open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Discuss Zulupark's carrier dev blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.26 22:23:00 - [1]
 

As shown by Zulupark and Nozh's dev blogs last fall, the developers feel that 0.0 warfare is becoming too capital centric, and measures should be taken to bring EVE combat back to the way it was before Revelations 1. Many players did not receive the blogs well, yet CCP firmly retains its stance on the issue.

What I would like is an opportunity for the CSM delegates, as representatives of the EVE playerbase, to reconcile their differences on the topic with the developers. It'd be an opportunity to report players' feelings one way or the other on the topic, point out things that are wrong and other ideas that hit the nail on the head, and see what future plans they have in mind for carriers and motherships. It's a chance for people to express their concerns about the issues with 0.0 combat and what they would like carriers to be used for, and if they have to be changed at all.

Denying this would be a tremendous waste of the opportunity available through the CSM.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:18:00 - [2]
 

Bane, this question has been asked and answered at a CSM meeting. The vote to escalate went against you in that meeting and for good reason. You were trying to get the CSM to agree to let you present any number of suggestions to CCP without specifying what those suggestions would be. The suggestions you did let slip were objectionable. For instance, you advocated decreasing the time it takes to train for capital ships. What do you hope to gain from this thread?

I see no indication that CCP has adopted the stance you speak of. If I recall, the dev blogs from last year were concerned with Carriers, not all capitals. You're right, though, those blogs were not received well. That's a bit of an understatement given some of the inventive suggestions for the demise of CCP Zulupark. I'm sure everyone was kidding, but there was still a marked level of animosity in the player base.

The main concern CCP had was that the Carriers were becoming a jack of all trades. CCP nerfed the Carriers ability to be a jump drive cargo hauler and they seem to satisfied that took away the do everything title for the Carriers.

Windjammer

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:35:00 - [3]
 

I agree that this is an important topic in general, but this proposal needs some specifics as it's unclear what the CSM would be recommending to CCP in their discussion.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:04:00 - [4]
 

Quote:

What I would like is an opportunity for the CSM delegates, as representatives of the EVE playerbase, to reconcile their differences on the topic with the developers

So you just want to discuss with the developers?
Quote:
It'd be an opportunity to report players' feelings one way or the other on the topic, point out things that are wrong and other ideas that hit the nail on the head, and see what future plans they have in mind for carriers and motherships

Those ideas would have to be presented before we talk to the developers. Else we will we wasting time.
Quote:
It's a chance for people to express their concerns about the issues with 0.0 combat and what they would like carriers to be used for, and if they have to be changed at all.

So now you went from wanting an open discussion about carriers and motherships, to talking about 0.0 warfare? Why don't we just talk about everything you feel like, then?

Quote:
Denying this would be a tremendous waste of the opportunity available through the CSM.

Accepting this would be a tremendous waste of time. It would be nothing else than a small opportunity for you to discuss with the devs, with no reason.


Bane Glorious
Ministry of War

Posted - 2008.07.31 04:14:00 - [5]
 

Okay, for the sake of clarification, I’m going to elucidate you all on what the matter at hand is.

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority, is that carriers are becoming “the new battleship”. It’s a matter of simple MUDflation and the progression of scope creep in EVE Online. The issue is not solo carriers, but fleets of carriers. Yes, carriers need support, but right now the best support for carriers is unquestionably yet more carriers. We want carriers to be on the front lines, but we do not want carriers to be the front lines themselves.

In order for developers to maintain interest among veteran players, they increase the marketability of their product by continuously releasing new features with new expansions. As time progresses, the levels (explicitly or implicitly) achievable by older players moves ahead farther and farther, yet newer players (or in many cases, simply players who fly ships that require less skillpoints) remain at the same initial starting point. This is known as Scope Creep, and it is bad for the game because CCP does not create ships so that they can be discarded after the next expansion; they want to see their roles preserved and they want to see time and money spent modeling and coding paying off as an investment. Overall, Scope Creep leaves many players who do not want to participate in the constant vertical migration out in the cold. Factional Warfare, released in the last expansion, is an admirable attempt to turn back scope creep and give new players and smaller ship pilots something to do, but it does not address the core issues with the most profound instance of Scope Creep in EVE, referred to as “Capital Ships Online”.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:16:00 - [6]
 

To substantiate the importance of this topic, allow me to show you some samples of developer quotes taken from EVE-TV interviews from the PVP Tournament in quarter 1 this year, viewable here http://www.eve-online.com/evetv/tunein.asp:

Oveur: “It started quite slowly…what we are seeing, for example, is carriers becoming the new battleship, which fit all roles, which is kind of going against the whole nature of EVE. …What we are looking at now is that we…want all warfare [to be viable], starting at the smallest [ships], which is probably the most fun… While capital warfare and structure sieges are more boring and drawn out, and usually lags the **** out of you.”

Hammerhead: “I know where people are coming from when people say it feels like it’s ‘Capital Ships Online’, but, I mean, that’s not really our vision, where bigger is better. We really want everyone to have a role, for all ships to fit in…Where…you need a mixed fleet in order to get things done. We don’t really want just everybody to train for a year to get a capital ship, and then you’ve got this entire fleet of capital ships… [with that] being the best thing [available for players] to do. We would like to see, if you have this big fleet of nothing but capital ships and then a mixed fleet with diverse things going on… these guys (the mixed fleet) would trump these guys (the fleet of solely carriers).”

Zulupark: “I think a lot of the population already knows what I think about capital ships and particularly carriers as being too versatile and being able to do way too many things at the same time. However, we have come to realize that a lot of people have capital ships and a lot of people want capital ships. With the toolset we’ve implemented, we’ve penalized them somewhat in the logistical department…and we’ve introduced the Heavy Interdictor to counter them jumping away, especially motherships and titans, and at this moment we are just sitting back and seeing how those two changes, which are pretty miniscule, are affecting the way people use their capital ships… Personally, I don’t like [capship warfare] that much. I thought it was a lot more fun when it just was gangs of battleships doing things. But obviously as EVE progresses…bigger is usually better. The [question] is, do we want it that way, or do we want to make capital ships take on the supporting role of smaller ships while they (subcapitals) do their thing? It’s just a discussion that we have to have, both within CCP and with the community.

Here’s a recent player opinion:
“Of all of the items on that list, the two I *didn't* expect to fail were the nighthawk grid issue and capital ships online. Seriously…I own (and am skilled for) both a carrier and a dreadnought, and even I think something should be done about the damned things. They're crowding out normal PvP in all too many cases.”

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:18:00 - [7]
 

Carrier Change Ideas
Over the past year, many suggestions have been raised for how to change carriers. Some were good, some not so good. Here are a few sample suggestions. One from Zarch Aldain from The Establishment, one from Ernest Graefenberg from RAZOR Alliance, and one from yours truly.

Zarch Aldain’s idea: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=632225

Although it does satisfy the developers’ criteria, this idea is a little rough around the edges and needs some polish. To its credit, the idea was developed very shortly after the Zulupark devblog that sparked many discussions surrounding this issue.

Ernest Graefenberg’s idea: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=6#154

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
- Carriers retain all current TQ fighter bonuses/attributes, 50% capacitor boost and EW immunity. They and motherships cease to be remote-repairable however.
This breaks the scaling issue of the remote-rep chain while maintaining the 'interesting/fun' aspects of carriers and eliminating the excessive EW vulnerability of non-supercaps.
- Motherships get 2 extra highslots to compensate somewhat, allowing for easier Triage and Remote ECM Burst


While I don’t necessarily agree with the premise entirely, the focus here is clearly on the remote-rep “spidertank”. Here, a fleet of carriers should (in theory) be unable to compete with a mixed fleet because the mixed fleet will be able to break the tanks of individual carriers.

Then there’s my idea, which has not been posted anywhere except for in a scrapheap thread months ago which didn’t seem to get any attention, based loosely off of Ernest Graefenberg’s idea (above), explained below. If there's a detail in there that's just not going to jibe, feel free to discard it.

The idea is still sort of rough around the edges, but I believe the basic problems with carriers are:

• Drone Control Units are not useful enough (people usually only fit 0-2 of these, usually just 1 because not everyone has carrier V)
• Capital Logistics Modules are too powerful on a slot-for-slot basis, and people get as much as they want with one or maybe two, since more than that will be unsustainable or more than necessary.
• With 2-3 slots just sitting around, carriers can just fit Heavy NOS/Neutralizers, Large Smartbombs, and so forth, which normal subcapital ships cannot fit and sustain easily at all but are extremely vulnerable to. A heavy neutralizer or some large smartbombs aren't really hard to manage for a capital, but no subcapital can just slap on some smartbombs and a neut and not flinch.
• Conversely, some capital modules, such as Drone Control Units, Capital Shield Transporters, and Capital Energy Transfer Arrays use too much CPU, or at least use more CPU than fitting a Neut, a Large Smartbomb, or whatever, discouraging their use. Smartbombs are a problem unto themselves and worth writing another few pages over.
The basic goals behind the following change are:
• Give greater incentive to fit Drone Control Units by making the damage increase more significant
• Force players to specialize a rep setup by splitting a single rep into smaller portions; therefore, a player will have to fit two or three reps to get the same effect as one, meaning less extra highslots laying around
• Incentivize repairing/assisting the support fleet, not just other carriers
• Disincentivize fitting modules that are too effective against subcapitals, such as smartbombs and heavy NOS/neuts.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:19:00 - [8]
 

Admittance:
My ideas for how to modify fighter damage to allow a specialized carrier to do significantly more damage than current need some work. People want to be able to do more damage with fighters if they occupy all of their highslots with drone damage modules, but hardly anyone trains Advanced Drone Interfacing to V (let alone level IV) and 1500 max DPS like now is a little lackluster, and something like 2500 DPS for a carrier (with some lowered ability to hit smaller ships maybe?) could be more reasonable. I don't exactly have a clear idea for how to fix that, though. However, I think my idea for "nerfing" spider tanks and incentivizing repairing support and not other capitals is very good, and something at least similar to it would be integral to the game behaving as the developers envisioned.

Recommended changes:
• At base, carriers can deploy 5 fighters/drones of their own (125mbit/sec bandwidth), but can still delegate up to 10 (including original 5) to gang members with Carrier V. A mothership can use 10 fighters on its own (250mbit/sec bandwidth) at base but has 20 overall to use at once.
• Change DCUs so that they give +2 fighters/drones controllable by the carrier instead of +1, and +50mbit/s bandwidth.
• Introduce new highslot module that does something like
o Disallows fighter delegation to gangmates
o Enables the carrier to use new "bomber" fighters that do 5x the damage of fighters, but have 1000m Signature Resolution for their turrets, are slower, occupy 5000m3 (like a normal fighter), but you can only launch five at once.
o Disrupts the warp and jump drive
o Lasts 5-10 minutes and consumes fuel (or not?) similar to siege mode
o Problem: This makes a carrier's max DPS similar if not the same as a mothership's. Maybe give motherships an extra damage bonus to bombers, so they can do around 3500 DPS (4375 for a Nyx)?
• Consider dividing the drone bay into specific bays: one for ordinary drones and one for fighters and bombers. Make the regular drone bay 1000-2000m3 just in case the fact that carriers can carry thousands of light, medium, and heavy combat and logistics drones bothers you. (it's not really a huge issue for me, but I dunno, it does kind of rub me the wrong way from time to time)
• Reduce Capital Remote Armor Repairer, Capital Shield Transporter, and Capital Energy Transfer Array rep amount and cap use by 1/3 (don't freak out until you get to the end, please)
Vastly reduce CPU requirements for Capital Energy Transfer Arrays, Capital Shield Transporters, and Drone Control Units
• Increase the CPU need for Officer Smartbombs; many officer and faction items are harder to fit than other meta levels, but smartbombs are an exception
• Change Triage module to have something like the following bonuses (note that some bonuses are already there currently):
1. +1000% bonus to Sensor Resolution (faster locking)
2. Immunity to Electronic Warfare
3. Cannot move, warp, or jump (probably, maybe could negotiate the ability to move on grid)
4. 2x bonus to Capital remote rep/shieldtransporter/energytransfer amount (more efficient)
5. 2x bonus to Capital Armor Repairer and Capital Shield Booster amount
6. .5x bonus to Capital Armor Repairer and Capital Shield Booster duration (more repaired, but harder on cap use)
7. Immunity to Capital Remote Armor Repairers, Capital Energy Transfer Arrays, and Capital Shield Transporters (but NOT large, medium, or small ones)
8. 1000x Capacitor need for Electronic Warfare Modules
9. Cannot use its own fighters but can still delegate them to gangmates (probably?)
10. Small boost to capital logistics module range?
• Reduce skill prerequisite for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration to Logistics IV instead of Logistics V

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:20:00 - [9]
 

The idea behind the "5-fighter nerf" was that it was meant to incentivize carriers repairing the support instead of just other carriers. Only the support can use the fighters, and if the support dies, then the fleet has lost their effective total DPS. To prevent this, the carriers have to keep the support alive; basically returning them to their original ideal role. The problem is not just that carriers and motherships can (at least sometimes) operate without support, but that in many cases the best support for carriers is yet more carriers, leading to unwanted alpha-classing.

Carriers aren't used to repair support in battles very commonly now because of lots of things both in and out of player control. People can't rep their support too effectively because of things like lag, where a subcapital ship will be dead by the time the repairer activates, making them want to rep other carriers instead. In addition, carriers always have much higher resistances than subcapitals, making it more efficient (in terms of HP/second) to rep other carriers. Further, carriers are more expensive individually than subcapitals, so people want to rep those since it hurts more to lose a carrier than just a BS.

Making repairers extra worthwhile in triage mode means that carriers have to use triage to gain the real benefits to support, but also means that they can't spider tank their carriers anymore because of the immunity to capital logistics modules. This puts an upper limit on the number of carriers or motherships in a fleet, where at larger fleet sizes (100-200+) they are still somewhat useful, but I imagine people would find it too risky and would not want to bring them out because they would be afraid of getting primaried by an entire fleet and losing their carrier or mothership. To this, I would point out that a standard Archon has 31 times the effective hitpoints of your standard fleet Megathron, and the Archon in triage can repair itself with one capital repairer that repairs as much as four and has the cap use of just two. If a battleship fleet primaries that Archon and the Archon's fleet attacks the enemy battleships, the battleships may have destroyed a carrier worth maybe 2.0 billion ISK altogether, but the Archon's fleet has destroyed at least as much in tech 2-fitted battleships and almost guaranteed substantially more in the same time frame.

If you want to repair other Carriers, you can still triage a carrier and have it repair an ‘attack’ carrier, but if you want to repair a carrier in triage, you have to use subcapitals, such as Logistics cruisers. A carrier in triage can transfer energy and repair armor or shield on a handful of Logistics cruisers, and while that may not be able to keep a carrier alive under a fleet's firepower, it will still prolong the carrier's life at the very least. What's more, with a repairer's power split by three (maybe more, it's up for debate), a carrier can repair multiple ships with greater efficiency but also adjust which modules to activate to retain cap stability. The maximum amount that a carrier could repair remotely has definitely decreased, and now there is a weak link in spider tanking's chain, but overall I think that people could adjust over time and, in the end, accept the benefits of greater efficiency, more ships repairable at once, more granular activation of logistics modules (better cap stability), and more. Still, maybe you could consider adding in a script that gives you basically the same triage module that you have now, just for fun.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:21:00 - [10]
 

It could be the case that they may have to revisit the ewar immunity of motherships, retaining their immunity to conventional warp scramblers but removing the immunity to damps, ECM, and webs, since otherwise there is no weak link in the chain to take advantage of, but whether or not it is necessary is up for debate.

Other little things to consider buffing:
Fighter cost - They're a little on the expensive side. If they got nerfed, maybe it'd be safe enough to make them a bit cheaper?
Skill prerequisites - Carriers require months of skills exclusive to capital ships that have absolutely no benefit to subcapitals, such as Advanced Spaceship Command and Advanced Drone Interfacing. CCP has already tried to alleviate this by introducing the black ops battleship, but still, please consider removing some skill prerequisites, such as Jump Drive Operation V, Advanced Spaceship Command V, and so on. This makes the blow a lot lighter for people who were in the middle of training for capitals but feel disappointed that they're going to be nerfed. And the skill training time is boring and causes harmful stratification between newbies and veterans, and that’s bad enough.
Mothership buffs - Please consider some of the ideas for the Remote ECM Burst and the Clone Vat Bay published in this thread: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=667436

On the whole, there are ideas that will work and ideas that might not fly, but it can be modified appropriately to fit whatever design CCP really wants.


In closing,
I anticipate that there are people out there who will reject these ideas entirely on many unfounded basises. There are people who will disagree simply because I am a goon; because they have a stake in capitals remaining as they are; because they have type B personalities and must white-knight for others; because they fear change (and especially nerfs) intrinsically. To all of these people: you can kiss my black ass.

Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:21:00 - [11]
 

How about we fire zulupark and nozh?

Hitachi Morimoto
Gallente
Synthetic Light Mining Corps.

Posted - 2008.07.31 04:33:00 - [12]
 

I would like to see a lot more thought poured into carriers, and this is a good start. For now, signed and i wait with anticipation.

Junkie Beverage
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.31 04:38:00 - [13]
 

bane is a smart and eloquent man

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2008.07.31 04:39:00 - [14]
 

supported

hopefully this stays on topic, it was an excellent read. i was gonna ask for a TL;DR but it's actually worthwhile because there are good rationales in there.

Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
Holy Empire of The Unshaven
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:07:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Eternal Error
How about we fire zulupark and nozh?


I endorse this message.*


*Note: There are no emotes to suggest that I am joking.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:11:00 - [16]
 

TL;DR version?????

Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:13:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 31/07/2008 05:14:27
Originally by: Treelox
TL;DR version?????

Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?


Stop whining and read the whole thing. It is much more in depth *than zulupark's* and you're being rude.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:29:00 - [18]
 

Bane, I have no idea whether I agree with your ideas(and those of others that you bring forward), but they're at least interesting. I'm not wholly opposed to the state of carriers as-is, but I'd likely be in favour of a well-considered change to how they operate, as long as it ultimately made sense. Carriers being endgame is a problem, and while I don't think it's as bad as Zulupark's dev blog made it out to be, it's something I'd like to see addressed. Capitals are for old, rich players who need a big hammer for a specific nail, they're not supposed to be pwnmobiles for the sake of it. I'm not sure any of the specific changes proposed are the right one, but I think you're at least barking up the right tree.

Originally by: Treelox
TL;DR version?????

Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?


tl;dr - read the damn post, cretin.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:32:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 31/07/2008 05:14:27
Originally by: Treelox
TL;DR version?????

Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?


Stop whining and read the whole thing. It is much more in depth *than zulupark's* and you're being rude.



Then why reference Zulupark in the subject line, if they are more "in depth"(more thought out?) than Zuluparks?

I can not be arsed to read anything more than 2-3 lines long if it contains his name in it. I'm sure you understand why.....

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:37:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Treelox
Then why reference Zulupark in the subject line, if they are more "in depth"(more thought out?) than Zuluparks?

I can not be arsed to read anything more than 2-3 lines long if it contains his name in it. I'm sure you understand why.....


Zulupark's dev blog is the single most prominent example of the discussion Bane wants to have regarding the roles of capital ships in the future, and he referenced it for that reason.

And if you can't be arsed to read it, then stop being arsed to clutter up the thread whining for a secretary. Either participate in the thread, or STFU/GTFO.

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:41:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 31/07/2008 05:14:27
Originally by: Treelox
TL;DR version?????

Simply put are you PRO or CON Zuluparks proposal concerning carriers?


Stop whining and read the whole thing. It is much more in depth *than zulupark's* and you're being rude.



Then why reference Zulupark in the subject line, if they are more "in depth"(more thought out?) than Zuluparks?

I can not be arsed to read anything more than 2-3 lines long if it contains his name in it. I'm sure you understand why.....


Understood, and that's fine. Basically zulu has expressed discontent with 'capitals online.' Based on that thought and similar discussions, Bane constructed a solution that seems to lie parallel with the views and concerns of the developers.

The carrier fixes he proposes attempt to shift it to more of a support role rather than it's current role as the quantum unit of fleet engagement.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.07.31 05:55:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Treelox on 31/07/2008 05:56:09
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Understood, and that's fine. Basically zulu has expressed discontent with 'capitals online.'


I am always stunned when I hear such sentiments from Dev's, that they didnt "expect" capital ships to become the next BS. OFC they would, it only evolution they provided in game.

Everyone one wants bigger, badder, more pew pew. Basic human nature, and the dev's perfectly fed it when they introduced Carriers 2-ish years ago.


Anyways, back to the OP, I am currently reading it, mulling it over, might even sleep on it and get back to you all later. Rome wasnt built in a day, you know.




p.s. Herschel Yamamoto, change your rag a bit more frequently, IMO.


p.s.s. Fahtim Meidires, at least we kept Bane's thread in the top 5, while you educated me ;)

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 07:06:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Bane, this question has been asked and answered at a CSM meeting. The vote to escalate went against you in that meeting and for good reason. You were trying to get the CSM to agree to let you present any number of suggestions to CCP without specifying what those suggestions would be. The suggestions you did let slip were objectionable. For instance, you advocated decreasing the time it takes to train for capital ships. What do you hope to gain from this thread?



This isn't the first issue that was initially voted down when it was too vague, and then reconstructed to specificity and posted in the assembly hall to gain fresh support and force it on the table. So it may be that's the goal.

If it was presented poorly the first time, hopefully this suffices.

Jagerin
Gallente
Surreal corp
Stain Empire
Posted - 2008.07.31 07:18:00 - [24]
 

Bomber Fighters?
lol, so dreads will be usefull only for POS killing.
Also, IMO fighter delegation need some nerf, because mostly during sub-capital ship fights carriers just sitting near POSes and delegating fighters.

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 07:23:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Jagerin

Also, IMO fighter delegation need some nerf, because mostly during sub-capital ship fights carriers just sitting near POSes and delegating fighters.


This was all discussed.

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:05:00 - [26]
 

Bumping this jeez.

Darkside 34
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:50:00 - [27]
 

Being a carrier pilot myself, I have to say, they have become the new battleship of eve tbh. Carriers dont need to be nerfed combat wise tbh, they suck at it, the only thing they dont suck at combat wise is engaging targets that are smaller than themselves.

So, carriers were meant to support fleets right?
I tend to use mine in several roles:

Firepower (fighters)

Carrying supplies, (warp bubbles, extra ammo, scan probes, scan ships, cap charges, scripts, extra drones, etc.)

Transporting ships to the frontlines, generally when we know longer-term engagements are going to go down.

BUT, I also use it for logistical purposes, such as putting up pos towers, keeping them running, etc. (I don't want a jump freighter and I dont want a rorquoral, as much as they would help with this.)


So the only combat duty it has is remote repping and assigning fighters, so How about...

Remove ALL ability for them to control their own fighters (it sounds harsh, but makes sense), but increase the number of fighters they can control. (think this was stated above, or something similar to it)

Give fighters the ability to use some kind of stasis webification (but not warp inhibition, that would waaaayyy overbalance things)

Make them more of a mobile station and less of a bulldozer (More corp hangar space, and maybe even a "public hangar" space for alliance or blue members)

Now, here is my favorite idea. Give fighters and other drones the ability to "engage enemy drones" SO, instead of the carrier's fighters bulldozing everything in sight, you can maintain a sort of "drone superiority" and then work on the enemy's ships. In conjunction with this, give fighters better damage against drones/other fighters, and then give them 1/2 ish damage against battleship sized targets for instance, or as was stated above create a new class of fighter such as a bomber. I personally think this idea is awesome, because it could create some epic "dogfights" in addition to giving carriers a ROLE THAT MAKES SENSE.

Nuff said.


Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:56:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority,


See, you gotta kinda prove that bit before we go any further.

List the names of your silent majority - otherwise refrain from making the claim.
Use the phrase "Me and my alliance mates".

Zy'or Tealon
Celtic Infusion Army

Posted - 2008.07.31 11:10:00 - [29]
 

Voting for LaVista Vista to be kicked from the CSM council.

Flaming fellow CSM Delegates without adding anything constructive to the topic at hand seems like a display of disrespect, shortsightedness and plain utter stupidity.

Swamp Ziro
Ultimate Betrayal.
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2008.07.31 11:56:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Bane Glorious

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority,


See, you gotta kinda prove that bit before we go any further.

List the names of your silent majority - otherwise refrain from making the claim.
Use the phrase "Me and my alliance mates".


bob, yet again trying to stunt game balance in favor of in-game vested interests, deploy to counter Bane "I-Nerfed-Titans" Glorious' ideas, more as this develops


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

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