Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:24:00 -
[1]
So you want to change carriers because soon they'll become a replacement for battleships?
Fine couldn't agree more, though method is one we'll discuss.
Capital ships are bad ass: fact. They're supposed to be hulking monstrosities of epic proportion capable of levelling fleets commanded by veterans of years of combat. In game balance and real life this is offset by the fact that these ships are horribly vulnerable without support to protect them from faster, smaller ships in swarms overwhelming their defences.
So here's where carriers in eve differ. A group of carriers can support each other and whilst their offensive ability remains the same, grouped they can defend themselves better than if supported by the expected types of ships.
Solution? A while ago we saw the gang system overhauled to form closer more specialized components forming up a fleet. Why not simply expand this.
Take a squad and give it a "Flagship" slot. Carriers may by all means be ganged together but only the carrier in the "Flagship" spot can assist its squad mates through remote repping. This removes mass carrier spider rep blobs and puts carriers back in their rightful position of gang support. Though still allowing you to field as many as you feel necessary (its not a substitute for BS if you can only get real use of a finite number based on what else you bring)
Now the carrier has a defined role, decent static (relatively) damage dealer to large targets with logistic support providing longevity to a squad in combat but vulnerable to smaller ships through the loss of its support, It's there to keep them alive as much as they are it.
Given this scenario id say there's even room for a little love along the lines of less vulnerability to ewar through an increase to lock range and scan resolution.
On a final note, remember neither lag or moms in low sec are part of this issue.
|
Trixie Baggz
Pyrrhus Sicarii
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:10:00 -
[2]
Keeping this visible <3
|
XFreedomX
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:41:00 -
[3]
I like the structured fleet idea you mentioned. Perhaps it can be developed farther to include other ship types where if you fill all the slots each specialized ship gains bonus where you normally would not. (I.e more dps for BS, longer and faster lock for tackler and better ewar etc....) Maybe having different slot layout based on which race or which capital ship type. (I.e more dps slot for dread flagship, more ewar and logistic slots for carriers and maybe something different for command ships)
|
Kuma Kai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:56:00 -
[4]
why exactly is carriers remote repairing each other an issue? are you saying that because they can attack and defend themselves at the same time that they are overpowered?
a solution already in game is sensor dampening the carriers from being able to lock up the other carrier to repair them, or even ecm from caldari recons. having only 1 carrier in a squad of 10 being able to use its remote repairers sounds really ****** up to be quite honest. along the same lines then dreads shouldn't be able to lock the same targets for concentrated fire. What you're talking about is a means of artificially gimping carriers defense capabilities which is just wrong.
|
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kuma Kai why exactly is carriers remote repairing each other an issue?
Because this is the feature that sets carriers above BS. Its also the feature that breaks with the trend of the bigger the ship the more reliant on smaller support it is.
Originally by: Kuma Kai are you saying that because they can attack and defend themselves at the same time that they are overpowered?
Im most definitely saying carriers should retain their offensive and defensive abilities, however as a dread stands by it own tank and the abilities of its support fleet a carrier should do the same, not be able to sit in a huddle and super tank by using 40 other carriers (or in a years time 1-200 others).
Originally by: Kuma Kai a solution already in game is sensor dampening the carriers from being able to lock up the other carrier to repair them
2x T2 sensor boosters = ~17km lock range with recon bonused dampening.
Originally by: Kuma Kai What you're talking about is a means of artificially gimping carriers defense capabilities which is just wrong.
A carrier has a capital class tank and hitpoints that along with being supported correctly is its defence capability and that is untouched.
|
Yamichi Wiggin
Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:25:00 -
[6]
Still doesn't jive. Ravens have two mostly useless high slots. Every battleship can spare a high slot in most configurations. what's so bad about putting a remote shield rep on my raven? Should that be nerfed too because zomg I can help a friend? Carriers aren't overpowered. If anything, they're already underpowered. Dreads are there for hitting cap ships and hitting stations/POS. Carriers are there specifically for fleet support. Carriers won't ever be a replacement for battleships. Blobs suck no matter what the ship types are and no nerfbat will ever fix that.
How bout we fix basic game mechanics before we go swinging the nerfbat around. ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body.
There is no love in fear |
Kuma Kai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:38:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Kuma Kai on 22/10/2007 20:40:13
Originally by: agent apple
A carrier has a capital class tank and hitpoints that along with being supported correctly is its defence capability and that is untouched.
carriers have a different tanking strategy than dreads, for one they dont go into a siege mode where they can repair more damage than normal, carrier can die very easilly to small fleets without the aggressors having their own carriers/moms/dreads to help., hell the iac nyx was killed with a battleships only, (and lots of dictors :D) what i'm getting at is that carriers by themselves cannot tank, which is why ccp invented remote capital reps.
|
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:10:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Yamichi Wiggin Every battleship can spare a high slot in most configurations. what's so bad about putting a remote shield rep on my raven? Should that be nerfed too because zomg I can help a friend?
A BS does not have the HP for remote repping at fleet level. Fleet level is what this issue is all about 1-200+ man spider repping carrier gangs in so many months/years time.
Originally by: Kuma Kai carriers have a different tanking strategy than dreads, for one they dont go into a siege mode where they can repair more damage than normal
I beg to differ
Originally by: Kuma Kai what i'm getting at is that carriers by themselves cannot tank, which is why ccp invented remote capital reps.
Im not CCP and neither are you so we two cannot state what they intended here. My guess would be however that they were intended to have the range for carriers to repair BS in combat, and as a nice side touch and upgrade to bringing an actual logistics ship was an increase in rep amount, not that they were created as an element of carrier tanking itself.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:20:00 -
[9]
So would the only ships designatable as flagships be the fleet commander, wing leaders, and squad leaders?
If it was just the FC and the wing leaders, then that's very manageable. It wouldn't take that many ships (in a relative sense) to break the spider tank you could assemble with just six carriers max.
If it's the FC, wing leaders, and five squad leaders, then that's still only 11 ships maximum spider tanking, and that's still very manageable.
I kind of like the nature of the idea, though I'm not sure how practical it would be to code. The idea of being able to remote rep only if you're in the right spot in a fleet seems a little wonky to me, though I still like it overall.
The other problem would be that you wouldn't be able to repair POS, modules, or station services with this, though one could argue that that's a good thing. It would give subcapital Logistics ships more of a place in this game, including the Osprey, Exequoror, and the always forgotten Augoror.
So, seems kinda cool, but also could maybe use a little work here and there. |
OzDeaDMeaT
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:31:00 -
[10]
I do like the idea of structured fleets and have my own ideas on this. Eligant way to make Large fleet battles more managable and less laggy
I cant see how this would move Carriers away from sitting at POS's and repping friendlies as they warp in. Carriers have a huge disadvantage due to long lock times and the ability to be jammed easily. Unless these 2 problems are addressed and carriers are made EW emune i cant see a carrier being helpful for the support role u mentioned. Also giving a carrier 8 high slots so it can fit the maximum amount of remote reppers would also make it more useful. Possibly an area effect repair function would be helpful.
If you get a large enough group of ANY ship spider repping its very difficult to break, the fact that carriers do it more often than not is primarily because it doesnt have guns to fit in the high slots. Make a carrier have a weapon of some discription will give the pilot the option to fit damage or team tanking with remote reppers. Giving the pilot the option for something else in the high slots will reduce the amount of whining about spider tanked carrier gangs. Flak Canons
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |