EVE Search - You're killing cap ships

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

You're killing cap ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:24:00 - [91] But,, but,, offensivly, carriers are really only good at taking out Battleships. Have you tried to kill a cruiser with fighters? Or heck,, a battlecruiser? Try it,,, you will not think Carriers are that overpowered. Carriers are a billion isk ship. (well,, almost). They SHOULD be able to toast any battleship. That is why the gods of Eve invented Dreadnaughts. Have you seen what Dreadnaughts to do carriers? It is an awesome sight. Ya dont bring a knife to a gun fight,,, you bring a dreadnaught. I think making high end ships weaker against low end ship is a bizzare move. Not 100% sure of the logic here.
Denga Vulture The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:27:00 - [92] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Originally by: Freya Selene Oh ye, lets assign 100mil worth of fighters to a frigate. Maby bether off in a tier2 BS? No wait! Lets turn carriers into capital logistic ships! The reason carrier is more loved then dreadnaughts is becouse its more versatile and cheaper. Reducing his firepower by 1/3th your dooming it to a logistical ship, couse 5 fighters are not anough to kill a tanked BS. Get over it and learn to play with friends instead of solo. Oh yes, everyday at anytime i have my full support squad ready, just to bring down a BS or to move me save from one sys to another.... really funny my friend. Sometimes in EVE you HAVE to play solo or even twinked. Carries are fine as they are now ... maybe we should check the date of the Dev Blog ...it seems more like a really bad Aprils Fool - All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me - Pure drone user... give us a mini carrier and faction Dominix please
ElanMorin6 CAD Inc. Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:29:00 - [93] If you want to "fix" carriers, increase their targeting range and scan resolution by 50-80%, and completely remove the ability to assign fighters. Off-grid force projection is bad. It was bad with the remote DDD, and it's bad with assigned fighters. Carriers die easily enough, force them to be on-grid against whatever they're attacking and the rest will work itself out.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:30:00 - [94] No Negoations with Terrorists! CCP, fire this new dev and leave Carriers alone! I won't even TRY to be civil on this - CCP stop trying to tell ME how to fly MY ship!
Lord Dynastron Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:31:00 - [95] Originally by: KillmAll187 Edited by: KillmAll187 on 22/10/2007 05:07:23 Originally by: Gamer Maximus Personally, during armageddon day, one carrier took out 6 dreadnaughts and we hadn't even scratched its shields. Anyone else see a problem with that? I call BS. 6 Dreads in siege will ruin a carrier. And 1 carrier vs 1 dread is a very long boring stalemate. If you haven't ever flown a carrier on tranquility you might hold your tongue. It is hard enough during large scale fleet battles to get your drones to attack and turn on your tank, let alone assigning your fighters. When they nerfed carriers to force them out of the shields to assign fighters, that was bad enough. Now you have absolutely no chance to defend yourself in a carrier. 2x Damps on you and glhf locking stuff. *Edit: Where the FK is Tomb? Why does CCP let scrubs handle things like balancing? I agree with you,, except I say it takes less then 6 dreads. I have a Dread account and I have a carrier account. Both with very high skill in each. For fun, I fight myself often. Dread in Seige consistantly kicks my carriers butt.... HARD.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:40:00 - [96] Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 15:40:44 Originally by: Denga Vulture Oh yes, everyday at anytime i have my full support squad ready, just to bring down a BS or to move me save from one sys to another.... really funny my friend. Sometimes in EVE you HAVE to play solo or even twinked. Carries are fine as they are now ... maybe we should check the date of the Dev Blog ...it seems more like a really bad Aprils Fool A carrier is not a solo ship. Get over it.
