Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:02:00 -
[1]
Check out the worst idea ever
The worst idea ever
Ok so youve spent 30 bill buying a mothership. Youve spent another 20-30 kitting it. You think "i know theyve been uber nurfed with the dictors and all and yes they are dropping like flies all over the galaxy" But they still at least have the ability to defend themselves and in the right situation there aweome.
Not anymore if this change goes through. A mothership will officialy now just be the equivelent to two carriers. way to go guys great thinking. !he titans are already pointless (now dictors can tank DD) and now you want to make moms useless as well.
Stop crapping over the older players guys.
Make this change and ill quit eve.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:03:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Gyle Check out the worst idea ever
The worst idea ever
Ok so youve spent 30 bill buying a mothership. Youve spent another 20-30 kitting it. You think "i know theyve been uber nurfed with the dictors and all and yes they are dropping like flies all over the galaxy" But they still at least have the ability to defend themselves and in the right situation there aweome.
Not anymore if this change goes through. A mothership will officialy now just be the equivelent to two carriers. way to go guys great thinking. !he titans are already pointless (now dictors can tank DD) and now you want to make moms useless as well.
Stop crapping over the older players guys.
Make this change and ill quit eve.
Can i have your stuff then? Ah and there is another thread about that already.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:07:00 -
[3]
I know there is another thread. And there is gonna be many more. this is an example of how poor this idea is
|
Jacob Castillo
Caldari Copperhead Inc. Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:20:00 -
[4]
I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gyle I know there is another thread. And there is gonna be many more. this is an example of how poor this idea is
Will i get your stuff then?
|
Norjia Blacksteel
Gallente Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jacob Castillo I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
Agreed. I like their idea the carriers are really big, bad-ass support ships. Makes a lot more sense to me than being a solopwnmobile.
---- Norjia Blacksteel CEO Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing |
Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 -
[7]
This is just bang out of order TBH... WTF!! is the point of spending Billoins on any type or carrier spending years training, running multiple accounts for some twerp at CCP to decide you dont get to play with what you have worked for.... SO mothership can kill 100's of bs's gess what they are worth 100's of bs's... CCP you seem to be ****ting on players that are keeping you in bread and water... do you want to go back to working for free??
Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:38:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
Originally by: Jacob Castillo I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
Agreed. I like their idea the carriers are really big, bad-ass support ships. Makes a lot more sense to me than being a solopwnmobile.
Its all interesting that you guys are presenting you opinions but since you have never flown a cap you dont really know enough about thier roles to be commenting on it. Trust me its a terrible terrible idea.
|
Tunajuice
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[9]
If a carrier is a big badass support ship, why is Triage module so horrible? Unable to be remote repped while under triage... fantastic.
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jacob Castillo I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
Solopwnmobile???? WTF are you talking about. the ONlY thing MS are good at killing are BS. THE ONLY THING. Sure they can hit some smaller slower ships but realistically were talking BS only. and now... a BS can EASILY tank 5 fighters... So whats the point in Moms at all. Its cheaper and easier to just train two carriers and u get the same effect with possibly better logistics.
|
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:26:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 19:25:47
Originally by: Je'hira Osiris This is just bang out of order TBH... WTF!! is the point of spending Billoins on any type or carrier spending years training, running multiple accounts for some twerp at CCP to decide you dont get to play with what you have worked for.... SO mothership can kill 100's of bs's gess what they are worth 100's of bs's... CCP you seem to be ****ting on players that are keeping you in bread and water... do you want to go back to working for free??
Quit trying to balance based on ship price.
|
Rosur
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:27:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Rosur on 21/10/2007 19:27:51 I dont think they should nerf carrier/motherships this much as a moros would make a much better carrier for a gallent carrier piolt ie te 50% bounes to drone damge per lvl of dreadnaught so train to lvl 5 u have a 250% bounes to drone damage but will be more like 350% as most carrier poilts will have drone interfacign 5. This is a bit stupid that a dread could out damge a carrier solo with its drones. So i think carriers/motherships are fine as they are.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:03:05
Originally by: Vandalias
Quit trying to balance based on ship price.
Its not about price its about class of vessle and wiping one 2 off the fface of the planet. since you dont fly em you therefor dont know much about them you shouldnt be commenting.
|
Cotton Tail
Domination. League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:00:00 -
[14]
Surely all this is going to do is encourage players to bring a second account to the battlefield so they can directly control all their fighters rather than risk someone else losing millions of your money due to their lag/stupidity. In effect you're just going to encourage even more blobbing. Why does this always happen?
The change seems uncalled for, the damage done by swarms of fighters and t2 drones from carriers was never the biggest problem with them. The idea seems to suggest that these ships don't need support fleets, but if you want to live in one in combat you really do need support. Carriers are pretty useless on their own, and surely the ever rising number of mothership kills shows CCP that they're not effective solo ships nowdays (except maybe smartbombing in low sec)?
If CCP can't be talked out of doing this, then at least make it a bit better. Instead of having to assign fighters to extra members and have them waste them, simply add a 'select support gangmate' option which allows you to control an additional 5 drones up to the ships maximum. Restrict it to gangmates currently in system who are capable of controlling drones (i.e. not cloaked). If they crash fighters return to drone bay. Roleplay reason for this? Beats me, the same reason a capital ship may only magically be able to control 5 drones on it's own. This way you'll at least give capital pilots full control over their dps, while maintaining the CCP desire that you need support.
