These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Using a tier 1 carrier for solo low sec pve
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lustralis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-05-21 18:45:28 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
If you can explain to me what reason there is that would validate complete denial of stargate use for capitals, I'm perfectly open to hearing it. As long as there is a timer on each stargate preventing more than one capital from jumping through every 5 to 10 minutes, I can't think of a good reason.

I am genuinely curious to know if there is one. I am not saying the game should be broken or severely changed to suit my needs. I merely pointing out an effective solution that would allow for both parties to be satisfied without penalty.


It's just to do with mass limits on gates but also creating the need for cynos allows for a new point of player/player interaction, i.e. the cyno itself. Without it, caps could WTZ from gate to gate, perhaps with a couple of webbing frigs to speed up their align. Flying caps was never intended to be a solo thing. They're mostly fleet support and have quite specialised roles in many cases related to that.

I wouldn't fly one solo, period. I would definitely not fly one solo in low sec for PvE.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-05-21 18:46:11 UTC
Apolyon I wrote:
you still dont know yet what can carrier do, dont even think about it



Very much this.

If you can't have some training from older players used to this you should really avoid doing so. Just a friendly warning.

brb
Ilkahn
Ideal Mechanisms
#43 - 2012-05-21 18:51:11 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
If I see probes on the D scan I'll aligning instantly. I know it takes a few seconds in a carrier, but I doubt they'd have time to probe me out and get a fleet in before I could escape.

I don;t know, part of me just wants to try and see if I can do it. I mean, a couple billion isk for a carrier is a lot, but it's not unrecoverable. It's worth it for the excitement.

So really, which carrier or dread would be best suited for this sort of venture?


It doesn't matter which one you get, any will do for what you want. Just don't load it up to much as you will be surprised just how fast we all will kill you.
Marcus Ichiro
IchiCorp
#44 - 2012-05-21 18:56:29 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
Just because everyone uses an alt does not mean it's not cheating. It's allowed because if they were banned CCP would lose at least 20% of their revenue if not more. It's a business, financial decision that has nothing to do with making the game better, fun or fair. So I refuse to take part in it. If I wanted I could maintain 10 alts but that's not fun. I do not want to give myself unfair advantages, I am only annoyed right now when the game literally forces me to do so because of a flawed mechanic.


You keep complaining that the EVE is not sandbox-y enough yet you complain about alts?

Sounds like you just want the sandbox to suit you rather than provide a fun, balanced game for everyone.
Ilkahn
Ideal Mechanisms
#45 - 2012-05-21 18:58:39 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
..... A carrier doesn't take that long to train for nor is it prohibitively expensive like a super carrier.

ShockedShocked I see you must not have trained drone interfacing to 5 yet, advanced starship command to 5? I'm still just Shocked at that statement.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#46 - 2012-05-21 19:30:10 UTC
Here's the deal. People use carriers for PvE all the time, albeit mostly to grind sanctums in sov null. Some people use them for L5s, though they are only usable on ungated missions. The Thanatos is best for these purposes hands down.

However. Capital ships simply aren't designed for easy solo use. They can't use gates because they are meant to be corp/alliance assets. However, CCP has indeed given us a way around this: cyno alts. It's too bad you don't want to go down that road because that's an intended/endorsed gameplay mechanic for "solo" capital pilots.

As a more general matter, you've got some reading to do to make it work. If you thought carriers were immune to ewar, you need to find yourself a good guide to capital ships. If you thought a carrier could make it out once probes were on dscan, you need to practice some combat probing yourself (and perhaps EFT-warrior some fits and check your align time).

But it's all workable. You just have to make the investment, both in the second account and in some reading time. If it's something you seriously want to do, do it. Yes, you'll likely lose a few to ganks, but oh well. Embrace the game as it is and you'll find all the solutions are there.

One last thing: your idea for capital timers on gates isn't well thought-out. If you can't figure out a way for that to get brutally abused you need to sit back and think a little harder about it.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#47 - 2012-05-21 19:40:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Katrina Oniseki
Drakarin wrote:
If you can explain to me what reason there is that would validate complete denial of stargate use for capitals, I'm perfectly open to hearing it. As long as there is a timer on each stargate preventing more than one capital from jumping through every 5 to 10 minutes, I can't think of a good reason.

I am genuinely curious to know if there is one. I am not saying the game should be broken or severely changed to suit my needs. I merely pointing out an effective solution that would allow for both parties to be satisfied without penalty.


It's not just a design decision that prevents carriers from using stargates, it's also a technical limitation.

The game coding that handles stargates does not support allowing only certain types of ships for certain stargates. The coding only supports whether or not certain ships can use stargates at all, not where.

In short, you can't limit the use of specific stargates. It's all or none. The game coding does not allow for it.

Before you start suggesting CCP re-code the stargates, no. Sorry, but there are multiple reasons why not. The biggest reason is time and effort required at the expense of other fixes and features that must be done. The stargate coding was one of the first things written for EVE waaaaayyy back in the day. Back during EVE's development era, there was little to no programming documentation being done, so the only people who understand the coding for certain areas of the game are the ones who literally wrote those parts. Many of those people no longer work for CCP.

CCP does not have the time or resources to devote rewriting the stargate coding just so you can fly your carrier through lowsec stargates. There is already a working and balanced method of transportation for capital ships. Cynosural fields.

If you don't want to get a friend to light a cyno for you, or if you don't want an alt... then your carrier isn't going anywhere.

Katrina Oniseki
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-05-21 19:44:05 UTC
Immortis Vexx wrote:
This topic is vaguely reminiscent of someone else that posted a request for a solo carrier. People have told you time and time again that you CAN do it but its NOT smart. What I don't like about your post is your attitude. You come here looking for advice/help and then slap all of them in the face for giving it.


Because the advice is not to do it because it's dangerous, which I already knew. What I wanted to know was which ship was best overall, and if anyone had done this before. All I have been told so far is that I am crazy for wanting the ability to fly a ship alone *Gasp*

Quote:
Here is the main point. Go, and make this happen. Go set up your POS in the middle of nowhere and manage to get a carrier out there and start ratting. Why are you asking the forums for permission when you clearly already have the idea implanted in your head to do it? As many have said, YOU ARE A FOOL. They say that, "a fool and his money are soon parted" and you are the iconic embodiment of this saying. You WILL die, you WILL lose that carrier and your POS if you set one up. You have no understanding of this game and the low/null mechanics that run it. Furthermore, you resent the mechanics that you do not understand. Foolish, plain and simple. Take the advice from these people who are trying to save you a crapton of time/energy.


You say you dislike my attitude. It's a defensive attitude in retaliation from the general condescending posts that have been given so far. All I hear is "Well you don't have the cookie cutter min max attitude so you're a fool". That's very helpful and kind.

This is not an issue of a mechanic I don't understand, but a mechanic that makes no sense. Like I said before, if someone would care to divulge what the reason is for capitals to be restricted from using a stargate that does not lead to high security space, and has a limit of one capital per 5 minutes, let me know what it is. I really do want to know if there is a valid reason I have not thought of.


Quote:
Secondly, go get an orca, put two 1600mm plates on it, and start warping around high sec. When that feels fast to you, come back and start asking about a carrier Blink

Vexx


If you would direct me towards a post of mine where I said that I believed a carrier would be a fast ship, I would appreciate it. I said it would take a few seconds, which is entirely correct. Perhaps more specific, as in, 20 or 30 seconds. Yes?

Quote:
PS: There is a point that "risk" isn't risk anymore. I can risk my life by jumping off a skyscraper but that seems more like suicide than risk to me.


And in a sandbox if I want to commit suicide I should be able to. Although that is not what this is. This is me, thinking of a plan to have fun, risky adventures in low security space in a way that few people tend to because what is at stake is rather high.
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-05-21 19:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Drakarin
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Here's the deal. People use carriers for PvE all the time, albeit mostly to grind sanctums in sov null. Some people use them for L5s, though they are only usable on ungated missions. The Thanatos is best for these purposes hands down.

However. Capital ships simply aren't designed for easy solo use. They can't use gates because they are meant to be corp/alliance assets. However, CCP has indeed given us a way around this: cyno alts. It's too bad you don't want to go down that road because that's an intended/endorsed gameplay mechanic for "solo" capital pilots.

As a more general matter, you've got some reading to do to make it work. If you thought carriers were immune to ewar, you need to find yourself a good guide to capital ships. If you thought a carrier could make it out once probes were on dscan, you need to practice some combat probing yourself (and perhaps EFT-warrior some fits and check your align time).

But it's all workable. You just have to make the investment, both in the second account and in some reading time. If it's something you seriously want to do, do it. Yes, you'll likely lose a few to ganks, but oh well. Embrace the game as it is and you'll find all the solutions are there.

One last thing: your idea for capital timers on gates isn't well thought-out. If you can't figure out a way for that to get brutally abused you need to sit back and think a little harder about it.


Thanks for the post, but come on. If you think it can be abused that's great, let me know how. I have thought about it. I see no way to abuse it. Unless you consider waiting 2 hours for 12 capitals to get in the system an "abuse" I don't know what to say.

Hey at least I appreciate the friendly tone.

Lustralis wrote:
Drakarin wrote:
If you can explain to me what reason there is that would validate complete denial of stargate use for capitals, I'm perfectly open to hearing it. As long as there is a timer on each stargate preventing more than one capital from jumping through every 5 to 10 minutes, I can't think of a good reason.

I am genuinely curious to know if there is one. I am not saying the game should be broken or severely changed to suit my needs. I merely pointing out an effective solution that would allow for both parties to be satisfied without penalty.


It's just to do with mass limits on gates but also creating the need for cynos allows for a new point of player/player interaction, i.e. the cyno itself. Without it, caps could WTZ from gate to gate, perhaps with a couple of webbing frigs to speed up their align. Flying caps was never intended to be a solo thing. They're mostly fleet support and have quite specialised roles in many cases related to that.

I wouldn't fly one solo, period. I would definitely not fly one solo in low sec for PvE.


I absolutely agree, which is why I proposed the delay on stargates. Only one capital every few minutes. That solves the issue, but again, lets me have my crazy fun that will likely end in me crying myself to sleep. Everyone wins.

Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Drakarin wrote:
If you can explain to me what reason there is that would validate complete denial of stargate use for capitals, I'm perfectly open to hearing it. As long as there is a timer on each stargate preventing more than one capital from jumping through every 5 to 10 minutes, I can't think of a good reason.

I am genuinely curious to know if there is one. I am not saying the game should be broken or severely changed to suit my needs. I merely pointing out an effective solution that would allow for both parties to be satisfied without penalty.


It's not just a design decision that prevents carriers from using stargates, it's also a technical limitation.

The game coding that handles stargates does not support allowing only certain types of ships for certain stargates. The coding only supports whether or not certain ships can use stargates at all, not where.

In short, you can't limit the use of specific stargates. It's all or none. The game coding does not allow for it.

Before you start suggesting CCP re-code the stargates, no. Sorry, but there are multiple reasons why not. The biggest reason is time and effort required at the expense of other fixes and features that must be done. The stargate coding was one of the first things written for EVE waaaaayyy back in the day. Back during EVE's development era, there was little to no programming documentation being done, so the only people who understand the coding for certain areas of the game are the ones who literally wrote those parts. Many of those people no longer work for CCP.

CCP does not have the time or resources to devote rewriting the stargate coding just so you can fly your carrier through lowsec stargates. There is already a working and balanced method of transportation for capital ships. Cynosural fields.

If you don't want to get a friend to light a cyno for you, or if you don't want an alt... then your carrier isn't going anywhere.


Oh...

Wow, that's disappointing. I admit I know nothing about coding, but it seems off to me that recoding gates would be that challenging. But I really can't say either way, I just don't know. If that is the case, well, that sucks. Ugh.
Immortis Vexx
Onyx Moon Industries
#50 - 2012-05-21 21:05:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Immortis Vexx
To OP - I didn't quote because it was too long but...


First mistake: Posting on the forums and not expecting some trolls to slip into the mix
Second mistake: retaliating in kind
Third mistake: Trashing the game mechanics that you haven't bothered to think about for even a minute

These three points will earn you the ire of most eve players out there, even the semi-helpful ones (like me). You even went on to DEMAND that the game mechanics be changed to suit YOUR purpose. Guess what? That REALLY annoys me. In my opinion that's as bad as the carebears asking for PVP immunity.

Capital ships are not supposed to be w/o support. You need a FLEET, which is why we have fleet compositions, strategy, Etc. A lone capital ship is like trying to siege a castle with just one catapult on the field. Why didn't our previous wars use this tactic? BECAUSE IT'S A CRAPPY PLAN! You talk like you have unlimited resources and that losing a bil is nothing or that skill training is done in a day. I lost all respect for you my friend, your lack of care and regard for the things that you own would make me really reticent to fly with you doing anything; I wouldn't trust you with an ibis let alone a carrier.

Come back when you have a healthy respect for things, people, and time; then we can talk.

Vexx

Edit: Changed a couple words to make more sense.
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-05-21 21:09:39 UTC
What are you talking about?

This is a game. I want to have fun. It just so happens that I enjoy the prospect of risking an expensive ship not because I can easily replace it, but precisely the opposite, because I cannot. THAT is fun for me. Who are you to tell me this is an improper form of "fun"?

I am not demanding anything. I am making a suggestion that would allow for the intended function of the limit to be removed while still maintaining the integrity of sov and low sec space with the timer limit instead.

No one has yet to point out a single reason why this would not work.

