Assembly Hall

Supers at about 7+ times the cost of a dread, and 10+ times the cost of a carrier have it easier? How unreasonable!

You're really not making much sense, you seem to want to avoid any risks, and have the benefits of supers without the penalties such as cost and the need for another account. It's your problem if your pos bash is going slowly because of your fear of using dreads or unwillingness to invest in supers. Risk/Reward working exactly as it should in my opinion.



When I say multiple roles, I mean carriers can do triage, pantheon, ratting, hauling all sorts, there is absolutely no reason to give them any more roles such as siege proportionate damage. Again you're not making much sense, "drone problem"...? Drone assist is (sort of) being fixed and you solution has nothing to do with that so I assume you mean some other "problem". Not entirely sure why you're smugging about being hard to catch either, it's swings and rounadabouts again, fighters suck and you're no doubt making less money as a result by not using sentries. Low risk strategy deserves low level reward so that's a good thing in my book.

Yes, but costs considerably more than a carrier, it can't dock, has a massive bullseye on its back, requires a second account for the holder, can't be insured, can't be built without access to sov. It's very much deserving of its unique abilities.



What do you mean it wouldn't make things easier for the blob too? All they would do is hit the same structures with carrier gangs too, they wouldn't bother with supers as why risk them when the carriers can do the job just as well. I share your desire for 0.0 to be more broken up and for smaller entities to have a fighting chance without a blues list longer than than this post. But what you're proposing is just bad and I'm not sure why you're so terrified of any kind of risk, if everybody was so risk averse then this would be the dullest game ever. I have multiple capitals too, and guess what, they get put in harms way!

CCP have said that they do not want ability linked directly to cost, in any case Supers would have four times the tank, four times the damage in terms of fighter-bombers in terms of this suggestion, and they have the advantages of immunity to all but HIC's and dics, and can use remote ECM burst. They will be no where near as good as supers, the damage would be 2000 DPS which is double their current against sov modules, hardly game breaking is it?

A Dread gets a 10k DPS in siege, the fighter bombers from carriers as suggested would be 20% of that, but it gives options.

You talk about risk and reward, so your comments on the CFC using SB's in Fountain, that was low risk wasn't it, so I am some sort of bad player for wanting lower DPS for lower risk, but something better than what is possible now, yeah right!



A carrier is a ship designed to apply fighters, with logistic ability and a good tank, that it has other roles within the game is how people use them, now I have pointed out that a Super had 8k of damage, a sieged dread 10k and a carrier with 5 fighter bombers would be 2k, people do use carriers against POS's and structures, but currently the damage is 1k.

The reduction in the number of assigned drones is a band aid fix, in reality they need to have separate fighter and drone bays, so that the drones carried are more limited. Do you get that?

There was a Goon a week back who lost two carriers sentry ratting within a day of each other, I can assure you that I have made a lot more ISK then him, and my killboard looks so much better. I play my game to be hard to kill, it annoys the hell out of certain players, but its where I get my kicks.



I was talking making it harder for the blob, its really a question of numbers and vulnerability to being caught , if you are caught you die, simple as. And people will still risk supers ast they will be four times better, in other words 1 can do the job of 4 carriers and are at less risk due to their advantages which I keep repeating.

I think its more options, and as for being terrified, ROFL, I don't like giving easy kills and sitting there in a dread for 5 minutes is is an easy kill. Sorry not for me, and yes I have had my stuff in harms way, I just don't do stupid things. And yes most people are risk adverse, that is why I almost left recently, most of the players I see in my area are waiting to cyno stuff on you, that is their gameplay, you cannot get more risk adverse than that.

Anyway I think for a person who supposedly wants more small entities in 0.0 you miss the point that small changes can make this happen, I think this would make a slight difference to be honest, but a step in the right direction.

Lol I'm not saying anybody is bad for not dying. I'm saying what the real game application of fighter bombers in carriers would be, and you know I'm right, the only reason you don't want to use dreads is because you're clearly extremely risk averse and think you should be entitled to some low risk high reward solution to your structure bashing problem. I've got news for you sieging dreads isn't insta death like you seem to think either. 5 minute cycles do not give people long to respond, and you can be in and out before somebody has noticed you and formed a response fleet let alone positioned cyno's and jumped in. Amusingly considering your poor argument on how much safer supers are, they would likely be noticed much sooner as a bunch of people's addressbooks would alert them to its online presence.

Keep posting that only hics and dics can point supers isn't making its relevance any more important, if both it and a carrier are aligned out and they're both going to bug out once a neutral/hostile enters local or neighbouring systems, it's irrelevant. Which without doubt is how you see them being used.

I really don't understand how you can't see that by increasing the capital/structure bashing role of the carrier that you're diminishing the role of dreads and supers. That would be game damaging if carriers were close enough in ability that you remove the reason to use them. Why risk a nyx when you can use 4 insured archons? Or use a few carriers instead of a dread, with dreads it wouldn't even necessarily have to be a direct comparison in dps because of their siege cycle, if they need to be there 6 mins, they're there for 10 so a few carriers that could do it in 8 would actually be more efficient dps all of course without risking your ship.

If you want high dps at minimal risk get your checkbook out or accept that the cheaper version is more vulnerable, you're paying for what you're getting. If you don't like it I'm not going to feel sorry for risk averse carebears complaining how long its taking to bash a pos.

The idea that more expensive stuff is better at a job is a concept applied the whole way through the game, the more you're willing to pay, the better toys you get access to. Next it'll be oh I want blops to be able to bridge my noctis to low sec, I can't afford a titan but it'll be good for the game if more ships can go through a black ops bridge. It's only a small increase to their existing role. Titans will be just as useful though!

I'm not sure where you've got this idea I'm totally against the idea of reducing the drone bay on a carrier from?

Anyway as much as I've enjoyed correcting your misconceptions, I am quite tired of discussing this obviously bad idea.

...discussing pvp content with carebears

What you seem to be missing is that carrier were never meant to be structure bashers, thats what dreads are for. Its not the dreadnoughts fault that you insist on attacking a POS that doesnt have optimal conditions for their deployment and its certainly not a reason to introduce a change that gives carriers a role they were never designed to perform.

Carrier as in carrying something, carrying Fighters and why not fighter-bombers. They were never meant to attack structures you say, but they do, on the weekend a -DD- fleet of Chimera's attacking a POS was destroyed, likely they were dimwits using sentry drones, but they were attacking structures with the highest DPS they could. The POS example I have given is what any smaller group in 0.0 has to deal with, and is one of the reasons for such a stale game in terms of new alliances in 0.0, I don't think this suggestion on its own is going to change things but with others changes it could.

Lets come up with a ridiculous response to your ridiculous one, men were not meant to be in space, in reality, we are talking about game balance, Supers and Titans were never meant to be in the numbers that they now are, can we keep doing this, never meant indeed, but the reality is that Supers and Titans are now in massive numbers, hence the need for something to balance off against them. Your idea of balance is different to mine, but please get away from never meant, its a stupid argument when the issue is balance and options when the reality is that we are dealing with never meant numbers of supers and titans.

Make Supers siege then, but the carrier with 5 fighter-bombers is 20% of a sieged dread which is double their current fighter DPS.

Your comparison works for Dreadnoughts, they have a much larger tank, a larger range and 9 times the DPS of BS.

Carriers currently have about the same DPS against BS and structures, we are talking about increasing their damage on structures, after all fighter-bombers cannot hit BS can they?

And the valid drawback is that Dreads are still 5 times better than 5 fighter-bombers and Supers 4 times better.

And if you say immobilize carriers then immobilize supers, personally I think this whole immobilize thing to be a sitting duck is stupid. Well lets look at your logic, Supers and Titans out-perform BS and they are not immobile, where is your logic, oh but dreads that do 5 times the proposed damage are immobile so every ship has to be like that, what about making every ship immobile while you are at it. I am after options for smaller entities and this is one of the changes that could shake up Eve, not create more easy kills for the blobs, well go figure...

As it is fighter-bombers, they have no impact on sub-caps, zilch, rien, yet the best you can come up with is make them immobile, its a depressing thought that your alliance who I had a lot of respect for has someone in it that wants easy gank type kills, sad to see it..

Supers and Titans deserve and get the extra damage and potential, the proposal makes no real difference to that.

Of course I know what a slowcat is, I want to see CARRIERS have a separate Fighter and drone bay, remove this excessive number of drones and in return give them a bit more power against structures by choosing to pack fighter-bombers. I was wondering if you knew what slowcats were after you suggested that having fighter-bombers would double the potential DPS of slowcats, which are as you correctly stated sentry focused carriers, most of them hardly have any fighters on board.

Why do carriers not deserve an increase in DPS against structures?

And by the way I am not the OP.

That was a much better, from the start I wanted the carriers to have a separate fighter bay to the drone bay, and I still have to go back to the difference between a siege dread and a carrier with fighter-bombers, 10k vs 2k.

My suggestion within the OP's proposal would be to stop carriers being used as sentry drone boats, but increase their ability in terms of fighters and fighter-bombers, no other changes. I suggested this because I felt that the game would be better with a more focused carrier.

The question of impact in terms of making it very easy to take down towers is one issue, so you range suggestion is a very valid point, but I still think the RR is OK for small fleets, it gets an issue at the larger scale, but for my part I want the carriers to be a threat to supers and titans if packing fighter-bombers, but they would be very brittle with the right sized fighter bay which should be limited to 12 fighters and 5 fighter-bombers, so super smart-bombing would clear them out effectively as a threat.

no and simply no