open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Carriers still need a boost
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.11.30 18:25:00 - [1]
 

Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.

Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet Very Happy However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.

I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.

What do you think?
-Vmir

Steppa
Gallente
Posted - 2006.11.30 19:15:00 - [2]
 

It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that the signature resolution stat is completely counterintuitive. The basic reality in the game is that a carrier has a hard time locking a small ship, while a small ship can lock a huge one quickly. Fine, I can buy the fact that a small ship can lock a large ship quickly, but that same small ship can lock another small ship MUCH quicker than the carrier.

Carriers are massive. Are you telling me that with all of that hull to build on or in, they don't have enough room for electronics and sensors that should make their sensors the strongest in the game? At least for targeting speed and strength. The same applied to all the large ships.

The counterarguement is always "this isn't RL, this is a game and it needs to be balanced". Well, the OP's point stands up well to this argument. The carrier cannot even function as a front line logistics support ship (remote armor/shield rep) due to the fact that they cannot even lock their own people due to enemy damping.

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2006.12.01 00:42:00 - [3]
 

I vote to make carriers immune EW...I know motherships are too..but motherships still easily outdo carriers in basically every other aspect.

Yes I do own a carrier and yes I guess I am biased about it..but, I'm still voting for it, cause the OP makes a good point imho.

HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
Posted - 2006.12.01 03:18:00 - [4]
 


you are, however, assuming that a carrier should be a frontline ship

Cant say i disagree w/ the EW immunity, but cant say that i agree.

Either way works i suppose, the other cap ships are (or can be) immune, that would be best argument for it I would think.

Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke
Posted - 2006.12.01 03:25:00 - [5]
 

Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.

All they are supposed to do, is to provide Capital weapon systems to tech1 tacklingfrigs and eventualy pull back the Modules.... urm Fighters, before the Frig explodes.

It would be too risky loosing the capital sentr...uhm fighters if they are not stripped before the 1-week old noob looses his Condor <.<

CCP should enable Fighters to automaticaly warp back into the closest friendly POS in case they are going to get scrambled or start going into armor. The risk of loosing something while attacking a fleeing 80-BS+support Fleet with 5-10 Frigs is still too big >.<

best regards, Skeltek

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.12.01 08:23:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 01/12/2006 08:23:28
Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 01/12/2006 08:23:10
Quote:
Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.

Carriers were always meant to be at the front lines tanking. The unintended side effect of being able to assign fighters means that everybody hides them in a safespot.

From a forum thread:
Originally by: Tuxford
Are you talking about that nobody seems to like any of them except the gallente one?

Well first there is the whole issue of how they are being used. People just park them at a pos or a safespot and have some other dudes control their drones for them. For me that gameplay is a bit boring to say the least.

So why aren't people using their carriers in combat? There is too much risk for too little reward. That is they are too easy to lose and you gain not enough with having them there. So the solution to that is to make them harder to kill and give people better benefits from having them there. To do that I would not like to simply boost the damage.

And instead, he boosted hitpoints. Yes, all ships received some +% hitpoints. But not four hundred percent like capitals.

I think allowing a "different" type of lock on gang mates (so that target jamming or dampening doesn't prevent the carrier from aiding allies, but only from harming enemies). One with instant lock would be nice.

-Vmir

P.S. if the above post by Skeltek was sarcastic, I apologize in advance for it going over my head ugh

Steppa
Gallente
Posted - 2006.12.01 18:54:00 - [7]
 

Exactly my point. Carriers are too expensive, take too long to build, and offer too little in the way of reward to put them into combat previously. Now, however, you have something that can significantly enhance your fleet's capabilities. The major downside to carriers, imho as a carrier pilot, is that the lock time versus just about every other ship is prohibitively long.

Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Black Core Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:59:00 - [8]
 

Tuxford mentioned that the Devs are pondering to turn remotereps and similiar modules into ones that don't need targetting, but just give a targeting reticle when you activate them and that start working right away after you click on an ally. Without locking at all. (Which'd also give a BIG boost to logistics. =))

That, and it appears that the Devs are also plotting a full-scale makeover for all capital ships. I'd like to know what exactly they got on their minds. =/

Deikan Frost
Amarr
Posted - 2006.12.01 23:47:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Deikan Frost on 01/12/2006 23:49:14
I'm not that experienced, but I don't think it should mean my opinion doesn't matter... anyway... If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything. What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself. In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines (well, look more at WWII than today but still, talking about large scale wars) precisely because they can't repell massive attacks on their own. They barely have any weapons compared to the other war ships.

I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either. I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming. A ship of this size, especially when its main purpose is supporting other ships, should have enough backup systems to counter most jamming.

I do think though, that they should always be used in the REAR of the fleet, and should be sending their fighters forward to assist their main troops at the front, and not the way around.

Do I make sense?

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.12.02 02:40:00 - [10]
 

Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.

Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?

Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.

True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.

Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines

Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.

Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.

Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore YARRRR!!) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.

Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.

Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.



Drutort
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.12.02 08:22:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.

Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?

Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.

True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.

Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines

Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.

Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.

Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore YARRRR!!) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.

Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.

Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.





well said, esp with the bugs and fixes that we have been asking for havent come in yet... i like how you put it they are simply a liability, there is not much reward to take them out to the front line at all, its far more effective with the current traditional ie BS and other such ships... to me thats not how eve should be

no ship in eve was meant to stay at a pos and be considered part of the battle... none its just the matter of the fact of how capital ships were and are that is broken, if carriers were meant to be only for pos hugging they would be made very fragile which they are still the most fragile capital ship out there... and all of there bonus and skills and abilities would dictate that... but as you know that is not the case if you look at the skills and items such as capital remotes, the problem is those do not work out very well, due to the limitations of carriers said above... that or they need to implement insta lock or link within a gang for friendly logistics meaning you are immune to all the effects to your own gang... but you in effect would be either jammed or dampend to the enemies... i dont care if its some module that has to be run by a gang member or a warfare link so long as its done

Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.12.02 09:52:00 - [12]
 

Gang mates need to be lockable through a separate set of attributes than enemy ships.

You can allow ECM to affect carriers as long as carriers can still lock gangmates. There is even some reason to believe that gangmates should be "instalockable".

Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke
Posted - 2006.12.02 15:36:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Skeltek on 02/12/2006 15:44:39
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen

Quote:
Carriers were never meant to be at the front lines tanking.

Carriers were always meant to be at the front lines tanking. The unintended side effect of being able to assign fighters means that everybody hides them in a safespot.



I am so glad that you immediately realized how cynical and ironical my post is ;)
However I can only agree partialy... Carriers were meant to be at the front lines, but not the ones tanking(be in the back of battlefield, in moderately safe distance to your BS fleet). They are meant to give supportfunctions to the fighting fleet, not fight and tank themselves. But I guess that depends on how you view it...

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2006.12.02 15:49:00 - [14]
 

As I said earlier I still think the OP makes a good point..and in all reality, if a carrier losses it's fighters and what not..it is close to useless, apart from assisting it's fleet..so with that in mind I'd still say make it immune to EW altogether..I mean for how much it costs, and what it takes to deploy and move around etc etc...I just feel it deserves at least that.

Thats just my 5 cents :)

umah
Posted - 2006.12.02 20:18:00 - [15]
 

I agree with this as long as you substitute "mothership" everywhere you use the word carrier.

EVE carriers are more analogous to the "Escort Carrier," which only appeared in WWII to augment fleet air support, and did indeed travel with the gunships.

That said, I agree that it still needs fixing for its role.

EW immunity or non-targeting support module activation (mentioned here and elsewhere) seems a good approach.

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
If you compare EVE ships to modern day navy ships, you'll realise that Carriers are NOT meant to be at the front line, and have always been rather more of a support class of ship than anything.

Yes, in real life carriers are kept safe. However, in eve they're meant to be right in the battle providing the (limited) support that they are able to. They are not effective in this role yet. Sitting in a POS with your (fragile, expensive, easy to kill) fighters assigned to somebody in the battle is more suited to an alt than a "real" character, because who wants to sit around hearing about the battle instead of fighting it?

Quote:
What makes the carrier is what it carries, not the ship itself.

True. Except that a carrier can't really carry anything of note, just a few cruisers and interceptors. Fighters can be useful too, but they don't make enough of a difference really -- they're easier to tank and shoot down with revelations and don't do enough dps to be worth around twenty million isk apiece to use. Not to mention, a single CTD can cost you 200m+ in lost fighters.

Quote:
In modern day wars, carriers are always accompanied with destroyers, battleships and sometimes even submarines

Yes, and they are intended (in eve anyway) to help provide support to its protecting fleet, and this is done through gang mods passively or direct action via remote repping/transferring.

Quote:
I don't think they should be made "tanks" in EVE either.

Then what good are they? If they're only hidden in pos shields (since safes are not so safe anymore YARRRR!!) then what is the purpose of owning one? Aside from glorified industrial, anyway.

Quote:
I Do agree though, that they should be made almost immune to electronic jamming.

Immunity to jamming would be great, but I wouldn't mind being jammed at all (i.e. prevented from directly harming hostiles) if I could still aid my fleet. A dampener or two is effectively a permajam currently, and you are unable to do ... well, anything. Your 1b+ ship plus fittings, and effort/fuel to take you to the battle's location, and the efforts of all your fleet go for nothing, because suddenly you're just a liability. I don't like that at all.




fastwind
Caldari
RuffRyders
Free Trade Zone.
Posted - 2006.12.04 02:19:00 - [16]
 

In real life battles a carrier is never and will never be right on the front line it is a support ship with it fighters and other equpiment it can send and it fights at many 100s of miles away plus has a full fleet for support that remin with it throughout an engagment.

Carriers are even in eve i belive designed for this role to be yes in the battleground but far enough away to remain safe and to support the frontline troops.Smile thats just my own personal view on them.

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.12.04 03:24:00 - [17]
 

Quote:
Carriers are even in eve i belive designed for this role to be yes in the battleground but far enough away to remain safe and to support the frontline troops.

The maximum range you can squeeze out of capital logistics mods at carrier L5 is 52.5km. That's considered to be about medium range in modern eve. Hardly far away, and definitely not safe. Not even remaining in a safe is safe anymoreYARRRR!!

Carriers are intended to be on the front lines but due to game mechanic limitations, they're relegated to hiding in a pos shield. I would simply like the mechanics altered so that they may function properly on the front lines, as intended. Not mobile I-win buttons, but more like a logistics ship that doesn't get oneshotted, or melted in ten seconds, or suddenly permajammed for 10 minutes straight only able to observe the fight and not actually participate in it .......

Altareis
Caldari
Templars of Space
Delinquent Habits
Posted - 2006.12.04 03:38:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.

Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet Very Happy However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.

I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.

What do you think?
-Vmir




I think its a nice idea, Vmir. Btw, what happened to your carrier? Lose it a 2nd time? Sad

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.12.04 05:29:00 - [19]
 

Quote:
Btw, what happened to your carrier? Lose it a 2nd time? Sad

Nah, just the one so far Cool


Tunajuice
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
Posted - 2006.12.04 05:36:00 - [20]
 

What would it HURT to make carriers and dreads immune to ewar? Obviously some people say it sucks because that's the main benefit of a mothership... but then add some more goodies to a mothership. It seems to me carriers and dreads shouldn't be turned into a piece of junk by 1 frig. Sure, it's hard to lock and tackle people. That's fine, i don't think they should be solo pwnmobiles. But they should have a little more beefy to them, so they don't get locked down so easy. People would bring them to the front line if they had a chance to warp off...

Yertus Kun
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:33:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Yertus Kun on 04/12/2006 09:36:37
. dup post Embarassed

Yertus Plight
R3CTUM
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:34:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.




I believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you Laughing

I re-evaluated my carrier plans after this engagement, so I too agree carriers need more umph to make them less of an easy target without making them solo pwnmobiles.

Jurushy
SteelVipers
YouWhat
Posted - 2006.12.04 09:36:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Jurushy on 04/12/2006 09:37:43
well

imune to EW sounds nice and would bring the carriers to Frontlines but i would also limit this imune only to target belongings so the carriers could be warpscrambel and web
this means that u bring dreadnoughts to take them down wich go into the siege

also instalock for gangmates is importent
not only for carriers but also for logistik ships

btw a much stronger tanking for capital ships would be need
(20 BS can brake every tank) so i would say only XL guns can harm capital ships and BS need to go the way to takedown first the subsystems of the carrier (capitalship) to kill it


Alski
Ministers Of Destruction.
Posted - 2006.12.04 11:04:00 - [24]
 

My Sig compels me to reply to this thread! Laughing

Improvements to carriers I’d like considered:

- either immunity to EW completely, or just enough sensor strength to be able to have a chance of not getting locked down by a few sensor damp frigs.

- enough sensor resolution to be able to lock much more quickly, so that there armor / shield / cap transfers can actually be of some use in a small scale engagement when something other than the carrier gets called primary.

- an option so that fighters do not just automatically warp after there targets.

Improvements I am doubtful about or find possibility unbalancing:

- stronger tank. (400% HP boost might be enough, we’ll see...)

- either cheaper / or tougher fighters
(they cost enough to dissuade you from risking them, but too much for anything more than occasional battles, making them more survivable should achieve the same effect.)

- bigger corp hanger array / ship arrays.

The BIG change to fleet warfare as it stands with the new fleet command system is that fleet-wide bonuses are now handed down from the FC, so to make the best of that ability the FC now has to be flying either a Command Ship, or a Carrier, I think this changes dramatically the role of the carrier post Revelations, and at least some of the above list is in order purely to make it survivable in that kind of situation.

Alski
Ministers Of Destruction.
Posted - 2006.12.04 11:25:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Tunajuice
What would it HURT to make carriers and dreads immune to ewar? Obviously some people say it sucks because that's the main benefit of a mothership... but then add some more goodies to a mothership. It seems to me carriers and dreads shouldn't be turned into a piece of junk by 1 frig. Sure, it's hard to lock and tackle people. That's fine, i don't think they should be solo pwnmobiles. But they should have a little more beefy to them, so they don't get locked down so easy. People would bring them to the front line if they had a chance to warp off...


QFVMT.
(quoted for very much truth)
[yes I made that up]

I’ll just agree with the EW imunity and go straight to the MS’s...
Consider the material costs of a carrier vs. a motherships
1b for a carrier
15b+ for a motherships

fittings:
Carriers – ehhh meh, fully T2 it, that’ll do.
Motherships – Fully Faction Fitted Pimpmobile it or your not doing it right!

Ok, so we’ve established motherships are worth way in excess of 15 times the cost of a carrier, but there isn’t a whole lot that 15 carriers can’t do that one motherships can, and given they cost one half the material cost of an outpost, is there any reason why they shouldn’t basically be flying mini outposts? A mobile staging point for full scale fleet battles? The Titan at least has a few impressive abilities that make it worth building, but motherships....mmmm.... not so much.

Hugely increased corp hanger / ship arrays would be a good start, giving it an ability to have some other kind of weapons beyond fighters would be good too, no carrier in existence today uses only fighters / aircraft as its only defensive weapons, how about a space equivalent of THIS for taking down those pesky tacklers? Twisted Evil

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:29:00 - [26]
 

ok having read this topic from top to bottom:

it shocks me that you compare real life carriers to eve carriers, ive never known any real life carrier fit a shield booster. the difference is, a carrier can take a battering, whereas one hit in the right place in RL and u can sink a carrier. a RL carrier is in control of its planes, as should an eve carrier be. a carrier should be able to lock to like 300km and have its fighters run over. they should be very far out, where only the most extreme long range ammo could possibly hit them, but not so far as a POS or safespot.

Carriers should be able to perform thier role whilst under siege. i.e., still locking and stuff. a carrier could be an excellent ship, for example i jumped on test and managed to tank 2 sets of 0.8 sentry guns for 31mins before my tank failed. ALL capital ships should either:

*be sufficiently designed so that they can perform thier role in combat

OR

*be able to sustain a battering to a point so that if they cannot perform thier role they can at least survive against a fairly potent fighting force.

As for immune to Ewar, i would agree, if u pay 1.7bil for a dread, and spend say 350mil fitting it, thats 2.05bil, now insurance pays out 1.4. so u lose 300mil on ship, and 350 on fitting, thats 640mil in total, however with a carrier, you would lose 400mil in fighters 320mil in fitting, so 720mil. Now tell me, how is it right that a ship that costs less than a dread, would mean that if you lost it, you lose more than you would if u lost a dread. a carrier is a very high risk investment, it should have the characteristics reflecting the risks.


MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2006.12.04 12:29:00 - [27]
 

Ok.. if you make the carrier immune to EW, your just as well making every other ship in the game immune to EW. Simple solution.. up the sensor strength, make it a bit more of a realistic figure for a capital ship.

Fighters.. i agree make them cheaper.

As for everything else.. I have seen carriers put directly into the action and tanked quite well, infact I'll give props to ER, CDC and PURE for putting their carriers outside pos shields while we were sieging it!

So it can be done..

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.12.04 13:58:00 - [28]
 

The Minmatar Carrier needs to be fixed. The others are fine. Fighters need to have drone skills apply to them ore new fighter based skills. At the moment only massive swarms of them work and warp to 0 makes them easy to evade.

Reborn Dragon
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2006.12.04 17:29:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 18:00:47
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:36:30
Edited by: Reborn Dragon on 04/12/2006 17:32:07
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Wait till you've read the post until you start to flame me.

Carriers still need a boost. Hitpoints are fine now, I tested that just last night with a local friendly hostile fleet Very Happy However, in that fight I quickly realized that carriers still aren't viable on the front lines -- why? Not because of tank or suvivability, but because one ship with dampeners is effectively a permanent target jam. In the entire fight I could do nothing but watch them shoot at me, let alone provide remote aid to my support (which were quickly killed off once I could do nothing). I'd like to see carriers get something similar to motherships, titans, and sieged dreadnoughts -- immunity to electronic warfare (or at least high resistance to it). I don't want immunity to all Ewar, just dampeners, perhaps jammers, etc. If they have two lachesis to pin me down, fine -- permanent jam. But if they've only got 2 or 3 damps on me and my entire ship is rendered useless then I see that as a problem.

I don't mind being a damage sponge for some of the fight, but when 10 minutes pass and all there is to do is look at the pretty flashing lights and wonder how much a new carrier will cost, then I'm less inclined to go on the front lines.

What do you think?
-Vmir




I've never flown a carrier but the way I see it is the carrier supports the fleet and the fleet supports the carrier. If you run into a fleet that is using Damps and you don't have sensor boosters or someone in your fleet isn't using remote sensor boosters to help you overcome damps then they were obviously more prepared then you and your fleet and you are going to lose.

Just the way I see it, tbo.

If you want to avoid damps then get someone to jump in a frigate and remote sensor boost you or put some sensor boosters on. There is no I in "Fleet Battles". Work as a team.

What could really help is adding bonuses to remote sensor booster strengths to the same ships that have remote sensor damper strengths.


Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2006.12.04 18:51:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
believe you did have two Lachesis with at least seven damps from just these on you for most of the engagement. I know because I was one of them with 4 damps on you Laughing

In the beginning of the fight, there was only the one. Then two came, and my sniper was able to kill it. Unfortunately, it did nothing and I was unable to lock anything at all.

Actually, that's not true. If I was not jammed for 3 minutes straight then I might've locked a taranis and blown it away ... but I don't think that would've mattered. I don't mind being blown up but all my effort to bring it to the front lines to support my fleet was taken away by, as you said, just two lachesis (and just the one after the first was killed). A single lachesis with damps shouldn't be shutting down a carrier all by itself.

-V


Pages: [1] 2 3

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