open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] Nerf Carriers - reduce numbers of fighters they deploy
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:40:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 26/05/2008 12:47:24
Dread: Offensive capital for killing other capitals and POSes. To fulfill its full potential has to be in siege which not only costs stront but makes the Dread very vulnerable due to very strong drawbacks while in this mode. Has difficulty in killing any non-capitals.

Carrier: No drawbacks at all. Has a great tank, great damage output, high ECM resistence, and in gangs with spider tanking very very difficult to kill. It has no problem at all melting sub-capitals with either fighters (vs BS or Caps) or with drones (vs smaller ships). It provides great logistics, great pos repping (two races anyway), station repping, ship transporter, ship maintainence, and is great for both defence and offense.

However, the real problem is not just that carriers are just too versatile in both defence and offence with no real drawbacks, but that once you get X number of carriers deployed the system becomes unstable due to the sheer number of fighters deployed. Combined with the advantage of the defender in laggy situations and spider tanking also, there can be no way to defeat them other than bringing X times Y caps.

Often a system will not be able to even handle having 150 caps in a system due to fighter lag, and yet most alliances can easily field over 100 caps. When you factor in coalitions of up to 10-15 alliances (which are very common) you turn eve into a game of waiting while watching a film on the tv.

Of course if the caps all do try and fight, you click modules then watch a film then post on out of game forums to see if you are still alive.

In order that Dreads become be the choice for offence and Cariers for defence, carriers should have a reduction (or elimination) in the number of fighters they can deploy.

This then could also be applied to Motherships also so that perhaps motherships could deploy either 5 or 10 fighters.

CCP themseleves suggested something similer to this a while back and the playerbase didn't like it. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider reducing the number of fighters now that the number of capitals and super-capitals has grown to the extent it has, and it will continue to grow until every 0.0 pilot has a cap alt. Carriers are now so cheap that the only excuse for not having one is that you haven't finished training for one yet.

Sorry if my post rambles on, and hope it is readable. Also, this post represents my views and not the views of my alliance (which can field significant number of caps and super-caps)

Syberbolt8
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:55:00 - [2]
 

cant support this, carriers arnt the end all beat all you make them out to be, nor are they WTFSOLOPWNBBQ ships you would try to call them,there dmg is slightly higher then BS's, with a capital tank, and it takes a little over a year to even fly one well, no need to nerf it. If you do reduce the fighters then a dmg bonus needs to be added to offset the dmg lost

Lag is the issue not the carrier's, sure they add to the lag but the same can be said about any battle ships with 125m3 of drone space and bandwidth, this game just cant take the stress of a 300 man to 900 man fleet battle with or without drones, its an issue CCP have said they are working on, changing the way the server processes the data, moving combat to its own node, and chat, markets etc onto there own nodes should help some, plus new hardware. Capital's are supposed to be strong, they take alot to fly well, and at 1.2 bil isk to fully buy and fit that arnt as cheap as you lead anyone to believe, at least very few people earn that easy in a week.

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:01:00 - [3]
 

carriers have great tanks... LOL. BULLSH*T

Thanatos tanks 3200-3400 dps with faction EANM's.

3 x gank fitted hyperions = 1200 dps each.

3600 dps between them, + 2 logistics ships.

carrier down!

you my friend, clearly do not fly a carrier.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:10:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 26/05/2008 13:19:14

First point: most alliances have either capital production schemes, or capital replacement schemes, or both, vastly reducing the cost of getting, and of losing capitals.

Second point: Seems like a reasonable tank to me for one ship with a decent damage output. Enough to deagress and redock if it need's to, and dock/undock games are the only place you are likely to see a single carrier. Even then it's at least two carriers 99% of the time.

Problem is not one carrier, it's when you have multiple carriers. You don't even get hotdropped by single carriers anymore.

In a single day (i'll use yesterday as an example) roaming lowsec and 0.0 had three seperate engagements against multiple carriers at undock point: one in lowsec, one in NPC 0.0, one in Alliance 0.0. That's a normal everyday roam. In war seeing less than 60 caps per side means you are in the wrong system.

Edit: No, I don't fly carriers. Nor dreads. I do fight them daily though, as well as supercaps. Including two deaths to titans, and being on the killmail of one titan.

As for close range battleships - it depends on the gang makeup and numbers. Obviously the best way to kill caps is to kill cyno jammer then drop in your own capitals. Then you don't need 5* the numbers.

Darriele
Minmatar
THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:15:00 - [5]
 

There is no need to nerf the protoss carriers :)
(laugh as much as you want)

Seiver D'amross
Subach-Tech
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:34:00 - [6]
 

CCP tryed to do what you suggest and all of the people who know anything about caps gave a resounding Frack off and it never happend, so dont bother bringing it back up.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.26 15:27:00 - [7]
 

If lag is your concern, I'd accept the old Drone Interfacing fix - change the "+1 fighter controlled" on the carrier skill and DCUs to "+20% fighter damage/HP" instead(with the caveat that they don't multiply, to keep current numbers intact). But the ships are not unbalanced at all - they do about what they're supposed to do.

Slickdrac
Minmatar
M Takumi Research and Production
East Empire Trade Federation
Posted - 2008.05.26 16:34:00 - [8]
 

Carriers are defensive ships, they only put out as much damage as a gank BS. They have a decently strong tanks. They repair other things. That sounds to me more defensive than offensive.

Oh, I see, they can kill things in groups is the issue here.
Originally by: Rocket X

3 x gank fitted hyperions = 1200 dps each.

3600 dps between them, + 2 logistics ships.

carrier down!



HYPERIONS CAN KILL THINGS IN GROUPS, NERF NERF NERF.

Same thing...

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:03:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Edited by: Cautet on 26/05/2008 13:19:14

First point: most alliances have either capital production schemes, or capital replacement schemes, or both, vastly reducing the cost of getting, and of losing capitals.



Your point could be used to argue that ANY ship is easily replaceable.


Quote:

Second point: Seems like a reasonable tank to me for one ship with a decent damage output. Enough to deagress and redock if it need's to, and dock/undock games are the only place you are likely to see a single carrier. Even then it's at least two carriers 99% of the time.



There is an issue with docking, but plated BS and dreads are just as concerned. Let's argue about this in another thread, but this isn't an argument for discussing about carriers.


Quote:

Problem is not one carrier, it's when you have multiple carriers. You don't even get hotdropped by single carriers anymore.

In a single day (i'll use yesterday as an example) roaming lowsec and 0.0 had three seperate engagements against multiple carriers at undock point: one in lowsec, one in NPC 0.0, one in Alliance 0.0. That's a normal everyday roam. In war seeing less than 60 caps per side means you are in the wrong system.



Looks to me like you'd prefer to leave big alliances fighting big ennemies, and join a smaller one. Or join a FW militia. Anyway, you shouldn't be part of a 0.0 major power, at war against other 0.0 major powers, then complain that you see too many expensive ships being used...

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.05.26 23:32:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 26/05/2008 23:44:33
Edited by: Cautet on 26/05/2008 23:40:26
Ok, last reply, seeing as no-one agrees with me, which is fine.

However, some of you are deliberately misreading my replies, so I will clarify.

I have two seperate issues with carriers.
1. deploying as many fighters as they do causes lag. More than 1 ship of any other type. In fact its at least 5 times as much lag as any other 1 ship. With multiple carriers you obviously get huge amounts of lag. This means that where previously you could have a decent sized fight, you can't now.

2. They have no disadvantages. They do gank BS level of damage on BS, and very good damage also on smaller ships while at the same time having a good tank AND with spider tanking they are very hard to kill. AND they are logistics monsters as well as the other uses they have.

The comments about multiple ships - if there was one carrier in each alliance obiovusly there would not be a problem. Some ships only shine in numbers - for example ecm ships can't do anything solo. With carriers if they were very rare there wouldn't be a problem. But when you get 200+ in a system then there becomes a huge problem.

The cheapness of the ship is relevant to numbers in the game, and potential numbers to come in the game, due to the fact they have no disadvantages and so everyone is training for one.

But anyway, I am a whiner, I should quit my alliance, etc etc. Even though CCP have brought this up before, and I assumed that people would now realise this is a problem, as carrier numbers have increased and alliance warface laggyness moans are in every thread on every part of the forums.

You have a right to disagree. I would have preferred people actualy understood what I was trying to say, but maybe I was not clear.

Edit: One more thing, I answered a comment about 3 theoretical dps ships with 2 logisticall support ships killing 1 carrier (on paper anyway) by saying why only 1 carrier, and where does this engagement take place (engagements take place on gates, at stations, in belts, and at poses - pretty much no-where else). So yes it is relevant where it takes place because its a bs argument.

My mention of why only 1 carrier: Why 5 ships vs 1? Does that make something balanced? Of course not. Even two carriers would wipe the floor with them and what other class of ships is I win as the carrier (except the motherships and titans). But I must be a moron for thinking that 2 ships shouldn't be able to easily kill 6 ships with no risk.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.27 00:29:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Cautet
1. deploying as many fighters as they do causes lag. More than 1 ship of any other type. In fact its at least 5 times as much lag as any other 1 ship. With multiple carriers you obviously get huge amounts of lag. This means that where previously you could have a decent sized fight, you can't now.


So because lag exists, a ship needs to be nerfed?

Originally by: Cautet
2. They have no disadvantages. They do gank BS level of damage on BS, and very good damage also on smaller ships while at the same time having a good tank AND with spider tanking they are very hard to kill. AND they are logistics monsters as well as the other uses they have.


They also cost over 1 billion isk, even with alliance help. Personally, if I spend over a billion on a ship I expect it to take a billion worth of ships to take me down. Suprise though, 3-5 battleships can take down a carrier and that's barely 500mil worth of ships.

There's a reason the devs dropped this idea, it was a bad idea. You rarely see them deployed in small groups because 10 ships can easily destroy a carrier, even a single dreadnaught in siege will kill a carrier. Get a group 6 to 10 carriers and their spider tank can still be broken by 60-100 ships. There are plenty of ways to fix lag other than nerfing carriers, and plenty of ways to kill carriers without nerfing them.

Qlanth
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.27 01:06:00 - [12]
 

I disagree, do not nerf them, but do limit the number of deployable drones.

Instead increase their damage to decrease on lag. DCU should give 20% more damage, Carrier level should give 20% more damage, make fighters 25m^3 bandwidth.

Fighter blobs suck ass.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.27 06:32:00 - [13]
 

Does Admiral Adama only launch 5 Vipers, for no other reasons, then to reduce Lag for the Cylons?Razz

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.05.27 08:05:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
Does Admiral Adama only launch 5 Vipers, for no other reasons, then to reduce Lag for the Cylons?Razz


This :-)) made me laugh ...

To the OP. Why nerf offensive power ? You complain about their tank and spider tanking abilities.

As the carrier is a defensive and logistic ship in the first place, nerf it's own tank so it has to depend on a support fleet for defense (this should be the case for any capital and supercapital with exception of dreads).

Then you have a ballanced ship that has one serious drawback.

However I do not think such s nerf is needed.

J'Mkarr Soban
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:19:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
To the OP. Why nerf offensive power ?
He's not. He's suggesting nerfing offensive tactics (yes same power, but less number to assign to various wings).

Reducing the number of launchable drones was a big thing, because it affected everyone, and reduces lag by a huge margin. This would only affect carries, which despite what you are saying isn't going to reduce lag that much apart from where the fighting is taking place.

And the spider-tank argument is moot - you can spider-tank anything to make it harder to kill.

(This thread actually represents what I'm worried about with this forum - there's a Features and Ideas forum to discuss this kind of idea first, before bringing it here. That way we can weed out the ridiculous ideas using common sense elsewhere instead of cluttering up this forum.)

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:25:00 - [16]
 

lolz. epic.

seriously, they dont have amazing tanks, a well fitted battleship can do more dps. 1 scorpion and an arazu can shut a carrier down.

the drawbacks are obvious, they're a pain in the arse to move, they're a pain in the arse to fly, they are so freaking slow that i could walk to the moon and back before they warp.

but if 4-5 BS's can break the tank on a carrier i cant see what ur problem is. i really dont.

Seetesh
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:28:00 - [17]
 

Not this again, ccp knows how we feel about it really, and carriers are quite easy to kill.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:09:00 - [18]
 

Reducing the versatility of carriers and forcing their pilots to make the same decisions as everybody else at the fitting screen would be a good thing, but reducing them to 5 drones at a time wouldn't achieve this. It would just be a straight nerf to their offensive capabilities.

If the lag generated by fighter clouds is decided to be a game breaking issue, there is always the idea I suggested last time this topic came around, which is to replace individual fighters with a single 'fighter squadron' entity made up of all deployed fighters and with its HP/DPS multiplied accordingly. No loss in effectiveness, and far fewer individual entities on the grid for the server to keep track of.

RazorCRO
Caldari
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:18:00 - [19]
 

Carriers do not have so great tanks at all.

What CCP needs is to fix fighters code, so node doesnt lag out once they are out. After that, carriers will die like flyes.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2008.05.27 13:42:00 - [20]
 

Fighters are one of the defining features of carriers.
Carriers might be too versatile in the current game, but rather then nerf the ability to use fighters, remove the carrier's ability to use drones. Carrier fielding drones has allways seemed odd to me(and with fighter sizes, ridiculous amounts of drones can be loaded for each fighter you replace, 200 heavy drones for each fighter.)
Fighters causing lag is not a good reason to nerf said feature.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.27 13:58:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 27/05/2008 13:58:55
This could be an idea.

Completely remove the Dronebay of Carriers and replace it with specialised Fighter-Hangar. Also add different Fighter-Types for the Carrier to use, so a Carrier Pilot has to decide which type of Fighters he wants to load, before undocking. Some ideas for these specialised Fighter types:

- Interceptor-Fighters: Extremely fast, webbifier effect, but next to no damage (anti-nano)

- Space Superiority Fighters: Like the original Fighters, can also being set to a defence mode, were they try to kill hostile Fighters.

- Fighter-Bomber: Slower and more vulnerable then other Fighters, but they launch small bombs, which have no AoE but have devastating effects on their targests. After each attack a Fighter-Bomber has to return to the carrier to rearm. The bombs are most powerful when they are used against Capital Ship targets and their effectiveness ist greatly reduced against small ships.

These are just Fighter-types I can think of, at the moment, I am also sure that I will be flamed by huge numbers of nano-fanboys out there.Twisted Evil

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:24:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Cautet


I have two seperate issues with carriers.
1. deploying as many fighters as they do causes lag. More than 1 ship of any other type. In fact its at least 5 times as much lag as any other 1 ship. With multiple carriers you obviously get huge amounts of lag. This means that where previously you could have a decent sized fight, you can't now.



I agree many fighters deployed does cause lag. This is no reason to nerf a ship. This is reason for CCP to look into ways of reducing lag that doesn't affect the game in any way.

Originally by: Cautet

2. They have no disadvantages. They do gank BS level of damage on BS, and very good damage also on smaller ships while at the same time having a good tank AND with spider tanking they are very hard to kill. AND they are logistics monsters as well as the other uses they have.



Carriers are their own disadvantage. Carriers are very large and as such are not very manoeuvrable and prone to expect the maximum damage that any ship can fire at them. Carriers tank isnít very good at all and can be broken with just 2 battleships. Any ship can be spider tanked not just carriers. Carriers are very good logistics ships but this is difficult to implement without trading off some of your drone control units. I agree they can do many jobs but they are only really any good doing one thing at a time.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.05.27 21:24:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban

(This thread actually represents what I'm worried about with this forum - there's a Features and Ideas forum to discuss this kind of idea first, before bringing it here. That way we can weed out the ridiculous ideas using common sense elsewhere instead of cluttering up this forum.)


Well, pretty much this idea was mooted by CCP to the players a while back. So it's hardly cluttering up the forum, Dip****.

But anyway, it seems that the people who have been involved in serious fleet battle see the problem with the number of fighters that can be deployed, although they do not agree with the fix I suggested. So, perhaps rather than responding in a negative manner, people can let this thread die, and if they have a better solution, they can post it. Because fighter lag from 100 caps, if you have ever experienced it is pretty game breaking.

I hope as everyone does that CCP fixes all lag, but this is a particular cause of lag that could and should be dealt with, even if it involes upping fighter str and damage and reducing no deployed. If you don't believe how bad it can get you haven't been in a proper fleet battle. "deploy fighters" on comms = desync.

I have personally been in a situation where this has benefited me, and I still advocate some dealing with the issue, though my suggestion obviously is not the right one.

Havohej
Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics
Posted - 2008.05.27 21:27:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
Does Admiral Adama only launch 5 Vipers, for no other reasons, then to reduce Lag for the Cylons?Razz


This.

Besides, weren't Carriers already nerfed?

MrRx7
Amarr
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.29 08:47:00 - [25]
 

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=619601&page=1


71 pages of people saying no to you.


Carriers are fine the way they are, if anything they need to have their and mothership's tank worked on. 2 separate times even with full dead space fits (ask agmar about this), a Nyx with rigs, and implants can go from 100% across to board to 20% armor in 2 minutes.


 

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