Should carriers be altered?

Mors.Magne · October 2007

Here is the dev blog on the proposed changes to carriers:

Personally, I agree with CCP. Fleet warfare should be more fun with a greater variety of ships.

But what's your opinion

MR-Bubbles · October 2007

When you get situations where a single carrier can sit on a low security gate and gank whoever passes by with impunity while being effectivle unkillable becaus eof its design then id say it does need to be changed.

Then you get those who say something like this, " then why not bring some friends and warp jam him or blow up his drones".

well i can say now that that dont work with things as they are.

Taram · October 2007

MMM

Yes, actually all capital ships need re-work in my opinion, not just carriers. Dreads are absolutely useless for anything other than POS bashing while carriers can do anything under the sun, and then some... so yeah... caps need adjusting.... Titans are ok though I do think taking away the remote DDD really removed the only true anti-blob affect in the game. MOM's are WAY over powered (imo) and need serious re-work as well.

All that said the NERF that they WERE going to hit caps with was way out of whack and didn't really address the problem at all. It was too much and too little all at the same time.

Netzoko · October 2007

Originally posted by Taram

MMM
Yes, actually all capital ships need re-work in my opinion, not just carriers. Dreads are absolutely useless for anything other than POS bashing while carriers can do anything under the sun, and then some... so yeah... caps need adjusting.... Titans are ok though I do think taking away the remote DDD really removed the only true anti-blob affect in the game. MOM's are WAY over powered (imo) and need serious re-work as well.
All that said the NERF that they WERE going to hit caps with was way out of whack and didn't really address the problem at all. It was too much and too little all at the same time.

I agree that MOM's need some adjusting. Though, at least Dreads have a set purpose. I feel that every ship should have a set specialization. They discussed this with assault frigs on the last EVE-TV episode. They were talking about how EVE ships are made for specialization. Ships like assault frigs really have no purpose that other ships cannot fulfill.

Then, on the other hand, carriers and MOMs seem to be good at too many things at once, making them seen overpowered. The carrier changes in the dev blog seem like a good start. Dreads have a set purpose, and cannot do much else, which I think this is good. Caps shouldn't be made into all around pwn-mobiles.

Ozmodan · October 2007

Carriers are supposed to be support ships, they are mostly being used without support, at least in low sec, same thing with Motherships.

It is a good change for both of them. They are not meant to be used solo.

I doubt that the silly whines of carrier pilots will sway the change either.

Taram · October 2007

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Carriers are supposed to be support ships, they are mostly being used without support, at least in low sec, same thing with Motherships.
It is a good change for both of them. They are not meant to be used solo.
I doubt that the silly whines of carrier pilots will sway the change either.

Carrier w/o the ability to control it's drones and/or fighters is a dead carrier, period, even in lowsec. The only ships that are overpowered in lowsec are MOM and Titan because they're immune to standard tackle techniques.

Mors.Magne · October 2007

Originally posted by Taram

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Carriers are supposed to be support ships, they are mostly being used without support, at least in low sec, same thing with Motherships.
It is a good change for both of them. They are not meant to be used solo.
I doubt that the silly whines of carrier pilots will sway the change either.

Carrier w/o the ability to control it's drones and/or fighters is a dead carrier, period, even in lowsec. The only ships that are overpowered in lowsec are MOM and Titan because they're immune to standard tackle techniques.

I empathise that with the cost and skill points to pilot a carrier, it's not good to make them helpless. They should be excellent ships.

The problem is that they are currently so good that the vast majority aspire to flying carriers.

Wouldn't you prefer to fly a diversity of ships? For example, the upcoming Marauders and Black Ops battleships should also be as aspirational as wanting to fly a carrier.

Nicoli · October 2007

Taram pretty much has it dead on in his first post. As a Capital pilot myself they just aren't fun to use. I use a Dread because it knocks down a POS faster not because its fun to fly. In fact Dreads are so dull to fly I've fallen asleep with them. Carriers are a little better but they are workhorse vessels and very dull to fly. So I'll be glad to see my Chimera and Phoenix get a rework if it makes them more enjoyable.

