Originally by: Ange1

---

I do think the ideas Zarch presented have merit to them, its similar to how the Carrier/Motherships in Homeworld 2 operate, you build the facilities required to do specific tasks and you only have a limited number of slots (though it was still alot so they still ended up being quite versatile). Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing, perhaps justifying the high price tag of an MS over a Carrier, which at the moment, is not worth it.

I'd also like to throw out an idea thats been suggesting a number of times before which is to introduce new Fighter classes, maybe Mothership specific ones as well to give the MS's an edge of the Carrier, against justifying the price tag. Bombers come to mind, slow, heavily tanked Fighters that can't hit anything but Capital sized craft.

Often the defense against Drones/Fighters for Carrier/Mothership pilots are smartbombs. Bombers could engage at a much longer range than a Fighter and be outside of Smartbomb range, leaving it to a support fleet to try and pick off the threat to the Capital in question. This does leave a question of how much firepower they could bring, would they end up being as effective as a Dreadnoughts firepower? If so would that make it pointless to bring them along? Perhaps to counter that to prevent fleets of Carriers doing what Dreads do, is to make it a Mothership only Fighter. Perhaps heavier than Fighters to carry. Just some thoughts anyway.,..

---

Originally by: Poborca Podatkowy

---

Originally by: Yamichi Wiggin

---

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.

---

Moving DCU from high slot to low should fix it - carrier pilot have to choose between the tank and gang mode.
Additionally making drone modules or dedicated for fighters modules for high could make that fix stronger if that module would be put on high slot (depends on power/cpu consumption). The range for that modules could be from additional bandwidith, or expanding the dronebay to giving additional speed (in warp on subwarp), tracking and others for fighters. All that could attract carriers in combat as a gang machine (remember - pg/cpu issue and DCU on lows).

As for support there could be modules for medium slot dedicated for EW or for support (like a tracking link). In general expanding modules range in dedicated for capitals (as it is with armor repairer) could solve the problems and to prevent from using "normal" - give penalty for capitals for use it (i.e. power consumption or pg/cpu increase to capital module lvl).

---

Originally by: Zarch AlDain

---

Each one would actually modify the properties of space on grid with the ship. All ships, friend and foe alike, would be effected by these changes, but by fitting accordingly and planning ahead you could use this to your advantage.

Only one generator of each type can be active at once, however nothing would stop you having multiple different generators running in an area (some would cancel each other out).

---

Originally by: Zarch AlDain

---

I still don't believe that you are addressing the actual problem though as carriers in your suggestion can still carry ships, refit ships, carry modules in their hangers, tank and gank all at the same time.

The only change is the activation of the special mode to launch fighters (which may or may not make using them in combat suicide depending on the properties of that module) and the reduction of versatility inside combat by the loss of drone options.

I do not believe that their versatility inside combat is a problem, it is their ability to do that and everything else at the same time that is the problem.

---

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

---

But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.

---

Originally by: ElDiabloRojo

---

Finnaly having these modules on rigs goes against what "rigs" are. they arnt modules like people seem to think, they are quick and small things fitted to ships systems in order to provide a boost. Its like on Star Trek when they "reroute power from life support" or whatever. Its provding a boost to something that is already there. Plus if carrier had 8 rig slots your just asking for some 1 to find a loop hole with the existing rigs combined with a few carrier rigs to make an ultimate carrier.

---

Originally by: Dr Aryandi

---

I agree that there are good arguments both ways, I think we will need to wait and see what the devs come up with at this point.

Originally by: ElDiabloRojo

---

Finnaly having these modules on rigs goes against what "rigs" are. they arnt modules like people seem to think, they are quick and small things fitted to ships systems in order to provide a boost. Its like on Star Trek when they "reroute power from life support" or whatever. Its provding a boost to something that is already there. Plus if carrier had 8 rig slots your just asking for some 1 to find a loop hole with the existing rigs combined with a few carrier rigs to make an ultimate carrier.

---

I just wanted to respond to this point. That is your view of what rigs are, that doesn't necessarily mean that that is actually what rigs are or what they need to be in the future.

Rigs are a modification to the structure of the ship in order to allow it to perform a role better. Yes a maintenance bay is a more drastic modification than a bit of extra shielding but it is still a modification to the structure of the ship.

I agree its different in scope to existing rigs, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

---

Originally by: Zarch AlDain

---

DCU are not fitted in mass to most carriers anyway in my experience as smartbombs/neuts/etc are more powerful once you are at a decent skill level.

Additionally moving them to a low slot would indeed hinder armour tankers but have you considered shield tankers?

---

Originally by: Zarch AlDain

---

Motherships have been devalued to virtually nothing until people know what is happening;

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

Originally by: Zarch AlDain

---

Motherships have been devalued to virtually nothing until people know what is happening;

---

I like all of your ideas and was actually going to write up a very similar proposal. When I heard about the fact that they didn't want the carrier to be a jack of all trades, I thought "Then why not extract all of its abilities to modules?" because it seemed to make sense and have no drawbacks.

One thing I am very annoyed at is that since CCP announced that carriers were to be changed and suggested that this change would include a 5-drone limit, the entire motehrship industry has ground to a halt. As a DIRECT result of Zulupark's overenthusiastic and very premature devblog, many real in-game businesses with large asset investments and expected large turnover have been stripped of their profit or forced to close.

Mothership producers are finding it hard to sell for a reasonable price because every single buyer is waiting to see what CCP does to motherships before investing that much isk into one. Let's face it, most mothership buyers on public forum auctions only want to fool around in lowsec with them and be practically invulnerable, they aren't going to pay isk if they're made useless as solo ships in lowsec.


One of my own businesses (PSRS) is feeling a heavy blow to profits as mothership bpc prices and BPO rental demand have dropped dramatically due to the decrease in mothership demand. I've gotten my first copies out of the labs recently and instead of selling for 4b+, they're down to 2b in places and sometimes even lower. What's special about my business is that it's an investment scheme with a monthly dividend, so I'm going to be hemmoraging isk in the billions to investors until CCP announces that motherships aren't going to be nerfed and demand picks back up. It's gotten so bad that I'm probably going to have to enact the no-dividend clause until the patch.

And all this is because CCP let their newbie post a devblog on his own.

---

Originally by: Kenn

---

Edited by: Kenn on 16/11/2007 14:55:54
I say leave the carriers alone they are not powerful enough. Stop nerfing anything. Carriers are by nature very powerful ships (as are dreads and titans) and the fact that they can carry out this role is not the issue. Game balance is the issue. To limit them for arbitrary reasons is silly especially after large investments in them were made already.

Why not balance these ships and others of this class with other ships. If CCP really wants players working together then take an example from a real Navy. How are carriers balanced out internationally? How would a foreign power deal with carriers of another country with out building more of the same?

Subs? Why not? Destroyer class ships with cloak AND LOCK capability so they can fire cloaked. Make it specific to that hull. Give them high launcher slots only and enable them to fire very powerful missiles (like citadels). Since it's a dedicated design they shouldn't be able to do much of anything else.

Equip standard destroyer class ships with the electronics to detect a cloaked ship that locked not just a cloaked ship. Each ship to be protected will have a category tier. Frigates tier 1 cruisers tier 2 bs tier 3 and capital ships tier 4. Each tier is a multiple of how many destroyers are needed to effectively protect that ship or else the odds of detection start to drop (tweak formula as needed factoring related skills etc.). Detection would be for a given radius in terms of missile ranges.

I promise you no one will travel in a mother class ship alone with out these ships for an escort. In fact very few people will travel anywhere in low sec space with out an escort.

Same rules of aggression apply to them regarding low and high sec space as they would any other ship that attacks another. Concord would automatically have the means of detecting and destroying such aggressors in high sec space.

Now you can leave alone the capital class ships (which are now vulnerable) and work VERY carefully on implementing new ships. These enable newbies and MANY corporations the ability to deal with capital class ships for a much lower cost and does not shove the majority of players out of the game due to the imbalance of power.

It still gives the major corporations the ability to deploy these ships as intended while also taking the game to a new level.

CCP shouldn't be dictating how we use our ships. That's for us to decide as long as we don't break rules to do it. We are not robots or actors turning gears in a machine. We are players exploring a galaxy and embarking on an adventure of entertainment. We will decide how to do that.

---

Originally by: Kenn

---

Edited by: Kenn on 16/11/2007 19:05:08
Edited by: Kenn on 16/11/2007 18:49:46
You are right Zarch about the capital weapons during Cloak. They would have to be very specific about this. Buy they created cloaked frigates that were the only ships that could use the advanced cloak without penalty so they should do the same for Subs (I call them that).

I felt a counter ship to the Sub was necessary otherwise you fall back into the uber class syndrome. Also Subs will be fast enough to clear the 2km limit from their missile trails. It would be almost impossible to reach them before they moved as missiles have plenty of range allowing them to remain cloaked. Make the Uber ships dependent on the smaller ones for protection in this case and make the smaller ships specific for finding Subs. Don't let it fall into a general category. Let it be the Destroyers which are the only ships that would have the detection ability (or the ability to carry the necessary mods without penalty). It would raise their value considerably.

---

Originally by: Kenn

---

This could lead to a whole level of play as corporations could specialize in this sort of thing. (Wolf packs vs Destroyer Escorts.)Then add in the command linking and stuff and you could get some very sophisticated space battles with perhaps only 12 ships total. All of that with out changing what was already established and saving players the headache of rethinking invested time and ISK.

It needs to be and SHOULD be tweaked. That is what the Test servers are for. These are just ideas thrown around of course but I think it's a good start.

Arrrrgh

---

Originally by: Rawthorm

---

Right now the only real diference between a mothership and carrier is firepower and EW immunity.

With the ability to tackle motherships using heavy interdictors I think maybe its time to revisit their survivability as well as their other abilities.
Perhaps now is the time to make all cap draining modules unable to work on Titans and Motherships? After all their tank is basicaly the same as a carrier but it would be nice if an attacker has to chew through its Hitpoints to kill it rather than just tackling it with a heavy interdictor and killing it with a few energy and fighter killing battleships (as will now be possible after the patch)

---

Quote:

---

Kenn> HAH! I'm tanking these whimps!
Computer> Your Capacitor is empty.

---

Originally by: Kenn

---

Edited by: Kenn on 17/11/2007 01:34:05
Edited by: Kenn on 17/11/2007 01:13:58
Well be careful Zarch. You might throw the balance in favor of the Sub. Picture 5 or 10 of them waiting in a location firing capital class destroying missiles.. With no way to detect them the cloak ganking nightmare begins. The Destroyers or counter ships were meant to prevent that. With a chance at an advance warning the world of Eve won't be ruled by the subs or any one type of ship.

This makes the Capital Class Ship dependent on smaller ships to survive which is why we are doing it and it won't matter if it's an uber hauler or something that can destroy entire solar systems. It now has a major weakness. So long as that goal is achieved with out creating a second nightmare it doesn't matter what form it takes and nerfing the Cap Class ships can be avoided.

The counter element can be specialized ships or ships equiped with modules as long as the capital class ship is unable to use it. Each has a strength and a counter to it. It now becomes necessary to build integrated fleets and use them properly or perish. MUAHAHA.

The Devs will make the ultimate decisions on this as they are clearly reading these posts so they may agree with you in the end anyway. I don't even have a cap class ship yet so it won't affect me in the short term. I just want to avoid nerfing them.

Arrrrgh.

---

Quote:

---

Kenn> HAH! I'm tanking these whimps!
Computer> Your Capacitor is empty.

---