Loyal Servant Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:48:00 - [97] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 A carrier is not a solo ship. Get over it. No, but this will turn it into a shopping cart. A freighter with a jumpdrive. Carriers cannot defend themselves now against say, 10 bs as it is. Toss a dread in there? = Dead carrier.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:56:00 - [98] Originally by: Loyal Servant Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 A carrier is not a solo ship. Get over it. No, but this will turn it into a shopping cart. A freighter with a jumpdrive. Carriers cannot defend themselves now against say, 10 bs as it is. Toss a dread in there? = Dead carrier. A carrier shouldn't be able to defend itself against BSs. Take a look at aircraft carriers, how they're designed and used. They are not solo ships. If an aircraft carrier comes up against a battleship in real life, and the battleship tries to take out the aircraft carrier instead of focusing on the fighters, aircraft carrier is dead. Fighters might still take out the battleship, but their landing field is gone and they'll crash somewhere in the ocean. Real Life != Eve, but Eve seems to have taken much of its inspiration from Real Life. ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Matrixcvd Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:09:00 - [99] Why does CCP come up with stupid ideas to change the mechanics when they aren't broke? Why not spend time fixing the game so a fleet doesn't lag out and people lose ships because of connection/crappy code? WHEN HAS ANYONE SAID, OMG I GOT WTFPWNED BY A CARRIER, NO FAIR!?!?!?! WHEN????? It takes a long time to skill for, a huge investment, and now someone wants to take its damage away? which in most cases is ridiculous because you need a ship to TACKLE the target so your fighters can kill it, thats ENOUGH SUPPORT, fighters are useless on targets warping around and jumping in and out of a system. Shear maddness, play the forum whiners song cause thats how this sounds but sorry its just a stupid stupid idea.
Todd Doughnut	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:10:00 - [100] In real life the Carriers' combat air patrol would detect the Battleship well over the horizon, advise of the situation and be directed to destroy it, before it even sees the carrier.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:12:00 - [101] Originally by: Todd Doughnut In real life the Carriers' combat air patrol would detect the Battleship well over the horizon, advise of the situation and be directed to destroy it, before it even sees the carrier. Quote on aircraft carrier: Aircraft carriers are generally accompanied by a number of other ships, to provide protection for the relatively unwieldy carrier, to carry supplies, and to provide additional offensive capabilities. This is often termed a battle group or carrier group, sometimes a carrier battle group. ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
An Anarchyyt Gallente Sublime.	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:13:00 - [102] Originally by: Matrixcvd Why does CCP come up with stupid ideas to change the mechanics when they aren't broke? Why not spend time fixing the game so a fleet doesn't lag out and people lose ships because of connection/crappy code? Well, since you clearly haven't heard, this new game engine is coming out, and the servers are also going to be overhauled to Blade Servers. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Garrett Smith ARK-CORP RONA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:27:00 - [103] Wait what was the point of carriers again?? Oh yeah... to have fighters, not to sit and assign fighters while in safe spot or by pos. With this nerf I expect people to leave this game for greener pastures. I didn't train for carrier to have 5 drones out WTF!!!! Boom Shaka Laka Laka, Boom Shaka Laka Laka, Boom Shaka Laka Laka, Boom! -Sahwoolo Etoophie
Spenz Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:30:00 - [104] Originally by: Dretzle Omega Originally by: Todd Doughnut In real life the Carriers' combat air patrol would detect the Battleship well over the horizon, advise of the situation and be directed to destroy it, before it even sees the carrier. Quote on aircraft carrier: Aircraft carriers are generally accompanied by a number of other ships, to provide protection for the relatively unwieldy carrier, to carry supplies, and to provide additional offensive capabilities. This is often termed a battle group or carrier group, sometimes a carrier battle group. Fails at history and at military tactics. Escort ships in a battlegroup are meant as a SECOND line of defense, in the chance a sub or bomber made it through the air screen. The aircraft are a carriers first line of defense. As for your battleship theory, your line of thinking was the same as the Navy's in 1940. Of course that line of thinking died on December 7th, 1941. If you really think a battleship could effectively take on a carrier, you might want to speak to Mr. Yamato and Mr. Musashi. Be sure to ask Mr. Yamato about his sailing trip off Samar. He will tell you that carriers within shelling range are still discouraging with their aircraft. But this is eve, not RL. If CCP wants to kill another one of their shipclasses, then whatever. I don't fly a carrier so it doesn't affect me, it just changes my skill plan. If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:30:00 - [105] Originally by: Garrett Smith Wait what was the point of carriers again?? Oh yeah... to have fighters, not to sit and assign fighters while in safe spot or by pos. With this nerf I expect people to leave this game for greener pastures. I didn't train for carrier to have 5 drones out WTF!!!! No, the point of carriers is to provide fighters to help a fleet or battle group, not to be the "next bigger and better ship after battleship cause I can have loads of fighters and drones". Really, read up on aircraft carriers. It takes all of 10 seconds. ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Sikozu Prioris Suns Of Korhal YouWhat	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:04:00 - [106] STOP with the stupid comparisons to aircraft carriers. THIS IS EVE NOT REAL LIFE, muppet. With this change carriers with no gang will not be able to defend themselves against anything since their dps will be aweful and as many ppl have said. You dont see an aircraft carrier going, oh s*t we have no fleet helping us lets only launch 2 fighters to defend us against these attacks. THAT IS PLAIN STUPID. A ship would deploy all availible resources to combat a foe in both attack and defence. Stop the real life comparisions; 1stly they dont make any sense what so ever and 2ndly they are so flawed you may as well quit eve before you say them and save us the pain of reading it "A enemy fleet emerges from the shadows"* - What shadows!?! We're in ****ing space for gods sake
Loyal Servant Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:17:00 - [107] Originally by: Dretzle Omega Originally by: Loyal Servant Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 A carrier is not a solo ship. Get over it. No, but this will turn it into a shopping cart. A freighter with a jumpdrive. Carriers cannot defend themselves now against say, 10 bs as it is. Toss a dread in there? = Dead carrier. A carrier shouldn't be able to defend itself against BSs. Take a look at aircraft carriers, how they're designed and used. They are not solo ships. If an aircraft carrier comes up against a battleship in real life, and the battleship tries to take out the aircraft carrier instead of focusing on the fighters, aircraft carrier is dead. Fighters might still take out the battleship, but their landing field is gone and they'll crash somewhere in the ocean. Real Life != Eve, but Eve seems to have taken much of its inspiration from Real Life. Then when the carrier is dead the fighters should still engage their last active target, shouldn't they?
Marcus Quo Gallente Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:18:00 - [108] I just sort of skimmed the topic, and most of what I saw was people saying "lol just fly with friends noobs, there goes your wtfpwn solo ship!" I'm not even going to get into the ways that a carrier solo is just asking to die even with current game mechanics because this change has NOTHING to do with solo/small fleet combat. The issue CCP is trying to change is carrier blobs. However, they're not thinking clearly. All this is going to do is give a huge advantage to the defenders. Let's assume two alliances are going to have a fight. Alliance A is defending with 40 carriers and 60 battleships, alliance B is jumping in 40 carriers and 60 battleships. Fair fight, right? Not at all. If this change goes through, alliance A will have time to assign all drones and get the maximum DPS out of their carriers. Alliance B will be jumping into a laggy system, and between black screens, crashes, and desyncs, they will be unable to assign their fighters. Alliance's A's carriers will end up doing TWICE the DPS of alliance B's. Let's be honest here, defenders already have it pretty easy with cyno jammers and sov 4. They really don't need any more advantages, especially ones based on lag instead of game mechanics. I agree something needs to be done about carrier blobs, but this is not the solution.
Janus Veyron DarkStar Armada	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:33:00 - [109] Originally by: Trist Ian This is un-believable, by doing this it would make carriers basically un able to defend them selves. What is a carrier suppose to do if its support fleet all get killed off? evil:] The point is, a carrier IS the support fleet.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:54:00 - [110] Originally by: Sikozu Prioris STOP with the stupid comparisons to aircraft carriers. THIS IS EVE NOT REAL LIFE, muppet. Yes, but it's pretty clear that CCP designed Carriers as inspired by real life carriers, and they're just trying to make the actual application of carriers more inline with that design, hence the real life comparisons. I said in my first post, that Eve != Real Life, but that certain aspects were obviously inspired by real life. So instead of just flaming me for offering an idea other than the generally accepted WTF MY UBERPWNMOBILE IS GETTIGN NERFED I"M QUITTING!!!! attitude, you could do as the devs pointed out and offer some constructive criticism. For example, you pointed out how a ship caught alone would launch all of its resources to defend itself. That's a good start. So how about making a suggestion on what could be done that would bring carriers more in line with what CCP said they were designed for, instead of "You're arguments flawed! Quit Eve do I don't have to hear an opinion other than my own!!!" ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:56:00 - [111] Originally by: Marcus Quo Let's be honest here, defenders already have it pretty easy with cyno jammers and sov 4. They really don't need any more advantages, especially ones based on lag instead of game mechanics. I agree something needs to be done about carrier blobs, but this is not the solution. Not to flame you, your post was actually quite intelligent compared to some in this thread, but perhaps we could come up with suggestions on what IS the solution, then? ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:57:00 - [112] Originally by: Loyal Servant Then when the carrier is dead the fighters should still engage their last active target, shouldn't they? I would agree with that. Or perhaps an hostile target if that one is destroyed, unless recalled. ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Tao Han Synthetic Frontiers	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:00:00 - [113] To the OP: Killing capitals, while a bit of an exaggeration, is exactly the plan. The idea is if I'm not mistaken to lessen the DPS gap between BS and a carrier making the BS even more viable as a fleet ship and thus not making the carrier a must have replacement for the BS. Now, if your carrier is actually used in a fleet it will have added DPS from the delegated fighters, and the carrier in itself will be the supportship, it will not be a support fleet to the carrier ------ snip Your signature image is password-protected. -Rauth Kivaro([email protected]) I know, CEO was being a tard. -Tao
Darkrogue Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:16:00 - [114] Edited by: Darkrogue on 22/10/2007 18:17:59 How about you change POS warefare, stop being lazy and doing "workarounds" **** this change. Killing carriers is JUST starting to become a common thing. And they are dying easily to 10 man gangs. You seriously want carriers sitting inside of POS's even more then they do now I'm still in shock about how narrow-minded this idea has been.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:18:00 - [115] Originally by: Marcus Quo I just sort of skimmed the topic, and most of what I saw was people saying "lol just fly with friends noobs, there goes your wtfpwn solo ship!" I'm not even going to get into the ways that a carrier solo is just asking to die even with current game mechanics because this change has NOTHING to do with solo/small fleet combat. The issue CCP is trying to change is carrier blobs. However, they're not thinking clearly. All this is going to do is give a huge advantage to the defenders. Let's assume two alliances are going to have a fight. Alliance A is defending with 40 carriers and 60 battleships, alliance B is jumping in 40 carriers and 60 battleships. Fair fight, right? Not at all. If this change goes through, alliance A will have time to assign all drones and get the maximum DPS out of their carriers. Alliance B will be jumping into a laggy system, and between black screens, crashes, and desyncs, they will be unable to assign their fighters. Alliance's A's carriers will end up doing TWICE the DPS of alliance B's. Let's be honest here, defenders already have it pretty easy with cyno jammers and sov 4. They really don't need any more advantages, especially ones based on lag instead of game mechanics. I agree something needs to be done about carrier blobs, but this is not the solution. You are complaining more about lag and desync than the topic at hand no?
Finlander09 The Scope	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:39:00 - [116] What about drone control unit? This is bull****. let me say x( My nidhoggur sucks and now its even xxxxxxxx.
Capital Commander The Capitals' Club	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:42:00 - [117] Exactly my point, as I said in "yeah, nerf everything" getting fed up of investing time in what's going to be close to useless. Make Titans as good as shuttles, then.
Mourn Navarre Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:56:00 - [118] Originally by: Lord Dynastron I think making high end ships weaker against low end ship is a bizzare move. Not 100% sure of the logic here. I am. It is so EVE won't denegerate into 'biggest=best' mentality like every other MMORPG. It is something that was supposed to exist since EVE started and I've been here since the beginning. I miss those days sniff
Leighanne	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:01:00 - [119] My FC won't even let me leave the POS as carriers are at the moment - assign fighters - go afk. Carriers are frikkin boring. Instead of taking away the fighters - effectively reducing the DPS by 1/2 in the case of a carrier and 75% in the case of a Mothership give them a reason to actually be on the battlefield. Each fighter is approx 100dps give or take against a BS sized target or larger. So I've paid what ... 40billion for a Mothership which can now do 500dps ish ? Are you nuts? This is possibly the worst idea for a change I've ever seen. Instead of getting carriers out on the battlefield to remote rep and assist their allies your forcing them to sit just outside POS bubbles assign fighters then go AFK and if someone warps to the POS to nudge up inside the bubble and hide. I suppose the equivilant of this would be to say that all other ships can only use 25% or their weapons systems at once now??? Hell if your really really serious about doing this you better be giving Carriers and Motherships more high slots and placements for turrets and Launchers or something... Carriers die all the time at the moment - Motherships die less - which makes sense - since MS's cost upwards of 40b to buy or at least 30b if you build it yourself. I'm disallowed by my FC to take my carrier into battle unless we're sure the support fleet can already protect me. This should indicate how easy it is to lockdown a carrier and wtfbbqpwn it. Either leave them the way they are for for gods sake give them something worthwhile to do. (good thing I didn't buy a Mom yet - I'd have been really ****ed off - goes to train for a titan... least they still have uses)
Dretzle Omega Caldari Psychedelic Party Stellar Economy Experts	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:16:00 - [120] Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 22/10/2007 21:32:36 Originally by: Spenz Originally by: Dretzle Omega Originally by: Todd Doughnut In real life the Carriers' combat air patrol would detect the Battleship well over the horizon, advise of the situation and be directed to destroy it, before it even sees the carrier. Quote on aircraft carrier: Aircraft carriers are generally accompanied by a number of other ships, to provide protection for the relatively unwieldy carrier, to carry supplies, and to provide additional offensive capabilities. This is often termed a battle group or carrier group, sometimes a carrier battle group. Fails at history and at military tactics. Escort ships in a battlegroup are meant as a SECOND line of defense, in the chance a sub or bomber made it through the air screen. The aircraft are a carriers first line of defense. As for your battleship theory, your line of thinking was the same as the Navy's in 1940. Of course that line of thinking died on December 7th, 1941. If you really think a battleship could effectively take on a carrier, you might want to speak to Mr. Yamato and Mr. Musashi. Be sure to ask Mr. Yamato about his sailing trip off Samar. He will tell you that carriers within shelling range are still discouraging with their aircraft. But this is eve, not RL. If CCP wants to kill another one of their shipclasses, then whatever. I don't fly a carrier so it doesn't affect me, it just changes my skill plan. The quote was not made by me. December 7th, 1941 was filled with kamakaze fighters. Fighters that destroyed themselves to destroy the enemy. So if you want to be able to send your fighters in suicide runs to the enemies, then you might be matching your history comparison there. And it's generally accepted that we would have been able to defend ourselves, or had a MUCH better chance, if the intel that we had was communicated properly and the ships were prepared for defense. I don't think I'm the one failing at history here. EDIT: Also, on that day, where was the aircraft carrier? Was in at the shore of Pearl Harbor? Or did it send its fighters out ahead of it and not participate in the actual warfare? I'm not saying the proposed change is the best one, or even a good one, but the devs stated how they wanted to bring the use of the carrier more inline with its intended purpose. So instead of the countless whiners who simply say WTF DO NOT MAKE HTIS CHANGE I CLOSE MY 50 ACCOUNTS, and YOU DON"T AGREE WITH ME QUIT EVE YOU FAIL AT HISTORY, why don't you try to intelligently propose a solution that would be better? ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.