconfiguration for a dedicated cap module, yet it also gives the Capital ships some survivability vs. the current annoying situation, aka, where i undock, and get held down by ONE ANNOYING FRIGATE!!! AND THAT IS ALL! Vote Citizens of eve! Post your signatures! Fight to make this virtual World....A better place to cyno out of and then again post your ideas, intriuge the moderators who will read this to pass it up to the Devs... Do it For You For EveÖ /Out
chimera fund	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:27:00 - [2] Reserved for further comments/additions.
James Santiago	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:29:00 - [3] The titan and mothership are already immune to all forms of electronic warfare, which includes warp scrambling, so you might want to figure that into your idea.
Eltee Kantanamee Caldari Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:31:00 - [4] /signed gotta hate it when i hear a carrier getting popped cuz he couldnt jump out due to one lame scrambler.
chimera fund	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:32:00 - [5] Originally by: James Santiago The titan and mothership are already immune to all forms of electronic warfare, which includes warp scrambling, so you might want to figure that into your idea. not anymore, from what ive heard ^_^ and give that then (in part at least) to Carriers and Dreadnoughts
EntroX Arepa INC. The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:35:00 - [6] Originally by: chimera fund Originally by: James Santiago The titan and mothership are already immune to all forms of electronic warfare, which includes warp scrambling, so you might want to figure that into your idea. not anymore, from what ive heard ^_^ and give that then (in part at least) to Carriers and Dreadnoughts You're wrong, they still are. The change was related to Interdictor Spheres.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:51:00 - [7] Not sure I agree with this entirely... However, dual mode modules (right click, choose effect) are being considered for implementation--the Remote Sensor Dampener being the clarion call for them (signal resolution reduction OR lock range reduction, but not both at once). An optional mode to warp scramblers for anti warp or anti jump would mean that to completely lock down a capital ship you need to get at least two modules on it. Maybe make the anti jump mode use more cap to make it more of a trick to lock down a capital using a frigate. Bubbles, of course, are separate and unique and work as present. TBH, I doubt this proposal will see much traction, but it would be kind of cool to add that level of challenge in tackling the behemoth of a vessel that are capital ships. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Original Species	Posted - 2007.09.23 02:59:00 - [8] You can fly a carrier with 10.5 mill sp.....Please stop complaining as if capitals should own everyone....
Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.09.23 03:50:00 - [9] Edited by: Ione Hunt on 23/09/2007 03:51:43 In other words:"Please CCP, give me my super lowsec PWN machine so I can kill 1337 shuttles without ever having to fear losing it!" (Sure, you'd have to use carriers to kill other carriers...but imo that kills variety a bit. A well organized gang of 15 people should be able to kill a single carrier without requiring a capital ship.) _______________
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.23 03:53:00 - [10] Um, so, capital ships shouldn't fly without a fleet. If your fleet can't take care of the "single" tackler on you ... well, get another fleet. There you go. Liang Yarr?
Camber Tremodian Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.23 05:03:00 - [11] Welcome to eve-online - the sci-fi game with the MOST unrealistic spaceships+gameplay+mechanisms. Seriously, can anyone name ONE sci-fi spacegame which is less realistic? "Realism is removed/sacrificed from the game for the sake of game balance" is a pathetic excuse for running out of development time.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.09.23 05:09:00 - [12] warp scramblers can keep capitals from cynoing out? since when? I wish people would properly distinguish between 'warp' and 'jump'... __________________________________
caring Anna	Posted - 2007.09.23 09:13:00 - [13] Capital ships should be there only to use capital modules in order to kill or support other capital ships/objects. In my opinion they should by concept fail against anything smaller if being used without appropriate support. EVE is not a single player game. Using capitals without support shall eventually result in destruction of the capital. That being said there is no need for the changes requested by the OP. In fact supercapitals (especially motherships) should be nerfed even more. PS: This is a capital ship character just so you know.
Vandalias	Posted - 2007.09.23 09:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Camber Tremodian Welcome to eve-online - the sci-fi game with the MOST unrealistic spaceships+gameplay+mechanisms. Seriously, can anyone name ONE sci-fi spacegame which is less realistic? "Realism is removed/sacrificed from the game for the sake of game balance" is a pathetic excuse for running out of development time. Would you prefer a game where you blast off once every couple of months, orbit a planet for a week or so and then land?
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.23 09:39:00 - [15] Originally by: Original Species You can fly a carrier with 10.5 mill sp.....Please stop complaining as if capitals should own everyone.... I remember the days when ppl were told not to fly the tempest before they had 10mill sp and now you see ppl flying carriers when they reach 7-10mill sp
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Cataclysm Enterprises Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2007.09.23 09:58:00 - [16] I have 30 Million SP and I still feel not very comfortable in a Carrier. A Carrier without proper support skills is much worse then a Battleship with medium turrets.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.23 10:32:00 - [17] 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) If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Cecil Montague Minmatar KarWal Corporation FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.23 11:17:00 - [18] Originally by: Camber Tremodian Seriously, can anyone name ONE sci-fi spacegame which is less realistic? Freelancer - Planets were 10km across for heavens sake but it was ablast to play. And if reality was so damn good we wouldn't need to escape it by playing computer games online. Back on topic. Carriers are front line weapons but are not designed to work solo, ironically one of the best uses for them, aside from logistics runs, is supporting their own support fleet. Having a carrier rep you when you get called primary is a godsend. "There is no such thing as an effective segment of totality." - Bruce Lee Karwal Security Director and corp Jester.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.09.23 11:21:00 - [19] Originally by: chimera fund The warp scrambler, from a RP point of view, jams the computer of a Ship from being able to Translate the math involved in warping, and etc etc etc. Therefore the ship does not warp. Above said computer on a carrier, is very likely to be more powerful. Therefore, it is redundant, to say nicely, that a computer jammer/virus transplanter/whatever jams the computer is powerful enough to jam a capital-sized navigational computer... LAME! Scientifically speaking, Warping, is the act of locking unto a distant object of sufficient gravitational size (planets, sun, gates, stations) or using these large objects to triangulate and warp, in a straight line, to other positions ( bookmarks, ships, pods, etc ) Jumping, involves one ship opening a rift in space using a Cynosural field generator, and the other ship, having a Jump Core, or Jump Drive installed, locking onto that Rift, and Jumping, (insert techno babble here ) across multiple light years. The scientific differences alone! should merit that this current system of preventing jumps be changed. Why would it be that the tiny frigate be able to prevent the all powerful carrier/mothership/titan that has powergrid, slots, CPU, and capability's exponentially larger than the frigate, should be able to stop it from performing a wholly unique ability? why? Why? WHY!?? 1. According to your logic a more powerful computer means it is less likey to suffer from viruses and manipulation. Hmm nice find, we definitly have to add that to moores law. 2. I wouldnt want to jump to any "rift" while someone does something stupid with my nav computer, that "rift" im thinking im locking on might very well be the center of sun of that system. 3. Because you are not supposed to fly a carrier around solo and the devs wanted to make sure you get to that conclusion yourself. Also because capitals are not immune to ewar we create all sorts of equally important positions in fleets besides carriers. You cant just ignore frigs for the same reason you cant fit a covert ops cloak, a bubble launcher, a capital mwd and maybe some capital strip miners onto your carrier. Because it would make to many shipclasses useless.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.23 11:31:00 - [20] Soooo, you want near guaranteed escape when you're loosing huh? sorry '/not signed'. C. - sig designer - eve mail
General Apocalypse Amarr The Merchant Marines	Posted - 2007.09.23 11:32:00 - [21] Can i have you're carrier ? I promise not to carebear whit it and kill many ppl . Originally by: CCP Morpheus nerf ccp plz Originally by: CCP Oveur To the gankmobile!
Startling Revelation	Posted - 2007.09.23 12:42:00 - [22] Summary of OP: No fair people can still pop my ships, wah wah!!!! Quote: Arrow I, with one of my characters which is approaching the use of a carrier, was absolutely DEVASTATED! to hear You're close to flying a carrier and only just found this out? I'm impressed by your ability to preserve your ignorance. I hope you bought lots of ISK, because I suspect you'll be replacing your carrier on a rather regular basis. Quote: Above said computer on a carrier, is very likely to be more powerful. More powerful computers get infected by a virus faster than slower computers. A nav computer needs all sorts of data about local space to initiate warp; a capital nav computer needs all that data and then some to initiate a jump - if anything it should be more susceptible to jamming, not less. Quote: Why would it be that the tiny frigate be able to prevent the all powerful carrier/mothership/titan that has powergrid, slots, CPU, and capability's exponentially larger than the frigate, should be able to stop it from performing a wholly unique ability? why? Why? WHY!??Shocked There is already a perfectly adequate and (largely) balanced defence against warp scramblers - Warp Core Stabilisers. If you're so scared about losing your shiny new carrier, fill your lows with them.
E Vile	Posted - 2007.09.23 12:49:00 - [23] /signed 1 frig having the ability to stop a cap ship from warping is lame. "The key to immortality is to first live a life worth remembering."
Kuno Hida	Posted - 2007.09.23 12:55:00 - [24] Lemme get this straight: a. you have a carrier b. you lost it to a gang. therefore nerf everyone else's stuff, but leave yours alone. Wah. Two things to remember: "Fly only what you can AFFORD to lose." and my name...I want your stuff when you quit because EVE isn't fair.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.09.23 13:03:00 - [25] Edited by: madaluap on 23/09/2007 13:04:37 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. Why not make warp scramblers and disrupters work like the they usually do, but when you put 5 points on a carrier it cannot cyno out. 5 points is sufficient imo. Im still talking about cynoing out here. If you have 1 point on a carrier, than no matter what: You cannot warp. Originally by: E Vile /signed 1 frig having the ability to stop a cap ship from warping is lame. Why would that be stupid? Its a big warpcomputer, should be easy to make it crash imo. Cynoing is another thing. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bentula	Posted - 2007.09.23 17:16:00 - [26] 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.
Cha Jeng	Posted - 2007.09.23 18:05:00 - [27] Cry me a river. Motherships and titans are already immune, dreads and carriers are not. That is how it is, and it isn't like one puny ship will give you are hard time in the first place... blow the ship up, and then warp. No need for a new module, things are fine as they are.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.09.23 18:22:00 - [28] Originally by: madaluap Edited by: madaluap on 23/09/2007 13:04:37 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. Why not make warp scramblers and disrupters work like the they usually do, but when you put 5 points on a carrier it cannot cyno out. 5 points is sufficient imo. Im still talking about cynoing out here. If you have 1 point on a carrier, than no matter what: You cannot warp. /signed --- Battlecarriers !
Maraude Fury Minmatar Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.09.23 18:42:00 - [29] Edited by: Maraude Fury on 23/09/2007 18:43:14 I actually like the idea of giveing cap ships a built in "imunity" to warp scrams to a certain point. We have +2 warp Core Stabalization on Blockade runners. Are you telling my that if you were building a ship, that cost 60 times more, you wouldn't use a "computer" that could give you +2 warp core strength? I like the idea of a carrier haveing a +25 to warp core strength. This would mean that you'd need either 25 Disruptors, or 13 scramblers. This to me seems logical. A larger ship, would have more room for shielding for it's electronics. Better electronic shielding, means more points are needed to lock them down. I'm not saying make them invincible, I'm just saying add a little more depth to tackling in ships. maybe make different sized scrams/distruptors. Make the current ones Frig sized ones. Then make say cruisers get +2 @ 25km, and +5 @ 5km, BS's get +5 @ 25km and +10 @ 5km, or something like this. Give scrams/distruptors class's, just like most other modules. give a capital scram say +12 @ 100km, and +25 @ 25km. This would mean a capital could tackle another capital. Several BS's could tackle a cap ship, and many cruisers/frigs could tackle caps ships as well. But no more of this being tackled by a single ship. Put some depth into Tackleing. Maraude Fury CEO: Shadow Of The Light .SOL. ]
Ciara Daag	Posted - 2007.09.24 05:13:00 - [30] "The warp scrambler, from a RP point of view, jams the computer of a Ship from being able to Translate the math involved in warping" I always assumed that it caused some sort of gravitational affect that made your ship unable to create a warp bubble or warp field around the ship. It makes since considering that warp scramblers are actually part of the build requirements for the mobile warp disruptor. In any event,maybe its just a firmware upgrade to the warp disruptor =) "Therefore, it is redundant, to say nicely, that a computer jammer/virus transplanter/whatever jams the computer is powerful enough to jam a capital-sized navigational computer... LAME!" Actually,by that logic,I should be able to share disks and files with any Pentium IV or lower computer without fear of any viruses or malware. After all,my Core II Quad is faster than most other CPUs out there. Unfortunately, I can be infected by an old 266mhz Pentium II and if that pentium II is running an up to date virus scanner,it doesn't really matter if my machine is a four processor quad core xeon,that wont help me infect the obsolete computer. "Scientifically speaking, Warping, is the act of locking unto a distant object of sufficient gravitational size (planets, sun, gates, stations) or using these large objects to triangulate and warp, in a straight line, to other positions ( bookmarks, ships, pods, etc ) Jumping, involves one ship opening a rift in space using a Cynosural field generator, and the other ship, having a Jump Core, or Jump Drive installed, locking onto that Rift, and Jumping, (insert techno babble here ) across multiple light years. The scientific differences alone! should merit that this current system of preventing jumps be changed. Why would it be that the tiny frigate be able to prevent the all powerful carrier/mothership/titan that has powergrid, slots, CPU, and capability's exponentially larger than the frigate, should be able to stop it from performing a wholly unique ability? why? Why? WHY!??" I imagine that screwing around with gravitational fields and such in a way to screw up the warping of a ship,might also screw with creating this rift. In fact,it might be HARDER to get around such a thing with a jump drive than it is with a warp drive. That being said,its clearly just very abstract speculation. Scientifically speaking (to use your words) jump drives and warp drives simply are not possible,at least according to what we know about how the universe works. We may be wrong. That certainly would be really cool if we could build star gates or warp drives,but for now, you cant really use that phrase when talking about ftl travel. Logically speaking might be more appropriate. The reality is however,that game play and game balance is more important than physics. Physics does not make a fun game. I remember a game called "Mantis,experimental fighter". It was very realistic in the way the ships moved. It was also one of the worst games Ive ever played. I can imagine camping a gate (not the funnest thing,but it has its moments) in the "real" world. Since "scientifically speaking" speed must allways be measured relative to something,either you must come out of warp with the same momentum (and thus velocity) you entered,or you can come out with a different velocity. In the first case,you accelerate to say,100,000 km/sec and warp in on the enemy at 200km OR you just warp at 500m/s and come out of warp at 100,000km/sec. Either way,you fly past,let lose gank volly and then jump to warp before anyone can get you. Thats would be warfare in the real world.
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 !!!
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:22:00 - [61] Originally by: Odium47 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 !!! Size matters, sure. But you're saying that a small ship can have negligible effect on a larger ship. This is complete bull**** - as is demonstrated historically, and by current game balance. If you don't want your carrier tackled by smaller ships, fly in a gang. Liang Yarr?
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:32:00 - [62] My dear I am talking about size impact and size ratio, not damage that a small ship can cause.
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:36:00 - [63] Originally by: Odium47 My dear I am talking about size impact and size ratio, not damage that a small ship can cause. WTF do you think this thread is about?? Liang Yarr?
Secretary Bargain consumables	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:58:00 - [64] Web description currently : Reduces the maximum speed of a ship by employing micro energy streams which effectively entangle the target temporarily, thereby slowing it down. Size of mounting ship irrelevant. Magic tendrils of energy entangle stuff and slow it down. there. Science says so. Description of warp scrambler at the moment : Disrupts the target ship's navigation computer which prevents it from warping. Change this to Disrupts the target ship's drive field which prevents it from warping. Problem solved. Unless your argument is about game balance, but you're talking about science and physics and stuff. Confusing me. --------------------------- The signature. Here i can type my Bio.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:24:00 - [65] I agree with the OP... currently, how the module info says, if I used more than one computer (read: WCS), then a single warp disruptor wont kill me. Similarly to how Battlestar Galactica protects against cylon viruses, by partitioning its computers. So a carrier can have whole ROOMS full of computers stacked up calculating jump/warp trajectories...
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:43:00 - [66] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/09/2007 00:43:25 Originally by: Lance Fighter I agree with the OP... currently, how the module info says, if I used more than one computer (read: WCS), then a single warp disruptor wont kill me. Similarly to how Battlestar Galactica protects against cylon viruses, by partitioning its computers. So a carrier can have whole ROOMS full of computers stacked up calculating jump/warp trajectories... Its a shame they have so many computers dedicated to controlling fighters, drones, shield reps, jump calibration, etc, etc, etc. Just no room for those computers on such a small carrier. However, I've got a great carrier I can sell you that is just big enough to include those computers! I've got a Nyx Model 2000 right over here for only 30B isk... Liang Edit: If you want a supercapital that's immune to points, buy one. Yarr?
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:50:00 - [67] Originally by: Saint Luka 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? As flames go, I certainly don't mind getting hit by that one. I was under the impression that a capital ship could cyno out as long as it had a gangmate to jump to and it had the requisite % of capacitor, and that the only way to prevent a capital from cynoing out would be to reduce its cap to the point where it could not jump, or to have a cynosural field jammer in the system (and frankly I don't quite know how those work very well; haven't been out in the field for quite some time myself). Have the typical warp scrambers and warp disrupters fitted to most every PVP ship always been able to prevent a carrier or dreadnought from jumping to a cynosural field created by a gang member in another system, or was this a recent change? Can't find anything in the patch notes. WTB Clue __________________________________
B Glorious	Posted - 2007.09.25 03:26:00 - [68] This is one of the worst threads I've ever seen. When I started playing, if you got tackled by an inty and got ganked, people called you an idiot for not being careful. What the **** happened to the EVE community where all of a sudden it's okay to be stupid and careless because overly-generous game mechanics will protect you? And hey, ever heard of MUDflation?
Ort Lofthus	Posted - 2007.09.25 07:28:00 - [69] Honestly, quasi-scientific logic and reasoning get trumped by gameplay. Gameplay is the most important aspect of the game. A major cornerstone to this game is that all ships are useful and all ships have a role. All combat ships should be effective in their own way. The role of frigates isn't to be fast or wolfpack. The role of frigates is to tackle. As such they should be able to tackle anything. (and I mean anything, I really hate that MS and titans can't be scramed, but as long as dictor bubble work I suppose its ok...) Doesn't matter how much isk you paid or how many SP you have, if a day old noob tackles you and you can't deal with it, too bad. You have plenty of counters, didn't fit them, so lie in bed you made. You are in a carrier. You are a gang ship, not a solo ship. Yeah, you tank like a beast and have OMG dps. You also need guys to tackle for you, because you lock slowly. You have a bonus to remote reps and transfers. You can fit gang mods. What gives you the right to having some innate resistance to tackling? Are carriers easy to be killed? Do your killers not have to deal with the fact that you can easily outdamage them and tank them for a long time before finally succumbing? Seriously, fly with a support fleet. Keep them alive and they will keep you alive. Fit some remote reps to keep them up, and then fit a pair of neuts to fry any frigs that try to tackle you. Its not like they can tackle from outside neut range. If you lose your support fleet, neut the tacklers and leave. If there are too many tacklers, then they won and deserve a capital kill. Probably a little too harsh here, but I really do not like people jumping into ships they do not understand simply because they can, and then whine about its shortcomings. I mean really, capital ships are not the end game of eve. You can perfect other ship skills instead, like getting large weapon spec V and whatnot, you don't have to fly a carrier.
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.25 07:41:00 - [70] Originally by: Ort Lofthus Honestly, quasi-scientific logic and reasoning get trumped by gameplay. Gameplay is the most important aspect of the game. A major cornerstone to this game is that all ships are useful and all ships have a role. All combat ships should be effective in their own way. The role of frigates isn't to be fast or wolfpack. The role of frigates is to tackle. As such they should be able to tackle anything. (and I mean anything, I really hate that MS and titans can't be scramed, but as long as dictor bubble work I suppose its ok...) Doesn't matter how much isk you paid or how many SP you have, if a day old noob tackles you and you can't deal with it, too bad. You have plenty of counters, didn't fit them, so lie in bed you made. You are in a carrier. You are a gang ship, not a solo ship. Yeah, you tank like a beast and have OMG dps. You also need guys to tackle for you, because you lock slowly. You have a bonus to remote reps and transfers. You can fit gang mods. What gives you the right to having some innate resistance to tackling? Are carriers easy to be killed? Do your killers not have to deal with the fact that you can easily outdamage them and tank them for a long time before finally succumbing? Seriously, fly with a support fleet. Keep them alive and they will keep you alive. Fit some remote reps to keep them up, and then fit a pair of neuts to fry any frigs that try to tackle you. Its not like they can tackle from outside neut range. If you lose your support fleet, neut the tacklers and leave. If there are too many tacklers, then they won and deserve a capital kill. Probably a little too harsh here, but I really do not like people jumping into ships they do not understand simply because they can, and then whine about its shortcomings. I mean really, capital ships are not the end game of eve. You can perfect other ship skills instead, like getting large weapon spec V and whatnot, you don't have to fly a carrier. That's really quite a good viewpoint. I hereby give you a virtual cookie. Liang Yarr?
Irish Whiskey Caldari Vendetta Underground	Posted - 2007.09.25 14:02:00 - [71] Originally by: chimera fund The warp scrambler, from a RP point of view, jams the computer of a Ship from being able to Translate the math involved in warping, and etc etc etc. Therefore the ship does not warp. Above said computer on a carrier, is very likely to be more powerful. Carrier CPU's Archon 625 TF ...up to... Wyvern 975 TF Battleship CPU's Armageddon 485 TF ...up to... Rokh 780 TF Frigate CPU's Atron 100 TF ...up to... Heron 250 TF I really don't recall seeing anyone argue that the same warp disruptor can stop the highest graded computer frigate (be it T2, but whatever) as well as the lowest grade battleship which has almost double the computer. That same warp disruptor can stop the highest rated battleship, why shouldnt it be able to stop a carrier that has a weaker CPU?
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.25 14:12:00 - [72] Why is everybody asuming that if its big it must have a small brain (cpu), must be slow or dumb. It wouldnt have got big if it was, now would it ? Why in the hell would someone spend 7-8 years playing Eve, buying a 10 000 $ ship and get webbed or warp disrupted by a mere frigate. Thats prepostorus !
LemonHamster	Posted - 2007.09.25 14:37:00 - [73] Originally by: Odium47 Why is everybody asuming that if its big it must have a small brain (cpu), must be slow or dumb. It wouldnt have got big if it was, now would it ? Why in the hell would someone spend 7-8 years playing Eve, buying a 10 000 $ ship and get webbed or warp disrupted by a mere frigate. Thats prepostorus ! Supercaps can't be webbed and scrammed by mere frigates and iirc a titan is worth $5000, a mothership around $1000. A titan would take around 3 years to train for with +5s and a specific skillset. Your don't even have an argument, you're just agreeing with supercap immunity. _____________ NYAH ^_^
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.25 15:03:00 - [74] Yes, I agree with electronic warfare imunity or at least it should be a high rezilience (99%). The only thing that a capital ship shouldnt be imune is obviously damage. If the dream of getting a ship like god is destroyed then 70-80 % of Eve players wont play it anymore. A capital ship should be destroyed by a fair (i am thinking huge) amount of small ships or by others equal capital ships! The building price is low for a capital (if one can call it low), indeed, but the prices you pay to get there, the modules fitted etc.
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.25 15:26:00 - [75] Originally by: Odium47 Yes, I agree with electronic warfare imunity or at least it should be a high rezilience (99%). The only thing that a capital ship shouldnt be imune is obviously damage. If the dream of getting a ship like god is destroyed then 70-80 % of Eve players wont play it anymore. A capital ship should be destroyed by a fair (i am thinking huge) amount of small ships or by others equal capital ships! The building price is low for a capital (if one can call it low), indeed, but the prices you pay to get there, the modules fitted etc. How does 100+ battleships + support sound as huge? Because I've seen a mothership "tank" it long enough to simply cyno out. Nothing we could do to prevent it - even though we'd beaten the tank. If there's no way to defend yourself, your territory, or attack your enemy - 70-80% of the populace won't play Eve. Get over it - Capital ships aren't the end game of Eve, and they're certainly not solo boats. They are fleet ships. They have all of the vulnerabilities that capital ships have. They need support. Fly with it if you don't like the consequences of flying without it! Liang Yarr?
LemonHamster	Posted - 2007.09.25 15:38:00 - [76] Originally by: Odium47 Yes, I agree with electronic warfare imunity or at least it should be a high rezilience (99%). The only thing that a capital ship shouldnt be imune is obviously damage. If the dream of getting a ship like god is destroyed then 70-80 % of Eve players wont play it anymore. A capital ship should be destroyed by a fair (i am thinking huge) amount of small ships or by others equal capital ships! The building price is low for a capital (if one can call it low), indeed, but the prices you pay to get there, the modules fitted etc. It already exists, that's the goddamn point. A ship like god has no place in EVE because this is an MMO. I'm pretty sure you don't play this game, because you know nothing about it. _____________ NYAH ^_^
Odium47	Posted - 2007.09.25 18:04:00 - [77] Edited by: Odium47 on 25/09/2007 18:05:17 I said i agree with 99% imunity to e-war, not that it should or any other verb...Please read my syntax very carefully !!! Unfortunatly, some capitals can still be stoped from warping. No capital should be stop for which warping fuel is needed as well as it can generate its own warp. The point is that some people are frustrated because others have more than they actually do, and hope to lower them by complaining about their big bad ships...If you didnt understood that let me refrase by quoting a famous character. Zarathustra: "How could you live knowing that there are immortals ?" Do you get my point now ?
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.25 18:16:00 - [78] Originally by: Odium47 Edited by: Odium47 on 25/09/2007 18:05:17 I said i agree with 99% imunity to e-war, not that it should or any other verb...Please read my syntax very carefully !!! Unfortunatly, some capitals can still be stoped from warping. No capital should be stop for which warping fuel is needed as well as it can generate its own warp. The point is that some people are frustrated because others have more than they actually do, and hope to lower them by complaining about their big bad ships...If you didnt understood that let me refrase by quoting a famous character. Zarathustra: "How could you live knowing that there are immortals ?" Do you get my point now ? No. Stop posting. Seriously, a Carrier is only 2B ISK to buy and fit. You can make that in less than 100 hours ratting - not to mention that your corp will often help you out with buying your Carrier. 2B ISK is not a solo-pwn license, otherwise we'd still have Nano-Phoons and Nano-Domis and Nano-This and Nano-That and Nano-Nano-Nano solo-pwn-mobiles out flying around. If you choose to fly a fleet capital ship without a fleet - you deserve to die. There are no god-ships in Eve - and as far as I've been able to tell, there never will be. Liang Yarr?
caring Anna	Posted - 2007.09.26 06:11:00 - [79] If you get your capital ship tackled and have no support to kill off the tackler you need to die. Not because game mechanics are broken but just because you're an idiot for flying around without support. Period. CCP is not going to fix that because no matter what they do you would still be an idiot and there were other ways to kill your lonely capital. So why dont you just adapt and get gang mates to protect you?

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.