Alternatively, you could either drop the idea completely, which seems reasonable to me too, as capital blobs are a symptom of the problem rather than the cause. Fundamental aspects of sov warfare reward the largest group of players with the largest number of capitals/subcapitals, and you're never going to fix the lag/the numbers in space by dealing with symptoms.
Otherwise I'm sure there are more imaginative ways which can be used to decrease the number of capitals/fighters in a battle. Flight zones for example, restricting the number of drones which can orbit a hull at a time. E.G. Only 5 drones can orbit a frigate before their flight paths become too dangerous, only 10 on a cruiser, only 15 on a bs, only 30 on a carrier, only 40 on a MS, only 60 on a titan (pulling numbers out of the air).
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:46:00 -
[15]
lets keep it all in one place.
I don't even fly cap ships, but I like seeing them in action and what tey can do. This nerf is ridiculous for cap pilots.
A ship that takes so much to skill for in terms of ISK and time, can't break a BS tank with five fighters.
R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:54:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 21:56:05
Originally by: Gyle Its not about price its about class of vessle and wiping one 2 off the fface of the planet. since you dont fly em you therefor dont know much about them you shouldnt be commenting.
Also quit with this "you don't fly them so stfu" stuff as well... not only is it a big assumption on your part, but its pretty irrelevant to the argument.
Carriers don't need 20 drones to kill a BS. They don't need 20 fighters to kill a BS. A carrier will beat a BS quite handily with 5 drones/fighters, granted it will take longer but the carrier will still win in the end. Its pretty obvious that CCP doesn't want them to be solo ships so its pretty useless to argue that they won't be able to solo properly after the change... that seems to be the entire point. Fly with support or fly something else.
|
DarkFollower
Amarr Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 21:56:05
Originally by: Gyle Its not about price its about class of vessle and wiping one 2 off the fface of the planet. since you dont fly em you therefor dont know much about them you shouldnt be commenting.
Also quit with this "you don't fly them so stfu" stuff as well... not only is it a big assumption on your part, but its pretty irrelevant to the argument.
Carriers don't need 20 drones to kill a BS. They don't need 20 fighters to kill a BS. A carrier will beat a BS quite handily with 5 drones/fighters, granted it will take longer but the carrier will still win in the end. Its pretty obvious that CCP doesn't want them to be solo ships so its pretty useless to argue that they won't be able to solo properly after the change... that seems to be the entire point. Fly with support or fly something else.
So what u are saying is that if a bs 1vs1 a carrier the bs should have a very nice change to kill it right ? very nice thinking there what would that make the bs? next thing to nerf?
Ohh and btw and this talk about the carrier being able to kill the bs with 5 is if the bs just stays there or is afk , please can u elaborate how it works? or else my bs is just that awsome Cap recharges on PvP ships Suxxor monkey ballzorz!!
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: DarkFollower So what u are saying is that if a bs 1vs1 a carrier the bs should have a very nice change to kill it right ? very nice thinking there what would that make the bs? next thing to nerf?
Ohh and btw and this talk about the carrier being able to kill the bs with 5 is if the bs just stays there or is afk , please can u elaborate how it works? or else my bs is just that awsome
Huh? I'm saying that carriers are still superior to BS even after the change.
|
Jaden Icer
Gallente Icerian Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:17:00 -
[19]
I agree that this is about 50% right
If you do it to the fighters don't do it to the drones, then a carrier/MOM will still be able to defend itself if stranded and alone
|
DarkFollower
Amarr Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:50:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: DarkFollower So what u are saying is that if a bs 1vs1 a carrier the bs should have a very nice change to kill it right ? very nice thinking there what would that make the bs? next thing to nerf?
Ohh and btw and this talk about the carrier being able to kill the bs with 5 is if the bs just stays there or is afk , please can u elaborate how it works? or else my bs is just that awsome
Huh? I'm saying that carriers are still superior to BS even after the change.
like duh!! It would be preaty idiotic if they wouldn't be superior to a bs , it's a freeking capital ship afterall
What i was saying is that with 5 fighters the carrier/mom(!) will have a hard time killing the bs, even not killing it at all most of the time if the bs is tanked , the bs wont be able to take down the carrier ofc unless the carrier is poorly fited
What i'm trying to say it's that the carrier will be alot more closer to a bs capabilities ,actually if u take the tank away it's basicaly close to a 1 bil dominix with 20 mil drones ,i don't find that very normal for a capital ship do you?
And what about the mothership what good will that be? I don't like solo pwnmobiles either , and i don't even fly the things and i'm not training for one but don't u find it a little bit too much of a nerf? and to a ship that already dies alot to roaming gangs due lack of support, support that the ships already needs alot if they plan of not going boom Cap recharges on PvP ships Suxxor monkey ballzorz!!
|
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DarkFollower What i was saying is that with 5 fighters the carrier/mom(!) will have a hard time killing the bs, even not killing it at all most of the time if the bs is tanked , the bs wont be able to take down the carrier ofc unless the carrier is poorly fited
What i'm trying to say it's that the carrier will be alot more closer to a bs capabilities ,actually if u take the tank away it's basicaly close to a 1 bil dominix with 20 mil drones ,i don't find that very normal for a capital ship do you?
And what about the mothership what good will that be? I don't like solo pwnmobiles either , and i don't even fly the things and i'm not training for one but don't u find it a little bit too much of a nerf? and to a ship that already dies alot to roaming gangs due lack of support, support that the ships already needs alot if they plan of not going boom
Well considering carriers are much more logistics ships than anything I don't see an issue. Yes, they won't be owning fleets of ships, but they weren't designed to do that. CCP is forcing them back into the logistics role and making them fly with support.
Carriers/Moms will still be very useful in keeping your own fleet alive through remote repping, getting people into the fight quicker or back into the fight after losing a ship, etc... They aren't meant to be solo combat ships, but that doesn't mean they are useless unless you consider OMGDPS!!@@! to be the only thing that matters in eve.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:58:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 01:04:32 Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 01:02:36 If you think carriers and MS are solowtfpwnmachine well guess what, YOU ARE WRONG.
Man how many freaking times has it been said... don't ******* talk about things you don't know about. For every idiot that gets kill by a MS, 100 made it out alive. Nerf MS? NO.
Same deal with carriers, i mean who the hell dies to one 1 vs 1? Small ship GTFO, big ships warps out after tanking them for a bit (and usually come back with a dampening ship and a couple BS and kill the carrier)...
CCP is throwing the nerf bat around blindly again. Hey guys gallente's do to much dps, lets limit them to light and medium drones oh and cut their turret slots by half...
Edit: Just because YOU die to them doesn't mean everyone does. Bringing carriers or a MS to a gate is extremely risky and usually ends up with them needing support and if they don't get it they DIE. Get clue noobs, stop posting idiotic opinions about a subject you have no idea about.
Oh and to the above... again... only idiots die to Carriers and Motherships. They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn (oh ok so theirs been like 2 vids of them owning solo ships that stick around and what 20 vids of carriers getting OWN...)... man you guys really are idiots sometimes. CCP should have NEVER bothered to ask opinions of noobs and stick to 03 and 04 pilots opinion.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:37:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Icome4u They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
|
General Xenophon
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:40:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Je'hira Osiris This is just bang out of order TBH... WTF!! is the point of spending Billoins on any type or carrier spending years training, running multiple accounts for some twerp at CCP to decide you dont get to play with what you have worked for.... SO mothership can kill 100's of bs's gess what they are worth 100's of bs's... CCP you seem to be ****ting on players that are keeping you in bread and water... do you want to go back to working for free??
I agree but out of respect to CCP I won't rant and say how ****ed I am at the very idea of this carrier / MS change.
Several MS have been destroyed already, it's not impossible it's a challenge. Carriers die all the time. Not to mention just training for a MS takes ages - so the idea of changing the number of drones they can launch is laughable at best, not to mention it screws over the years of time spent training for MS / carrier / drones.
Instead of spending so much time screwing with ships can we get working on the lag issues instead? By the time a situation arises involving a MS / carrier fleet, lag seems to be more of an issue than dealing with the cap ships. This really should be CCP's first concern rather than fundamentally screwing every carier / mothership pilot in the game.
That said, I do have respect for CCP, but I am indeed very frustrated with some of the things they do... This idea is bad at best, and absolutely a kick in the balls to every player who ever thought they wanted to train for a carrier. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints |
Kumq uat
Gallente Round Table Enterprises Drunken N Disorderly
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:53:00 -
[25]
Still a terrible idea. This also encourages yet more blob warefare which IMO we need to get away from. With how many carriers and Moms lost we dont need a nerf. www.eve-pirate.com author and goat molestor.
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
Originally by: Jacob Castillo I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
Agreed. I like their idea the carriers are really big, bad-ass support ships. Makes a lot more sense to me than being a solopwnmobile.
you never really flew one did you ? what can you really pwn with a carrier and how fast ? and how effective is your carrier then SOLO ?
you ever had a ship dampening your carrier if you actually fly one ?
for a ship you have to train months for and spend 1.5 bil at least all togheter. i expect alot more then it already does.
and then i aint even montioning motherships and titans. compared to the isk you need to get 1 of those and the trouble that you have to go thru to build 1 and the skills you need to train for it and the price of the skills. those are heavilly performing under expectactations. what special abilities do these things still have that poses and orecapitals etc not have ? more fighters and a dd device...
but yea good idea lets nerf them some more and make them unable to defend themselfs and let them be safe in their poses all day. i guess you really tought about this idea for a long time.
maybe next time you should start with asking what do you all think we should do and then pass on your own ideas. i saw better ideas in replys then i read in this devblog or some before it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:04:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
We do fly with support noob. OR ELSE WE DIE. Oh and did i mention that fighters cost 20 million isk a peice? And they do what... 150-200 damage every 6 seconds on a BS?... Did i also mention you can kill them easily even with Large guns... How would you feel if you HAVE to wait on a gang mate to shoot YOUR guns... i sure wouldn't be happy about it. I always fly with support, i support them, they support me. If I want to use MY fighters then it should be up to me. I also love the act to delegate fighters to people showing them i care about them, that its my choice to put 250 million isk of fighters + 1.5 billion isk of carrier on the line for them.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
We do fly with support noob. OR ELSE WE DIE. Oh and did i mention that fighters cost 20 million isk a peice? And they do what... 150-200 damage every 6 seconds on a BS?... Did i also mention you can kill them easily even with Large guns... How would you feel if you HAVE to wait on a gang mate to shoot YOUR guns... i sure wouldn't be happy about it. I always fly with support, i support them, they support me. If I want to use MY fighters then it should be up to me. I also love the act to delegate fighters to people showing them i care about them, that its my choice to put 250 million isk of fighters + 1.5 billion isk of carrier on the line for them.
