EVE Search - And there go the Carriers....

All Channels

Ships and Modules

And there go the Carriers....

» 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)
Mourn Navarre	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:55:00 - [31] Originally by: The Fate Tell me how can they support if they are sensor damped/jammed???? Tell me how that stops you from assigning fighters
Ilya Murametz Caldari Cruororis Consors Conlegium Ivy League	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:03:00 - [32] You know, i've been thinking about this while siting here and crying .... You know, this would be ok if the carriers were actually a good support logistic ships, but lets be real, one of the main roles of it is to support your fleet in combat by shield/armor/cap boosting it. But in reality that can rarely happen (unless you doing it to another capital ship) It takes how long to target your gang mate???? and then can you even target your gang mate while you being dampened by a 1 mill frig....? Well there goes the "we want carriers to be in their support role" argument....
Ilya Murametz Caldari Cruororis Consors Conlegium Ivy League	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:04:00 - [33] Originally by: Mourn Navarre Originally by: The Fate Tell me how can they support if they are sensor damped/jammed???? Tell me how that stops you from assigning fighters Tell me how assigning fighters is relevant to fixing to the current problem, and please don't use Dev Blog for response, cause that Dev already done failed at that once.
Mourn Navarre Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Ilya Murametz Originally by: Mourn Navarre Originally by: The Fate Tell me how can they support if they are sensor damped/jammed???? Tell me how that stops you from assigning fighters Tell me how assigning fighters is relevant to fixing to the current problem, and please don't use Dev Blog for response, cause that Dev already done failed at that once. Answer my question first and I'll answer yours.
Elaina Marie	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Ilya Murametz Edited by: Ilya Murametz on 22/10/2007 02:08:28 You know, i've been thinking about this while siting here and crying .... You know, this would be ok if the carriers were actually a good support logistic ships, but lets be real, one of the main roles of it is to support your fleet in combat by shield/armor/cap boosting it. But in reality that can rarely happen (unless you doing it to another capital ship) It takes how long to target your gang mate???? and then can you even target your gang mate while you being dampened by a 1 mill frig....? and if you do manage to target your gang made..he/she probably dead by then. Well there goes the "we want carriers to be in their support role" argument.... If you deploy a carrier without proper support to deal with that "1 mill frig" the carrier deserves to die. If you "need" to have all of your fighters assigned to you, where the hell is your support? You are most likely already dead. I support this change to carriers. All too often when small to medium gangs engage each other, one side drops a carrier in an effort to win the battle, instead of trying to use tactics to defeat the other gang. It seems to me that people whining about the new changes to carriers are just whining because they stand to loose their "I Win" button.
Eclip SUBLIME L.L.C. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:50:00 - [36] Carriers have never been an i win button. They have horrific lock times and well really for a ship that costs that much are easy to disable. Jamming and damping are stragetic ways of removing the carrier from the fight which is valid. To be effective logistically in the current way it stands u bascially need to devote almost all of ur slots to cap to feed the reppers which seriously diminishes ur tank and makes the carrier tank like a BS :S Seriously i have used carriers in their support role in adn out of triage and have seen them used very effectivly but currently triage mode (the be all and end all of frint line logistics) needs a cap reduction on remote reppers coz u cap urself out in 10-20 reps which takes a whole minute to cap urself out if ur not watching. Also u wouldnt go into triage if u didnt know it was a close fight in which case ur support dies if u were always going to die and u get to sit there and wait till u die while all ur support is dead. ie u cant rep and a heavy neut will stop ur recharge enough. Cap reduction to capital reppers will solve everything yes we have remote cap transfer but u need 2 carriers for a start. and they dont work on a triaged carrier. if not a capreduction on the carrier skill itself then for the triage module like as in a 50% reduction or soemthing it fires twice as fast in triage module so u use twice as much cap. if they fix this or hell even make the skill the logistical reconfig chage that to a cap reduction on remote reppers and give the triage mod a standard stont usage like 10 per cycle or hell even 200 per cycle, they have ample room to store the stuff. The fact that u need too much cap for cap remote reppers forces ppl to concentrate on the the offensive of their carriers and with the curretn way logistics for carries is atm i dont blame them. its so much easier to pump out a few more fighters and protect urself from drone swarm with smart bombs. If they fix the cap usage then hell i would love to run a defensive setup again there is nothing like watching a fleet try and try to kill ur ships only to watch them in structure and be full to health again amost instantly. -------------------------------------------------- It is not what u are underneath, but what you do that defines you
Solant Minmatar Ventis Secundis R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:57:00 - [37] Originally by: Mr Friendly Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Go complain to the noobs that camp low sec in carriers, mom's and titans, cos killing cruisers and stuff with 3 capitals must surely be fun. err, 'noobs' don't fly expensive ships that take a year or more to train for... begone troll anyways, the carrier blog is interesting to read... good thing I stopped training for carriers ;) Yeah they do. Its called 'buy a character and carrier with GTC's (ie money) and have fun in your new carrier'. Its becoming an increasingly common trend.
Captain Schmungles Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:17:00 - [38] Go get your free noobships now, 'cause soon a 10 man noobship gang with damps and a warp scrambler will be able to take down a cap ship. Hooray?
Albatron St	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:20:00 - [39] Originally by: Elaina Marie Originally by: Ilya Murametz Edited by: Ilya Murametz on 22/10/2007 02:08:28 You know, i've been thinking about this while siting here and crying .... You know, this would be ok if the carriers were actually a good support logistic ships, but lets be real, one of the main roles of it is to support your fleet in combat by shield/armor/cap boosting it. But in reality that can rarely happen (unless you doing it to another capital ship) It takes how long to target your gang mate???? and then can you even target your gang mate while you being dampened by a 1 mill frig....? and if you do manage to target your gang made..he/she probably dead by then. Well there goes the "we want carriers to be in their support role" argument.... If you deploy a carrier without proper support to deal with that "1 mill frig" the carrier deserves to die. If you "need" to have all of your fighters assigned to you, where the hell is your support? You are most likely already dead. I support this change to carriers. All too often when small to medium gangs engage each other, one side drops a carrier in an effort to win the battle, instead of trying to use tactics to defeat the other gang. It seems to me that people whining about the new changes to carriers are just whining because they stand to loose their "I Win" button. Come on carriers arnt even close to your so called "I Win" button. How many carreirs get ganked by small gangs, ****s loads and you know it. Dps from a carrier isnt huge you can get more whit a bs that cost alot less then a carrier and thats whit 10 fighters.... and whit 5 fighters, it will be a joke... Its bad as it is, that i need to have a alt just to move my ship from system to system. And now ill need an alt just to have a normal dps for my 1 bill ship no thanks. Caps ships will be like a car that wont work if you dont have 10 m8s around you all the time to push it down the road. why dont you just give us ships that need 10 pilotes to fly them... by the looks off things at the end we will fight in shuttels well you will as ill buger off before that
Rudy Metallo Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:28:00 - [40] Carriers are supposed to be logistics platforms anyway, not damage dealers. -- We are the revolutionaries. We are the usurpers of the heavenly throne. We are the enemies of the Gods.
Zyrla Bladestorm Minmatar Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:46:00 - [41] Its a lot easier to manage delegating fighters from a different grid and gains a whole new level of awkwardness if you are trying to use them against enemies with fighters delegated in the same grid - thus delegation is usually an all or nothing deal. Capital logistics are potent but difficult to use well and relatively easy to counter (You don't need to successfully jam very often if every time you do jam, it will take him three minutes to re-lock anything because you've damped his lock time too) So much as bldyannoyed said above, the average setup after this change would probably go from your choice of carrier with 0-1 drone control units plus combat and logistics mods in a fight attempting to deal a bit of damage while also attempting to help friendlies to a thanatos with 4-5 drone control units, sat at a POS bored stiff. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:21:00 - [42] I can see why they want to make their firepower more gang-dependent, but while they're at it they should get more defensive / repping bonuses to at least make them remotely useful still. Paradox V2.0 is recruiting!
Michelson Morley	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:58:00 - [43] Above the question of whether this nerf is required or not is the question of how workable the solution will be. There are times when certain tactics involve jumping a bunch of carriers into a system to ambush an enemy fleet. Time is of the essence in attacks like this. So now, the carrier fleet jumps in, then has to pause and get organized while they deploy all of their fighters to the associated support fleet. Meanwhile, the enemy sees local lighting up and runs off. Not saying this is the most important aspect of this change - but it is an element. Anything that adds to the administrative overhead of the game slows the already slow pace of gang organization. MM
Roger Albany Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:59:00 - [44] Every other carrier change that have been up until now, have been to get the carriers out of the pos'es and onto the frontline. With this nerf they suddenly reverse course - no point in frontlining the carrier, if you have to give out the fighters to other ships anyway. So all this will accomplish is that the carriers will return to be a pos hugger that gives out fighters.
burning raven omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:44:00 - [45] hm i have a new generic carrier setup 4 drone control units / 1 remote repairer (armour/shield) 3 sensor booster II's / cap rechargers 4 inertia stabs / cap relays rigs im not sure, between ccc's and ones that will help you get back in the bubble quickly what do you think? :)
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:16:00 - [46] Its a change to make carriers the support ships they're supposed to be. I fully endorse the change and realize alot of pirates are going to be bummed out...those of us in 00 fighting eachother could care less....though MC might be miffed a bit. May actually have ot bring a support fleet with you 40+ carriers now. ----------------- Friends Forever Kill. BoB. Dead.
Albatron St	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:19:00 - [47] Originally by: Rudy Metallo Carriers are supposed to be logistics platforms anyway, not damage dealers. what part off carrier definition dont you get? Let me ask you this way, do fighters on a real carrier shoot donats, instead of bullets and missiles ? and are they used to damage other ships or fighters By the looks off things ccp wants new ships, strange way off making them thow. I reckon they are runing low on good ideas or geting to layze to make new models. They coud make the new engine shine even better, whit new intresting models thow thats a new topic...
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:22:00 - [48] Originally by: Michelson Morley Above the question of whether this nerf is required or not is the question of how workable the solution will be. There are times when certain tactics involve jumping a bunch of carriers into a system to ambush an enemy fleet. Time is of the essence in attacks like this. So now, the carrier fleet jumps in, then has to pause and get organized while they deploy all of their fighters to the associated support fleet. Meanwhile, the enemy sees local lighting up and runs off. Not saying this is the most important aspect of this change - but it is an element. Anything that adds to the administrative overhead of the game slows the already slow pace of gang organization. MM I fail to see the effectiveness of using a ton of carriers for a quick strike. A quick strike on what? Smaller ships? Caps outside the POS? What targets can carriers possibly attack quickly enough to make them useful, but not risk them unnecesarily to some lone **ty tackler. I do agree with the one poster who says this is a regression to getting carriers out of the POS. To counter that effct, they should strengthen the defense of carreirs, repper/resis boni, AND boost their remote bonuses to non-cap ships. IF they make carriers capable of giving BS's the ability to tank 1000+ dps--with the carrier being even better--than you may see small gangs utilizing a carrier more. Hell, making the triage mode shorter + allow the use of fighters will prolly accomplish this effect. ----------------- Friends Forever** Kill. BoB. Dead.
P0etank	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:33:00 - [49] i was in alpurute or however you spell it and a typhoon jumped through the stacmon gate and we attacked it because it was BS agents our 3 command ships and 3 BC then he dropped a cyno field and boom a mother ship pilot soloing killed 2 of our command ships and 1 BC. I think a nerf is needed.... because that was just wrongà
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:57:00 - [50] Originally by: Roger Albany Every other carrier change that have been up until now, have been to get the carriers out of the pos'es and onto the frontline. With this nerf they suddenly reverse course - no point in frontlining the carrier, if you have to give out the fighters to other ships anyway. So all this will accomplish is that the carriers will return to be a pos hugger that gives out fighters. That my friend is exactly what I was thinking when I read the blog. Basically they want carriers on the front line and did that nerf to stop you sitting in pos, then they did a half assed attempt at giving carriers a siege like ability for logistics but killed their dps when in that mode. Now they want to stop a carrier from deploying under its own control all its fighters. So what are the devs trying to do? Seems they do half assed buffs and then use nerfs to force people into direct combat, then they make it that they can't fight when in direct combat... CCP clearly have no clue as to what they are doing, if anything I would allow a carrier to deploy fighters even in logistics mode and not do this nerf. Just to make carrier pilots want to fight in direct combat. Then I would remove fighters ability to warp after a target and probably only allow fighters to be assigned to a pilot within 1000Km.
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:25:00 - [51] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 22/10/2007 17:28:43 Originally by: J Valkor There should not be solo-carrier pilots. Period. I am not sure how they exist now, given that a solo carrier is essentially free candy to the first good pvp corp that finds. 1. It's not carriers that are the problem, it's moms. 2. Moms are not free ANYTHING. It takes serious planning plus a fair amount of incompetence on the target's part to take one down in lowsec. 3. There are very few good pvp corps relative to the number of corps who claim to be such. The "fix all" solution to the mom problem is to not let them be immune to ewar except in 0.0. -------------------------------------------------- FRIGATS Coalition FREGE-Red-IAC-Goon-AAA-Tau-Southerncross "We gonna beat you with frigats."
J'ghathii Caldari 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:58:00 - [52] Originally by: Hyakuchan 1. It's not carriers that are the problem, it's moms. 2. Moms are not free ANYTHING. It takes serious planning plus a fair amount of incompetence on the target's part to take one down in lowsec. 3. There are very few good pvp corps relative to the number of corps who claim to be such. The "fix all" solution to the mom problem is to not let them be immune to ewar except in 0.0. And that is the truth of this argument. Carriers aren't the problem, its the moms camping in low-sec that are.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:12:00 - [53] 1) disallow supercaps from lowsec 2) ?? 3) profit! Paradox V2.0 is recruiting!
Elles D Caldari Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:08:00 - [54] I don't even fly mom's/carriers and this sounds ****. CCP sort it out tbh.
kessah Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:24:00 - [55] Two thumbs up from me, top notch idea. -------------------------------------------------------- [Video] Forever Pirate 3
Molly Neuro	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:28:00 - [56] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad It's a good change. Carriers were never supposed to be the solopwnmobiles they became. You've obviously never flown a carrier - have you actually seen one??
Kruel Blunt Force Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:32:00 - [57] Why change carriers? Was anyone asking for this change? What about all the drone bugs, what about Amarr laserboats? And how about that Factional Warfare we were promised so long ago?
Brady	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:44:00 - [58] I agree with the change. Think its been needed for some time, but please fix the triage before nerfing. Triage = insta cap death, and with this change can a carrier have active fighters?
FT Diomedes Gallente Ductus Exemplo	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:44:00 - [59] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad It's a good change. Carriers were never supposed to be the solopwnmobiles they became. Personals Ad: Small roaming gang seeks solo carrier for a fun night of *****fantasy simulation. You get to pretend you are a sexy beast of a ship that can take on anyone. We get to gangbang you. Oh, and when we're done, we'll do unspeakable things with your frozen corpse. Seriously, anyone who thinks carriers are solopwnmobiles doesn't have a clue. A carrier by itself might as well be dead already if there is a small gang around. ------------ Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.
Mourn Navarre Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:49:00 - [60] Originally by: Molly Neuro Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad It's a good change. Carriers were never supposed to be the solopwnmobiles they became. You've obviously never flown a carrier - have you actually seen one?? I have with my original character. After spending so much time training for them just to try them (dreads and carriers), I decided I hated capital ships in general which put to waste a helluva lot of skill points. I especially do not like the immune to EW (at least when it comes to tackling) that MOMs have which is where the idea (and I do mean idea) is probably meant bite into the most.

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

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