BigDave7481 · October 2007

Pretty much what Taram said. The original changes that CCP were going to make by reducing the drones to 5 that the carrier itself can use would have gimped it. If your support was taken out or blocked from coming to your aid then the carrier is toast. With only 5 fighters a group of 3-5 BS could easly take down a carrier.

I believe that MOMs need change. Even though it CAN be killed in low sec (its been done and there is a vid on youtube of it) its still over powered. But I dont think taking away their defensive capabilities is the answer. The dev blog looks promising though with more thought being put into how to allow the player to make his own choice on what role the carrier will have.

Ozmodan · October 2007

3-5 battleships should always take out a carrier. That is why they are support ships!

5 fighters should always be a max for a solo carrier. If they lose their support they should be toast.

What don't you understand about the word support?

Today carriers are being used as pownmobiles in low sec just like motherships. That needs to be corrected.

I truely hope CCP follows through with the 5 fighter limit for solo ships. Abou t time they fix the abuse.

BigDave7481 · October 2007

Originally posted by Ozmodan

3-5 battleships should always take out a carrier. That is why they are support ships!
5 fighters should always be a max for a solo carrier. If they lose their support they should be toast.
What don't you understand about the word support?
Today carriers are being used as pownmobiles in low sec just like motherships. That needs to be corrected.
I truely hope CCP follows through with the 5 fighter limit for solo ships. Abou t time they fix the abuse.

Spoken like a true miffed mission runner who got bbq at a low sec gate by a carrier...

If my carrier can get owned by 3-5 BS then NO thank you. Its goin up for sell and I will stop flying them just like most of the carrier pilots out there would. A 1.2 billion isk ship being completely vulnerable to a few 100mil isk ships isn't right. It should be able to defend against a force at that level... its a capital ship ffs. I DO agree that they are some what overpowered in the sence that they can do many roles with little change / effect and the MOMs need to be nerfed a bit but dont completely gimp carriers in the process.

ENTR0PY · October 2007

You have no idea. You can't even use a carrier yet you support the nerf? Looking at your posts I also conclude you are probably one most ignorant posters I've seen on the eve-o forums. Please stop posting.

MR-Bubbles · October 2007

Originally posted by ENTR0PY

You have no idea. You can't even use a carrier yet you support the nerf? Looking at your posts I also conclude you are probably one most ignorant posters I've seen on the eve-o forums. Please stop posting.

Or maybee he was fortunate enough to see firsthad the tactic used by lone carrier pilots lately to just sit on top of a gate in lowsec blamming random ships. You know the sort thats practically impossable to kill [i hhear they do this out of bordom mostly].

Carriers are not meant to be frontline ships in any way or form they are supposed to be SUPPORT ships. The idea of giving out fighters to gangmates does fit in withthe traditional support role of a carrier.

ENTR0PY · October 2007

Only people in 30bil isk motherships do that not carriers. Learn more about your game.

jan84 · October 2007

Originally posted by ENTR0PY

You have no idea. You can't even use a carrier yet you support the nerf? Looking at your posts I also conclude you are probably one most ignorant posters I've seen on the eve-o forums. Please stop posting.

Cant do nothing but agree with entropy here The skills to fly a carrier to perfection is long over a year of skill training thanks CCP for letting down youre veterans and pleasing youre casual crowd just like every other MMO developer.

Oh and wherever they found this new Dev please put him back into his basement if you dont want to see a new SWG Mass veteran emigration.

damian7 · October 2007

to everyone reading and/or posting in this thread -- what was your opinion on the titan changes?

i intentionally chose the word 'changes' and not 'nerfs'. Why? read the initial dev-blogs about titans, their purpose and how the devs saw the titans being used.

the people who are posting here, and on eve-o, about how horrid these changes are, they're the same ones that talk about how a brand new toon can be totally competitive in eve, in no time flat.

we're not comparing a carrier in eve to a carrier in the U.S.Navy. We're not comparing that's carrier's fighters to navy Hornets. the hornets would be more akin to frigs. mainly, because they're manned, not remotely operated. you can not make an honest comparison of an eve-carrier to a real-world carrier, UNLESS you make all the eve-carrier's fighters piloted by individual pilots.

having said that -- there should be no wtfpwn-mobiles in eve. that is something the devs had trouble foreseeing (for whatever reason), until massive amounts of supercaps had been produced and deployed.

if i game favors older players 100% of the time over the newer players -- that game dies. there can be no argument or debate in this matter because it's truth. your older player numbers will slowly dwindle and you won't have massive influxes of new players to keep your team/company with the latest and greatest servers, training, etc. it's almost a logistics thing - if you want your realworld supply lines strong, there HAS to be a reason for new players to join AND stay for long amounts of time.

having said all of that -- they're just now implementing this new batch of battleships (and other ships). they're also mentioning that this is part of the spin-up into T3. wouldn't it be logical to think that changes to super caps (at this time) are in preparation for better models of battleship and higher? perhaps balancing where a t2 (or even future t3) battleship is better able to fight against the larger ships.

just throwing some thoughts out there.

BloodDuality · October 2007

I have problems with any changes ccp does simply because, they are taking a product people spent a lot of time and money on to get and weakening what they were promised. Same thing happened when ccp changed how the curse worked for me. I spent several months just working towards that one ship and making it perfect only to have it severely weakened. It can still perform its function just not as well. So now with the curse ccp took a ship that was 300 mill after fittings and made it able to die to most any cruiser and up. Long gone are the days of it being able to kill a BS. Even though a BS may only cost 150 mill. I do understand that fights in eve are not fair especially after my fleet of 40 Tech 1 cruisers took out a dread. Ane lets not forget Battle Badgers FTW.

Bahemoth · October 2007

Honestly I think carriers are fine as is. I see them killed all the time in lowsec and 0.0 all it really takes is about 3-5 neutfit domis and a 1 remote cap/armor transfer ship if all the other domis fit 1 remote rep aswell they can easy take out a lone carrier. if CCP wants to make them weaker thats fine but dropping them to only 5 fighters (10 at max if you use those mods) is a bit stupid

as for moms and titans being basicaly invincible in lowsec easy fix prevent them from jumping to a cyno thats opened in lowsec and gm power abuse kick the rest of them back to their home systems in 0.0

MR-Bubbles · October 2007

Originally posted by ENTR0PY

Only people in 30bil isk motherships do that not carriers. Learn more about your game.

Same thing.

I think someones nerve got hit...do you fly such ships by any chance?

Nicoli · October 2007

The real problem with the nerf is that most people don't understand what is being done. Carriers will still be able to field a theoretical max of 15 fighters and Moms 25 fighters. What they won't be able to do is control all 15/25 by themselves. Carriers just need 2 gang mates and Moms need 4 gang mates in order to be able to use the absolute maximum amount of fighters they are fielding.

The requirement to have a few allies along with carriers is a good thing over all and most carriers I know already have them along and usually pass control of fighters over to smaller faster locking ships. Is it the fix I would do to carriers no, I'd put a second normal carrier into the game and split the repping and combat sides of the current carriers into 2 seperate ships. One combat, One more of a Mobile repair base. Both would have fighters but only the combat would get the bonuses to fFighter amount and the other would only get bonuses to repairing. You'd have 2 specialist carriers that can utilize either ADCUs or Triage to be close to the other ship in ability or utilize the appropriate module to further enhance their ship bonuses. Would also be nice if the Advanced Drone control interfacing skill increased the effective ness of a single ADCU to balance out the single module requirement off the 2 carriers.

damian7 · October 2007

Originally posted by Nicoli

The real problem with the nerf is that most people don't understand what is being done. Carriers will still be able to field a theoretical max of 15 fighters and Moms 25 fighters. What they won't be able to do is control all 15/25 by themselves. Carriers just need 2 gang mates and Moms need 4 gang mates in order to be able to use the absolute maximum amount of fighters they are fielding.
The requirement to have a few allies along with carriers is a good thing over all and most carriers I know already have them along and usually pass control of fighters over to smaller faster locking ships. Is it the fix I would do to carriers no, I'd put a second normal carrier into the game and split the repping and combat sides of the current carriers into 2 seperate ships. One combat, One more of a Mobile repair base. Both would have fighters but only the combat would get the bonuses to fFighter amount and the other would only get bonuses to repairing. You'd have 2 specialist carriers that can utilize either ADCUs or Triage to be close to the other ship in ability or utilize the appropriate module to further enhance their ship bonuses. Would also be nice if the Advanced Drone control interfacing skill increased the effective ness of a single ADCU to balance out the single module requirement off the 2 carriers.

that's definitely something to consider. did you post this in the 100+ page post on eve-o?

Nicoli · October 2007

Originally posted by damian7

Originally posted by Nicoli

The real problem with the nerf is that most people don't understand what is being done. Carriers will still be able to field a theoretical max of 15 fighters and Moms 25 fighters. What they won't be able to do is control all 15/25 by themselves. Carriers just need 2 gang mates and Moms need 4 gang mates in order to be able to use the absolute maximum amount of fighters they are fielding.
The requirement to have a few allies along with carriers is a good thing over all and most carriers I know already have them along and usually pass control of fighters over to smaller faster locking ships. Is it the fix I would do to carriers no, I'd put a second normal carrier into the game and split the repping and combat sides of the current carriers into 2 seperate ships. One combat, One more of a Mobile repair base. Both would have fighters but only the combat would get the bonuses to fFighter amount and the other would only get bonuses to repairing. You'd have 2 specialist carriers that can utilize either ADCUs or Triage to be close to the other ship in ability or utilize the appropriate module to further enhance their ship bonuses. Would also be nice if the Advanced Drone control interfacing skill increased the effective ness of a single ADCU to balance out the single module requirement off the 2 carriers.

that's definitely something to consider. did you post this in the 100+ page post on eve-o?

No but this was my idea right up on the Feature and Ideas forums http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=623951&page=1

BigDave7481 · October 2007

Originally posted by MR-Bubbles

Originally posted by ENTR0PY

Only people in 30bil isk motherships do that not carriers. Learn more about your game.

Same thing.

I think someones nerve got hit...do you fly such ships by any chance?

Motherships and Carriers are far from the same. Moms are nearly invincible in low sec because they cannot be warp scrambled where as Carriers can be scrambled. Carriers get killed all over low sec and 0.0 and shouldnt be completely nerfed by only being able to field 5 fighters but the Mom should be nerfed a bit.

I support Nicoli's idea of specalizing your carrier fit to either be a combat carrier (field 10-15 fighters) or a logistics carrier (remote reps, triage but a drop in drone usage amount).

ShtupandPLAY · October 2007

Originally posted by Nicoli
The real problem with the nerf is that most people don't understand what is being done. Carriers will still be able to field a theoretical max of 15 fighters and Moms 25 fighters. What they won't be able to do is control all 15/25 by themselves. Carriers just need 2 gang mates and Moms need 4 gang mates in order to be able to use the absolute maximum amount of fighters they are fielding.
The requirement to have a few allies along with carriers is a good thing over all and most carriers I know already have them along and usually pass control of fighters over to smaller faster locking ships. Is it the fix I would do to carriers no, I'd put a second normal carrier into the game and split the repping and combat sides of the current carriers into 2 seperate ships. One combat, One more of a Mobile repair base. Both would have fighters but only the combat would get the bonuses to fFighter amount and the other would only get bonuses to repairing. You'd have 2 specialist carriers that can utilize either ADCUs or Triage to be close to the other ship in ability or utilize the appropriate module to further enhance their ship bonuses. Would also be nice if the Advanced Drone control interfacing skill increased the effective ness of a single ADCU to balance out the single module requirement off the 2 carriers.

I been flying Thanatos for about 8 months now. I aggree with this post. It doesnt matter to me whether I cordinate my fighters or another gang mate. Most of the time I give my fighters to the Battleship pilots who dont have T2 heavy drones. There not nerfing the amount of fighters in combat just what you can control.

Kyleran · October 2007

Well, after reading what the CCP Dev's posted I have to say I agree with their thinking, however its easy enough for me to day since I'm fairly new to EVE and never really even considered training up a Carrier (yet).

MR-Bubbles · October 2007

Originally posted by ShtupandPLAY

I been flying Thanatos for about 8 months now. I aggree with this post. It doesnt matter to me whether I cordinate my fighters or another gang mate. Most of the time I give my fighters to the Battleship pilots who dont have T2 heavy drones. There not nerfing the amount of fighters in combat just what you can control.

Now thats how a carrier is supposed to be used to help out and support your friends.

Howdy, Stranger!

Should carriers be altered?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Should carriers be altered?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV