| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
   |
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 08/11/2007 12:50:06
In the early days of the second carrier dev blog I typed out a long proposal, but it somehow vanished - so here I am to try again. This time IÆm saving it in a file before posting though :)
First to look at the situation û Carriers are considered to be too powerful at doing too many different roles at once. The aim is to make people choose to specialise at filling a role rather than being a æjack of all tradesÆ. In order to compensate for this loss of versatility though and make the change more palatable it should be possible to specialise a carrier so it is actually stronger than it used to be.
To see the impact of the recent changes simply look at the sell order forum. There is only one auction for a mothership up at the moment, that has a starting bid at 24 bill (5 or 6 bill lower than a few weeks ago) and no bids what so ever. Before the nerf blog there were multiple auctions for them up at the 30 billion mark.
Motherships have been devalued to virtually nothing until people know what is happening; everyone producing motherships is really feeling the pain as after investing billions in building them no-one wants to buy them. To fix this information on what is happening is needed fast.
I have here a proposal that I believe fits the requirement to make carriers more specialised while at the same time actually making them more flexible and capable to specialise to be more powerful in one area than they are at the moment by sacrificing other areas.
The first step is to take the basic carrier/mothership and remove the following:
òThe ship maintenance bay
òThe corporate hanger array
òThe +1 (or +3 for MS) controlled drones per level bonus
òReduce the drone bay to 25k m3
DonÆt panic yet though folks, the good stuff is yet to come.
Add:
òOne extra high, low and medium slot
òA 100% (or 300% for MS) per level bonus to effectiveness of Carrier Facility modules.
òA 99% reduction in CPU use of Carrier Facility modules.
This still leaves you with a crippled carrier; it has extra slots but can only launch 5 drones and can only carry five fighters so has no spares. The Carrier Facility modules though are where the real fun starts.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:46:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 08/11/2007 12:53:35
All of these modules (except drone control units which are listed for completeness) are Carrier Facility modules. This means that with carrier 1 you get twice the increase shown, with carrier 4 you get 5 times the increase shown. The basic idea that with the carrier skill on 4 you can fit these modules to get close to the current standard of a carrier, by fitting multiple of these modules you can become better but only by sacrificing other things.
These modules should all have a high power grid requirement so that fitting massive numbers of them (more than 5 or 6) requires compromise or fitting modules on carriers. All figures are just for example and will need some tweaking, these numbers do generally seem to work well for both carriers and motherships at the moment though.
The carrier has not gained as many slots as these modules will take up, and the modules will have high power grid requirements, so there will always be a compromise required. I list the modules first and then do some example fittings to show how this would work.
Low Slots
Dronebay Management Facilities: 15km3 of drone bay space
Each DMF will provide 15km3 of drone space in the ships drone bay. With carrier 4 that will give a 75k m3 (225km3 for motherships) bonus and take the ship to its current capacity.
Fitting multiple DMFs will increase the capacity beyond current but at the cost of low slots.
Drone Launch Facilities: 1 addition controlled drone
Each DLF allows the carrier to control one additional drone, however it does not increase the ships drone control bandwidth. Fitting one DLF will give a carrier or mothership to launch the number of drones it currently can however it will not have the bandwidth to launch additional fighters.
Fitting multiple DLFs will allow more drones to be launched but at the cost of low slots, and still within the bandwidth limitations.
Mid Slots
Corporate Hanger Facilities: 2km3 of corporate hanger space
Fitting a CHF activates the corporate hanger and gives it 4 to 12km3 of space depending on skills (8 to 30km3 for motherships).
Fitting additional CHFs increases the capacity of the corporate hanger by the same amount each time but at the cost of mid slots.
Ship Maintenance Facilities: 100km3 of ship maintenance bay
Fitting a SMF activates the maintenance bay and gives it 200 to 600km3 of space in it.
The proposed restriction in another thread that ships inside a maintenance bay should be able to hold any module but cannot be fitted if overloaded (i.e. no pilot skills and no cargo expanders count) should be applied though to reduce hauling ability.
Fitting additional SMFs increases the capacity of the maintenance bay by the same amount each time but at the cost of mid slots.
High Slots
Drone Bandwidth Facilities: WhateverAFighterNeeds of drone bandwidth
Fitting a DBF provides the additional bandwidth required to control more fighters, but does not increase the number of controlled drones in space.
Fitting additional DBF increases the bandwidth each time but at the cost of a high slot.
Drone Communications Facilities: Allows 1 fighter per level to be deployed to gang members
Fitting a DCF provides the ability to deploy fighters to gang members.
Fitting additional DCF increases the number that can be deployed but at the cost of a high slot.
Drone Control Unit: 1 additonal controlled drone, WhateverAFighterNeeds of bandwidth.
Note that this is not a facility and does not get a carrier skill level bonus however it does provide both an additional controlled drone and the bandwidth for a fighter in one module so will still have uses.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:46:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 08/11/2007 12:55:51
So thatÆs the new modules, now for some example fittings.
Combat Thanatos
Lows: Both a DMF and DLF are needed, so it has lot one slot from its tank. To fit a second DLF would hit the tank very hard but on a gank fitting is possible.
Mids: No need for corporate hanger or maintenance so it has gained a mid slot for more fitting options there
Highs: One (or two depending on how many DLF are needed) DBF are needed to allow fighters to be launched instead of smaller drones.
Result: It can launch as many drones or fighters as now û possibly more depending on compromises taken û however it has lost 1 or 2 slots from its tank and possibly a high slot in order to do so. It also has very limited cargo capacity at all.
Sit-at-a-pos Thanatos
The SAAP Thanatos is very limited by the need to fit DCF in the high slots in order to send the drones to gang members. You would not be able to assign more fighters to gang members than you currently can as you simply run out of slots:
Lows: 2DMF, 3DLF
Highs: 3DBF, 3DCF
This would allow 15 drones to be launched and deployed to gang members, assuming you could get the grid to fit all these carrier facility modules which would be very hard. That is the same as a current carrier with 5 drone control units fitted.
Hauler Thanatos
6 SMF gives a ship maintenance capacity of 3k which is slightly greater than a current mothership but it has no mid slots left at all. Alternatively 6 CHF would allow 60k of goods to be carrier, which is impressive but again uses all of the mid slots and is less than jump freighters or Rorquals and again uses all the mid slots.
Combat Nyx
As with the Thanatos it would lose one or two slots from its tank and 1 or 2 high slots in order to get the same, or possibly slightly better, gank than it has at the moment. But a loss of logistical and carrying ability.
Combat Chimera/Wyvern
The chimera and wyvern in this proposed system have an advantage over the Thanatos/Nyx in that they can fit DMF and DLF into their low slots without directly harming their tank, however they still need to lose low slots to do so which does limit fitting options. A chimera with a DBF and 2DLF would only have 2 low slots left. Fitting 2 DBF would also reduce it to 4 high slots. So it could have the same firepower as currently losing one low slot or it could have more firepower but losing a low and a high.
This does give shield tanking carriers/motherships a potential fitting advantage but considering the many drawbacks of shield tanks for PvP I believe this to be acceptable.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:47:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 08/11/2007 12:56:37
Conclusion:
Naturally all of these numbers and figures will need tweaking but I believe this satisfies the twin goals of requiring carriers that do not specialise to be weaker than they are at the moment, while at the same time allowing them to become better if they really do specialise.
A gank fitted carrier would be a true monster spewing forth large numbers of fighters, however the tank would be weak and those fighter cannot be remotely deployed so the carrier needs to be present on the battlefield to apply that firepower.
On the other hand a hauling carrier is still effective, but loses all its firepower in order to achieve that.
On option I considered was to swap the drone launch facilities and corporate hanger facilities (so DLA is a mid slot and CHF a low slot). That would possibly even the balance between shield and armour tanking but it also makes it easier to max the hauling or combat even more as you can use both low and mid slots for them, rather than having to compromise within one layer of slots. Because of this I decided it was better to leave as currently proposed.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:47:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 08/11/2007 12:49:04
Reserved just in case I need it later...
Zarch AlDain
|
A'ruhn
We Be Tinkers
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 14:00:00 -
[6]
Personally, I'd figured this is how carriers should have been from the start. You could customize it to exactly what role you wanted to use it for. All its missing now is some point defense weapons (very light mind you, frigate guns at the most) and it could be a reasonable facsimile of a modern combat carrier.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 16:06:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: A'ruhn
Personally, I'd figured this is how carriers should have been from the start. You could customize it to exactly what role you wanted to use it for. All its missing now is some point defense weapons (very light mind you, frigate guns at the most) and it could be a reasonable facsimile of a modern combat carrier.
Carriers really don't need point defense. Smartbombs, neutralizers and light/medium drones are more than enough :)
Zarch AlDain
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 16:31:00 -
[8]
I rly like this idea. Carriers and moms will be tweaked on their capabilities no mather what their owners say. I think this is a very good way of doing it.
They will keep their roles, but force the pilot to chose for one role before undocking, but when fitting specifically for that role, it will be better at it then it is now (in some cases). Don't forget that this will give carrier/mom pilots a whole new set of tools to play with ;)
I like it.
/Signed
|
Yamichi Wiggin
Caldari
Rising Knights
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 17:35:00 -
[9]
Brilliant.
Most other ships need to pick a fitting. You can't fit a mega for long range, uber tank, scram/jam, super speed, and in-your-face brawling. You have to pick one or two of those. This puts the same requirements on the carrier. And as you said, it gives them the chance to exceed their current value but by sacrificing some roles.
Short version- The dev's were upset that carriers can be (and often are) sent into battle with a logistics fit, huge damage, great tank, large cargo full of ammo etc etc etc. They wanted people to put the carrier in a role. Rather than forcing them into an artificial role, your path sounds like a GREAT plan. much better than the one outlined in the dev blogs.
------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
There is no love in fear |
|
CCP Nozh
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 17:39:00 -
[10]
Good post, we'll definitely keep it was reference. It's actually not very far off what we've been discussing at our meetings.
More posts like this one please.
Nozh
Game Designer
CCP Games |
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 17:52:00 -
[11]
While the OP's suggestions address the 'Swiss Army Knife' problem that the Dev's wanted solved, I don't think they address the root problem: Carriers being too versitale.
The comming hauling nerfs will end Carrier hauling. That's fine with me: I don't like playing Eve as a Delivery Truck driver anyway. As said before, Carriers are used to haul simply because there is not much other choice. Logistics people have been asking for a Jump Freighter for a year. Instead of getting it, Dreads, Carriers and now Rorquals are being used to haul. So I don't thing that the hauling concept is of much importance at all: the Carrier simply accomplished the job better than the available alternatives. Take away the ability to haul with a Carrier and you've got little need for the Ship Maint bay. Thus you could leave it alone secure in the knowledge that any ships it carries is for PVP gang members as replacements, and for refitting. No need for a new module for that.
The same is true of Corp Hangar modules. Honestly, the only reason to want them bigger is to Haul. Since the Carrier should not be a Delivery Truck, there is no need to enhance this feature. Besides, with the Cargo-in-Ships nerf, there are better alternatives. Again, no need for that module.
That leaves discussion on the number of Fighters it can launch. I'm all for modules that increase the number of Drones/Fighters. But we have that: Drone Control Units. Bandwith should NOT be an issue on a Carrier - of all the ships in Eve Carriers and Moms should be able to launch the most.
In short, CCP is welcome to take away the Ship Maint and Corp Hangar as their 'abuse' comes from the need to haul. In return, give us the ability to deploy MORE fighters, and not thru some lame gangmate tactic.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 18:14:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Good post, we'll definitely keep it was reference. It's actually not very far off what we've been discussing at our meetings.
More posts like this one please.
Thanks for responding, I wouldn't have liked to type all that for nothing!
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 18:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
While the OP's suggestions address the 'Swiss Army Knife' problem that the Dev's wanted solved, I don't think they address the root problem: Carriers being too versitale.
The comming hauling nerfs will end Carrier hauling. That's fine with me: I don't like playing Eve as a Delivery Truck driver anyway. As said before, Carriers are used to haul simply because there is not much other choice. Logistics people have been asking for a Jump Freighter for a year. Instead of getting it, Dreads, Carriers and now Rorquals are being used to haul. So I don't thing that the hauling concept is of much importance at all: the Carrier simply accomplished the job better than the available alternatives. Take away the ability to haul with a Carrier and you've got little need for the Ship Maint bay. Thus you could leave it alone secure in the knowledge that any ships it carries is for PVP gang members as replacements, and for refitting. No need for a new module for that.
The same is true of Corp Hangar modules. Honestly, the only reason to want them bigger is to Haul. Since the Carrier should not be a Delivery Truck, there is no need to enhance this feature. Besides, with the Cargo-in-Ships nerf, there are better alternatives. Again, no need for that module.
That leaves discussion on the number of Fighters it can launch. I'm all for modules that increase the number of Drones/Fighters. But we have that: Drone Control Units. Bandwith should NOT be an issue on a Carrier - of all the ships in Eve Carriers and Moms should be able to launch the most.
In short, CCP is welcome to take away the Ship Maint and Corp Hangar as their 'abuse' comes from the need to haul. In return, give us the ability to deploy MORE fighters, and not thru some lame gangmate tactic.
I think you missed the whole point of the change - which is that you as the carrier pilot get to decide whether to take away the Ship Maint and Corp Hanger in order to specialise in what you want to do or not.
Fit 1 of each module and you end up with a ship that does everything a current carrier does but has one less low, mid and high slot - so that has weakened them.
On the other hand specialise in combat if that is what you want and that is your choice as a player. This puts the choices and compromises and options into player hands - rather than having it pre-determined what the ship will be used for.
(And consider that a carrier will still be better than a jump freighter for hauling unpackaged ships with rigs in for example and you can see why people will still want that ability sometimes - but maybe not always).
Zarch AlDain
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 18:52:00 -
[14]
No, I got your point. What you're seeming to suggest is that the versatility of the Carriers should be accomplished via modules instead of being 'built in'. I was challenging the idea that they should be as versatile in the first place.
CCP has stated that the Carrier is not being used 'as intended'. I'm merely stating that one 'non-intended' use is hauling, which can/will be solved without gimping the Carriers.
CCP implied by the design that a Carrier is supposed to carry ships into battle for gangmates, and to refit/repair ships. With the 'no-cargo' option, the existing configuration will allow that to occur without needing to nerf those abilities via modules. It makes it harder to grab a ship, however, so 'no-cargo' is bad. I'm saying that the 'abuse' of Ship Maint Bays is only when filling haulers with cargo, and when that goes away so does the 'abuse'.
Repairing ships in Combat has caused problems with Spider-Tanking and is prohibited by Lag in Fleet battles. That role is one I'd like to see revised, as it is either abusive or impossible to do. I can't see how stripping abilities of the Carrier would help in that revision.
The remaining issue is using Fighters in direct combat, which I think is the primary role of Carriers anyway. The uproar over ZuluPark's misguided blog showed that removing the number of Drones/Fighters was a unwelcome idea, to say the least. (I've still got a Raggedy Andy costume, some Rhopinal, and Michael Jackson's phone number ready for him. Grandma's internet connection should be installed next week.)
Therefore I'm saying that the only module-based specialization that is required is the ability to fight solo better. Give us things like more fighters and the ability to withstand Jamming and Damps - then you'll see them used for only one role: Battle.
|
Mrsticks
Minmatar
RNCGM Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 19:15:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
I was challenging the idea that they should be as versatile in the first place.
I Dont think ive ever seen a Dev say that they dident like that they were Versitale.
They have said that they are a Jack of all trades and that they Consider them a master of all(or atlest Most).
They have also said that A Jack of all and master of None woulda been the Prefferd Role and one I think that Shoulda been Implamented.
The Ops Ideas Solve this Problem in a Briliant way.
Long Live TEXAS! Texans join the Texas channel in game plz.
|
joshmorris
Ravenous Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 19:21:00 -
[16]
/signed
I like the idea.
Make you think if you see a carrier you wouldn't know whats gonna happen.
Uber idea solves all !! |
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 20:56:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
No, I got your point. What you're seeming to suggest is that the versatility of the Carriers should be accomplished via modules instead of being 'built in'. I was challenging the idea that they should be as versatile in the first place.
CCP has stated that the Carrier is not being used 'as intended'. I'm merely stating that one 'non-intended' use is hauling, which can/will be solved without gimping the Carriers.
CCP implied by the design that a Carrier is supposed to carry ships into battle for gangmates, and to refit/repair ships. With the 'no-cargo' option, the existing configuration will allow that to occur without needing to nerf those abilities via modules. It makes it harder to grab a ship, however, so 'no-cargo' is bad. I'm saying that the 'abuse' of Ship Maint Bays is only when filling haulers with cargo, and when that goes away so does the 'abuse'.
Repairing ships in Combat has caused problems with Spider-Tanking and is prohibited by Lag in Fleet battles. That role is one I'd like to see revised, as it is either abusive or impossible to do. I can't see how stripping abilities of the Carrier would help in that revision.
The remaining issue is using Fighters in direct combat, which I think is the primary role of Carriers anyway. The uproar over ZuluPark's misguided blog showed that removing the number of Drones/Fighters was a unwelcome idea, to say the least. (I've still got a Raggedy Andy costume, some Rhopinal, and Michael Jackson's phone number ready for him. Grandma's internet connection should be installed next week.)
Therefore I'm saying that the only module-based specialization that is required is the ability to fight solo better. Give us things like more fighters and the ability to withstand Jamming and Damps - then you'll see them used for only one role: Battle.
You raise a good point, however as was just said CCP hasn't said that the original intention or not is a problem. What matters is the current balance of the game.
The hanger array and maintanance bay work well for transport and fitting ships and acting as a mobile supply base.
The fighters and remote repairing work well for combat.
etc.
The trouble is that at the moment carriers can do all of these things equally well and as well or better than virtually any other ship in the game. Considering the cost and training times and vulnerability I'm not completely convinced they are overpowered, but if they are I would like to see that being corrected in a way like this which actually presents more options than possibilities than in a flat nerf such as you and the original dev blog suggest.
Zarch AlDain
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 21:07:00 -
[18]
Understood and appreciated. The issue I have is that with modules to effect basic ship abilities, you don't have a 'ship' at all - you've got a platform to mount modules on.
However, I can see people wanting to specalize their ships. For example, I'd gladly trade my Ship Maint Array, Refitting and Corp Hangar for some immunity to being Jammed/Damped.
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
|
Eka Maladay
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 21:37:00 -
[19]
Let's just do what Zarch said.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:16:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Understood and appreciated. The issue I have is that with modules to effect basic ship abilities, you don't have a 'ship' at all - you've got a platform to mount modules on.
However, I can see people wanting to specalize their ships. For example, I'd gladly trade my Ship Maint Array, Refitting and Corp Hangar for some immunity to being Jammed/Damped.
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
This is true, except that both carriers would need to have a ship maintenance bay fitted in order to do that. ;)
The proposed carrier is no different from any other ship - except for freighters they all do nothing (or very little at least) with no modules fitted. You fit the modules in order to gain abilities you want the ship to have, and you juggle the choice of modules to fit the role you want to fill and the bonuses the ship provides.
I did briefly consider jam/damp immunity as a facility but thought it might carriers too close to motherships. Motherships have already seen some mighty big nerfs recently.
Zarch AlDain
|
Velox Idolon
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:17:00 -
[21]
really well thought out ideas, well presented and explained, solves the problem
therefore = win 
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 04:39:00 -
[22]
You may want to introduce a specific new slot type for these. Why? The Caldari and Amarrian motherships already have 8 midslots and lowslots, respectively.
Also, I would definitely add a series of modules focused on improving the Carrier's remote repair abilities, things to let them instalock friendlies, lower Triage penalties, etc.
--------------------
ICE Blueprint Sales
FIRST!! -Yipsilanti
Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 08:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Understood and appreciated. The issue I have is that with modules to effect basic ship abilities, you don't have a 'ship' at all - you've got a platform to mount modules on.
However, I can see people wanting to specalize their ships. For example, I'd gladly trade my Ship Maint Array, Refitting and Corp Hangar for some immunity to being Jammed/Damped.
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
Well, the obvious method is to make all the 'versatility' modules 10k m3 in size. That should put a pretty effective stop to it.
------------------------------------------------
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 09:20:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis
You may want to introduce a specific new slot type for these. Why? The Caldari and Amarrian motherships already have 8 midslots and lowslots, respectively.
Also, I would definitely add a series of modules focused on improving the Carrier's remote repair abilities, things to let them instalock friendlies, lower Triage penalties, etc.
Well one option would be to use rig slots, that does lose a lot of flexibility options though both in number of slots available and ability to refit at all. You are right that I had missed that but I would suggest that the Amarr MS would gain two mids and the Caldari one two lows. Yes that would reduce the difference between the motherships but the overall balance should still be fine.
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Understood and appreciated. The issue I have is that with modules to effect basic ship abilities, you don't have a 'ship' at all - you've got a platform to mount modules on.
However, I can see people wanting to specalize their ships. For example, I'd gladly trade my Ship Maint Array, Refitting and Corp Hangar for some immunity to being Jammed/Damped.
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
Well, the obvious method is to make all the 'versatility' modules 10k m3 in size. That should put a pretty effective stop to it.
That's a good suggestion, and I believe capital modules have already increased to around 2k in side. Facility modules I would suggest should be around 3k or 5k in size, so that it is possible to carry 1 or 2 but more than that really limits your options.
Zarch AlDain
|
Ramius Cartwirght
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 11:18:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Ramius Cartwirght on 09/11/2007 11:18:32
As someone who's longterm goal to fly an Aeon, this post gives me great hope, especially considering CCP Nozh's reply. Thank you Nozh btw. I actually do like your suggestions immensely Zarch and I feel that instead of nerfing carriers/motherships, this in fact makes them even better. I know you've already stated this, but the idea of potentially being able to fit my "future" Aeon to haul **** for my corp makes me happy, then to fit it to defend our POS (aka, sit inside the bubble and designate fighters), and then when I get really ****ed, fit myself to be able to jump into battle with my fleet and watch all our enemies go "Oh ****!" as 30+ fighters launch from my hangers.
Seriously, I was one of the people on here VERY VERY ****ed at the proposed changes and I am very grateful that you took the time to actually think this out. It actually makes me ashamed that I didn't take the time to stop being mad and start thinking of solutions for CCP to consider.
CCP, I hope you really do consider these proposals as they would make EVE better. I also hope this type of thing can then be applied to Titans. I don't want to derail the thread so maybe I'll make proposals elsewhere, but this kind of thinking is what we need more of.
Its not a nerf, its a well thought out, intelligent idea....soooo....
SIGNED!
Great Job Zarch
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 12:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Good post, we'll definitely keep it was reference. It's actually not very far off what we've been discussing at our meetings.
More posts like this one please.
Thanks for responding, I wouldn't have liked to type all that for nothing!
Hey, I pointed it out to him! 
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
We've been looking at both the module and the 'rig' option as well. Perhaps even a combination of the two. Keep in mind that rigs can be removed but are destroyed when that happens. So long as a player is willing to pay the cost every time he or she wanted to change the basic functionality of the carrier, there would be nothing stopping them. Such a switch would likely be expensive though. 
We want the end result of this to be something players still want to fly but that you can specialize toward your specific needs instead of the current 'does it all at once' situation.
In addition we're looking at ways to make motherships a little more than just a big carrier. [hint]Feedback[/hint] 
Abathur
Game Designer
"Tux did it!" |
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 13:19:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 09/11/2007 13:25:00
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Good post, we'll definitely keep it was reference. It's actually not very far off what we've been discussing at our meetings.
More posts like this one please.
Thanks for responding, I wouldn't have liked to type all that for nothing!
Hey, I pointed it out to him!
Then thank you for pointing it out
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Perhaps these proposed modules should not be normal modules, but something akin to Rigs: You fit your ship with them and they cannot be removed. Because otherwise, what is to stop 2 Carriers from refitting each other, thereby bypassing any proposed change to their Swiss Army Knife abilities?
We've been looking at both the module and the 'rig' option as well. Perhaps even a combination of the two. Keep in mind that rigs can be removed but are destroyed when that happens. So long as a player is willing to pay the cost every time he or she wanted to change the basic functionality of the carrier, there would be nothing stopping them. Such a switch would likely be expensive though.
We want the end result of this to be something players still want to fly but that you can specialize toward your specific needs instead of the current 'does it all at once' situation.
In addition we're looking at ways to make motherships a little more than just a big carrier. [hint]Feedback[/hint]
I have to admit the rigs idea is growing on me a little, or as you say possibly a combination.
I don't fly a mothership personally but I like to think my corp has a fair amount of experience with them so here is my initial thoughts on motherships, a more detailed response will need some thinking about :) I've also pointed my corp members at this thread.
First up the advantages of a MS over a carrier was the increased firepower (nice) immunity to ewar (awesome) and the fact they were very hard to kill (awesome).
They were too hard to kill, but I now honestly believe that with recent changes the balance has swung too far the other way. It used to be that to kill a mothership took planning, co-ordination, and skill. When Hera was killed it was to an organised strike designed to do just that.
The ewar immunity is still good although less significant with the recent nerfs to ewar, but their defenses are now pitiful. I know for a fact that once hactors are released the average reasonably sized Est roaming gang will be able to kill a mothership. No planning required - we see it, we kill it.
There is a really tough balance problem here though between making the ships powerful enough to be worth their price tag while at the same time possible to kill.
My first suggestion would be to make them immune to neutralizers so that at least they retain the option to fight back against aggressors. (They should also be fixed so their immunity works against NPC ewar as well!). I am a little hesitant about this suggestion purely because coming fitted for cap warfare is a sign of planning on their part but I think its needed.
What they really need though is some form of new role or ability that is unique. At the moment they have been turned into big carriers and not much else. A few gimmicks like the remote ECM burst doesn't really justify the price tag.
<continued in next post>
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 13:24:00 -
[28]
Here is a possibility for a new role for them:
Motherships are supposed to work with other ships, and are supposed to be powerful, to have a reason to be on the battlefield, etc. They need an ability that will bring them back to the front lines and which will give people a reason to deploy them rather than 8 carriers. This role should be a unique selling point of the ship, and be powerful enough to warrant using them but not unbalanced.
How about a gang defense matrix? When fitted on a mothership and activated then all incoming damage on any squad member (not gang members so limited to 10 people max) ship within 5km gets equally spread between all gang members proportional to that ships signature radius.
With something like that in play suddenly it becomes feasible to bring smaller ships back into the fight as they can survive focus fire for more than 5 seconds.
For example an intie, hac and MS are ganged and within 5km of each other. The hac is hit for 200 damage then the hac takes 25% of the damage immediately. The remaining 75% is split between the intie, hac and the mothership with the MS taking 90% of the damage due to its much greated signature radius, the hac 9% and the intie 1%.
The end result would be the MS takes 134, the hac takes 65 and the intie takes 1hp damage.
I suggest that the first targeted ship should always take some more damage than everyone else so that focus fire does still have some effect.
By limitting it to squad members and extremely short range it should not be overpowered.
Anyway that's just one idea that popped into my head, I'll see what else I can come up with.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 13:41:00 -
[29]
Yet Another idea :)
You could provide motherships with a 'local cynosaural field jammer' module. It would need something like a 10 minute activation time to stop people turning it on to block others then off for their allies too easilly but when active it would prevent cyno fields being opened on grid with the mothership. (Not system wide).
That would make it harder to jump one as people would need to open the cyno elsewhere in system, jump to the cyno then warp to the MS. Still achievable but a bit harder than 'press button, wham you are dead'.
Zarch AlDain
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 14:13:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 09/11/2007 14:13:19
Its a sound idea, but I loath the idea of sacrificing slots to fit what a carrier should already have.
Whats probably a more sound idea would be to have special logistical slots (similar to rig slots) and allow us to play with the configuration there. (As I belive someone sugested further up)
Having their own dedicated slots would be the best way to limit their fitting between the MS and Carrier classes. Hell with a similar thing to calibration in place, you could even have T2 varients of the modules open for invention. (Extreamly costly in both isk and training time so that dedicated carrier pilots are still able to get alot out of their ship, leaving the casual carrier pilot having to make more sacrifices to get what he wants out of his ship.)
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |