EVE Search - Carriers should be weaker Vs numerous inferior ships?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Carriers should be weaker Vs numerous inferior ships?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
UGonDieFoo	Posted - 2007.10.24 21:01:00 - [1] This seems to be one of the main intentions, according to the changes proposed for carriers. I have to question this; however. I think that carriers should be the capital ships best suited for dealing with numbers of lesser ships. After all, they're designed for launching multiple smaller combat effective drones that can attack many different targets independently. This very nature make carriers good at engaging multiple soft targets so the proposed changes seem rather contradictory. I think the carrier's role should be similar to the role of naval carriers as they were used in World War 2: ships capable of doing lots of damage through they're aircraft, and equally capable at defending against air attacks, but lacking in armaments or armor themselves, and extremely vulnerable against a battleship or other heavily armed warship inside gun range. I think this presents a good balance model for carriers in Eve, while giving them a combat role in battle that's much more suited to their function and design. Basically, carriers in Eve should be able to deal lots of sustained damage against all classes of enemy ships, but they should be slower, and more vulnerable if directly attacked themselves. They should be (more) easily defeated by battleships or battlecruisers that can get in range of them. In terms of fleet combat they should be kept in the rear, out of the focus fire range and support the groups main battleships with their drones. If Carriers are gonna be made weaker, then they should be more fragile or less escapable in general but I don't think it makes sense to make frigates, interceptors and the like their counter. Anyway, I'm basically brand new eve player. I don't have a carrier or a battleship or a battlecruiser or anything like that. I have no vested interest in what happens so please don't flame me; I'm trying not to push any sort of agenda for my own personal gain. This is just what I think the role of carriers in Eve should, be given that they are going to be changed. Feel free to share your opinions on the subject.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.24 21:09:00 - [2] Edited by: MotherMoon on 24/10/2007 21:10:20 I've had this one idea for a while of making more fighters, and having carriers be great when fighting smaller ships, even give the fighters drone kiling AI or smartbombs??? and then making motherships only use fighters that are great when fighting battleships, as in real life we have no comprassion of a mothership. but make the mothership bad when fighting small targets. also make the carrier not logistics at all (no shield rep bonus, al offensive stuff) while you make motherships sick logistics platforms. even one crazy idea of letting motherships carry a fleet of pilots that are in there ships in the momthership, waiting to unleash hell. I don't see why a mothership has be nothing but a bigger carrier.... that doesn't make sense if you stop to think about it... ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.24 22:25:00 - [3] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 24/10/2007 22:26:09 The disconnect seems to be that people think carriers are battleships. Not in terms of the belonging to that Eve ship class, but as a combat attack ship. Again you say ccp thinks that "Carriers should be weaker Vs numerous inferior ships?". When in reality carriers were never supposed to go toe to toe with other ships in the first place. They're for support. They should be on the battlefront adding dps (by assigning fighters!) and keeping their fleet alive. If Carriers were supposed to do damage, they would have some guns/launchers too. Unfortunately people misinterpreted their role, and now see them as a ship fighting numerous other ships. "Why should I assign 200 million of my isk to someone else!" they say. When in reality CCP intended carriers to be corporation projects and not owned and operated by one person. In which case if the person did not own the carrier or fighters, delegating wouldn't be an issue, besides the lag, and targeting problems that occur in combat. Its unfortunate that their role was misunderstood for so long, and that due to the community backlash they have to re-interpret their role. Specifically by making them weaker vs. small ships in order to satisfy the egos of those wishing to fly a giant battleship, and fight other large/giant ships. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.24 22:39:00 - [4] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 24/10/2007 22:26:09 The disconnect seems to be that people think carriers are battleships. Not in terms of the belonging to that Eve ship class, but as a combat attack ship. Again you say ccp thinks that "Carriers should be weaker Vs numerous inferior ships?". When in reality carriers were never supposed to go toe to toe with other ships in the first place. They're for support. They should be on the battlefront adding dps (by assigning fighters!) and keeping their fleet alive. If Carriers were supposed to do damage, they would have some guns/launchers too. Unfortunately people misinterpreted their role, and now see them as a ship fighting numerous other ships. "Why should I assign 200 million of my isk to someone else!" they say. When in reality CCP intended carriers to be corporation projects and not owned and operated by one person. In which case if the person did not own the carrier or fighters, delegating wouldn't be an issue, besides the lag, and targeting problems that occur in combat. Its unfortunate that their role was misunderstood for so long, and that due to the community backlash they have to re-interpret their role. Specifically by making them weaker vs. small ships in order to satisfy the egos of those wishing to fly a giant battleship, and fight other large/giant ships. but then why take them to the battle field is the question? keep them at a POS and assign fighters. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:36:00 - [5] Originally by: MotherMoon but then why take them to the battle field is the question? keep them at a POS and assign fighters. Agreed. CCP wants to have their cake and eat it too on this one. They want cerriers on the front line, fighting, but they want them vulnerable to small ships. I don't see it happening personally.... I think if a single inty can hold a carrier in place, then carriers will avoid the front lines and live at POSes. ------------------------------------------
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:41:00 - [6] Originally by: Trask Kilraen Originally by: MotherMoon but then why take them to the battle field is the question? keep them at a POS and assign fighters. Agreed. CCP wants to have their cake and eat it too on this one. They want cerriers on the front line, fighting, but they want them vulnerable to small ships. I don't see it happening personally.... I think if a single inty can hold a carrier in place, then carriers will avoid the front lines and live at POSes. which brings up my idea again... actually now it's different :P make carriers hug POSes with great logistics? make MoMs great at front line work? no should complain that a 20bil ship is easy to get :) ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
voidvim Minmatar Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.25 01:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 24/10/2007 22:26:09 The disconnect seems to be that people think carriers are battleships. Not in terms of the belonging to that Eve ship class, but as a combat attack ship. Again you say ccp thinks that "Carriers should be weaker Vs numerous inferior ships?". When in reality carriers were never supposed to go toe to toe with other ships in the first place. They're for support. They should be on the battlefront adding dps (by assigning fighters!) and keeping their fleet alive. If Carriers were supposed to do damage, they would have some guns/launchers too. Unfortunately people misinterpreted their role, and now see them as a ship fighting numerous other ships. "Why should I assign 200 million of my isk to someone else!" they say. When in reality CCP intended carriers to be corporation projects and not owned and operated by one person. In which case if the person did not own the carrier or fighters, delegating wouldn't be an issue, besides the lag, and targeting problems that occur in combat. Its unfortunate that their role was misunderstood for so long, and that due to the community backlash they have to re-interpret their role. Specifically by making them weaker vs. small ships in order to satisfy the egos of those wishing to fly a giant battleship, and fight other large/giant ships. nope carrier were all ways surpost be dps via drones look at the thanatos bonus to fighter damage or the ammar or caladri resistances bonus only the hidhogger got a bonus to only support mods. assigning fighter was a add bonus and only now that the triage mod has been add are carrier more logistic centered. If you where to go way back and read the dev blogs that talk about what capital ship were surpost to be and do you would get a far more accurate.
Dogfighter	Posted - 2007.10.25 01:37:00 - [8] Edited by: Dogfighter on 25/10/2007 01:38:19 PLEASE READ THIS IDEA CAREFULLY As in real life, a carrier should be great to fight small targets, not the big ones. Dreads should be boosted to destroy carriers more easily. Maybe the shield/energy/armor capital transfer modules should give a penalty to the drone bay capacity or to the drone control unit, just an idea. Motherships should be just bigger carriers: more drones, more capacity, more tanking, but with the same weakness as the small carrier: they are not good versus other capitals (dreads, titans). I think they should not be completely immune to EW, but it should be much harder to EW them. Maybe MS should only be immune to warp inhibitors and bubbles, I think this is really the point. To summarize, think about Carriers and Dreads in a similar way you think about Command Ships and TECH 1 Battleships. Carriers, like the commands, are good for support, bonuses and tanking. They should be good vs smaller ships. Dreads, like the tech 1 battleships, have much more firepower, so they are good to take down larger ships, but are not the best tankers and are also not the best support ships. Dreads' role as capital ship killer should be boosted. Pilots would not be afraid of losing their capitals to smaller ships, since carriers would still be good against small ships. Real Life carriers are not afraid of smaller ships, because their fighters are enough to protect them. Maybe CCP could create a TECH 2 tier 3 Battleship, specialized in destroying capital ships and battleships only. It could have a kind of Siege mode, like the dread, where it gives strong penalties to tracking speed and signature resolution and good bonuses to damage, rate of fire and turret range, and maybe better tanking, since siege mode doesn't allow remote assistance. Good bonuses to sentry drones would also be interesting. It would be a anti-capital ship / anti-battleship sniper. It would be a good tool to protect a POS being attacked by capitals and common battleships using guerrilla sniper tactics. To avoid 0.4 and 0.3 killing machines, fighters could be disallowed in these systems, in the same way warp bubbles are. Please reply with your constructive comments and ideas, since I still disagree with CCP's approach, as most of other players do.
Tillek Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.25 01:45:00 - [9] if you're quiting can I have your stuff too -------------------------------------- CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR
Chomapuraku Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.25 01:57:00 - [10] the more i read about the carrier nerf, the less of a problem i have with it. does nobody get CCP's reasoning behind this nerf? capital ships are supposed to be excellent gangbooster ships and sitting ducks when solo. the intention behind this nerf is that carriers be used as fleet support and nothing else. support fleet ops, use teamwork to get any good use out of them. can't defend youself solo? tough. you shouldn't be flying it without a gang. can't do worthwhile damage solo? again, you shouldn't be flying a fleet ship without a fleet to support. the bottom line is that ccp never intended carriers to be uber, no-compromise, jack-of-all-trade ships. no other ship can pop all smaller ships easily, freight ships, mods, and materials via cyno routes, fuel POSes, provide both front-line and pos-based support, and rep up poses and stations anywhere near as well as a carrier, and can do most of those with a single fitting. this nerf means that now, carrier pilots, like other pilots, have to fit for one or two tasks at a time. the argument of "i spent all that isk and trained all those skills" doesn't hold water here. it's the same argument people made when CCP nerfed nano-BSes.
Stuart Price Caldari Havoc Inc	Posted - 2007.10.25 02:19:00 - [11] WW2 carriers were extremely vulnerable to surface ships that were able to engage them within effective range which is precisely why modern carriers are equipped with multiple anti-missile defence systems. A carrier has and still is always accompanied by a large support fleet primarily to protect it from direct attack from surface ships as a few torpedoes are likely to cause considerable discomfort for the carrier. There was an engagement during WW2 where a RN Carrier was ambushed by two german pocket battleships. The carrier was accompanied by two destroyers and the carriers aircraft were unready to fly at the time the german ships were spotted. By the time the planes were ready to launch, it was too late and the german ships had inflicted fatal damage on the carrier, despite the heroic actions of the destroyers. Basically, an unescorted carrier was a sitting duck. The changes currently on sisi are intended to force carrier pilots to have company and yes, this is largely an artificial measure to counter the fact that carriers are often used solo with impunity. Carriers were intended to be a fleet support ship, able to provide the gang with extra firepower in the form of fighter support and with gang mods. In the same way you wouldn't take a single battleship into a fight with a small group of nano-HAC's, you shouldn't expect to take a carrier solo against a group of battleships and expect to win. "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Dogfighter	Posted - 2007.10.25 02:28:00 - [12] Originally by: Chomapuraku the more i read about the carrier nerf, the less of a problem i have with it. does nobody get CCP's reasoning behind this nerf? capital ships are supposed to be excellent gangbooster ships and sitting ducks when solo. the intention behind this nerf is that carriers be used as fleet support and nothing else. support fleet ops, use teamwork to get any good use out of them. can't defend youself solo? tough. you shouldn't be flying it without a gang. can't do worthwhile damage solo? again, you shouldn't be flying a fleet ship without a fleet to support. the bottom line is that ccp never intended carriers to be uber, no-compromise, jack-of-all-trade ships. no other ship can pop all smaller ships easily, freight ships, mods, and materials via cyno routes, fuel POSes, provide both front-line and pos-based support, and rep up poses and stations anywhere near as well as a carrier, and can do most of those with a single fitting. this nerf means that now, carrier pilots, like other pilots, have to fit for one or two tasks at a time. the argument of "i spent all that isk and trained all those skills" doesn't hold water here. it's the same argument people made when CCP nerfed nano-BSes. And that's why I suggested new tech 2 tier 3 battleships specialized in killing capitals/BS instead of completely nerfing capitals. Yes, they are expensive ships, and that's why it should be necessary a bit of planning and a selected group of ships before taking one capital down.
James Duar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.25 03:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Chomapuraku capital ships are supposed to be excellent gangbooster ships and sitting ducks when solo. Which they are. I don't know where people are getting the idea that they're uber at everything. They're a ship with a long range jump drive. EVERYTHING else that they're used for is based on the fact they have the longest range jump drive. A carrier full of cargo expanders is killing no one and pops in a hilariously easy way. Lone carriers die all the time to small gangs because they can't lock anything, their fighters get popped (or perma-webbed and aggressed) and they just get chipped away till dead. Originally by: Chomapuraku the bottom line is that ccp never intended carriers to be uber, no-compromise, jack-of-all-trade ships. no other ship can pop all smaller ships easily, freight ships, mods, and materials via cyno routes, fuel POSes, provide both front-line and pos-based support, and rep up poses and stations anywhere near as well as a carrier, and can do most of those with a single fitting. Do you fly carriers? They can't do any of that with a single fitting. They require a huge amount of logistical support in order to be freighters. Ratting carriers tend to elicit 20 man gangs in an instant because they will die so easily and cost so much. Again: Every use of a carrier is built around the fact that it has the longest range jump drive of any capital ship in the game.
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.25 03:54:00 - [14] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 25/10/2007 03:55:09 Originally by: voidvim nope carrier were all ways surpost be dps via drones look at the thanatos bonus to fighter damage or the ammar or caladri resistances bonus only the hidhogger got a bonus to only support mods. assigning fighter was a add bonus and only now that the triage mod has been add are carrier more logistic centered. If you where to go way back and read the dev blogs that talk about what capital ship were surpost to be and do you would get a far more accurate. I checked every dev blog back to january 2005, and the search for capital ships back 25 pages yielded nothing remotely like you said. If you could point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
violator2k5 Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 14:55:00 - [15] Originally by: MotherMoon which brings up my idea again... actually now it's different :P make carriers hug POSes with great logistics? make MoMs great at front line work? no should complain that a 20bil ship is easy to get :) i hate to say this but your idea is flawed. if ccp's so called changes do go ahead on tranq, they can hug pos's but are still very vulnerable. they have to exit pos shields to remote rep / deploy fighters. also cyno'n into a system to arive at a pos may sometimes bounce that carrier away from the pos or there speed is so slow it takes them a while to get back into the shields. that leaves pleanty of chances to gank those carriers, everyone in this game who has some sort of reference to 0.0 and have either killed or lost a carrier due to combat can easily confirm this. ---------------------------- BOB 4 LIFE NOT JUST 4 A DAY ----------------------------
Yuki Li Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.10.25 15:31:00 - [16] Why not just remove Carriers ability to field conventional drones, and limit them to fielding fighters? Fighters don't track worth a damn, and once you kill the fighters the Carrier is incapacitated, with nothing more than a smartbomb and bad language for weaponry. Maybe even nerf Fighter tracking a bit more, so Carriers are only really effective against Battlecruisers and up, meaning they're still highly capable of destroying battleships but can't do a damn thing against lighter support. Surely this would mean Carriers required support to stay alive? Website Recruiting
Italian Wedding Soup Of The Day	Posted - 2007.10.25 15:55:00 - [17] Edited by: Italian Wedding on 25/10/2007 15:55:26 Stop comparing Eve Carriers to Real Life Carriers. This is a damned game that needs to be balanced. If you like real life carriers so much and want to be on one I am sure the navy would gladly take you into boot camp and if you make it through boot camp I'm sure they will welcome you on board a carrier once you've finished your training. Stop with the stupid real life comparisons, and read my sig.
Draeca federation navy taskforce	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:05:00 - [18] Edited by: Draeca on 25/10/2007 17:05:25 Edited by: Draeca on 25/10/2007 17:05:02 Originally by: MotherMoon even one crazy idea of letting motherships carry a fleet of pilots that are in there ships in the momthership, waiting to unleash hell. I've been also playing around with this idea.. What if motherships could carry player piloted fighters? This fighter could be a new ship class (small, fast, hard to hit but very fragile and packs a respectable amount of firepower) that players could buy and dock into the motherships, and act as MS's fighters. The MS pilot would "command" the fighter pilots by assigning targets and giving orders that would pop up on the fighter pilot's screen. There could be also different fighter classes like interceptors (specialized for popping drones and small targets?), fighter-bombers, heavy bombers and different types of basic fighters. This could really add some depth to the fleet battles, especially for people like me who just want to fly those small and fast tincans.
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Italian Wedding Stop comparing Eve Carriers to Real Life Carriers. Why? Because you don't have an effective counterargument? Quote: This is a damned game that needs to be balanced. The people calling for the nerf to proceed say the exact same thing.
Yuki Li Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:10:00 - [20] You'd then require an entire gang just to field 1 ship, aswell as the support fleet and whatever else. Website Recruiting
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:12:00 - [21] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 25/10/2007 17:13:56 Originally by: Yuki Li You'd then require an entire gang just to field 1 ship, aswell as the support fleet and whatever else. That's the notion. It is a fleet ship after all. Fleet implies that there are multiple ships involved. It's really funny how the same points are being used by both sides of the argument. The pro-nerf people feel that capital ships should be impractical to use without support (which is already the case for Titans and Dreads), and the anti-nerf people don't want their class to be impractical without support.
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:35:00 - [22] Originally by: Hyakuchan Originally by: Italian Wedding Stop comparing Eve Carriers to Real Life Carriers. Why? Because you don't have an effective counterargument? Because you are supposed to realise RL comparisons die when you hit the fact that eve space has the consitancy of oil. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
sophisticatedlimabean Gallente The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 17:56:00 - [23] Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 25/10/2007 17:56:47 Originally by: Arana Tellen Originally by: Hyakuchan Originally by: Italian Wedding Stop comparing Eve Carriers to Real Life Carriers. Why? Because you don't have an effective counterargument? Because you are supposed to realise RL comparisons die when you hit the fact that eve space has the consitancy of oil. Or water witch gives the RL carrier comparison and other RL naval comparisons a bit more wieght tbh. The carrier nerf is bad simply because a carrier that can only launch a few drones without summat to assign them to is a gloriefied hauler with a jump drive not a warship My views may represent those of my corp/alliance but you will have to ask em to be sure.
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 18:38:00 - [24] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 25/10/2007 18:38:57 Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean The carrier nerf is bad simply because a carrier that can only launch a few drones without summat to assign them to is a gloriefied hauler with a jump drive not a warship Where and when did CCP explicitly tell you that it was intended to be anything else but a glorified hauler?

Pages: [1] :: 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.