First off, OP, there is already a thread on this topic. Multiple threads are unneeded.
Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes. Of course, as you explained in another thread, if you are not willing to commit to the risk involved in combat, you don't have to engage. Should the possibility of putting your carrier at risk terrify you, no one is forcing you to fly it. If a logistics and support ship is not what you wish to pilot, battleships are much more cost effective and may just possess the purely offensive role you're looking for.
|
lor'cal
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:48:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
We do fly with support noob. OR ELSE WE DIE. Oh and did i mention that fighters cost 20 million isk a peice? And they do what... 150-200 damage every 6 seconds on a BS?... Did i also mention you can kill them easily even with Large guns... How would you feel if you HAVE to wait on a gang mate to shoot YOUR guns... i sure wouldn't be happy about it. I always fly with support, i support them, they support me. If I want to use MY fighters then it should be up to me. I also love the act to delegate fighters to people showing them i care about them, that its my choice to put 250 million isk of fighters + 1.5 billion isk of carrier on the line for them.
First off, OP, there is already a thread on this topic. Multiple threads are unneeded.
Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes. Of course, as you explained in another thread, if you are not willing to commit to the risk involved in combat, you don't have to engage. Should the possibility of putting your carrier at risk terrify you, no one is forcing you to fly it. If a logistics and support ship is not what you wish to pilot, battleships are much more cost effective and may just possess the purely offensive role you're looking for.
The poster above me is a certified idiot. He doesn't fly carriers, and if he did he'd understand that this nerf is indeed a terrible idea. I can't and don't fly carriers, and its blatantly obvious to me that nerfing a ship that someone trained a year or more for and invested so much isk for, should be able to beat someone that trained 3-4 months and flies a BS. And BS's can get away from Carriers. So I don't know why they would even consider this nerf to the ship.
And by the way, "Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes." Should be:"Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend. If you are already flying with support, then little changes."
I hate idiots that try to correct someone else, when they are also wrong.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:34:00 -
[30]
Originally by: lor'cal And by the way, "Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes." Should be:"Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend. If you are already flying with support, then little changes."
I hate idiots that try to correct someone else, when they are also wrong.
LOL
|
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:15:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
We do fly with support noob. OR ELSE WE DIE. Oh and did i mention that fighters cost 20 million isk a peice? And they do what... 150-200 damage every 6 seconds on a BS?... Did i also mention you can kill them easily even with Large guns... How would you feel if you HAVE to wait on a gang mate to shoot YOUR guns... i sure wouldn't be happy about it. I always fly with support, i support them, they support me. If I want to use MY fighters then it should be up to me. I also love the act to delegate fighters to people showing them i care about them, that its my choice to put 250 million isk of fighters + 1.5 billion isk of carrier on the line for them.
First off, OP, there is already a thread on this topic. Multiple threads are unneeded.
Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes. Of course, as you explained in another thread, if you are not willing to commit to the risk involved in combat, you don't have to engage. Should the possibility of putting your carrier at risk terrify you, no one is forcing you to fly it. If a logistics and support ship is not what you wish to pilot, battleships are much more cost effective and may just possess the purely offensive role you're looking for.
If you fly with support little changes. . . yeah right. You add to Carrier logistics the need to assign at least 5 fighters, possibly more, to people who have little incentive to keep said fighters alive. And deal with the fact that your assignees are going to get killed, leaving fighters in limbo. Those people also forego their own drones to do this, and the fighters don't get ship/skill bonuses, which makes less damaging than a Dominix/Ishtar/Myrmidon's Ogre IIs are now. So sure. . . not a nerf at all. . . Just a massive change to the ship's usage that makes them MUCH more micro-management intensive. Micro-management doesn't happen in laggy environments like fleet fights.
It would be, after this 'change' equally effective for a Carrier to sit at a POS than come to the field of battle. Sitting at a POS is not my idea of fun, but getting lagged to death and dying isn't either. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:41:00 -
[32]
This change will force you to have 3 wingmates to get full fighter benefit. So what? It's a Mothership, for God's sake ! It's not a ship that is supposed to ever be alone !
If you want to blame someone for the change, blame Bob and MC, it's them who invented the capital blob that caused CCP to nerf it. Who need support when you have 50-100 capital remotes at your disposal and 500-1000 fighters? Now, you do.
If you still want solo pwnage, drop your carrier and use a Moros... Until there's so many Moros users that it gets nerfed in turn... ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Crohnx
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:06:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Shadowsword This change will force you to have 3 wingmates to get full fighter benefit. So what? It's a Mothership, for God's sake ! It's not a ship that is supposed to ever be alone !
If you want to blame someone for the change, blame Bob and MC, it's them who invented the capital blob that caused CCP to nerf it. Who need support when you have 50-100 capital remotes at your disposal and 500-1000 fighters? Now, you do.
If you still want solo pwnage, drop your carrier and use a Moros... Until there's so many Moros users that it gets nerfed in turn...
and how long uve been playing eve and how long are u in 0.0 space , tell me the truth pls...
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:11:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Crohnx
Originally by: Shadowsword This change will force you to have 3 wingmates to get full fighter benefit. So what? It's a Mothership, for God's sake ! It's not a ship that is supposed to ever be alone !
If you want to blame someone for the change, blame Bob and MC, it's them who invented the capital blob that caused CCP to nerf it. Who need support when you have 50-100 capital remotes at your disposal and 500-1000 fighters? Now, you do.
If you still want solo pwnage, drop your carrier and use a Moros... Until there's so many Moros users that it gets nerfed in turn...
and how long uve been playing eve and how long are u in 0.0 space , tell me the truth pls...
Doesnt matter, he is right. Bring arguments and not personal attacks like "I think u do noob! *drol*"
|
lor'cal
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:41:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Crohnx
Originally by: Shadowsword This change will force you to have 3 wingmates to get full fighter benefit. So what? It's a Mothership, for God's sake ! It's not a ship that is supposed to ever be alone !
If you want to blame someone for the change, blame Bob and MC, it's them who invented the capital blob that caused CCP to nerf it. Who need support when you have 50-100 capital remotes at your disposal and 500-1000 fighters? Now, you do.
If you still want solo pwnage, drop your carrier and use a Moros... Until there's so many Moros users that it gets nerfed in turn...
and how long uve been playing eve and how long are u in 0.0 space , tell me the truth pls...
Doesnt matter, he is right. Bring arguments and not personal attacks like "I think u do noob! *drol*"
Do you think that its fair if your Battleship can win over any cruiser or below automatically? Do you think that Carriers should be on the same playing level as a Frigate? Cause this nerf is crippling Carriers in a way only sane people don't want.
Time played and skills reflect the general attitude towards Carriers. If you can't fly a carrier, and have been in a fight with one(and are so idiotic that you didn't warp out from a 5 bil investment or more), you well deserve to be destroyed in your little BS you probably have 200 mil investment in. Fighters don't instant pop Battleships, you have more then ample opportunity to warp away from them. Nerfing the Carrier in CCP's fasion turns it into a waste of time to skill up for. If you want to play Pure Logistics, they have ships designed for it. If you want to fly the ultimate drone boat with some logistics, you fly Carriers. So far it has shown that a large percentage of people with skills that are too low to use a Carrier, and are in their Battleships, want their ship to be the main damage in fleet battles, and not someone who has been playing longer then them, invested a lot more then them, and has a basic understanding on how PvP goes, will be saying its a good change. The people with basic common sense and those that fly carriers already, understand that this is a freakishly bad idea to implement this nerf.
Carebears cry nerf the Carriers, because they are too ignorant to realize how easy it is to get away from one, or to gang up on one if someone is soloing with it. Very few people will touch these ships if this nerf comes, and the ones that do use it, will probably come to the realization that its a joke to have other ships control "your" fighters.
I foresee quite a few people quitting the game if this nerf goes through, wasting years of training and mounds of isk to end up with a crappy ship. If I were in that position, I'd flip the bird to CCP and call it quits.
|
Mr Mozzie
Evolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:51:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shadowsword This change will force you to have 3 wingmates to get full fighter benefit. So what? It's a Mothership, for God's sake ! It's not a ship that is supposed to ever be alone !
If you want to blame someone for the change, blame Bob and MC, it's them who invented the capital blob that caused CCP to nerf it. Who need support when you have 50-100 capital remotes at your disposal and 500-1000 fighters? Now, you do.
If you still want solo pwnage, drop your carrier and use a Moros... Until there's so many Moros users that it gets nerfed in turn...
The capital blob is no more an invention than 80 storey buildings, or 8 lane highways. It required no novel thought, or initiative. It was it was the inevitable consiquence of the arms race.
The reason that people are complaining is that these changes will relegate them to pos sitters. Moreover assigning fighter in laggy situations will be impossible. Many people have invested a lot of training time and money to train their charachters up for carriers, only to have carriers made completely useless.
Perhaps if the devs could turn back time they could impliment these things differently. But these features have been implimented and it is unfair to punish carrier pilots for mistakes that they did not make.
Also, making the change on the premise of' just use moros until they nerf them' is silly. We need to stop the nerf cycle in eve, not perpetuate it.
|
Elite MIner
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:51:00 -
[37]
Another CCP nerf on GOON pressure!!! when it was the goon treadnought about nerfing carrier? 1month ago 2 weeks ago?
Common CCP we r not stupid, one of these days i will cancell my account and much more will do. These its ******* ****** to change a game only because u r afraid about goon campain on other forums.
And btw if carriers will be nerfed i will petition and request refund isk'is for all the skills buyed for carrier + remove of the carrier skills + Skill Points used converted in much more other good stuff.
I'm not trained these skills for 9 months to come a bunch of players to say that make lag. What about 60 t1 cruiser's launching 5drones each? That its not lag? U need 30carriers to have 300 fighters/drones and that its alot of carriers.
Most of the carriers fitted for pvp launch about 10 fighters/drones (most of the people have skills in lvl 4 + high slots r fitted with repair's/neutralizers/smartbomb)... why the hell should be nerfed????
That dev should go in a couple of fleet battles first beeing in a carrier and after that he should speak about how to nerf them. Taking decisions from story's and whining's its not what we expect from them.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:52:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis If you fly with support little changes. . . yeah right. You add to Carrier logistics the need to assign at least 5 fighters, possibly more, to people who have little incentive to keep said fighters alive. And deal with the fact that your assignees are going to get killed, leaving fighters in limbo.
You should learn your gangmates to use drones. But it's still an issue, sure. People only take care of their own stuff.
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis
Those people also forego their own drones to do this, and the fighters don't get ship/skill bonuses, which makes less damaging than a Dominix/Ishtar/Myrmidon's Ogre IIs are now. So sure. . . not a nerf at all. . . Just a massive change to the ship's usage that makes them MUCH more micro-management intensive. Micro-management doesn't happen in laggy environments like fleet fights.
First, this should be considered as a bug, if there's a revamp on fighter control, they'd better fix them! The best to delegate fighters would be giving them to people who cares about drones, like an ishtar/dominix pilot. They know what to do with drones. Thus it's assigning your figters to the most drone skilled people, making them loose tons of firepower... This and the fact fighters get less bonuses, it's a good reason not to assign.
In fact, assigned fighters should get more bonuses to make assignement useful.
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis It would be, after this 'change' equally effective for a Carrier to sit at a POS than come to the field of battle. Sitting at a POS is not my idea of fun, but getting lagged to death and dying isn't either.
Not fun at all, you're right! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:12:00 -
[39]
Please, no rational discussion of options until ZuluPark is fired and the idea of the Carrier nerf is dead and buried!
I'm not willing to be Civil or engage in debate on this: this is the worst proposal I've ever heard about in Eve, and I'll fight it tooth and nail.
... at least until CCP defangs and declaws my Carrier.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:30:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Gyle I know there is another thread. And there is gonna be many more. this is an example of how poor this idea is
Oh, so the poorness of your posting habits are analogous to the poorness of the idea? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
|
Trask Kilraen
The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
Originally by: Jacob Castillo I like it. Just deal with the fact that your Nyx won't be the solopwnmobile it once was.
Agreed. I like their idea the carriers are really big, bad-ass support ships. Makes a lot more sense to me than being a solopwnmobile.
Orly? so what is it exactly that "carriers" are supposed to be carrying? I'll tell you: a really bored pilot. And a bored pilot is a pilot who cancels subscriptions.
Honestly a hoard of logistics cruisers would be LOTS more effective than a carrier in fornt-line logisitics. The lock time for a carrier, combined with lag measn that their logistics capability will be almost worthless in a front line fight for anything less than another capital ship.
Meh. ------------------------------------------
|
kessah
Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:13:00 -
[42]
Im sorry but no amount of isk should permit a solo pwnmobile - most of the super rich are rich because of fluke, t2 bpo drop before invention or a chance officer spawn even a lucky kill, but very few earn it threw mining or from actually 'working' for them and if they do they do so with a fleet of miners and group activity.
With that fleet comes gang warfare which is what there for. Not someone buying isk or finally selling that valuable t2 bpo becus of the recent nerf and being able to buy the biggest and best ship in game.
In fairness though - most use these ships in Lowsec because theres no real risk (x13 killed a nubbin mom pilot *not taking anything away from that, still a good kill*) I shall be happy to see any nerf agaisnt these ships, am seeing far to many of them in lowsec let alone 0.0 where ive tried to escape this sort of combat completely by remaining in low sec.
This im my opinion anyways.
-------------------------------------------------------- [Video] Forever Pirate 3
|
Kyla Cole
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:01:00 -
[43]
well at least POS wars won't be won by simply deplyoing fighters while agressed in lag and letting them do the winning
|
Sorum Daemoth
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:18:00 -
[44]
if this is going threw, at least give the bloody thing a bigger drone dmg bonus, no a BS or dreadnaught should do more dm with drones then a carrier
You just got WTF EXIT ganked! |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:10:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 21:56:05
Originally by: Gyle Its not about price its about class of vessle and wiping one 2 off the fface of the planet. since you dont fly em you therefor dont know much about them you shouldnt be commenting.
Also quit with this "you don't fly them so stfu" stuff as well... not only is it a big assumption on your part, but its pretty irrelevant to the argument.
Carriers don't need 20 drones to kill a BS. They don't need 20 fighters to kill a BS. A carrier will beat a BS quite handily with 5 drones/fighters, granted it will take longer but the carrier will still win in the end. Its pretty obvious that CCP doesn't want them to be solo ships so its pretty useless to argue that they won't be able to solo properly after the change... that seems to be the entire point. Fly with support or fly something else.
I made the assumption on a very clear point. You are defneding the prospect of this nerf. This in itself proves my point and the fact that you havent tried tell us different proves it even further. At the end of the day most of the people who are commenting in all these threads have long term experiance with carriers and or motherships themsleves. Hence the outrage at this whole prospect as these are the people that it affects and also know what they are talking about.
In one of the other posts one of he devs asks people to stop being biased. And yet the only people that are defending this are people that havent showed the commitemnt or loyalty to ccp to actualy atain these ships. Thes are the "real" biased players. They are the ones rubbing their hands together saying.
"HAHA, now no-one will have a larger ship then me"
BTW many BS setup right can tank ten fighters from a thanatos. Proving a carrier will now be defenceless. do a bit more homework before posting next time bro...
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:16:00 -
[46]
Originally by: kessah Im sorry but no amount of isk should permit a solo pwnmobile - most of the super rich are rich because of fluke, t2 bpo drop before invention or a chance officer spawn even a lucky kill, but very few earn it threw mining or from actually 'working' for them and if they do they do so with a fleet of miners and group activity.
With that fleet comes gang warfare which is what there for. Not someone buying isk or finally selling that valuable t2 bpo becus of the recent nerf and being able to buy the biggest and best ship in game.
In fairness though - most use these ships in Lowsec because theres no real risk (x13 killed a nubbin mom pilot *not taking anything away from that, still a good kill*) I shall be happy to see any nerf agaisnt these ships, am seeing far to many of them in lowsec let alone 0.0 where ive tried to escape this sort of combat completely by remaining in low sec.
This im my opinion anyways.
Your an idot. becuase you dont understand that carriers and even motherships are NOT solopwnmobils. You may have lost a BS to one but guess what its out of your class and thats normal. takes these suckers into a cap on cap fight and you would have a better understanding. Jezzus all you need to disable a friken carrier is one DAM ARAZU!!! so explain how you have put them on this pedestal?
Oh and keep up with the news. motherships are dropping like flies all over the friken galaxy.
X13 killed Mpires one in lowsec the other day for gods sake!!!!
please guys post if you know what your talking about.
If your not sure just be quiet.
|
Sviatoslav KillJoy
The Templars Knights Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:03:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Sviatoslav KillJoy on 23/10/2007 03:04:44
Originally by: General Xenophon
Originally by: Je'hira Osiris This is just bang out of order TBH... WTF!! is the point of spending Billoins on any type or carrier spending years training, running multiple accounts for some twerp at CCP to decide you dont get to play with what you have worked for.... SO mothership can kill 100's of bs's gess what they are worth 100's of bs's... CCP you seem to be ****ting on players that are keeping you in bread and water... do you want to go back to working for free??
I agree but out of respect to CCP I won't rant and say how ****ed I am at the very idea of this carrier / MS change.
Several MS have been destroyed already, it's not impossible it's a challenge. Carriers die all the time. Not to mention just training for a MS takes ages - so the idea of changing the number of drones they can launch is laughable at best, not to mention it screws over the years of time spent training for MS / carrier / drones.
Instead of spending so much time screwing with ships can we get working on the lag issues instead? By the time a situation arises involving a MS / carrier fleet, lag seems to be more of an issue than dealing with the cap ships. This really should be CCP's first concern rather than fundamentally screwing every carier / mothership pilot in the game.
That said, I do have respect for CCP, but I am indeed very frustrated with some of the things they do... This idea is bad at best, and absolutely a kick in the balls to every player who ever thought they wanted to train for a carrier.
True that. I am roughly half a month from flying a carrier, but.......faeck that. My 6 month training down the hole I guess, lol. I guess I'll just start training for the T2 battleships now.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:09:00 -
[48]
sign my petiition you anti-nerfers
The best petition in the world
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:13:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Gyle I made the assumption on a very clear point. You are defneding the prospect of this nerf. This in itself proves my point and the fact that you havent tried tell us different proves it even further. At the end of the day most of the people who are commenting in all these threads have long term experiance with carriers and or motherships themsleves. Hence the outrage at this whole prospect as these are the people that it affects and also know what they are talking about.
In one of the other posts one of he devs asks people to stop being biased. And yet the only people that are defending this are people that havent showed the commitemnt or loyalty to ccp to actualy atain these ships. Thes are the "real" biased players. They are the ones rubbing their hands together saying.
"HAHA, now no-one will have a larger ship then me"
BTW many BS setup right can tank ten fighters from a thanatos. Proving a carrier will now be defenceless. do a bit more homework before posting next time bro...
Very good example of a situational ad hominem. Basically you are saying I don't fly carriers therefore I am for the changes purely for that reason and my thoughts on the matter are therefore invalid, likewise it could be said that you fly carriers therefore you are against the changes purely for that reason and your thoughts on the matter are equally invalid.
Well both of those statements are invalid arguments. You/my particular situation is irrelevant to the discussion. Argue the points made, not the person making the points.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:25:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Gyle I made the assumption on a very clear point. You are defneding the prospect of this nerf. This in itself proves my point and the fact that you havent tried tell us different proves it even further. At the end of the day most of the people who are commenting in all these threads have long term experiance with carriers and or motherships themsleves. Hence the outrage at this whole prospect as these are the people that it affects and also know what they are talking about.
In one of the other posts one of he devs asks people to stop being biased. And yet the only people that are defending this are people that havent showed the commitemnt or loyalty to ccp to actualy atain these ships. Thes are the "real" biased players. They are the ones rubbing their hands together saying.
"HAHA, now no-one will have a larger ship then me"
BTW many BS setup right can tank ten fighters from a thanatos. Proving a carrier will now be defenceless. do a bit more homework before posting next time bro...
Very good example of a situational ad hominem. Basically you are saying I don't fly carriers therefore I am for the changes purely for that reason and my thoughts on the matter are therefore invalid, likewise it could be said that you fly carriers therefore you are against the changes purely for that reason and your thoughts on the matter are equally invalid.
Well both of those statements are invalid arguments. You/my particular situation is irrelevant to the discussion. Argue the points made, not the person making the points.
I, like everyone else posting in these threads, have made copius arguments why this should not happen. The fact that everyone else is in aggreement with me is a point in itself.
But there is another simple factor. The ludicrous proposal itself. Just by stating that you are for it proves you dont know what your talking about. If you had any significant pvp or logistical experience with carriers then you quiet simply wouldnt be for these proposals. QED
I know you will find this hard to understand but im affraid it will just validate my points further
|
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:35:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Gyle I, like everyone else posting in these threads, have made copius arguments why this should not happen. The fact that everyone else is in aggreement with me is a point in itself.
But there is another simple factor. The ludicrous proposal itself. Just by stating that you are for it proves you dont know what your talking about. If you had any significant pvp or logistical experience with carriers then you quiet simply wouldnt be for these proposals. QED
I know you will find this hard to understand but im affraid it will just validate my points further
Not a terribly convincing point though.
Well, for one, I don't believe I have ever stated that I am for this change (feel free to prove me wrong), but even if I had your conclusion does not logically follow. One could have plenty of experience with carrier ships and still support the proposed changes for a variety of reasos. Your personal opinions of the change are not necessarily fact and your personal opinions of what others should believe are not necessarily correct.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:28:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Gyle I, like everyone else posting in these threads, have made copius arguments why this should not happen. The fact that everyone else is in aggreement with me is a point in itself.
But there is another simple factor. The ludicrous proposal itself. Just by stating that you are for it proves you dont know what your talking about. If you had any significant pvp or logistical experience with carriers then you quiet simply wouldnt be for these proposals. QED
I know you will find this hard to understand but im affraid it will just validate my points further
Not a terribly convincing point though.
Well, for one, I don't believe I have ever stated that I am for this change (feel free to prove me wrong), but even if I had your conclusion does not logically follow. One could have plenty of experience with carrier ships and still support the proposed changes for a variety of reasos. Your personal opinions of the change are not necessarily fact and your personal opinions of what others should believe are not necessarily correct.
Actualy the logic behind it is sound.
Forgive me if i misinterpreted you. But i naturaly assumed that since you were playing devils advocate to everyone that had somthing negative to say about these proposals that you thought them a good idea.
you have made several comments such as "quit trying to balance ships on isk price" or words to that effect. In that perticular statment you were rebuffing the comments of one individual who happened to bring isk in the equation. TBH i aggree with him to a point. One ship type that is more costly to use, more difficult to use and requires excesivly more time to train for should OMGWTFPWN somthing that a noob can get into inside of 2 weeks.
You can say what you like about that but sorry thats the case and there is no debate.
I apologise for getting slightly irrate later and accusing you of knowing too little to comment. But in a way I have another valid point as later in the same post you go on to say a carrier will still beat a BS with 5 fighters. It wont (unless the BS pilot is an idiot). 1 BS wont beat it either. But it will be a stalemate.
By you not knowing that and by playing devils advocate and coming accross as pro-proposal you cant be surprised by my reaction. if you are sitting on the fence and have not real comment to say for or against it then why are you posting?
Fact is that the overwhelming majority of eve beleive this is a terrible idea. So maybe nobody can ever state anything as fact but it is hard to argue with the entire community.
And in rebutle to your earlier point It is not only that carrier pilots vs the non carrier pilots in this. There are plenty of no cap pilots posting against these proposals. But virtualy none from actual carrier pilots saying they are for it.
At the end of the day i challenge you to pick a side rather then argunig with people who have thousands of man hours invested through ingame playtesting of these ships and know in their hearts that this will mark the demise of eve.
|
Lobo Noturno
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:18:00 -
[53]
Let's see the assumptions for this nerf:
1) Carriers are not supposed to be solopwnmobiles. Carriers are rarely flew solo, since they can be an easy prey to a small BS gang that know what they're doing. If they usually need support as they're implemented, then they're not solo ships and do not require nerfs to not be solo ships...
2) If you have support, assigning fighters will give the same damage as today, so it is not a nerf. If you have support, and you have to invest 20mill per fighter, you will certainly not be too keen to lending them to other people that might not be careful enough with them to keep them alive. You will also not like losing all the skill bonuses to the fighters once they're being controlled by someone else. And to top it all, fighters already have their share of bugs, so spreading them over the gang will not make it any better. Why do CCP need to fix something that is not broken, not unbalanced, and gives no lag benefit????? Just for the sake of the "vision", 1 year after the fact?????
3) MOMs are unbeatable, solobbqpwnmobiles of doom. And most children using them as toys to kill newbie ships in low-sec are ending up losing their expensive toys to well executed traps. Doesn't seems like they need to be nerfed...
4) They were suposed to be logistics ships. Perhaps someone wanted them to be logistics, but that is certainly not the main reason anyone buys a carrier. If you look at the industrial capital, it is better at some logistics than the carrier. In fact, the simple name "carrier" implies some ship that is made for fleet battles. It should be in the front-line, not hidden on some deep safe or in a POS. No self respecting carrier pilot will be happy about getting all their fighters given to other people to kill with while they sit and try hopelessly to answer for rep requests. These ships work as logistics as well as very powerful fleet weapons, and they also allow for smaller corps of well trained pilots to fight, head to head, against bigger alliances/blobs.
5) Too many fighters increase lag. So will too many support ships controlling the same number of fighters, or even better, several more ships other than carriers, trying to fight blobs with more blobs. The power of the carrier is not disproportional to the power of a dread, or to the power of a small gang of BSes of the same cost. It can't do several things a BS does, It can't run very well, and it cannot warp scramble if it hopes to not be out-dampened or to have a tank.
That's all.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |