| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ZerKar
Caldari
Zen'Tar
   |
Posted - 2007.11.02 07:28:00 -
[1]
Edited by: ZerKar on 02/11/2007 07:28:48
I for one do not see the value in the suggested Nerf to carriers. Mostly because a Carrier even in RL is MEANT to come with a massive arsenal of very deadly fighters and multi-role air craft. That is its whole deal and it can control every one of them. It can easily destroy any vessel, aircraft, and land based threat it encounters by its self. Why is it escorted then? Because there is 2 big problems with Air Craft.
Getting them to the Fight!: Most aircraft cannot just pop off a Carrier's flight deck and all be airborn in a second. It takes considerable time to move aircraft into position and launch each one, not to mention arm them with the appropraite weapons AND they run out of ammo eventually.
Solution for Eve: It should also take awhile to pop those bad boys out. Maybe 2 at a time at most but with a notable intervul inbetween. This means while a Carrier deploys it could really use some ships bringing DPS, Healing it, or at least baiting the enemy off of it.
What to Field?: You have to pick which type of plane and what weapons it carries to fit your situation rather carefully otherwise sending F-18's with Air to Air Missiles to kill a Cruiser is really going to blow up in your face. These Craft also have a set amount of ammo they can carry and like it or not have to come back to reload.
Solution for EvE: Make 3 Different classes of Fighters; Light, Medium and, Large and have them armed with the corrisponding sized gun. Light would be Fast and Nimble but not so durable with Large being big and slow but heavily armored (Note: Even Large Fighters are no match for a BS's Tank think more Light Cruiser) with Medium right in the middle. Each would also require you to fill their Bay with the appropraite size and type of ammo (i.e. Small Hybrid Ammo for Gallente Small Fighters) but would also allow you to pick the damage they dealt and how hard they hit with the different ammo in the same way that it does for other ships. They could only fit a set amount of this ammo in there bay and so have to come back peroidically to reload just like real air craft. Then they would have to relaunch so a Carrier cannot Sustain its DPS indefinatley and will want support to fill in that gap. (Would Also give Amarr drones a use. LOL. No Reload time but they use Lasers. Does it make them better than other Fighters? Guess you would have to find out.)
The Carrier here would still be able to field a large number of normal drones just fine as they are little and work that way but its fighters would be more of a serious and planned weapon made to fit the situation not just be spammed out.
Too much Flexibility?: Shrinking the Carrier's Cargo bay a bit might be a wise move, not so much as to make it worthless but just keep it in line so that the Carrier does not blow the doors off the best fitted haulers until it fits some expanders. This will help to make sure that if fitted for that role they have a weaker armor tank, while fitting them for E-War will eat their Shield Tank.
In the suggested Nerf it is said the Carrier is meant to be a "Support Ship" and not a main battle ship...But to really reign in the RL example here that is completely bogus. Other ships "Support" Carriers in RL but Carriers ARE the main Battle Ship. They are so superior in flexibility and Range on the battle field that they have made Battle Ships Obsolete.
Anyway, take it or leave it, I would think that either way the Devs will not out and out "make them useless" or really "nerf them into being crap" or the like. Nothing is set in stone yet but I think this is a decent idea of how to reign in the Carriers while NOT making them suck at the same time.
+++++++++++++++
I saw the Sign...!
O.o |
Ilvan
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 09:22:00 -
[2]
Fighters aren't fighter jets. Carriers aren't aircraft carriers. New Eden is not the Pacific Theater. This is a game, where things have to be balanced internally. Stop making real-life comparisons.
****, you want real life comparisons? Here's a real life comparison! Any direct hit by a weapon should have a chance of crippling or destroying a ship outright. See how fun it is when a single battleship salvo leaves your two billion ISK ship in two billion pieces.
Argue for changes on their own merit, not because 'lol carriers irl are like dis'.
|
ZerKar
Caldari
Zen'Tar
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 06:54:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Ilvan
Fighters aren't fighter jets. Carriers aren't aircraft carriers. New Eden is not the Pacific Theater. This is a game, where things have to be balanced internally. Stop making real-life comparisons.
****, you want real life comparisons? Here's a real life comparison! Any direct hit by a weapon should have a chance of crippling or destroying a ship outright. See how fun it is when a single battleship salvo leaves your two billion ISK ship in two billion pieces.
Argue for changes on their own merit, not because 'lol carriers irl are like dis'.
LOL. Well I do not know about a 2 Bill Isk ship but one volley CAN blow apart a number of ships in EVE hate to tell you. However, IRL, shells also bounce off of superior armor having 0 effect whatsoever. So actually EvE takes both scenarios into effect rather well.
+++++++++++++++
I saw the Sign...!
O.o |
James Swindle
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 08:31:00 -
[4]
I just have to say fail to the OP.
|
Macro Slasher
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 09:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: James Swindle
I just have to say fail to the OP.
Newbie inexperienced carebear whining about things he has no idea of but that he has tried studying in theory... His posts are always flawed and trash. 
|
Kanarue Shinohara
Gallente
production management team
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 11:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Macro Slasher
Originally by: James Swindle
I just have to say fail to the OP.
Newbie inexperienced carebear whining about things he has no idea of but that he has tried studying in theory... His posts are always flawed and trash.
Rules broken: 4, 6, 7 & 20.
______________
I actually like the name "carebear." Quite kawaii, really.
For the love of God, you'd better read 4, 6, 7, 19 & 20. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |