EVE Search - BSs at top of the food chain

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

BSs at top of the food chain

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ejderdisi Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:17:00 - [1] Ok, it's really clear now that CCP wants BSs at the top of the food chain. They want to make 100BS more formidable than 100 carriers. Which suits me fine, as I didnt yet train Carrier :P do u think this should be? My opinion : Yes. At 6 months 1 man should play this game fairly well. Can move around happilly. Get blown up and kill **** regularly. Ofc in PvP route. He should make money with his BS (ratting&missions lol maybe mining) And he shouldnt be overwhelmed with 60 carrier/titan/dread gangs that can kill everything on their paths. At least that 60 men carrier/titan/dread gangs should have 100 BS for support. I mean the real deal is not how much u commited in eve but how many ppl can enjoy eve at a time. Because if there will be some so-uber ships and ship gangs then there will be no fun for that gangs and for their prey anyway... Think about POS wars. Like unballanced ,fleet requiring, useless long hours trying to kill deathstars imo. Flame suit on... Your ideas? :)
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:23:00 - [2] Carrier takes years to train for. Battleship takes months. Carrier costs a billion isk. Battleship costs about 100mil. So no. Capital ships SHOULD be at the top of the food chain. Otherwise what's the point in investing the time and isk into getting one? --------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:25:00 - [3] Battleships can and should be the workhorse of any large fleet. Carriers should perform a more specialized role that is in line with their namesake - projecting firepower and supporting other ships. Their fighters provide a means of projecting firepower (when assigned to other ships so they can follow in warp) and they have bonuses to logistics modules and triage mode for support. Carriers shouldn't be a suitable replacement for battleships in a fleet. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 million SP in Forum Warfare Originally by: CCP Wrangler Booooo!!! Tarminic sux!!!
Unvisibility	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:27:00 - [4] I thought the whole idea with carriers was that they should work with other ships. i.e. 20 BS + 1 carrier >> a BS fleet without a carrier. You know, support ships. Not designed to be solo pwnmobiles. And reading the latest devblog about this it looks like that's what they want to make happen again. I don't think it's a question of 100BS being better than 100 carriers, but that a good fleet should be a mixed fleet, with different roles for different ships, seems reasonable to me - keep some skill in it, not just have everyone in capships cos they pwn all.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Tarminic Battleships can and should be the workhorse of any large fleet. Carriers should perform a more specialized role that is in line with their namesake - projecting firepower and supporting other ships. Their fighters provide a means of projecting firepower (when assigned to other ships so they can follow in warp) and they have bonuses to logistics modules and triage mode for support. Carriers shouldn't be a suitable replacement for battleships in a fleet. Yes, but a while ago, carriers were doing just that. Staying behind and projecting their firepower into the main battle. But people took offence to that. They came onto the forums whining that they weren't getting any carrier kills because they sat in a POS assigning fighters. Now, people are using carriers on the frontline. BUT NO! That's bad as well apparently! --------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejderdisi Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:33:00 - [6] I know they take more time and money. But in fun wise Im speaking :) Actually I dont think that carriers are top of the food chain atm. As I saw lots of carriers couldnt go 2km to POS shields and die in the hands of BS gangs. But problem starting to happen when they start to blob BSs. I think it was written in dev blog that everyday 6 carriers rolling out of factories. This means soon u'll see 100 man carrier gangs. Do u think it will be fun? I dont think so. Actually when I think about recent wars I saw 8-9 MS in a gang. Is it fun? Nah Why? Because it will put a really hard border between players of eve. Which didnt happened yet. (Though super capitals pushing that border hard) I always amazed what a rifter could do to a badly setuped BS in eve. And I vote to keep that spirit up.
Unvisibility	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Ejderdisi I always amazed what a rifter could do to a badly setuped BS in eve. And I vote to keep that spirit up. ^ Amen. One of the best things about EVE has always been the fact that new players can still be really useful in PvP. Just look at what small gangs of organised 3-week old characters can do, for example, in the Agony Unleashed/EVE University gangs. The more we see capships take over the more that gap will grow. 10,000 carriers in EVE now according to that devblog. That's ridiculous. Their role needs to be adjusted.
Grunanca Fusion Mercenaries	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:37:00 - [8] Edited by: Grunanca on 24/10/2007 11:42:50 In my opinion a carrier should have no fighters... (okay, maybe 5 like an² other ship) A carrier should be a logistic platform in which PLAYERS could dock, repair (at a mineral cost from the carrier's cargohold), have clones etc. Let it be a small mobile station. Dreads would become the damage dealers, and super capitals would then be "tech 2" of the dread and the carrier, with Titan as the best type of dread with more gun slots, and DDD.
Ryoji Tanakama Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:47:00 - [9] Carriers are not having their damage reduced, they are having their SOLO damage reduced. If you're supporting other ships (ie the role of the carrier) then you'll have all your fighters in play. ~Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
Sabian Treehugger Minmatar THEM. Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:58:00 - [10] Edited by: Sabian Treehugger on 24/10/2007 11:59:06 /signed capitals are suport ships but at this rate it seems will be playing capital-online soon. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620449 a fine example of what's happening these days.

Soulita Gallente Inner Core	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:06:00 - [11] /signed It is unfortunate though this step by CCP comes so late. 10000 carrier pilots are now angry. If the change would have come earlier, much less people would have been negatively effected.
Lemptie Gallente Glass House	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:11:00 - [12] We all learn , think before you do something. CCP is doing something ,and then they are starting to think. But they get paid for it .
Nahia Senne Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:15:00 - [13] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Yes, but a while ago, carriers were doing just that. Staying behind and projecting their firepower into the main battle. But people took offence to that. They came onto the forums whining that they weren't getting any carrier kills because they sat in a POS assigning fighters. Now, people are using carriers on the frontline. BUT NO! That's bad as well apparently! The vicious cycle of forum whining.
Zantrei Kordisin True Centii	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:16:00 - [14] Imo... 100 BS's should beat 100 Carriers. However, 20 Carriers + frigate/cruiser/BS support, totalling at 100 should beat 100 BS's.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:18:00 - [15] Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama Carriers are not having their damage reduced, they are having their SOLO damage reduced. If you're supporting other ships (ie the role of the carrier) then you'll have all your fighters in play. The idea of preventing fighter assignments from within a POS was to force carriers to the frontline to act as damage dealers and logistics platforms. But now they're forcing carriers BACK to the POS, because who can manage drone assignments in the middle of a battle? Not to mention, if one of your assignees dies, those fighters cannot return to you if you're using fighters yourself. They just go uncontrolled and you lose them. Even if you're not using fighters yourself, god help you if 2 of your assignees die at the same time, attempting to return more than 5 fighters to your control. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Firkragg Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:25:00 - [16] lol at the idea that even post nerf 100 carriers would be smoked by 100 BS. remote reps anyone :D Anyways seriously is only being able to field 5 fighters yourself that horrible. how often do you fly your carrier into combat without any support? At msot your probabaly only loosing 2 fighters from your usual amount because a direct combat carrier wouldnt fill its highs with drone control units surely...
Sabian Treehugger Minmatar THEM. Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:26:00 - [17] carrier = awsome tank and remote repping ability that imo is unough for the skills and money invested , fighters are just a bonus.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:27:00 - [18] Originally by: Firkragg lol at the idea that even post nerf 100 carriers would be smoked by 100 BS. remote reps anyone :D Anyways seriously is only being able to field 5 fighters yourself that horrible. how often do you fly your carrier into combat without any support? At msot your probabaly only loosing 2 fighters from your usual amount because a direct combat carrier wouldnt fill its highs with drone control units surely... Personally, I'd be losing 7 fighters out of 12. But that's not the point. Carriers will be virtually defenseless if they are caught alone. And that can happen to even the most careful carrier pilots. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:27:00 - [19] For that last point, why don't you suggest the obvious solution : uncontrolled drone go back to the carrier ? -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Soulita Gallente Inner Core	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:30:00 - [20] Edited by: Soulita on 24/10/2007 12:30:35 nvm

Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:37:00 - [21] Originally by: Unvisibility I thought the whole idea with carriers was that they should work with other ships. i.e. 20 BS + 1 carrier >> a BS fleet without a carrier. You know, support ships. Not designed to be solo pwnmobiles. And reading the latest devblog about this it looks like that's what they want to make happen again. I don't think it's a question of 100BS being better than 100 carriers, but that a good fleet should be a mixed fleet, with different roles for different ships, seems reasonable to me - keep some skill in it, not just have everyone in capships cos they pwn all. /me agrees. Okay so it's dodgy to use analogies with real-life but in RL carriers do not steam into the forefront of action and lay waste to the enemy. In fact they try to avoid the front lines and rely on the rest of the fleet to protect them. I think the carriers in Eve should be the same as in RL. They sit well back from the action and provide the rest of the fleet with additional firepower that they can direct. The blog implies that one group of fighters can be controlled/retained by the carrier pilot so that should be enough. The rest of your time should be concerned with logistics support. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Iyanah Minmatar Mining Munitions and Mayhem R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:49:00 - [22] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Tarminic Battleships can and should be the workhorse of any large fleet. Carriers should perform a more specialized role that is in line with their namesake - projecting firepower and supporting other ships. Their fighters provide a means of projecting firepower (when assigned to other ships so they can follow in warp) and they have bonuses to logistics modules and triage mode for support. Carriers shouldn't be a suitable replacement for battleships in a fleet. Yes, but a while ago, carriers were doing just that. Staying behind and projecting their firepower into the main battle. But people took offence to that. They came onto the forums whining that they weren't getting any carrier kills because they sat in a POS assigning fighters. Now, people are using carriers on the frontline. BUT NO! That's bad as well apparently! indeed. it's a case of the community whining no matter what happens. at least this way, they get shot down and do some killing, so surely the majority of people are happier. sitting in a pos shield, assigning fighters to an interceptor gang is probably the way the carrier will go if the proposed changes go in unchanged. that's BAD. the supercapital super-nerfing that's going on is, well, odd. motherships and titans were overpowered, that is not in dispute by anyone, but the recent nerfing means they're now, in most situations UNDER powered. carriers and motherships at least have their fighters, thus have some use. however once jump freighters and this proposed fighter change goes through, the carrier and the mothership will be even more redundant than the titan, which has been relegated to a giant jump-hualer (and will still be bigger than the jump freighter so will still have a place as a hauler, or a "sit in the POS shield and give bonuses" ship. ========================================== Iy please remember: I AM a sarcastic ******* and nothing i say has ever represented the thoughts or feelings of my corp, alliance, or anyone really. read
Nasair	Posted - 2007.10.24 12:59:00 - [23] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Firkragg lol at the idea that even post nerf 100 carriers would be smoked by 100 BS. remote reps anyone :D Anyways seriously is only being able to field 5 fighters yourself that horrible. how often do you fly your carrier into combat without any support? At msot your probabaly only loosing 2 fighters from your usual amount because a direct combat carrier wouldnt fill its highs with drone control units surely... Personally, I'd be losing 7 fighters out of 12. But that's not the point. Carriers will be virtually defenseless if they are caught alone. And that can happen to even the most careful carrier pilots. damn straight they should be.
Sabian Treehugger Minmatar THEM. Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.24 13:02:00 - [24] Edited by: Sabian Treehugger on 24/10/2007 13:04:18
Sabian Treehugger Minmatar THEM. Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.24 13:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Iyanah Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Tarminic Battleships can and should be the workhorse of any large fleet. Carriers should perform a more specialized role that is in line with their namesake - projecting firepower and supporting other ships. Their fighters provide a means of projecting firepower (when assigned to other ships so they can follow in warp) and they have bonuses to logistics modules and triage mode for support. Carriers shouldn't be a suitable replacement for battleships in a fleet. Yes, but a while ago, carriers were doing just that. Staying behind and projecting their firepower into the main battle. But people took offence to that. They came onto the forums whining that they weren't getting any carrier kills because they sat in a POS assigning fighters. Now, people are using carriers on the frontline. BUT NO! That's bad as well apparently! indeed. it's a case of the community whining no matter what happens. at least this way, they get shot down and do some killing, so surely the majority of people are happier. sitting in a pos shield, assigning fighters to an interceptor gang is probably the way the carrier will go if the proposed changes go in unchanged. that's BAD. the supercapital super-nerfing that's going on is, well, odd. motherships and titans were overpowered, that is not in dispute by anyone, but the recent nerfing means they're now, in most situations UNDER powered. carriers and motherships at least have their fighters, thus have some use. however once jump freighters and this proposed fighter change goes through, the carrier and the mothership will be even more redundant than the titan, which has been relegated to a giant jump-hualer (and will still be bigger than the jump freighter so will still have a place as a hauler, or a "sit in the POS shield and give bonuses" ship. What about remote repping ?? As logistics pilots would say "it's not all about killing people"
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try	Posted - 2007.10.24 13:08:00 - [26] As a rule of thumb, no ship should ever be obsolete. There should not be a food chain, but a food circle. Any fleet composed of 1 carrier, 5 BS's, 10 cruisers and 20 frigates should be better than a fleet of 50 battleships or 10 carriers. That might not be the case in EvE, but a concept I would personally like.
Jevnikar	Posted - 2007.10.24 15:48:00 - [27] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes As a rule of thumb, no ship should ever be obsolete. There should not be a food chain, but a food circle. Any fleet composed of 1 carrier, 5 BS's, 10 cruisers and 20 frigates should be better than a fleet of 50 battleships or 10 carriers. That might not be the case in EvE, but a concept I would personally like. well wrong, but on right track, 50 bs`s will win any other fight vs 50 ships ( capitals excluded), however if we take the idea of the turnaments and stuf let`s say a 50 BS`s take 10k points vs another gang of 10k points ( 30 bs`s 5 commands 15 hacs 20 frigs ) will win over 50 raw bs`s. But the Food Circle is definitly signed. My sughestion a while ago was that fleet should have a Point limit... and a limit of fleet per system or constalation so you kill blobs and enhance rolplays my 2 cents
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.10.24 16:04:00 - [28] i laugh at the whiners stupidity. in what eve universe can a bs take out a carrier?! 1v1 the carrier wins every time with his eyes closed and only one hand actively moving. so why don't you just back it. the only thing this change does it put carriers back where they belong as primary support, and not allowing them to take out 10+ bs's(and smaller) V 1 carrier, which was totally ********. funny how people tend to think that overpowered ships shouldn't be but inline with the rest of the eve universal balance. (besides it is 2! freaking skills that you have "wasted" training carrier, carrier and fighters, (since the rest is still used for other ships)) if EVERY ONE!!!! AND THEIR DOG! wants to fly a specific ship, then use your freaking brain for once! stop whining when it gets nerfed, there is a reason every one wanted to fly it, and the same reason result in a balancing of the ship/weapon/mechanic.
Dretzle Omega Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.24 16:17:00 - [29] Did no one here read the newer dev blog about carriers? ------------------- 4 8 15 16 23 42 108
Niccolado Starwalker Shadow Templars	Posted - 2007.10.24 16:28:00 - [30] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Firkragg lol at the idea that even post nerf 100 carriers would be smoked by 100 BS. remote reps anyone :D Anyways seriously is only being able to field 5 fighters yourself that horrible. how often do you fly your carrier into combat without any support? At msot your probabaly only loosing 2 fighters from your usual amount because a direct combat carrier wouldnt fill its highs with drone control units surely... Personally, I'd be losing 7 fighters out of 12. But that's not the point. Carriers will be virtually defenseless if they are caught alone. And that can happen to even the most careful carrier pilots. Honestly, I think its good that Carriers and motherships might be defenseless on their own. Maybe we will get rid of the stupidity where moms and carriers are sitting alone at gates using smartbombs. Or camping stations. They are also logistic ships and fleet support ships. They dont really have much on their own to do. Sarah McTeef: You all should really try and stay on topic. Which when I last checked, was my grocery list



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.