| 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.)
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 14:49:00 -
[31]
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.,..
The Establishment is at your service...
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 15:23:00 -
[32]
Cloaks and runs from the EST blob... 
Originally by: Ange1
Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing,
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions?
Abathur
Game Designer
"Tux did it!" |
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Cloaks and runs from the EST blob...
Originally by: Ange1
Zarch's idea of new area of effect weapons for the MS's is also intriguing,
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions?
*engages warp disrupter field* Your cloak won't save you now Mwuhahhahaahah
I think I've run out of suggestions that even I don't think are terrible for now...the more I think about it the more I like the 'strategic locations' idea though...
Particularly the deadspace - watch the nano ship lovers freak at that one
Zarch AlDain
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:19:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Yes it is. The thought of mom-specific modules has come up before. Suggestions?
As mentioned above, perhaps Bomber-class Fighters.
Check Zarch's suggestions on other AoE weapons.
Others to consider perhaps off the top of my head (some good, some bad :P)
Perhaps it could create a super large Interdictor bubble (say 40km radius)? This might make it easier though to capture other Super Capitals by dropping another Super Cap on them to hold them down.
Give it much larger bonuses for using gang modules perhaps over a command ship? Example, the Command bonus is 3% to gang warfare links. Perhaps an MS could give a 10% bonus or some such. Allow it so say passive defense instead of giving 26% max skilled, would give 50%?
Mothership specific smartbomb or a range bonus to smartbombs? The nano-dive bombing Interdictor is the death of a Super Capital presently. With HID's coming in and having a longer range single point scram they can use (this also solving the low-sec problem), there are other methods now to scrambling an MS.
Kamikaze Fighter? A Fighter specifically designed to ram another ship causing massive amounts of damage. Expensive and you can obviously only have a few of them, but perhaps if things are desperate, send kamikaze fighters against the ships scrambling you.
Perhaps consider allowing MS's to use the Jump Bridge that Titans have?
Perhaps increase the effectiveness of the ECM Burst, allowing a greater area of effect and stronger effects.
What about a variation of the ECM Burst but like a Cap bomb instead? Likewise you could have the MS fire a directed burst of firepower like a Bomb, a step down from a Titans superweapon, only directed and a small radius.
I'll post more later if I can think of any more...
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Riato Hargoumi
byeee Corp
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 11:11:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Riato Hargoumi on 10/11/2007 11:11:17
Maybe the not-so-superweapon-but-still-quite-super would need another ship(s) in the fleet to mark the target of the weapon, more markers, more accurate the weapon, more super the damage. Have the weapon unable to auto repeat and have a recharge timer of say 15 minutes. Can be fired against a single target, or an area with use of scripts. In single target mode a single capital or subcapital target takes massive damage, but at the cost to the MS of a huge ammount of cap. This would make it so the MS couldn't 'shoot and scoot'. Once the not-so-superweapon-but-still-quite-super is fired, the MS is there for a while so it can be caught. In area mode, the same ammount of damage is spread between all ships caught in the area, again large cap usage so no shoot and scoot tactics and all targets in the area need to be marked to take maximum damage, however those not marked will still take, say 25% damage.
As for the jumpbridge, I think that should stay as a titan, but give the MS a way to pull subcapital ships along with it when it jumps? Less control than with the titans JPA, and the ships are spread over a larger area, say appereing anywhere in the grid that the MS arrives in.
This would stop it being a tactical movement device, as using it directly into combat will get your fleet slaughtered beacuse they are scattered all over the grid, but useful for moving a support fleet around with the MS.
Just a couple of rambling ideas.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
soni Corp
Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 15:27:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Syberbolt8 on 10/11/2007 15:34:56
Originally by: CCP Abathur
In addition we're looking at ways to make motherships a little more than just a big carrier. [hint]Feedback[/hint]
Super Laggy idea, Shield and armor Rep fields while in Triage, in the form of a highslot, would repair only gang members, and at the rate of maybe a large armor or shield rep. AoE effect, 10Km,
Aside from that, I like the proposed Idea of the OP, though using a new set of slots for this would be better I think, You could still fit the ship the same as you do now but would have a new set of slots to put these on. And give ship bonus's depending on how you fit it out, so you only get the tank bonus's if your fit for it, and likewise with repping, even add a cargo and SMB bonus.
Edited:Added effective range.
------------------------------------
Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 16:37:00 -
[37]
What do you do with ships that already have 8 slots of a particular type?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:03:00 -
[38]
A list of "cool stuffs" I'd like to see on super-caps.
Enhanced Logistics (Repair):
(T/MS) Nanite Cloud - Repairs armor of any wing-mate within range over time
(T/MS) Shield Frequency Remodulator - Area of effect wing-mate shield repair
Heat could be used to provide impressive bonuses to these modules for epic last stands.
Enhanced Logistics (Deployment):
(MS) Jump Well - Capable of dragging close proximity wingmates through jump.
(T/MS) Cyno Beacon - Mothership/Titan acts as a Cyno generator for fleet members but suffers no penalty.
/me starts singing "You'll never walk alone."
Enhanced Offense:
(MS/C) Assault Module - Anchors the MS in space unable to jump for the duration, projects additional power to fighters providing increased damage output and a steady rate of repair.
Enhanced Defense:
(MS/C) Triage Module - Fix the cap stability issues (less remote rep bonus more cap) and remove the immobility effect.
(T) Titan Siege Module - Eats POS and other capitals for breakfast, cycle time reduction to allow the titan to more easily withdraw.
(T) Fighter Bay - Allows the ship to carry a few fighters but only launch 5 of them and no ability to assign them. Because Titans need drones too, and those drones should be to scale.
Enhanced Support:
(T/MS) Fleet Link - The gang bonuses on titans should be removed and made modular, Titans should receive a much higher bonus to their use than motherships and a greater selection of fleet links should be made available.
Some of these give the mothership a little titan and the titan a little mothership but neither approaches the others ability in it's field. The mothership is a highly mobile fleet support ship while the Titan is a Cap/POS slayer. I also chucked in a slew of other stuffs to pick and choose from. Of course with each super-cap only being able to use two or three such modules you never quite know what the enemy will be fielding which would be excellent.
As mentioned NOS/Neut immunity would go a long way towards putting the super back in the super-caps and wouldn't be a game breaker now that the ships can be much more easily pinned down.
A script that can be used on the doomsday to turn it into a beam (I'm thinking theodicy style) allowing the titan to either ubersmartbomb a fleet or cause wrecking damage to a single POS, capital or opposing super-cap would be nice to see, with perhaps a reduced cycle time when using it in that form. Generally I just feel unprepared capital pilots should wet themselves when a titan jumps in, but maybe thats just me. Whatever you do don't allow titans to change their DDD damage type, people need that intel to take them down.
Shouldn't need to say this but:
T = Titan
MS = Mothership
C = Carrier
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:20:00 -
[39]
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)
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
soni Corp
Imperium Sonorumance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 22:42:00 -
[40]
This Idea could be fun on the capital level as well, running in triage, or not, it would be fun.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=528097&page=1
------------------------------------
Soni-Corp Co-CEO
Start a fire for a man, he stays warm for a day. Catch a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life |
TimMc
Skiddies of Doom
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 23:57:00 -
[41]
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.
Yeah same here.
All the posts from the OP have been pure gold, CCP need to hire him.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 04:47:00 -
[42]
Edited by: infinityshok on 11/11/2007 04:48:38
This sounds overpowered to me but MS/titan role-specific suggestions were asked for. And for the price of these ships a bit of uberness isnt asking too much.
A super-siege module that will be *****ble only to MSs or titans. The module would increase the shield amount of the MS/titan and project an extended force field such as a POS has to allow ganged ships to park within it and be invulnerable or be protected by the MS/titans shields. The ships inside the shield wouldnt be able to lock on ships outside the shield. Using onboard modules would still be available such as for repping allied ships. The penalties would be inability to move for x-period of time, perhaps a sieged mode where if the shields get too low the ship would be invulnerable but incapacitated the same way POSs are. Mobility would only be restored after its shield was repped to a certain amount. Hell...for the cost of these ships in comparison to a POS, why not give them some sort of ridiculous defensive capabilities like a POS has.
EDIT: ^ how the hell is 'fitable' a censored word.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 08:05:00 -
[43]
The devs have said, don't ask me where, that a huge amount of work would be required to enable the use of a POS shield on a mobile ship. We begged for it on the Rorqual and on t2 BS back before they were announced.
Also if a word is mysteriously blocked by the wordfilter I'd advise checking the Urban Dictionary for clarification. 
|
Lelulie
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 11:42:00 -
[44]
You seem to have proposed changes so a Chimera can still fit a nice tank and control lots of Fighters, but the rest would suffer greatly in their tanks to match the Chimeras damage.
|
Aki Yamato
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 13:44:00 -
[45]
Carrier modification modules are brilliant idea, however to fullfil conditon to stop carryers beeing all capable battle mule, it would require to adds ome fiting time.
ie I mean you wont simply add another hangar to kilometer long ship in zero time. It should require some time in dock until armor is stripped internal structure modified new systems instaled and hull reassembled again.
IMHO
BIG GUN
BIG FUTURE |
Red Leg
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:23:00 -
[46]
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.
the only thing we know is your nerf is coming 
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari
TAOSP
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:41:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Kublai Khan on 11/11/2007 14:43:41
MS changes:
- Projected Bomb launchers like the remote ecm bomb
- Fix the remote ECM bomb to be something worth fitting
- MS Triage module: Offensive and self repair related module. Bonus to cap recharge and repairers. Inability to use remote reps while running. Increase damage or tracking of fighters. Increases smartbomb range with 100%.
- Hitpoints of Titans and MS should be lots lots more. Catch one, it shouldnt go down in 2 minutes and be an easy kill.
Carrier changes
- Modular design as suggested seems very fair.
- Modification through specific rig slots seems fair, dont really like screwing over the tankability of carriers with fitting extra things in low slots. Its not great as it is...
- Triage module should let you be immune to nos/neut, so you can sit there and wait to be rescued unless they can overcome your tank. Atm you just die right away...
Titans
- Need some kind of Siege mode ability. Huge bonus to self repair and cap recharge. Bonus to capital guns. Runs of strontium.
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:25:00 -
[48]
ok if im reading this right then by being a carrier lvl 5 person already means all i do is drop some of my tank to gain all the abilities i already have by putting 1 each of these "new" modules onto the carrier. in fact if im reading it right i can also carry more spare fighters and easily bring number of controled fighters over 10 (my current number). That makes this a buff to carriers and nothing more really.
Seccondly i think theres been mixed messages on what the problem with carriers is. Either they can do too many things or they arnt being used in fleets as they should be or rather are as good solo as in fleets (fleets made of other none carrier ships that is, not groups of carriers).
On the test server now i think carriers are perfect, they cant be used as haulers but they can carry in replacement ships, they can carry drones for many situations and fighters for actual dmg dealing. making them ideal in small fleets. prolly 1 carrier per 5/6 gang members would be the optimum.
So really the issue is making them more realistic comapred to actual real life carriers (where ms is a bigger version). Thus i prefer my suggestion :) (of course im a bit biased). which limits the carriers efectivnes to deploy drones for any given situation in large numbers and promotes using fleets with them or against them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631376
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Lelulie
You seem to have proposed changes so a Chimera can still fit a nice tank and control lots of Fighters, but the rest would suffer greatly in their tanks to match the Chimeras damage.
That is definitely a weakness of the suggestion, although as I said before the inherent disadvantage of shield tanking for pvp and for fitting counteracts that to a certain extent. It is also consistent with smaller ships where fitting damage mods hurts armour tanks more than shield tanks but fitting tackling etc hurts shield tanks more than armour tanks.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
ok if im reading this right then by being a carrier lvl 5 person already means all i do is drop some of my tank to gain all the abilities i already have by putting 1 each of these "new" modules onto the carrier. in fact if im reading it right i can also carry more spare fighters and easily bring number of controled fighters over 10 (my current number). That makes this a buff to carriers and nothing more really.
Seccondly i think theres been mixed messages on what the problem with carriers is. Either they can do too many things or they arnt being used in fleets as they should be or rather are as good solo as in fleets (fleets made of other none carrier ships that is, not groups of carriers).
On the test server now i think carriers are perfect, they cant be used as haulers but they can carry in replacement ships, they can carry drones for many situations and fighters for actual dmg dealing. making them ideal in small fleets. prolly 1 carrier per 5/6 gang members would be the optimum.
So really the issue is making them more realistic comapred to actual real life carriers (where ms is a bigger version). Thus i prefer my suggestion :) (of course im a bit biased). which limits the carriers efectivnes to deploy drones for any given situation in large numbers and promotes using fleets with them or against them.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631376
As I understand it the situation currently on the test server is not intended to be the final solution. Further changes are going to happen.
To fit one of each module and hence end up where you are at the moment you will end up with one less low, mid and high - if you don't thing that that is a significant reduction then I'm not sure what you think would be?
Yes you can bring the number up over 10, but then carriers already can do that...a few drone control modules for example will easily take you to 12 or 13 fighters. As you say this proposal allows you to specialise your carrier and actually achieve better performance in one area than currently BUT only at the cost of other abilities.
Zarch AlDain
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 18:44:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Aki Yamato
Carrier modification modules are brilliant idea, however to fullfil conditon to stop carryers beeing all capable battle mule, it would require to adds ome fiting time.
ie I mean you wont simply add another hangar to kilometer long ship in zero time. It should require some time in dock until armor is stripped internal structure modified new systems instaled and hull reassembled again.
IMHO
In the future they have mastered automation. 1000m3 modules can be fitted and assembled ships are made from repackaged ships within a few seconds. There is no reason what the OP proposed shouldnt be possible.
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 02:12:00 -
[52]
Edited by: ElDiabloRojo on 12/11/2007 02:11:50
What i am saying is that this "fix" stops carriers being good at all the things they are now but allows them to focus their efforts and become dramaticly more effective at other things. Also in terms of using carriers as haulers you dont want to be ina fight any way so any versatility is not an issue. You use your system to convert the carrier into a mule, haul your pos fuel or whatever and then convert it back. Takes a few secconds and even if u get attacked your gonna try run away. with this system the carrier used as hauler gets bigger capacity. Then when its fighting it drops all hauler modules in favour of number of fighters and get a higher damage output compared to current fighters. So ultimately your swopping out 1 system where carriers can switch between roles instantly with another where carriers are better at each role but takes 2-3 mins to swop around.
If the "issue" is ability to switch roles at will then focus the carrier at fighter deployment by keeping its ability to deploy 6-15 fighters. Drop its drone ability to Dominix levels (ie, lots of drones but on 5 ata time). But cos its a carrier it can still carry some of each drone type. And drop its hauling abilities in favour of whats currently on the test server, as this will give it the ability to carry spare ships to a fleet, repair/rearm said fleet and project power like a carrier should but slow down its other "roles" by droping the efectivnes of none fighter drones by at least half. Doing this with a module like in my origonal suggestion slows down its role changing abilities as well. In fact it does so by a guaranteed 5 minutes, as apose to sitting 2 carriers next to each other and swopping "Capital Modules" back and forth like some sort of 3D rubix cube.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 11:34:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 12/11/2007 11:35:51
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
Edited by: ElDiabloRojo on 12/11/2007 02:11:50
What i am saying is that this "fix" stops carriers being good at all the things they are now but allows them to focus their efforts and become dramaticly more effective at other things. Also in terms of using carriers as haulers you dont want to be ina fight any way so any versatility is not an issue. You use your system to convert the carrier into a mule, haul your pos fuel or whatever and then convert it back. Takes a few secconds and even if u get attacked your gonna try run away. with this system the carrier used as hauler gets bigger capacity. Then when its fighting it drops all hauler modules in favour of number of fighters and get a higher damage output compared to current fighters. So ultimately your swopping out 1 system where carriers can switch between roles instantly with another where carriers are better at each role but takes 2-3 mins to swop around.
If the "issue" is ability to switch roles at will then focus the carrier at fighter deployment by keeping its ability to deploy 6-15 fighters. Drop its drone ability to Dominix levels (ie, lots of drones but on 5 ata time). But cos its a carrier it can still carry some of each drone type. And drop its hauling abilities in favour of whats currently on the test server, as this will give it the ability to carry spare ships to a fleet, repair/rearm said fleet and project power like a carrier should but slow down its other "roles" by droping the efectivnes of none fighter drones by at least half. Doing this with a module like in my origonal suggestion slows down its role changing abilities as well. In fact it does so by a guaranteed 5 minutes, as apose to sitting 2 carriers next to each other and swopping "Capital Modules" back and forth like some sort of 3D rubix cube.
Carrier facilities would take a large amount of m3 so carrying a complete refit would be hard or possibly even impossible. Additionally you would need support from either a POS, Station or a maintanance bay fitted carrier in order to refit. I don't see the problem - after all people fit battleships for travel and then refit to fight all the time. The original problem listed was that carriers are good at doing all those things at the same time and actually requested exactly what my proposal gives - that you have to refit to achieve the specific goal you want to aim for.
In addition one of the follow on suggestions is that rigs be used instead of modules, that would certainly make it expensive to reconfigure on a regular basis!
I read your idea the first time you posted it despite the broken link. I wasn't going to reply since unfortunately my feedback is all negative but since you keep raising it I will respond: Quite simply the idea as listed doesn't work, and your real life analogies are meaningless in eve. You need to revisit it and give a lot more thought to the various consequences of what you are suggesting.
For example:
Your suggestion of a 'combat mode' module would make any deployment of a carrier even more risky than it is now.
Your movement of remote rep bonuses onto the triage mode would massively weaken the already weak minmatar carriers.
Unsupported Carriers are already extremely easy to kill, I've seen one held down by a single recon ship scout for 10 minutes while our gang got into position to kill it.
You are also proposing two entire new ship types to deal with something that isn't actually part of the problem. Yes a case can definitely be made for introducing a smaller ship specifically designed to fight capital ships. That is an entire new ship class though that needs to be reviewed and designed properly to be something in it's own right. It should not be something bodged into the game as an attempt to balance something else.
(Edit for typo correction)
Zarch AlDain
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:51:00 -
[54]
ok i have caldari carrier lvl 5 so using your model i can fit 2 low slot mods, 2 med slot mods and 3 hi slot mods and get 15 drones (5 more then my current number) and enough drone bay for more then 15 fighters and 15 of each drone in game. Obviously that ruins my tank somewhat. But my hi slots dont add to the tank or dmg, and i have 7 mid slots so loosing 2 is fairly bad but not impossible to live with. i can move 2 shield hardeners for instance and replace it with 2 rigs (dropping res from 55% to 35% on 2 types but not effecting shield boost amount or cap). I wont have the ability to assign drones to people but that was one things listed under stuff the devs didnt like (the lack of people assigning them to gang members). So now instead of a carrier as i have atm with 12 fighters or 12 drones of my choice i have 1 with the same hangar bays, less tank and 3 extra fighters/drones. Thus increasing my "swiss army knife" abilities.
So overall all this does it allow ppl to drop the corp hangar and ship hangar (and thus keep most of there tank on shield users) and become better all round ships then before. So the only refit is when u want to haul stuff, where i put 2/3 ship bay modules on and carry 4/5 fully tech 2'd Bustards (think thats about 150Km^3).
I dont see how thats a better option to mine in which u max out at 15 fighters but never pass 5 drones. So using the swiss army knife similie you model is taking away a few of the tools and sharpening the rest and mine is dulling all the little ones and leaving the knife part the same. oh and slowing down the guy whos pulling the tools out.
Besides my proposal was 2 changes really, 1 to change the jack of all trades aspect and 1 to encourage fleet warfare with carriers.
Perhaps taking shield/energy/armour/hull transfers from the ships out of triage mode is a mistake tho.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:05:00 -
[55]
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
ok i have caldari carrier lvl 5 so using your model i can fit 2 low slot mods, 2 med slot mods and 3 hi slot mods and get 15 drones (5 more then my current number) and enough drone bay for more then 15 fighters and 15 of each drone in game. Obviously that ruins my tank somewhat. But my hi slots dont add to the tank or dmg, and i have 7 mid slots so loosing 2 is fairly bad but not impossible to live with. i can move 2 shield hardeners for instance and replace it with 2 rigs (dropping res from 55% to 35% on 2 types but not effecting shield boost amount or cap). I wont have the ability to assign drones to people but that was one things listed under stuff the devs didnt like (the lack of people assigning them to gang members). So now instead of a carrier as i have atm with 12 fighters or 12 drones of my choice i have 1 with the same hangar bays, less tank and 3 extra fighters/drones. Thus increasing my "swiss army knife" abilities.
I think you underestimate how much you have removed from your carrier in this case.
(Do you actually have carrier level 5 btw or are you using that as an example?)
Firstly if you do not care about high slots then you should already be using multiple drone control units in your high slots - reasonably that could take you to 13 or 14 fighters controlled. Most people though use neutralizers/smart bombs/cloaks/etc in their high slots so they are actually significent.
By dropping resistance to 35% on two types you now have a massive hole in your tank (you are taking 50% more damage on those damage types). In addition by using two rig slots for shield resistance you are no longer getting the cap recharge bonus from two CCC.
I honestly don't understand how you can think your tank developing two resistance holes and the loss of 30% of your capacitor regeneration is not a significant sacrifice.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
So overall all this does it allow ppl to drop the corp hangar and ship hangar (and thus keep most of there tank on shield users) and become better all round ships then before. So the only refit is when u want to haul stuff, where i put 2/3 ship bay modules on and carry 4/5 fully tech 2'd Bustards (think thats about 150Km^3).
Except that those bustards cannot carry 150km3 of cargo due to either the nerf currently on sisi or the alternative I advocated above. Also consider that you would lose (for example) 5km3 of space per facility module, so carrying them to refit would be a logistics challenge in of itself.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
I dont see how thats a better option to mine in which u max out at 15 fighters but never pass 5 drones. So using the swiss army knife similie you model is taking away a few of the tools and sharpening the rest and mine is dulling all the little ones and leaving the knife part the same. oh and slowing down the guy whos pulling the tools out.
Besides my proposal was 2 changes really, 1 to change the jack of all trades aspect and 1 to encourage fleet warfare with carriers.
Perhaps taking shield/energy/armour/hull transfers from the ships out of triage mode is a mistake tho.
I like your analogy actually. Yes that's exactly what my proposal allows. You can remove some of the implements from your swiss army knife and then sharpen the ones that remain. That is exactly what the developers said they are looking for...
On the other hand though as far as I can see your suggestion does not change any of the 'lesser abilities' at all. The only change is the addition of a 'siege mode' which must be entered in order to deploy fighters. A seige mode which turns the already extremely vulnerable carrier into a sitting duck.
Maybe I missed something though so please explain again how your suggestion reduces the ability of a carrier to haul, refuel, deploy fighters, gang support, etc that they do at the moment.
Zarch AlDain
|
James Draekn
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:54:00 -
[56]
Reading your ideas on the changes to carriers/MOMs shows the challenge CCP has before it when adjusting these ships. Your proposals have some very good ideas, but the problem you run into is tanking balance. As it currently stands most capital pilots are concerned about sustainable tanks. The recent low-sec MOM kill shows how easy it is to kill capitals when they are NOS/Nueted to hell. Your suggestion will also cause problems when you have a shield vs armor tank fight, when considering if you go gank on an armor tank your tank is shot, hardening wise. Versus you go gank on a shield tank your cap regen is shot, hardening is still entact.
A couple of ways to adjust your ideas:
1. Keep your ideas but instead of modules make them rigs. (increase carrier/mom rig slots to 8). This will make players choose what the want to do with their carrier, rather then change to adjust. This will also prevent tanking balance issues.
2. Make carriers and moms invulerable to NOS/Nuet. Make carriers invulerable to ewar like current moms. Make carriers/moms vulnerable to warp scraming (or the new heavy dictor bubbles) effects. This will allow carrier to better support their gang logistically but make them vulnerable to be held down and killed. The NOS/Nuet change will make carrier tanks a issue that has to be dealt with by bringing enough firepower (bringing some fun back to fights, rather then a NOS/Nuet suckfest).
|
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 02:29:00 -
[57]
Ok maybe I explained it wrong. But with the current system of carriers you get essentially two types of abilities. Those from the ship and those from drones. The greatest damage power from the carrier comes from fighters; I think we can all agree on that. Obviously u can calculate the damage output vs. frigs with normal drones compared to fighters but I'm talking more hitting ships that can kill you. Other drones give it the other abilities, and atm the carrier gets the ability to deploy as many drones as it does fighters. So when IÆm in a chimera (yes I do have lvl 5) I can use without doing anything other then undocking 10 drones or 10 fighter or some combination of the 2.
With only allowing fighters to be deployed in a specific "Fighter mode" (Flight operations module I guess would be a suitable name) you basically stop any and all of the other Swiss army knife tools being used from the drone side of things and can use the module attributes to effect other modes if desired. So the flight ops mode gives u 10 fighters at lvl 5 of carrier or 20 if youÆre in a MS. Outside of this mode u can only use 5 drones and none are fighters. So in terms of other drone based abilities you have a maximum that is exactly equal to none capital ships that carry drones for the purpose, you just get the option to sacrifice yourÆ fighter spares for normal drones and so can do all the things other drone user can do as apposed to just one or two (though I believe the new bandwidth system is about changing that a little). So from my ship with 10 drones IÆm down to 5 drones, i.e. I have halved the size of all the tools on my Swiss knife. That is my basic proposal.
Now in terms of what OTHER effects the flight op mode has that is something that obviously needs to be looked at. Giving the ship the ability to move in this mode may be better, IÆm not sure.
The other module of this kind, the triage module, boosts the defence abilities of the ship and its abilities of helping other ships. At the cost of movement and drone usage. So taking these ship based abilities off the ship and onto this module you are essentially adding a mechanism within the Swiss army knife that automatically closes and locks off some tools when 1 is being used and others when a different tool is being used.
And lastly we have the ability for a carrier to carry a hauler full of stuff from place to place in relative safety. Now this doesnÆt work on the trinity test server as u can only carry in your ship bay assembled ships that have ammo in there cargo or nothing. So u can use the carrier in this way for resupplying a fleet op with fresh ships. So I think this should be kept in place as it is great idea and makes the jump freighters have a point (they are amazing by the way and can carry at least 3 times the amount as a carrier can atm). This change also allowed ccp to make the ship bay larger and ships in general seem to be smaller. (I.e. carriers can carry 2 BS and MS can carry 5). So that aspect is not really an issue in these "changes" with that test server change.
So in summary I believe this system slows down the carrierÆs ability to switch roles at a whim and reduces the power of these abilities other then deploying fighters which is the same. It also blocks off the ability to do several things at once.
Oh and donÆt think IÆm having a go at you or anything, IÆm something of a scientist and so thinking of theories and trying to prove them or trying to disprove other peoples theories is how the scientific community works.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 10:35:00 -
[58]
Originally by: James Draekn
Reading your ideas on the changes to carriers/MOMs shows the challenge CCP has before it when adjusting these ships. Your proposals have some very good ideas, but the problem you run into is tanking balance. As it currently stands most capital pilots are concerned about sustainable tanks. The recent low-sec MOM kill shows how easy it is to kill capitals when they are NOS/Nueted to hell. Your suggestion will also cause problems when you have a shield vs armor tank fight, when considering if you go gank on an armor tank your tank is shot, hardening wise. Versus you go gank on a shield tank your cap regen is shot, hardening is still entact.
A couple of ways to adjust your ideas:
1. Keep your ideas but instead of modules make them rigs. (increase carrier/mom rig slots to 8). This will make players choose what the want to do with their carrier, rather then change to adjust. This will also prevent tanking balance issues.
2. Make carriers and moms invulerable to NOS/Nuet. Make carriers invulerable to ewar like current moms. Make carriers/moms vulnerable to warp scraming (or the new heavy dictor bubbles) effects. This will allow carrier to better support their gang logistically but make them vulnerable to be held down and killed. The NOS/Nuet change will make carrier tanks a issue that has to be dealt with by bringing enough firepower (bringing some fun back to fights, rather then a NOS/Nuet suckfest).
I have to say that the idea of making them rigs is growing on me, at least partially because of the shield/armour balance you mention. However I am still not convinced there is a shield/armour balance problem. As you say you trade off loss of hardening in one case with loss of cap regen in the other. Shield tanks will find it easier to gank without sacrificing tank, but armour tanks find it easier to tackle/ewar without sacrificing tank.
It increases the differences between the different races carriers without making one clearly stronger than the other (for the record I fly a Thanatos so a boost to shield tanking carriers isn't in my interest!)
Having said that implementing the modules listed above as rigs but otherwise with the same statistics and massively increasing the number of rig slots would achieve the same goals as my original proposal but with different details. Refitting would be harder, shield and armour tanks would be effected equally, etc.
So mixed feelings from me, I think I would want to do a lot of spreadsheets and playing on test servers to make the call on that one!
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 10:51:00 -
[59]
(I've snipped your quotes as I was running out of space!)
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
with the current system of carriers you get essentially two types of abilities. Those from the ship and those from drones. The greatest damage power from the carrier comes from fighters; I think we can all agree on that. So when IÆm in a chimera (yes I do have lvl 5) I can use without doing anything other then undocking 10 drones or 10 fighter or some combination of the 2.
With only allowing fighters to be deployed in a specific "Fighter mode" (Flight operations module I guess would be a suitable name) you basically stop any and all of the other Swiss army knife tools being used from the drone side of things and can use the module attributes to effect other modes if desired. So the flight ops mode gives u 10 fighters at lvl 5 of carrier or 20 if youÆre in a MS. Outside of this mode u can only use 5 drones and none are fighters. So from my ship with 10 drones IÆm down to 5 drones, i.e. I have halved the size of all the tools on my Swiss knife. That is my basic proposal.
In low sec carriers/motherships use heavy drones a lot as fighters die extremely fast to sentry fire. I do see what you mean about reducing the utility by limiting the use of non-fighter drones and it would be interesting to hear from the devs as to whether they thing the use of various types of drones is a problem. My gut feeling is that it is not as after all carriers are supposed to be fighter/drone deployment platforms.
What is interesting is that we are both limiting drones and fighters separately though - in my proposal you can fit the drone launch facilities to get more drones, but you then need another module as well to get fighters.
Remember that carrier drones have no bonus. 10 Ogre 2s from a Thanatos does only a little more than 5 from a Domi (effective 7.5) and the Domi also has the option of fitting guns whereas they are the only source of a carriers damage. The Moros by way of contract fields an effective 20 ogre 2s.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
Now in terms of what OTHER effects the flight op mode has that is something that obviously needs to be looked at. So taking these ship based abilities off the ship and onto this module you are essentially adding a mechanism within the Swiss army knife that automatically closes and locks off some tools when 1 is being used and others when a different tool is being used.
So essentially you are limiting the carrier to 5 normal drones (and possibly taking up a high slot by requiring the module to use fighters or not). That isn't really addressing the problem though which is that carriers can gank, tank, transport, etc all at one time.
Originally by: ElDiabloRojo
And lastly we have the ability for a carrier to carry a hauler full of stuff from place to place in relative safety. Now this doesnÆt work on the trinity test server as u can only carry in your ship bay assembled ships that have ammo in there cargo or nothing.
So in summary I believe this system slows down the carrierÆs ability to switch roles at a whim and reduces the power of these abilities other then deploying fighters which is the same. It also blocks off the ability to do several things at once.
Oh and donÆt think IÆm having a go at you or anything
Don't worry, I welcome debate on the ideas. Suggestions are rarely perfect first time. 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.
Zarch AlDain
|
Poborca Podatkowy
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 12:19:00 -
[60]
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).
|
Cephias Caine
Steel Battalion
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 16:34:00 -
[61]
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.,..
Tbh, this sounds like an idea that could be expanded upon? What about additional fighter classes such as a 'interceptor' class; able to move at greater speed and with lighter but much better tracking weapons that would specialize in taking down their slower cousins? (Ie: the bomber classes mentioned above, and the normal fighter classes) This would make MSs a greater asset at the battle front, able to intercept incoming Bomber waves from other MSs and fighter waves from Carriers. I don't have a lot of experience in these things but that certainly would seem to add a lot of flexibility to Moms and make them more tactically viable at a Fleet combat level. But like I said my experience is limited, so if there are constructive reasons against this then I can accept that. I just thought it made sense in a "Rocks, Paper, Scissors" kinda way.
CC
Captain/Director Caine
[/url]
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 16:40:00 -
[62]
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).
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?
Zarch AlDain
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 16:42:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 13/11/2007 16:42:44
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).
With regards to AOE sensory fields, I think they would have to be specific to sensor types. So that they effectively amplify or impair the effectiveness of a specific sensor type within their area.
So, for example:
Magnetometric field amplifier: Employees constructive interference to increases the range, locking speed, and strength of magnetometric sensors and increases the apparent signature radius of ships when targeted with magnetometric sensors in the affected area.
Magnetometric field dampener: Employees destructive interference to do the the reverse.
|
Jenjuan
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 22:30:00 -
[64]
By implementing my Co-Pilot concept, you would eliminate the problem of not enough people purchasing carriers. Let's face it, one of the problems you have with Carriers, is that if you just started playing today, you can't fly one for over a year, a bit less, if you purchase 100 Million in Implants, but still no less than about 300 days. Considering the fact that many people simply stop playing after 6 months, that leaves very, very few people with Carrier Skills. By implementing the Co-Pilot system, you can have one person train up in Capital Armor Repping, another in Capital Shield Transfer, another in Fighters, and so on, this way by splitting the task among several people, you have many more Motherships on the Battlefield.
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/jenjuan][/url] |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 23:44:00 -
[65]
this mean i have to invest a crap load more ISK into a ship thats made me compleately skint as it is ????
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 23:55:00 -
[66]
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.
But is the ability to carry ships, refit ships etc. an actual problem? i mean afterall they are the only ships that can do this other then Titans and of the 2, Carriers, the more widely used ship, is not as good as a MS.
Heres what the first dev blog said about it anyway
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.
Is giving some 1 a spare ship after they loose theirs in a fight not in fact providing aditional fire power? and having spare ships is surely not effecting a carrier thats not ganged but sat at a stargate or something killing things. You cant afterall assign drones to a capsule cos its cant target anything.
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. Which may be something thats not very versatile and very specialised but also overpowered. The dev blogs cleary state they dont think carriers are overpowered as in they do too much damge or haul too much or tank too much etc. but that they have too many powers as it were. Thus this swiss army knife comparison. I mean if u were in a fight with some 1 ud want a real knife not a 50mm bit of stainless steel. So its the fact that if u some how beat the guy with the real knife, or escpae, u can they descale a fish and open a tin of beans to go with it... and maybe a bottle of wine.
By placing emphasis on the hi slot modules then u do make ppl "refit for the situation". In order to use logistics modules better then a logistics ship they need a triage module, in order to use fighters they need a flight ops module. That leave 3 hi slots for the actual triage based modules, id prolly put 2 on, and then 1 slot for "something else" oh how about one of those gang assist modules. So to be effective AS A CARRIER and not an overgrown tanking drone boat ud need to sacrifice alot of hi slots and thus alot of these so called highley effective hi slot modules. Tanks come from med slots and low slots anyway (deppending on race) so any push of carrier abilities to these will make the amarr carriers good transporters (tank + mid slot carrier mods) and cadari good drone users (tank + low slot mods) and then gal and min are basicly not as good versions of those two.
ElDiabloRojo
Director for Colossus Technologies
|
Dr Aryandi
Bloodstone Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 17:40:00 -
[67]
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.
Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.
|
Coniglietta Magica
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2007.11.15 15:31:00 -
[68]
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.
Rig's do not sound like a bad idea, but I can see this increasing the cost of fitting our ships substantially.
Sign The Petition!
|
Poborca Podatkowy
|
Posted - 2007.11.15 16:05:00 -
[69]
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?
TBH I didn't, but I am Thantos pilot (via alt), so I am focused on armor tanking, but even that gives you 2 races nerfed - Gallente and Amarr. What with others two ? I think that there is answer already - other modules giving boost to the fighters (i.e. speed/tracking) on medium slots.
Anyway as you mentioned I don't think that a lot of people use DCU in more than 1-2 quantities, but if there would be a penalty for mounting casual items on capitals (i.e. SMB mounted on carrier takes 10x more PG and CPU) ? What you think about that way of fitting ?
In that manner you would have potential dread problem solved.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 04:12:00 -
[70]
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.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Kenn
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 14:54:00 -
[71]
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.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:12:00 -
[72]
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.
I know I've seen the price drop by 5 billion or more since the blog. We have been hit by it too as we recently acquired 4 intending to sell one. Every single one of our potential buyers dropped out when the blog hit. Fortunately we had a backup plan in place but it still messed us around a lot and I really feel for the dedicated industrialists going through the nightmare of making these things.
I've seen several MS producers closing up shop, and I know quite a few carrier producers are thinking about it. I've found the dev responses here encouraging - but as I said earlier we urgently need a definitive dev blog saying at least in general terms what will happen. I hope they are still reading this thread and are taking note - in game businesses that people have put a lot of effort into are going bankrupt while they wait...
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:18:00 -
[73]
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.
Wow, This is the first 'introduce new ships to balance capital ships' ideas that I have seen that I have actually liked.
It isn't perfect but the general concept of a destroyer sized ship that fires capital weapons (i.e. bigger stealth bombers) would at least give people without supercaps a way to harass them effectively.
You would need to be very careful though, in particular I would say that the only active module able to function while cloaked should be the capital sized weapons as otherwise you would see them used as invulnerable super-tacklers.
I'm not sure a counter-counter ship is needed though - after all the weapon trails/torpedos would be coming from empty air so you just need some reasonably fast escort ships to rush the anti-capital ships and decloak them.
Zarch AlDain
|
Kortalis Hellion
Gallente
The Taining corp
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:31:00 -
[74]
For the motherships and specific modules, how about a doomsday like remote repair module? How awsome would it be to use 50% capacity to repair your entire fleet (and drones) within 100km of you 50% armor or shield?
Kinda like a large smartbomb, but it shoots out a wave of remote repair.
Carrier = logistics and drones
Mothership = super logistics and drones
|
Kenn
Caldari
Independent Manufacturers
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 18:44:00 -
[75]
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. 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.
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
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 21:10:00 -
[76]
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.
Why would they be fast enough? They don't need to be fast - in fact I would suggest they shouldn't be. It seems to me that they would be a destroyer sized AF rather than a destroyer sized intie. With no AB or MWD active while cloaked their max speed even with overdrives will be only a few hundred m/s.
Especially considering every time they fire enemies get another chance to locate them and to do anything worth mentioning they will need to keep up sustained fire I think that is balanced.
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
I think a counter-ship is taking things too far, after all capital weapons have lousy tracking and explosion velocity etc so the damage output against small ships will be lousy.
Zarch AlDain
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 22:04:00 -
[77]
On my idea of making the Carrier Services into Rig-type slots: Does ANYONE put ANYTHING other than Cap Recharge rigs into their Capitals?
What I believe you're seeing is that a Capital ship's lifeline is its ability to maintain Cap and therefore Tank. If the standard fit is 3 cap rigs, that tells me that the cap recharge rate is too low across the board.
What started to worry me was the idea that we might lose the built-in Ship Maint, etc but gain a Rig Slot for them. It started me thinking about what I might put in the new Rig Slots, when I realized that everyone I know just puts in more Cap rechargers.
Therefore I change my initial idea of using Rig Slots to using some new 'Logistic Slot'. And as a side-effect: CCP you have not given enough Cap Recharge to Capitals.
|
Mag's
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 01:08:00 -
[78]
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)
Now that's a great idea.
Give the moms back, some of their super status.
Mag's
|
Kenn
Caldari
Independent Manufacturers
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 01:10:00 -
[79]
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. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA.
Arrrrgh.
Quote:
Kenn> HAH! I'm tanking these whimps!
Computer> Your Capacitor is empty.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 13:36:00 -
[80]
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.
Even my (armour tanked) carrier has 150 thousand shield hit points - then 200k armour hit points. Even 10 cloaked subs would not be a threat that might kill me, however they would be able to drive me away unless I had support.
In your scenario it said that the destroyers wouldn't be able to do anything until the subs had a lock anyway - which is not significantly different from other ships being able to do something once the subs open fire.
Zarch AlDain
|
Kenn
Caldari
Independent Manufacturers
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 23:11:00 -
[81]
I would like to see some form of that idea at least tested before they nerf anything. It doesn't matter how as long as it's tried.
I wasn't worried about a carrier getting ganked lol. I want THEM to get ganked. I want 1 sub to be a serious threat to a capital ship. I was worried about Subs becoming the uber ganking platform against everything else as well. There was a reason we can't lock and cloak right now. It would shift game balance of power too far to one side and everything would be an invisible war. No one would leave their stations.
Destroyers or counter ships (or even mods that are useless on capital ships) would prevent that. It won't pick up a cloaked ship only one that locks or is in the process of locking or some other criteria like weapons systems online for example. Just as long as there is something to keep the Subs in check. If the Capitol ships (or any ships) are escorted then the Subs won't find such easy prey.
If there aren't counter sub ships then Subs will simply hide just about anywhere ganking anything. They will become too powerful and throw game balance off. We really only want them to check the Capital Ships and not rule over everything else. Their fire power will certainly make them useful in a number of situations but they too will have a weakness in that of a lowely small ship with the capability to reveal the Subs location.
IF the sub does not lock or fulfill what ever criteria is needed then it remains undetected like any other cloaked ship. It simply has the ability to lock while cloaked AND fire an UBER missile or two (Or even 8 if the Dev's feel it will work)and can't do much of anything else. But combined with a well organized fleet it is lethal.
So 10 X 8 missiles just might vaporize your ship in a single volley. :O)
Arrrgh!
Quote:
Kenn> HAH! I'm tanking these whimps!
Computer> Your Capacitor is empty.
|
chernobly
Gallente
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.12.01 21:14:00 -
[82]
I like it
This system also allows for the addition of more new facilities, which is nice. I actually think that the addition of a low slot would increase the popularity of triage mode, which is currently seen as "suicide mode".
It would also be nice to see something similar for dreadnaughts, as they are currently such a one-trick-pony, which sucks for people who have had to train for them in order to help their alliance.
Personally, I would've liked to see tech 2 battleships get this kind of love, but it's too late for that, unfortunately.
oh, silly me ... i started reading the forums e_e |
Caleese
|
Posted - 2008.01.15 05:33:00 -
[83]
This "sub" class ship does sound cool, but don't forget about what happens when you run into the same problem CCP have with carriers, the critical mass of numbers.
I don't think CCP would've even thought to balance carriers if there weren't so many of them these days. Same goes for Motherships and Titans. It's fine when an alliance only has 1 maybe 2, but when you start seeing 15-20 carriers, 3-5 motherships and 3 or 4 titans in the one system it just ruins what a fleet battle SHOULD be about, and that's battleships.
If you created a "sub" class ship which could target and fire something like a citadel torp, that's all fine an dandy until an alliance has 5 of these things built and start coming for your POS's with them.
I like the fact ccp have decided to really look hard at all the capital ships, and really hope they stay useful, but somehow swing the importance of a fleet back to the battleship.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
The Fated
Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.08 16:43:00 -
[84]
Bump, this is a great IDEA, would take this over current carriers anyday.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |