open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Questions For Carrier Pilots
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic

jeffb
GoonFleet
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:48:00 - [91]
 

id like some spinnaz on my carrier tbqh

agent apple
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:49:00 - [92]
 

1. Frontline assaults against other capital ships, pos, gangs with greater numbers. Moving stuff (Though this will become a redundant feature with JJ freighters)

2. I SHOULD need a balanced support group regardless of what I go up against.

3. None, which is currently the case unless they're stupid enough to come within tackling range without a propulsion mod.

4. Do I believe large expensive ships (both SP and Isk) should be killing machines, hell yes. Do I think suitable game mechanics need to be in place to prevent them from being fielded en masse and/or solo... also hell yes.

Regardless of designed role? The question is baited, carriers are front line support ships, BS DPS is not out of role. Regardless all ships should be able to defend themselves effectively, dont see complaints about the roqual drone bonus...yet

5. Just enough.

6. Frontline assault capital ship

7. Yes but could be improved, its far to vulnerable to ewar and far too good when used with large amounts of other carriers. Triage also sucks.

8. ANTI BS Guns, but then thats because I think the change is equally ridiculous.

Carrier DPS in NOT the problem, carrier spam is.

Samiloth Justinian
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:54:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Samiloth Justinian on 23/10/2007 15:54:07

JADE DRAG0NESS
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:19:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Jinmie
Originally by: Leonidas Rex
"I dont mind if a carrier can take out 4 BS with luck, that would be kinda cool and quite close to how it is in real life."



EVE is not real life, go away.



Time to call the WWWWAAAMBULANCE Laughing

Perpello
Astralite Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:21:00 - [95]
 

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

Moving ships, modules, fuels, ammo, etc.
Logistic support - primarily repairing POS module defences.
Occasionally in combat, however, only in certain circumstances.

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

In my experience carriers tend not to enter combat against regular gang size < 50, other than perhaps sitting safe outside a force field and delegating fighters. Fielding a single carrier against a gang <= 10 is asking to die. When your friendly support has all died then the hostile support will keep you pinned down and call in friends to finish off your carrier if they cannot do it by themselves.

However, if your regular fleet is greatly outnumbered for example 2:1 or even 3:1, it's been my experience that carriers join the regular fleet and together fight the hostile regular fleet. This is not a solo carrier, a solo carrier is no use - this is 2-3 squads of carriers in a fight that is 150 v 300-450.

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

There is no battle that a solo carrier can expect to win unless in exceptional circumstances.

Your fighters and drones are killed off while you are kept pinned down and then when no defence is left, you are next. Your tank will not hold indefinitely and in the end you will be beaten. The assumption being made is that your carrier is setup correctly and your opponents know what they are doing. You still lose.

The issue of low-sec motherships is seperate to mainstream use of carriers.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

No.

However, as a carrier pilot it is my right to have what little defence is available and not simply to just spit out five fighters and/or drones. Death is virtually inevitable even with a full complement of deployed fighters/drones (10+) against competent enemies.

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

Fine as it is right now.

Solo firepower is rather inadequate but already balanced with the role that carriers play.

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

Not many roles for a solo carrier, other than long-distance hauling of stuff and slowly repairing incapacitated POS defences.

A squad or more of carriers are better for logistics and can serve logistics in combat in certain circumstances. It is a pity that triage mode does not work in the way that many carrier pilots want. If it did, perhaps carriers would use triage mode. But as it is, it's a death warrant.

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

No. Triage mode is too risky to use, entering triage mode is the same as signing your death warrant. The DPS will overcome your tank and you will die because none of the other carriers can augment your tank. Your tank is better out of triage mode compared to when in triage mode.

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? ...

The idea itself is not viable in the opinion of carrier pilots and no further discussion can take part on that basis.

CCP would seem to be not in full comprehension of how carriers are used in the mainstream.

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:24:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Gavriel Black
If you haven't trained for a carrier, you wouldn't understand.
It's completely unfair, for someone to spend 6months (60quid) training up to use a carrier, all the time they're looking forward to using all those fighters, when ccp decide to turn around and nerf the ass off them.
And no, i'm not a carrier user whining, i'm an eve player whining because if ccp keep nerfing ships and modules, people are going to get fedup.


I highlighted and underlined the mistake. everyone over reacting., Its ideas thats all FFS

Drizit
Amarr
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:43:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Gavriel Black
If you haven't trained for a carrier, you wouldn't understand.
It's completely unfair, for someone to spend 6months (60quid) training up to use a carrier, all the time they're looking forward to using all those fighters, when ccp decide to turn around and nerf the ass off them.
And no, i'm not a carrier user whining, i'm an eve player whining because if ccp keep nerfing ships and modules, people are going to get fedup.


I highlighted and underlined the mistake. everyone over reacting., Its ideas thats all FFS


OK, I understand your correction but still support Gavriel since he is correct that nerfing needs to stop.

Not being a carrier pilot (yet) I don't think I can answer the questions asked by the OP but would like to add that maybe a module or another ship type added to the game to combat the problem would be more suitable than a carrier nerf.

Module - Fighter control dampener. - Reduces the ability of a targetted ship to target you with fighters by x% per level. Give this a max level bonus that prevents you being targetted by more than 5 fighters from the target ship. This does not prevent a support ship delegated with 5 additional fighters hitting you with them as well.

Ship - Not thought about this one but someone will no doubt have an idea or two.

Brianna Talnor
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:19:00 - [98]
 

Would it be a good idea to boost fighters in a way that is not dps so that it is not such a bad idea that they have to get distributed?

i.e. fighters warp scramble targets, fighters have 1.25x more hps then they do now, fighters web targets, fighters use neutralizers, fighter's AI pops drones really well, etc.

Say that fighters web and scram targets but do kinda lame damage. Sending all 20 of them onto one target would then be a complete waste! Spreading them out over a few of your gang members would maximize their potential in that instance.

Or if fighters just hated drones and would target them on site.....having to spread 5 fighters out to your BS compadres' is not just a game mechanic but a good idea for spreading out the protection.

Of course, this would make player controlled frigates utterly useless in large scale PvP. But who flies a frigate in a fleet nowadays anyways?

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:01:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 23/10/2007 18:01:57
Originally by: Drizit
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Gavriel Black
If you haven't trained for a carrier, you wouldn't understand.
It's completely unfair, for someone to spend 6months (60quid) training up to use a carrier, all the time they're looking forward to using all those fighters, when ccp decide to turn around and nerf the ass off them.
And no, i'm not a carrier user whining, i'm an eve player whining because if ccp keep nerfing ships and modules, people are going to get fedup.


I highlighted and underlined the mistake. everyone over reacting., Its ideas thats all FFS


OK, I understand your correction but still support Gavriel since he is correct that nerfing needs to stop.

Not being a carrier pilot (yet) I don't think I can answer the questions asked by the OP but would like to add that maybe a module or another ship type added to the game to combat the problem would be more suitable than a carrier nerf.

Module - Fighter control dampener. - Reduces the ability of a targetted ship to target you with fighters by x% per level. Give this a max level bonus that prevents you being targetted by more than 5 fighters from the target ship. This does not prevent a support ship delegated with 5 additional fighters hitting you with them as well.

Ship - Not thought about this one but someone will no doubt have an idea or two.

Smart, but fighters and drones are independent of their owner in terms of locking and engaging. Fighters especially so, since they are single-pilot craft who are 'radioed' orders and not just automatons. So it wouldn't make much sense. Additionally, it would be a quite overpowered module.

Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:31:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Buxaroo
The problem with the proposed changes that the new dev posted about is that it doesn't take into account the reality of the game play as it is today. What I don't understand is why is this supposed change needed? Everyone knows that carriers are not solo ships. The only person who gets killed by a solo carrier is either a nuub or a mentally ******ed moron who can't think beyond what his autopilot tells him. Sorry, that's just a fact.


Exactly.

This nerf was quite clearly thought up by someone with zero experience of flying carriers regularly in combat. Its painfully embarassing to watch this debate play out, makes CCP look really quite silly.




Megadon
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:06:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Enkryption

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).


I'm not a carrier pilot in real life, but I pretend to be one in Eve.
Originally by: Enkryption

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?


Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. Are you talking about a gang of interceptors, battleships, dreadnaughts, titans or what? The easy answer is that a supercapital should easily survive a gang of 3-5 ships. It should take more than that to kill it. Otherwise, whats the point?
Originally by: Enkryption

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?


You can't really frame the problem with a question like this because it is a bit more complex. The way I feel about it is that a carrier is a supercapital ship equipped with assets (drones) that are effective against a wide variety of targets. It is a lethal, big, bad and dangerous thing and should remain so.
Originally by: Enkryption

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?.

This question and the way it is asked is a bit naive

There obviously has to be a very direct relationship between the effectiveness ANYTHING in the game (ship or otherwise) and skills invested/trained, the time spent on it and the isk invested in it.

If the answer was just a resounding NO. That would mean throwing the current skill training system out the window. Eve fact: The more you train and invest in ANYTHING in Eve, the more effective you CAN become at it. Doesn't mean you automatically will if you're a terrible player, but the potential is there and it SHOULD be there. That's what specialization is all about.

Things SHOULD be asymmetric between a player that has 40 million skill points and a player that has 5 million skill points. This isn't battlefield 1942. Not everyone gets a prize at the end of the day and isk, skills, time invested yield big dividends. Thankfully, some things are easily specialized in to enable new players to become effective very quickly.

In addition, CCP has wisely introduced enough variables in the game (mods, rigs, implants etc) to prevent this from being a foregone conclusion, but you can't escape the simple fact that Eve is a skillbased game and nor should you want to.

Originally by: Enkryption

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

I think carriers have just enough fire power. I have seen a carrier killed with 4 battleships because it lost its drones and was stranded. I have seen a single carrier survive a fleet of 50 ships. There is enough diversity the way the situation is today to not warrant this stupid simple-minded change that Zulupark is proposing.
Originally by: Enkryption

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?


I think carriers are a jack of all trades... DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION. If they are used wisely, they can be successful, if not, they go boom. Many ships are this way. Not just capitals.

I am an anti-role pilot. If you think a ship has a specific role, I will do my best find another way to use it to surprise you. I think the more you wedge ships into specific roles, the more you take away from Eve gameplay.

Megadon
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:07:00 - [102]
 

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?


Yes
Originally by: Enkryption

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)


Personally I think the whole thing is asinine (adjective meaning extremely or utterly foolish, resembling an a.s.s) I don't think the solution proposed is effective or very sophisticated. It doesn't seem very well thought out.

I would lump it in with the classic moronic anti-blob proposal of: "Let's have the damage per ship decrease as more ships fire on the same target to encourage anti-blob tactics". Simple-minded.

The ship is a carrier for gods sake. It is supposed to be able to field fighters period. If you want to nerf it fine. But find another way besides taking away its primary weapon system. To me, this is like saying:

"Oh wow, the Tempest with 7 x 1400 mm tech II arties is really too badass, let's just take away 3 of the turret hard points and call that balance... or hey, lets have 1 turret active per member in gang!!!"

That's not balance. That's fail.

ViperVenom
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:17:00 - [103]
 

Like i said b4... CCP said carrier/MS front line.

Now there back line. If they Nerf them they become ubber Haulers. EVE main grip id MS in Low sec SBing every thing near a gate.

If CCP wana fix Carrier fix Triage. There 100% no way CCP Wrangler can say thats a fine mod there.

U use Triage in combat u just signed over you Pod Kill.

Manas
The Graduates
Brutally Clever Empire
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:28:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Enkryption

A lot of carrier pilots seem to think this change will be the absolutely worst change ever in Eve. I would like to know why you think this change will be so terrible after answering a few questions.

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

Pretty much everything but NPCing and Missions.

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

I only solo in front of stations. Carriers are best supported by other carriers.

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

Carriers shouldn't be solo craft.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

No. And skills are only paid once.

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

Too much.

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

Fleet support.

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

Yes and more.

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)

I'd nerf it even more, especially the spider-repping abilities. It magnifies the effect of carrier packs.

Triage could use reworking, although not if it magnifies the advantages of spider-repping carrier packs.



Brock McF
Caldari
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:48:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Brock McF on 24/10/2007 05:43:44
Originally by: Enkryption
Edited by: Enkryption on 23/10/2007 08:50:47
1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).



Hauling, POS defense, Hot Drop'n, and locking systems down.

Originally by: Enkryption

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?



I've killed carriers that had more then 3 ships for support, We only field our carriers if we have tacklers (2+inties/dictors) and damage (more then 1000dps). Mostly 5+ BS 30+ gang before we ever even start cyno'ing in carriers. Locking down systems and expecting blobs we have 50+ support and usually 5-10 carriers on standby.

Originally by: Enkryption

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?



I don't SOLO in any ship anymore, except maybe a domi. We hunt for carriers that think they can 1v5. So easy to damp,scram, and send in the cavalry.

Originally by: Enkryption

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?



No, I would like capitals to be used to defeat the _BLOB_ not create it. We have BS for fighting, capitals play a different role. They should however be able to defend themselves when they get caught in those rare circumstances.

Originally by: Enkryption

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?



Their DPS is right, but I think carriers need a HUGE buff in other departments, as it stands they are only good in large blobs, and moms are good in lowsec. That is about it. You cyno in a few carriers expect the battle to keep escalating with more and more capitals _BLOBING_ you.

Originally by: Enkryption

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?



Right now, DOMI mk2. Fix Triage and maybe it would be a better logistics ship. Add a clone vat and you change things completely. I like Cyno'ing and fighting with a carrier, problem is they attract _BLOBS_ mostly.

Originally by: Enkryption

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?



Black-ops seems to achieve it better. Supercaps are good "scare tactics" but carriers are big big targets. They are good at spider tanking and soaking up damage, a bs fleet is better for damage, and dreads kill the POS.

Originally by: Enkryption

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)



Triage needs to be fixed first and foremost. The drone changes wont fix anything. It will be more headache for carrier pilots and front lining them will be unproductive. I don't think we need another frontline _BLOB_ ship tbh, we need something that allows smaller forces to be mobile. I personally would like a "bandwidth" for cyno jump bridge, Black-ops smallest (cloak ships only), carrier small(3BS bandwidth so a mix of cruisers and bc), Mothership normal (10BS bandwidth), Titan large (50+BS bandwidth). Make these _ANTIBLOB_ ships so small groups can move around. Static gates + static POS + _BLOB_ creates the game play we have today. Of course this is if you must have a change, and I am trying to be creative, for the most part they are pretty dang good as is.

Id like firstly a fix to...
_LAG_
_BLOBS_
_POSWARFARE_

[ENH]Brock

Teles666
Caldari
Free Space Tech
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:50:00 - [106]
 

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

PvP

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

Gang of 3: Solo
Gang of 5: 2 BS/BC
Gang of 10: 5 BS+logistic
Gang of 50: fleet

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

As it's a capital ship, it should be able to stand off several other lesser ships.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

There needs to be a payback on the investment

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

Just enough

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

Attack
Support

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

Yes

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)

I'll sell carrier and character and leave EVE.


Viqer Fell
Minmatar
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:06:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Viqer Fell on 23/10/2007 20:18:10
1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

Logistical moves into 0.0 space
Combat where possible although this is few and far between as most of our gangs roam about and I dont fancy spending all night sat in the ship desperately hoping that the gang will maybe find a suitably big fight and that the cyno guy will be both within range but also still on all night. Rarely do we see the fights where I can use the carrier in its truly intended format of front line repping support with a bit of fighter fire power.

Last fight I got with the carrier we spent over 1 hour at 2 frames PER MINUTE in empire. Who said molden heath was on a ****y node still eh. 35-40 man fight and tbh i had a ten minute response time to mouse clicks on a 20mb cable conn and a high spec pc. guess the lag was my end eh. So no chance i'd delegate fighters under these circumstances


2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

I feel that carrier should be able to defend itself vs 3, vs 5 should need 1-2 support and growing as the NME grow

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

Carriers should be more based around fleet support and fleet defense but at the moment the gang bonuses and fleet support suck bigger ass than any funny analogy i can think of. as for killking ships solo I cant think of a more suicidal use of a carrier than to try solo killing in it unless you are lame and sit at dock range.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

I believe i should have more chance to kill more ships given 4 years of skills but not because i bought a shiny ship just because i have better statistics and training and experience of game

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

I think they have just right amount at the moment given how vulnerable they can be to small gangs of even just 4-5 recons for example

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

General support, some dmg, some rep and some fleet bonuses

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

No, the ship and modules and indeed game mechanics are too borked to allow this

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)

make it so that the carrier can only deploy drones / fighters when in triage
make it so that the drone control module becomes a remote module only usable by AF's within 10km of a carrier and that when deployed the AF's get buffs. but make it so that the AF's can jump with the carrier. A jump portal bandwidth type of thing where big ships cant do the same
Give the carrier higher resists and allow it to give bigger squad bonuses the more people in its gang have a "remote triage link module"



Delegation of fighters is a bad bad idea. Why? First of all i really dont like giving control of 150m of my mods to a stranger . Secondly and more importantly lag usually means i CANNOT delegate. 3-4 fpm means that it takes minutes to just get the right click menu to open. Makes a ****ing mockery of the situation,


LapshSuperStar3
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:11:00 - [108]
 

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

PvP, PvE sometimes.

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

Need support all the way. Amount of support linear depends on the amount of enemies.

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

If I'll fight with good players, I kill nobody. But I'll kill all noob players.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

No, I don't belive that. But I wish to have ability to do that. And if I use that ability in right way I wish to win!

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

Fine as it is right now. But too little for solo.

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

Attack of enemies.Support of the allied forces.

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

Almost.

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)

Stupid idea.

Venalic Erus
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:14:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Venalic Erus on 24/10/2007 02:28:03
Edited by: Venalic Erus on 24/10/2007 02:22:24
ok, to kick this post off.. CARRIERS SHOULD NOT BE NERF'D!!

i am not yet a carrier pilot, but i am well on the way to being one, with the suggested changes proposed in the dev blog i am considering changing my skill plan.

Carriers are not the ultimate I WIN BUTTON.. peeps loose carriers all the time, they do thier job in the way they are designed to do.. in thier current form.

we would end up with BS's (including the new bs's comming in with the next patch) with a small jump to carriers.. then a HUGE jump to titans with doomsday devices that do 50k+ hp to all surronding ships with a single hit of a button..

Carriers take a large amount of investment, not only in SP time but also isk.. they are not used as a characters primary ship, they are used when the situation is called for. They are also ships that newer players look up to, nerf them you take away that goal.. it takes about 14days to fly a bs, but it takes over a year to fly a carrier! (properly)

In my opinion, carriers bridge the gap nicely between an uber BS and a titan.. nerf them, and the game changes in ways that cannot be forseen.

they are right, thay are correct, they do the job they were designed to do! LEAVE THEM ALONE PLEASE!!

If you do want to change them, make the triage moduale only available to motherships.. job done!



/me puts his role-play hat on for a min..

How is it that all 4 races de-evolve technology that is currently in exsistance... do we all suddenly forget as an entire solar system how to do things, why do we not invent/design/create things that combat the current designs that are already out there?

Valea
Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:46:00 - [110]
 


1. Fighter delegation, shield transfer, pos logistics and setup.

2. I always have 2 ships in tow to assign fighters to, and to pop damp ships. Usually command ships.

3. I think I should be able to go up against one battleship, and win, if he isn't tank fitted. I feel I should be able to tank about 5 conventionals, which I can.

4. No, I didn't want a wtfgank ship, and I didn't get one. I wanted lots of drones, and a killer tank.

5. Just right, a well skilled carrier has dps inline with a well skilled battleship. The advantage is in versatility, and tank. The disadvantage is in the support required to avoid even the most facile effort to stop you by a small damp gang.

6. Fleet and small gang support. Along with small scale hauling.

7. Yes, in terms of damage, I could get the same thing out of a Rokh. The true advantage of a carrier is supporting other ships.

8. Fix triage, give us the ability to control drones, or double cap recharge. Right now if you are in triage, you are primary, and you are dead.
If the drone change came into effect, I would want fighters to be able to jump, much better fighter ai, cheaper fighters, autopull on fighters upon critical damage, pretty much everything I hate about drones fixed.

Emsigma
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:03:00 - [111]
 

Hi Dev-alt! :)


1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

Mainly as a DPS-machine and hauler. Almost never for remote reppage but it happened once.

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

How long is a rope?

It obviously depends on what those 3 other persons are in. If 3 frigates, cruiser or battleships, I should need 1. If they are at least 1 carrier, then I should ibvously need more.

The same thing naturally goes for the other gang sizes apart from that a gang of 5 is something that will be a stand up fight for a carrier today if they are n BS, so against a gang of 10 battleships, I wouldnt go in in a carrier without some decent backup. Against a gang of 50, you are to very little use if you are a lone carrier, so I would like a support gang that is of the same greatness as their gang.

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

I think this is the same question as #2, so I guess I have to answer again. Against 5 people in non-capitals it will be a good fight if they 5 people you meet are somewhat competent. If they are remote rep fitted and have some kind of neut or nos on there, the BS will win. Against 10 bs you will never win today.

Against cruisrs or below I cannot lose since I can tank all their damage until they go blue.

4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

I think I should be able to kill alot of ships regardless of my skill count or what ship I am in :)
What I think you mean is, "Should bigger ships be allowed to kill alot of smaller ships because they are bigger" and they answer of that is of course "yes". Why would anyone want to have a larger ship otherwise? And afaik know more or less all ships in EVE are combat ships and every single one of those follow the formula "1 big > a few small".

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

Both carriers and moms have a very good balance as it is today. Maybe you should increase the sig radios a bit on fighters "guns" so that they are effective against capitals, a little bit less effective on BS and very ineffective against crusiers/BC. Today they are excellent against capitals and bs and so so against cruisers.

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

DPS machine and hauler. The logistical aspect is just not implemented with a decent enough thought for it to work. Ie, locking time of 15 seconds against a friendy is about 14 seconds to much for remote reppage to be worthwile as long as it is medium sized engagements or higher.

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

Yes and no. The logistics side of the ship is only used for spider-tanks or other cruisers more or less. And against POS sieges as well, but that is about it. The hauling side should maybe be reduced for motherships and carriers a bit and the remote assistance side should be improved.

[b]8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect?

As I wrote in the other thread, nothing at all would validate this drone change since 5 drones are a joke in DPS and the logistical aspect can never match a 75% nerf in DPS for a mom no matter how godly it becomes. What incentive would you have for taking moms or carriers into combat? Unless they get +1100mm scan res or something like that, they will only be able to rep each other, which ofc would only mean that if they show up, they do the same differance as staying home.

Catamarack
Minmatar
World Domination Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:17:00 - [112]
 

I was almost ready to purchase my carrier when I saw the first of the possible nerfs. I'm glad to see so much discussion about them and all but I think I'll be waiting on my purchase til things settle down with them again. I was mainly looking to buy one for hauling from 0.0 to low sec and vice versa and occassionally using them for fleet ops and such. I just don't want to see them limited so much. I have no problems having to re-kit the ship for hauling or for fighting. That seems quite viable for some of the things I've seen proposed. Add a mid slot that can be changed out to change from more drone bay or corp hangar space or ship hangar array. That would limit the ship from being so multi-purpose all at once and make people gear up for their what they want to do at the time. But hey, it's just a suggestion. I can fly it but don't and won't now til I see what's going on with them. Time to change skills for the time being.

Emsigma
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:21:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Emsigma on 24/10/2007 04:23:58
Boop for dual postings :(

Chronnick Bladerunner
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:37:00 - [114]
 

1.
Tanking for mining and POS fuel/ corp transport..
Contrary to popular belief it is way too vulnerable.

2.
All depends on size and makeup..but given an "average gang" ZERO A gang of 5? ZERO A gang of 10? A complement of 2-3 frigates, 1 logistics or 2 cruisers, 1-2 BC, 1-2 BS so minimum 5 ships total to defend against 10 successfully. A gang of 50? Hmm I think a Cap ship..
Carrier type should give a strong definite advantage in fleet combat.
Against 50 Non-cap ships... should need max 30 support with the bonus/ fighting ability/ support given by the carrier.

3
When I envisioned training for Gallente Carrier I had in mind tanking 6 or more BS's easily.. as SURELY since I can tank 3 BS's a few BC's and perhaps a couple Cruisers indefinitely with my lil Domi... The ALMIGHTY Thanatos with TEN TIMES the SHIELDS, ARMOUR etc.. and THOSE fighters would be nigh like the fist of GOD smiting my foes... But come to find a few BS's can blow you up easy..and the 5 tech I Ogres I use in my Domi take down BS's faster than 7-8 fighters!
Being a ship of 10 times the scale it should have 10 times the staying power no MATTER the ship type.. frigates, destroyers, cruisers and BC,s shouldnt be able to hardly dent it
frigates 5-20 should almost be insta popped..ie:close range flak defence.(maybe smart bomb dmge and range bonus)
10 cruisers or 10 destroyers also should pose negligible threat
5BS vs Carrier= 5 BS wrecks and Carrier @50% Armour
10BS vs Carrier= 10 BS wrecks and Carrier @1% Hull BUT survives!

4.
Of course not.. If I were to spend "lots of time and money" on training skill time for a ship say a Hulk, I wouldn't expect to be able to kill large amounts of ships.

5.
From my limited experience they have 30-50% of what they should have solo.. The role is fine the dps Sux. there is NO defence. you just sit there and die.

6.
FIGHTERS.. rain death down from a distance with preferably LOADSof fighters..or fewer very strong..very fast..high damage ones, with logistics support of course, for fleet.

7. No

8.
ALL of the above is a start

"The carrier is capable of launching one aircraft every 20 seconds."
I wouldnt mind taking 20 secs to launch a fighter if I could have 5-10 wings of 5 fighters each! CONTROLLED BY ME as well as assignable ;-)

As a small guide/hint/ food for thought, heres the real thing!

AIRCRAFT
The 50 TACAIR air wing includes up to 82 aircraft. Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks

MISSILES
The more recently built carriers are armed with three Raytheon GMLS Mk 29 eight-cell launchers for Nato Seasparrow surface-to-air
The carriers are also fitted with the Rolling Airframe Missile system, which provides short-range defense against incoming anti-ship missiles

GUNS
There are four 20mm Phalanx six-barrelled Mk 15 close-in weapon systems

COUNTERMEASURES
Decoys include four Super Rapid Bloom Off-board Chaff 6-barrelled Mk 36 decoy launchers, which deploy infrared flares and chaff, SSTDS torpedo defense system and AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures

The Raytheon AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare system detects hostile radar emissions by two sets of antennae and the system analysis the pulse repetition rate, the scan mode, the scan period, and the frequency. The system identifies the threat and direction, provides a warning signal and interfaces to the ship's countermeasures systems.

USS Nimitz,has been fitted with the SSDS Mk2 Mod 0 ship self defense system, developed by Raytheon. The SSDS will provide automated self-defense against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) by integrating and co-ordinating the shipís weapon and electronic warfare systems.
PLease make it UBER!! CAP ships SHOULD Be!

prathe
Minmatar
Omega Enterprises
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:16:00 - [115]
 

from a nyx pilot perspective

1. What do you use your carrier for? Name all the activities you use it for (ALL activities).

supply of pos's , supply of empire goods to 0.0 - and vice versa , capital support and gang management

2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against a gang of 3? A gang of 5? A gang of 10? A gang of 50?

no less than 50 in a "hot" situation , in easy mode 5-10 is nice if they are quality

3. Do you think you should be able to go 1 vs 5 and win? How about 1 v 10? In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?

1v5 yes
1v10 yes
i think that given the size and power of a mother ship a fleet of no less than 50 sub capital ships should be required or 5 capitals


4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

my offensive power does not give me then ultimate deathgrip on hostile fleets i benefit from their poor organisation and deployment . and yes i can kill large amounts but in relity it's not instant it takes a great deal of time

5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

enough

6. What do you believe a carriers role is?

as a fleet command and control vessel with the ability to send an alliance's military power to hostile space to whatever end my high command requires . to supply and maintain a fleet and to disuade enemy reprisal while providing a safe have for friendlies

7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?

yes and no it does the logistics thing well and so on but docking facilites should allow repair while docked automatically

8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect? Increased Repair Range? Increased Repair Amount? A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy? The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated? Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep? (add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)

i would institute auto repair feature which can be sent to any pilot at the exact moment of a braodcast for help . auto fighter delagation to any pilots designated by group squad wing or ship type in gang . increased jump range and tankablility subject to configuration . the ability to view the battle field in a "simple " mode like the zoomed out view in homeworld 2 making the entire combat experience more streamlined and userfriendly while sacrificing the eye candy for maximum playability and performance . the ability to switch my own mods on the fly without assistance of another cap ship or pos .

Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:34:00 - [116]
 

Ok now since it seems the devs are watching this post then it would be a logical place for discussion.

The reason CCP seems to have an issue with carriers is because they call them a master of all traits in their latest blog. If they still believe that something needs to give and there needs to be changes on these vessels it then becomes a case of damage limitation.

CCP, as too many forum posts to mention have demonstrated, the general feeling of outrage at the original proposalswas a direct result of your intent to disable their offensive capabilities. If you canít look here for a change then you must consider other alternatives.

Here are my proposals at a sort of compromise.

1. Leave their offensive power as it is

As previously discussed carriers offensive power is perfectly balanced. This must not change. They are not solopwnmobiles as most people agree. (Apologies to the noobs but itís a fact. An arazu or a gang fitted with sensor damps can paralyze a carrier) If CCP can just leave sensor damps as they are this will not change. Motherships should remain immune to EW as this is the benefit of the price tag.

2. Rethink their support role all together

A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donít freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (címon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonít get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.

3. Shift their logistical role completely.

Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.

To sum up
Introduce new capital ships for capital repping on stations and other caps. Push harder down the lines splitting hauling and carriers and introduce better tools and ships to deal with the gap that would create. And finally and most importantly stay well away from any changes you are even thinking about making to carriers drone/offensive capabilities.

All comments welcome



Coolgamer
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:52:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Coolgamer on 24/10/2007 06:06:14
Edited by: Coolgamer on 24/10/2007 05:57:11
First i want to say i DO NOT WANT any change to the carrier, it is fine as it is, i just reply honestly to your question, but dont use them to include me in people that want this nerf to be.
I'm replying more to tell why i dont want this nerf to be


1. What do you use your carrier for?

in my order of importance :
a-Front line battle (no like pos sitting)
b-Anti-capitals battle (anti dread boat)
c-Pos repairer
d-Fleet support with logistic
e-Hauling


2. How much support do you feel you should need when you field your carrier for combat when going against :
a gang of 3?
none
A gang of 5?
2-3
A gang of 10?
5-7
A gang of 50?
50


3. Do you think you should be able to go :
1 vs 5 and win?
no

How about 1 v 10?
no

In other words, how many people do you believe you should be able to kill alone taking ship types into consideration. How many BS/BC's/Cruisers/Etc?
1 vs 1-3 - either 3bs or 3bc
under bs&bc, cruiser size is a problem for carriers, recons ARE the problem for carriers, and i dont expect to pop frig size with a carrier (unless it's slow and in range of my web/scram)


4. Do you believe that you should be able to kill a large amount of ships simply because you spent a lot of money and skill time for the ship, regardless of it's designed role (this does not just include carriers)?

This argument is nonsense, it is the same for people in BS using faction/officer, for inties using faction/snakes and so on.


5. Do you believe carriers have too little (solo) firepower, too much, or just enough?

just enough, their dps is more than a bs but less than 2bs


6. What do you believe a carriers role is?
-Combat fleet support with fighters on grid /or/ off grid (choice of delegating or not), then Fleet logistic support


7. Do you believe the carrier achieves this role through it's current abilities?
Yes


8. What would you change about the carrier if this drone change came into effect?

Increased Repair Range?
no since i will sit at pos with such a change that will be a ton of micromanagement to handle in battle

Increased Repair Amount?
no since i will sit at pos with such a change that will be a ton of micromanagement to handle in battle

A Triage buff to allow control of the 5 fighters/drones you're able to deploy?
Triage is fine as it is

The ability to control 5 additional fighters/drones if Triage Mode is activated?
No triage is a "buff" so the fighter penalty sound ok for me

Less Cap needed for self rep/remote rep?
Yes definitly, since with those changes the carrier will just be a logistic sitting duck in battle, loosing its damage bonus when delegating fighters (what will the skill fighters be with that nerf? what will the thanatos damage bonus be?)

(add what you believe would be a change worthy of the suggested drone change)
-> I WANT A SYSTEM that dont let us spend tons of time in micromanagement loosing EVERY precious seconds in a fight delegating and redelegating and redelegating fighters, to the proper individuals WE CHOOSE, without having to ask who we can delegate more fighters when they are dead/not in system/not responding coz laggy... Problem after is who to reassign since i'm sure you know that in the heat of a fight ppl dont ask for fighter delegation.




(thank you CCP alt btw? Cool )

El'jonson
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:02:00 - [118]
 

Like I proposed in my earlier post I can't see why the carrier still can't do a bit of everything as long as you can choose through modules what you lose/gain. You are fitting for a fight fine u fit 'battle command center' this means a stupid ship bay like 10,000 no corp hanger bay but u get to use more fighters/new types and maybe a slight bump to tanking and eccm. You want to fit it 4 suport u fit 'logistics command center', nerfs your drones boosts your reps ship bay and lets u fit clone bay and maybe some form of jump portel?

Not sure how easy/hard to do but these could be just like rigs so it could open up a kind of tech tree for the carrier, u choose a combat carrier u fit the combat mod and then that will allow you to fit a range of other 'rig' type mods to use new fighter types or upgrade tank etc making each carrier setup slightly different and useful in different ways. When I say rig type I mean they don't die when changed this would b way to expensive and bloody annoying.

The point is people won't be quite so angry if you let them choose what to lose and gain on their hard earned ship.

ps pls don't nerf gallente drone ships Very Happy

ElCoCo
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:19:00 - [119]
 

Oh I have a question for everyone here.
Does anyone actualy put warfare links on his carrier? Very Happy

Coolgamer
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:24:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: ElCoCo
Oh I have a question for everyone here.
Does anyone actualy put warfare links on his carrier? Very Happy


i do here, i dont use much drones control unit (1 or 2 max), but i use a various type of mods in my high (cloak&smart for classics, then armor/or/shield transfer, warfare link, heavy neutralizer)


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only