open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Supercarrier fix : Make them vulnerable to small ships.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.24 15:39:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Teiresias on 26/08/2011 15:06:22
Edited by: Teiresias on 24/08/2011 16:52:56
We've all seen lots of ideas for fixing the supercap blob issue. Most of them come down to massive overkill to kill supers faster (death stars, dread boost, moar new ships!) or massive nerfs (FBs disabled from shooting structures, etc). The problem is that very few of these proposals address actual balance issues, or in the end the solution would produce exactly the same problem 6 or so months down the road when someone builds a massive number of GIANTNEWTHINGTHATKILLZSUPERZ.

I don't think we want that.

Proposal:
1) Remove supers' ability to field sentry, heavy, medium, and light drones.
2) Permit carriers (as squad commander) to jump all ships in their squad to a destination cyno. The carrier is required to jump as well.

Explanation:
Part 1 means that supers would be unable to defend themselves effectively against gangs of sub-cap ships without escorts. This would force more fluid fleet composition without negating the supers' usefulness is bashing sov structures.

Part 2 lowers the entry barrier for bringing a fleet to the party. This means that smaller entities can gang together to respond to a super attack without having to build supers themselves, while larger entities can field a fleet with more flexibility and not have to depend on their titan pilots being a 23/7 bridging service. This part also permits faster reshipping when losses happen with just a little creative fleet reorganization.

Considerations:
Fighters can still be a counter for battleships and to a lesser extent battlecruisers. So a supercarrier blob would not be completely helpless against sub-caps, just much less effective. Logistics would be needed in the subcap fleet to counter this.

Carrier squad jumping would need to have some kind of mechanic in which the squad sub-caps slave to the carrier's jump drive and use some part of their cap for the jump (say dependent on Jump Drive Operation skill).

Carriers would still be highly vulnerable to fighterbombers and doomsday, but then anyone who isn't going to sacrifice a few ships to kill off a super probably isn't going to fight anyway.

Conclusion:
The idea is to bring some balance back to the game without creating an new FOTM which seems to be the inevitable result of any change. I'm not saying that this might not do the same, but I don't think it will.

In the end I think we'd end up with combat that is more fluid and more interesting and isn't that the whole point?

Discuss.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.24 16:19:00 - [2]
 

sounds interesting Smile

for #2 --> this can only be allowed if the Carrier is the squad commander. Wing/Fleet commanders (or squad members) can't bring anyone with them.

Make it drain 75% of cap (or whatever, carrier pilot level dependant) from all the ships being jumped... if the pilot doesn't have enough cap, he doesn't come along.

Dark Sidhe
Blackwater USA Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.08.24 16:34:00 - [3]
 

Sounds good.

#1 might be a less radical alternative to boosting dreads to make dreads the new anti-super ships although Dreads right now are almost totally useless.

#2 Everyone in the carrier's squad will have their cap reduced to same extent the squad leader's carrier is reduced upon doing the same jump. Agreed that each person must have the same cap % to initiate jump as the carrier or that person won't jump out.

Right now, carriers are used far less often in battle due to the massive numbers of supers in the game. Fighter Bombers (and rightfully so I guess) OMFGWTFBBQ carriers. This reduces carriers to shield/armor pumping of POS's and Stations, logistics and very few combat opportunities.

Though #2 is more of a logistic role than anything else, it at least means carriers get a bit more use.

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.24 16:53:00 - [4]
 

I purposefully avoided the dreadnaught issue. I really couldn't come up with a solution for that problem that doesn't lead to dreads being the new FOTM. So I stuck with this to see if it can retro-actively fix the dreads on its own.

But I have my doubts on that score.

@Velicitia: Yeah, I should have clarified that the carrier would have to be squad commander to do it. Modified the OP to reflect that.

Cin Dra'lig
Posted - 2011.08.24 17:26:00 - [5]
 

This sounds like a pretty good idea. I like the idea of restricting the drone abilities of the Super Carrier to that of its roll. It makes sense really to permit something the tools needed to do its own job, but not everyone elses too (reasons why they took away Triage). My concern would be that carrier bridges might become too powerful, but I think the ideas of applying the same cap restriction is a good one. The fact that Super Carriers would still be able to much up a carrier would be a real deterrent from doing this too much. At the same time I like to idea of reducing the load on Titan pilots as the jump bridge service.

If this idea isn't something that is implemented, I do hope that whatever is implemented will be a well thought out idea like this. I'd like to get back into Eve more and maybe see about getting back into 0.0 but the broken nature of Super Carriers is a real put off to me.

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.24 18:11:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Cin Dra'lig
...carrier bridges might become too powerful...


I don't mean for this to work like a titan bridge, where the carrier stays safe in a POS bubble and pushes everyone else through. I mean that the carrier would have to jump to take the squad with it. So the carrier pilot has to commit to take the risk along with everyone else.

If the carrier doesn't jump as well, then yes, its way too powerful given the huge number of carriers out there.

Cin Dra'lig
Posted - 2011.08.24 18:54:00 - [7]
 

I did know that you intended that. I guess that it wouldn't make a huge difference most of the time. I was more concerned with the use of this carrier bridge idea in times when you didn't have a fleet of massively superior capitals to worry about. I still really like this idea though. At any rate, maybe this would make hot dropping things a lot cooler, and that would be a plus (as long as it didn't get out of hand).

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:51:00 - [8]
 

fighter bombers were stupid idea from start. someone was cool bombers lets do it without thinking.

supercarriers were pretty much fine before oomph, maybe except hitpoints whatever. they already had their ewar immunities which is very powerful feat alone but they weren't too powerful to be automatic choice over dreads or carriers which were much cheaper.

WHY DOES IT SEEM NO ONE HAS EVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

look capitals.

im just waiting actual cynonerf which should've been done 2007 already. it would change so many things. without nerfing any ships. Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

Becka Call
Posted - 2011.08.25 00:00:00 - [9]
 

I like this idea. I'm all for boosting things towards balance.
I think the cap drain is likely enough to minimize the lowsec hot drop overpowerness. If not that it might need a slight sensor recalibration delay.

Rawbone
Gallente
S3MINAL FLUID
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2011.08.25 03:56:00 - [10]
 

I like the proposal on both counts. Removal of anything smaller than a F-bomber from a SC's drone bay would not only give more relevance to sub caps but it would force more thought into fleet composition.

Dante Edmundo
Posted - 2011.08.25 07:08:00 - [11]
 

This is a good idea and more realistic. It would require more mixed fleets and
would make frigs far more useful.


Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.08.25 08:14:00 - [12]
 

a dread should beat a carrier
a dread shouldn't beat a super carrier, but do serious damage.
3? dreads should kill a super carrier ( depending on range and such)

i think the issue is they cant be remote repped like super carriers because out of siege the dps is low.

simple solution is make a siege module for super carriers so to use fighter bombers they have to lose RR support, or have incoming RR cut dramatically.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.25 08:16:00 - [13]
 

1. Too big of a limitation. A segregation of the dronebays so they can't spam vanilla drones perpetually is enough (and better) I think.
2. Actually a good idea to give a bridge type functionality to Carriers. Should require fuel and cap both for the tag-alongs though .. or rather it should not be able to supplant bridging but rather supplement and provide a low-tech/high-cost option.

Add in the "usual" stuff: Loss of immunity when away from hometurf (sovereignty) and EHP tweaks.

Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa

Posted - 2011.08.25 10:51:00 - [14]
 

I like both these ideas.

Maybe even extend the removal of drone bays (not fighter bays) to normal carriers and dreads? Capitals should always require sub-capital support to defend them.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.08.25 15:22:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
1. Too big of a limitation. A segregation of the dronebays so they can't spam vanilla drones perpetually is enough (and better) I think.
2. Actually a good idea to give a bridge type functionality to Carriers. Should require fuel and cap both for the tag-alongs though .. or rather it should not be able to supplant bridging but rather supplement and provide a low-tech/high-cost option.

Add in the "usual" stuff: Loss of immunity when away from hometurf (sovereignty) and EHP tweaks.

Split drone bays are theoretically coming in the winter. I assume they will hit both SCs and carriers though (as they should). That makes the second point a reasonable idea.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 16:41:00 - [16]
 

I've always thought it odd that 'bridging' was a feature given to Titans and not carriers, as force projection should be the role of a carrier. I like and support that portion of your idea.


Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.25 17:43:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
1. Too big of a limitation. A segregation of the dronebays so they can't spam vanilla drones perpetually is enough (and better) I think.



I disagree. The problem is that right now the supercarrier is a one-size-fits-all-and-is-really-badass-at-everything class. It can bash sov structures and POSs in a way that no other class can come close to matching. In groups it can defend itself against all other classes with clouds of drones. It is ECM immune. It can only be stopped by focused points and bubbles and has an even chance of killing those and getting away when attacked.

All this and it only has two downsides. It can't dock and its expensive to lose. The first isn't much, and the second is irrelevant to anyone who' has lived in 0.0 for any length of time.

I'll agree that segregating drone bays is a step in the right direction, but its not going to go far enough to matter. Lets say you have 20 Supercarriers. Let's say each supercarrier can only carry 20 sentries, that's 400 to kill before you've negated their damage. What FC in his/her right mind is going to call the fleet to kill drones with those kind of numbers? It would always be better just to go after the supers themselves. And 20 supercarriers is a fairly modest fleet these days, you're more likely to see 60+.

As for those who chip in about boosting dreads, while it seems like a good idea on paper, overall I don't think it works. We've gotten into the situation we're in now because of the boost-the-weak-things mentality without thinking of the longer term balance issues that will go with it. My guess is that if we can get CCP to move supercarriers into a more vulnerable place without a major nerf, dreads will become more attractive again just from a cost per loss perspective. That's hard to say though.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.08.25 17:46:00 - [18]
 


A couple of thoughts:

1.) Reducing the number of standard drones a SC can hold is coming. I think this will go a long way in limiting the jack-of-all trades supers, especially if they limit it enough (Less than 500, perhaps only 250).

2.) I like the idea of carriers bridging, however, it would need the bridge range significantly reduced from the carrier's range. I also think all capitals (orca's, frieghters) should NOT be bridgeable with a carrier. Bridging should also cost more fuel than a titan, but less fuel than a BO.

3.) I don't believe it needs to be tied into the fleet structure. This is probably a cumbersome thing to implement. Instead, the limits on how many ships a carrier can bring should best be resource limited. The portal can only take so much mass (harder to implement, but probably the best idea), or they require so much fuel that bridging in 10+ ships becomes fairly unfeasible.

Idea: If I were to implement this, I would have the mechanic similar to BO/Titan Bridges, where the carrier must fit the appropriate module (requiring appropriate pre-reqs and significant fitting requirements), and then they right-click capacitor and open a bridge to the destination. The bridge would last for 30ish s, where ships in bridge range then right click on carrier and bridge through to the cyno. At the end of the bridge cycle, the carrier bridges to the cyno. If they cyno is destroyed the carrier instantly jumps through.

Howen
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:27:00 - [19]
 

Goddamn mace SC vulnerable to frigates!
Entroduce critical point jump drive,drone control tower etc
Make this **** game more interesting.
Rock,paper,scissors ftw.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:38:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Howen
Goddamn mace SC vulnerable to frigates!
Entroduce critical point jump drive,drone control tower etc
Make this **** game more interesting.
Rock,paper,scissors ftw.


Supers should be like Stations in that they have have sections that can be targeted and damaged separately.


Artamis Kane
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:43:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Artamis Kane on 25/08/2011 18:46:22
I like the suggestions, as well. I think that it sounds like the split-dronebays is in the works, so no need to touch on that. I was thinking about how one can 'nerf' the SC without making them less powerful against their actual targets, caps and structures. My idea was that they should be more vulnerable somehow. Instead of lowering their HP, what about exploring that bridging concept as a benefit and weakness.

Suppose: Supercarriers can ONLY travel between systems with the bridge. Certain other ships can come along with them. That should be discussed more, and I wont weigh in on it currently. So, no cynoing for the SC, just the bridging. Give the bridge function a long delay, say 15 minutes or so before it can be reactivated. Therefore, the Supercarrier can only enter and exit via a somewhat expensive bridging process that leaves it stranded for and extended period of time. Also consider making the bridge accurate to only 5,000 km so bridging in several SCs at once might leave them scattered about until they can warp together. Maybe after a 90 second warping delay after bridging.

Discuss =)

((Edit)) perhaps instead of completely screwing the SC with the lack of a Cyno jump ability, allow it to use the Cyno, but lock it's drone bays for a certain amount of time after Cynoing in order to make the bridging necessary for combat jumps, but keeping it's Cyno available for staging/logistics jumps.

Caption Shannow
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:33:00 - [22]
 

Even if a split drone bay is brought in, it probably won't help that much. As the OP stated, even if only 20 Supers got together and each launched 20 Sentries, that is 400 sentries. When you have to deal with a blob of 60, 80, or 100, that means you face (only in regular drones) 1200, 1600, or 2000 drones.

Consider this also: The Super Carrier should really be called the Super Drone Carrier. As this name implies, they should have a impressive capacity to field drones. Having not kept up on this split drone bay idea at all, I would still guess that the drone bay on the Super Carrier will remain large. Personally I'd be willing to get in the area of 1000m3 and in that case, there is nothing to stop a vanilla drone spam. It just means the pilot needs 2 open drone windows instead of 1.

Lastly, while the Super Carrier does need to be taken down a peg, it really shouldn't have the primary function (that of being a super drone carrier) removed. I think that if this happens they would end up being nerfed under the table like pre-dominion when they were basically only used as a ***** extension ship. Restricting Super Carriers to only fighters and fighter bombers allows them to retain their role as ultimate structure/capital killers. One the same token, if they were slightly more vulnerable this might resurrect the role of the Dreadnought as the sort of budget structure/capital killer. After all, with the ultimate power of the Super Carrier comes a very high cost. Right now, if you have enough of them, there isn't substantial risk to make that cost mean anything. If you introduced a greater risk for a little less reward, people might be less eager to deploy a 15-20 billion ISK ship when they can do almost as well with a Dread for 1.5-2 billion ISK instead.

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:42:00 - [23]
 

I'll repeat, reducing the number of drones a supercarrier can HOLD is a useless change. It simply won't make a difference. With the skills trained up a super can field 20 drones. This is where the problem is. The sheer number of drones on the field when a fleet of supers is active is not going to go down unless you make the drone bay so small that it becomes useless; 100m3 is enough for 20 light drones. Furthermore, the segmented drone bay change isn't there to cut down on the number of deployed drones, its there to make managing hundreds of drones in the bay easier.

So segmenting the drone bay or reducing its size doesn't negate part 1 of my idea, it simply isn't germane to this discussion. The better, more effect, option is to remove combat drones from supercarriers altogether, and leave them with FB's and fighters only.

Other points:
Once again, I'm not talking about carriers having a bridge like a titan. I'm talking about them jumping their squad only. Giving carriers a titan-like bridge is far far too overpowered. I can agree with limiting it to combat ships only to avoid people squad jumping freighters all over the universe (though the possibility of catching a full freighter squad in a bubble does appeal to my bloodthirsty nature).

I disagree that the subcaps in the squad should require fuel to jump. I think that a requirement like 90% full cap at the start of the jump and say 10%(modified by JDO skill) at the end would be appropriate. Adding fuel would make it too cumbersome. We've all been in fleets where it took an hour plus just to get everyone to the same system to get started, imagine adding fuel calculations to that for every single ship in the fleet. Screw that. Imagine having to do that to counter a sudden invasion. Screw that even harder in the bad place.

I can agree with limiting jump range for the squad to some extent, but I don't think that this is really all that necessary if the squad is limited to combat ships only. If this were implemented, it would be appropriate to match it to titan bridge range.

I disagree with limiting the number or mass of ships that a carrier can bring through the jump by resource. Regardless of how cumbersome it might be to code it to fleet structure, in game it shouldn't be more complicated than right-click>jump squad. Likewise I disagree with making the fuel requirements astronomical, an unfueled carrier is a useless carrier. Why would anyone use this if their carriers are stuck at the destination?

A squad-jumping module is a good suggestion.

As for requiring super to get around with bridges only; Might as well simply remove them from the game then. Why would anyone have one otherwise?

But since that has nothing to do with my proposal, I'm going to leave it alone.


Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:04:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Teiresias

Adding fuel would make it too cumbersome. We've all been in fleets where it took an hour plus just to get everyone to the same system to get started, imagine adding fuel calculations to that for every single ship in the fleet. Screw that. Imagine having to do that to counter a sudden invasion. Screw that even harder in the bad place.



How about increase fuel costs on the carrier by something like 2-5% per squad member (20-50% total for a full squad) when doing a squad jump?

It shouldn't empty the fuel bay, but it'll make the "we need to get there NOW" aspect more expensive ...

The squad members should have to be within x,000 meters of the carrier... or they aren't able to come through the wormhole.

Also, bring back the old cyno effect Cool

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:12:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Velicitia


How about increase fuel costs on the carrier by something like 2-5% per squad member (20-50% total for a full squad) when doing a squad jump?



That's reasonable. But I think there needs to be some penalty on the squad members too, such as cap usage, which is why I suggest that. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have both.

Originally by: Velicitia

Also, bring back the old cyno effect Cool

Hell yeah, and the big BOOOOOOM when you arrive at the destination too. That was the best part.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:53:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Teiresias
Originally by: Velicitia


How about increase fuel costs on the carrier by something like 2-5% per squad member (20-50% total for a full squad) when doing a squad jump?



That's reasonable. But I think there needs to be some penalty on the squad members too, such as cap usage, which is why I suggest that. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have both.




yeah, I wasn't saying that to negate the cap usage on the small ships (their shields or something need tuned to the ... blah, blah technobabble). I agree with that idea, and was only commenting on the fuel thing.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.26 10:03:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Teiresias
...100m3 is enough for 20 light drones....

Problem is that by trying to avoid the scaling issue you are making them nigh useless when the 'blob' is not present .. in other words you are removing them from "normal" play.
Besides, if you are up against a carrier/SC blob using only fighters then you won't live long regardless as they can bounce the fighter swarm between targets thus eliminating tracking tanking .. can be "solved" by nerfing activation/weapon range of the fighters though.
Originally by: Teiresias
We've all been in fleets where it took an hour plus just to get everyone to the same system to get started, imagine adding fuel calculations to that for every single ship in the fleet.

Oh you mean like we have been used to for 4+ years when using bridge networks with a bring-your-own-fuel system .. took all of 10 minutes to get used to.
If the carrier squad jump does not include fuel in excess of what a Titan/POS bridge requires then we will be neck deep (instead of knee deep) in carriers and force projection control becomes futile .. not to mention Titan's will be left as freighter catapults and lol-hotdrop mobiles.

toxicvega
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2011.08.26 11:18:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Teiresias
Edited by: Teiresias on 24/08/2011 16:52:56

Proposal:
1) Remove supers' ability to field sentry, heavy, medium, and light drones.
2) Permit carriers (as squad commander) to jump all ships in their squad to a destination cyno.

Discuss.


Not a big forum poster, but this is enough to make it worthwile.

Having owned a SC (sold due to lack of use) and using it in large , small fleets, and the lol-solo-hot-drop I do beleve they are very overpowered.
The idea of removing the regular drones and limiting it to just Fighters and FBs is a clear fix for SCs. This also gives them a clear role as capital killer and SOV structure grinder.

The idea of allowing carriers to do what IRL they do is amazing and I am suprised it hasn't come up before. Allowing them to jump their squad is great.
The only thing I would say is it has to be somewhat costly and a bit restricted.

Say bridge opens everyone jumps, the carrier has to be forced to jump aswell. Or make it so that when the carrier jumps those in range are also jumped.

Reduce Ccap of all ships to that of the carrier when they arrive.
10%per ship fuel cost in addition to the cost for the carrier.
Limit ships that can be jumped to something that would normally fit inside the carrier. Not say 1 BS, but all 5 as each would be able to fit inside. This keeps the carrier from jumping other caps and FTs.

Just like the titan DD limit it to once every xx mins. This keeps EVE big and keeps the titan bridge much more useful for moving large amounts of people quickly.

Having both the SC nerf and the carrier boost allows for a more balanced approach and should allow for some interesting tactics.

Teiresias
Rage For Order
Nihil-Obstat
Posted - 2011.08.26 15:46:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Teiresias on 26/08/2011 16:05:12
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

If the carrier squad jump does not include fuel in excess of what a Titan/POS bridge requires then we will be neck deep (instead of knee deep) in carriers and force projection control becomes futile .. not to mention Titan's will be left as freighter catapults and lol-hotdrop mobiles.


Precisely what is "force projection control"? If you mean countering the carriers deploying squads, then we have built-in methods of doing so; Titan Doomsday and fighter bombers. Far from being futile, those methods are exceptionally effective. Right now we're neck-deep in supercarriers which, for obvious reason, have no effective counter other than more supercarriers. Carriers are relatively simple to counter.

I have suggested no changes to titans, nor am I aware of any planned changes that would result in them becoming as useless as you suggest. Nor do I believe that allowing carriers to jump a squad will result in them becoming useless. Limitations on how the carrier squad jump works would prevent that.

Originally by: toxicvega

Say bridge opens everyone jumps, the carrier has to be forced to jump as well. Or make it so that when the carrier jumps those in range are also jumped.

Just like the titan DD limit it to once every xx mins.



I hate to keep saying it, but calling it a bridge creates a false impression that this should be the equivalent of titan functionality. I've modified the OP to reflect this, that I always intended for the carrier to jump, and the whole squad to go through the jump with it. If the carrier doesn't jump, nothing happens. I would expect the squad to be within close proximity of the carrier before this works.

I don't know that giving this a time limit is really necessary, but I also don't think there's a good argument against doing so. The only argument I can think of in favor of a time limit would be to prevent a carrier from jumping a squad in, and then immediately pulling it back out again if the tactical situation looks worse than expected. But that squad could simply run for the gates anyway.

I don't know. I'll have to think about that a bit.


Really, reading back over this thread, its surprising how much agreement there seems to be over the idea in general. There are tweaks and such needed, but that's inevitable. Now, someone make sure a member of our esteemed Council of Stellar Monkeys gets wind of it.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.26 17:08:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Teiresias
Precisely what is "force projection control"?..

What CCP is planning in regards to cyno changes, jump ranges and what not .. jump-bridge nerf was first salvo in that particular fight. Has nothing to do with ship balance per se.
Originally by: Teiresias
...Carriers are relatively simple to counter

They sure are, but what about the remaining 9/10 ships that comes through with the Carrier?
Originally by: Teiresias
I have suggested no changes to titans...

Directly, no .. but if carriers (which can dock, are dirt cheap and are built in stations) become capable of generic troop transport at marginal cost then Titan's will become logistics tools for carebears and DPS bricks for ganks .. because why use it for troops when you can just attach a bunch of throw away triage carriers that are probably going to be needed anyway?
It is essentially doing to Titan's what SC's did to dreads, obsolescence by doing the job better/cheaper/faster.


Pages: [1] 2

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