To DEMAND something without providing a solution is annoying. To ask for it while providing a solution is fine.
Immortis Vexx
Onyx Moon Industries
#52 - 2012-05-21 21:37:38 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
What are you talking about?

This is a game. I want to have fun. It just so happens that I enjoy the prospect of risking an expensive ship not because I can easily replace it, but precisely the opposite, because I cannot. THAT is fun for me. Who are you to tell me this is an improper form of "fun"?

I am not demanding anything. I am making a suggestion that would allow for the intended function of the limit to be removed while still maintaining the integrity of sov and low sec space with the timer limit instead.

No one has yet to point out a single reason why this would not work.

To DEMAND something without providing a solution is annoying. To ask for it while providing a solution is fine.


Never said you couldn't do it, said it wasn't wise. Which is something that everyone said. When they went on to explain why it was unwise because of mechanics, you suggested changes to mechanics to MAKE it wise or make it fit into your grand plan of "fun." The world doesn't revolve around your version of fun, nor should it. Your posts feel like someone constantly asking, "but why?" over and over again.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#53 - 2012-05-21 21:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Drakarin wrote:
Because the advice is not to do it because it's dangerous, which I already knew. What I wanted to know was which ship was best overall, and if anyone had done this before. All I have been told so far is that I am crazy for wanting the ability to fly a ship alone *Gasp*


There's a difference between "dangerous" and "guaranteed suicide". There is effectively zero chance that you will make enough money to even break even on the carrier's cost before you lose it, especially since you seem to have very little understanding of how capital ships work.

If you want to save yourself a lot of effort, just buy a carrier and self destruct it. Same end result, but without all the whining about how you need a cyno alt.

Quote:
This is me, thinking of a plan to have fun, risky adventures in low security space in a way that few people tend to because what is at stake is rather high.


So your idea of "fun" is either:

1) Sitting in station 23/7 because a prober found your mission, and you don't dare resume it as long as there's even a single person in local (which could be a cloaked HIC sitting on your mission gate).

or

2) Watching your expensive capital ship die in seconds to a hostile dread fleet because you didn't click dscan frequently enough to catch the few-seconds window where the probes were actually within scan range.

I'm really not seeing why this is such an awesome idea that CCP should waste development time changing the game to make it more convenient.
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-05-21 21:40:37 UTC
It's not unwise because a mechanic does not allow me to use a stargate. It's annoying because of that. It's unwise to go about it alone because there's a good chance I will be tackled before I can escape. That is not safe.

This mechanic is pointless given the alternative I suggested. I state again, if there is a reason why my solution would not work, please do tell me.
Leto AtradeisII
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-05-21 21:50:18 UTC
haven't you understood it yet?

internet spaceships is serious business....

In all honesty its a nice idea, however capital timer on gates also affects high sec as well - frieghters and jump frieghters, obviously people can and will find a way around this if it was implemented. Here is a reason why it shouldn't work: imagine you are a child at the park in the sandbox, you feel like a total jerk and want to start throwing sand at all the other kids while no ones parents are looking. The other kids get mad and start throwing sand back - one of them manages to find a small pebble and flings one at you. you retaliate by finding a small rock and throw back, finally they get ever more p.o and finds a clump of cat poop and hurls it your way. you start crying and expects mommy to clean up the mess.

There are certain rules in the sandbox that are meant to be a level the playing field for all players (check out POS BOWLING), this is why actual sandboxes are made of sand and not small rocks and pebbles. And why building progressive large sand castles takes, not just water, but the right amount of water to hold everything up.

The gate restriction also gives purpose to smaller classes of ships. The logistics restrictions have to be accounted for larger and larger vessels - this is why Titans and Supers can't dock, you are sitting in one until you lose it (or have a sitter alt), they are powerful force multipliers. These restrictions on capitals is like a "be careful what you wish for" warning. Yeah I can do 5000dps in my seiged dread, i can kill your pos solo, but would a fleet of sniper battleships be more appropriate for the task?

bite the bullet and get an alt, or better yet join a null sec alliance and carebear in your carrier in relative peace.
Boz Wel
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2012-05-21 22:10:50 UTC
Drakarin wrote:
It's not unwise because a mechanic does not allow me to use a stargate. It's annoying because of that. It's unwise to go about it alone because there's a good chance I will be tackled before I can escape. That is not safe.

This mechanic is pointless given the alternative I suggested. I state again, if there is a reason why my solution would not work, please do tell me.



Why can't my Rifter jump 10+ jumps instantly and bring a stack of fitted ships along for the ride like a carrier can? I want to haul things for my trading alt using my Rifter. I don't want to buy a carrier, this is a sandbox game, therefore I shouldn't have to. Why can't my Rifter store 800,000 m3 of exotic dancers? Why should I have to train freighters, this is a sandbox damn it. Please give me a reason why my solution of allowing my Rifter to jump to cynos and haul a million m3 of exotic dancers would not work. I state again, if you have such a reason, please do tell me.
Etteluor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2012-05-21 23:08:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Etteluor
Drakarin wrote:
Obviously concord would not allow capitals to jump into high security space. I never suggested they be allowed to do that.



So let me get this straight, not taking a carrier into lowsec is game-breaking sandbox destroying slander, but not taking a carrier into highsec is fine?

Your meaning of sandbox is that if it hurts you, it breaks the sandbox, but if it hurts other people you dont care.

You also have no understanding of carriers, lets review;
-you think they warp in a few seconds, lets say a few means 3-7.
-you think they can use stargates
-you think they can only be pointed by HICs
-you think they can kill a ship that tackles you

For some reason you're also convinced that there are more than one tier of carrier, you keep saying "small carrier" and "tier 1 carrier", carriers are carriers.

play the game for more than 6 months before you try to go into a carrier.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#58 - 2012-05-22 00:41:13 UTC
Drake
Nuff said

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-05-22 01:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Drakarin
Etteluor wrote:
Drakarin wrote:
Obviously concord would not allow capitals to jump into high security space. I never suggested they be allowed to do that.



So let me get this straight, not taking a carrier into lowsec is game-breaking sandbox destroying slander, but not taking a carrier into highsec is fine?

Your meaning of sandbox is that if it hurts you, it breaks the sandbox, but if it hurts other people you dont care.

You also have no understanding of carriers, lets review;
-you think they warp in a few seconds, lets say a few means 3-7.
-you think they can use stargates
-you think they can only be pointed by HICs
-you think they can kill a ship that tackles you

For some reason you're also convinced that there are more than one tier of carrier, you keep saying "small carrier" and "tier 1 carrier", carriers are carriers.

play the game for more than 6 months before you try to go into a carrier.


Taking a carrier in low sec, intended to be dangerous, is fine. Yes. Taking it into high sec where people can declare wars on new corps is not fine. Thought that was obvious.

I never said 3-7. I know they take between 20 and 30 seconds to align and warp.

I thought the first tier, the cheapest, non super cap carrier could use a stargate, yes.

I thought only HICs could tackle a ship the size of a city, yes.

Of course they can. They have a full compliment of drones with damage buffs and tons of modules for them. If they can't, something is wrong.

There are two carriers no? One is the basic cheap one barely a billion isk, the other was previously known as a mothership, and it's a supercapital that costs up to 20 billion.

Leto AtradeisII wrote:
haven't you understood it yet?

internet spaceships is serious business....

In all honesty its a nice idea, however capital timer on gates also affects high sec as well - frieghters and jump frieghters, obviously people can and will find a way around this if it was implemented. Here is a reason why it shouldn't work: imagine you are a child at the park in the sandbox, you feel like a total jerk and want to start throwing sand at all the other kids while no ones parents are looking. The other kids get mad and start throwing sand back - one of them manages to find a small pebble and flings one at you. you retaliate by finding a small rock and throw back, finally they get ever more p.o and finds a clump of cat poop and hurls it your way. you start crying and expects mommy to clean up the mess.

There are certain rules in the sandbox that are meant to be a level the playing field for all players (check out POS BOWLING), this is why actual sandboxes are made of sand and not small rocks and pebbles. And why building progressive large sand castles takes, not just water, but the right amount of water to hold everything up.

The gate restriction also gives purpose to smaller classes of ships. The logistics restrictions have to be accounted for larger and larger vessels - this is why Titans and Supers can't dock, you are sitting in one until you lose it (or have a sitter alt), they are powerful force multipliers. These restrictions on capitals is like a "be careful what you wish for" warning. Yeah I can do 5000dps in my seiged dread, i can kill your pos solo, but would a fleet of sniper battleships be more appropriate for the task?

bite the bullet and get an alt, or better yet join a null sec alliance and carebear in your carrier in relative peace.


It makes no sense to require an alt.

If CCP does not consider an exploit or cheating to use an cyno alt to get around"solo" in a carrier, there's no logical reason to keep the restriction for capitals in place when my idea is present. The only reason is money incentive for CCP via alt revenue.

I am honestly surprised I seem to be the only one who has an issue with such an overtly oppressive restriction in place, when there is such a simple and effective alternative that pleases everyone.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#60 - 2012-05-22 01:21:34 UTC
This made it to 3 pages? 8/10

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.