These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Idea] Strike Carriers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-08-20 11:40:45 UTC
I'm still not seeing an argument which makes me go "yes, this must in the game".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-08-20 11:42:02 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Can the dominix not burn back to the gate? It can jump through and maybe get away back on the other side, the carrier is stuck in place until the next cyno is lit and jumps again, assuming is has not been tackled.


Generally speaking, no. If it's been attacked it's most likely slowed to the point where it'll pop before it gets back in range of the gate to jump.

And that same attacking group on the carrier? The carrier would be just as dead

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#23 - 2012-08-20 12:03:04 UTC
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#24 - 2012-08-20 12:05:46 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Can the dominix not burn back to the gate? It can jump through and maybe get away back on the other side, the carrier is stuck in place until the next cyno is lit and jumps again, assuming is has not been tackled.


Generally speaking, no. If it's been attacked it's most likely slowed to the point where it'll pop before it gets back in range of the gate to jump.

And that same attacking group on the carrier? The carrier would be just as dead


Erm, it really depends on the attackers and how the carrier is fitted. The carrier will potentially last a LOT longer to a small gang (especially it it has a triage module fitted) allowing friends to come to the rescue whereas the battleship will get toasted by a small gang in a couple of minutes at most.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-08-20 12:11:51 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?


Yes, i have looked at standard carrier fits, talked to players who operate in low/null and they all pretty much say the same thing, carriers are logistic ships. This version of a carrier would break from that standard, without stepping into an other ships territory, too much.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-08-20 12:12:50 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?


Yes, i have looked at standard carrier fits, talked to players who operate in low/null and they all pretty much say the same thing, carriers are logistic ships. This version of a carrier would break from that standard, without stepping into an other ships territory, too much.

Again, why?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Selaya Ataru
Phalanx Solutions
#27 - 2012-08-20 12:14:48 UTC
And what would be the advantage over say, a Dominix?
Heavy Drones are pretty nice, and benefit from drone mods, it also has guns to get even more damage out of the hull.

Wouldnt your idea essentially amount to a glorified, if not nerfed, drone BS for every race?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-08-20 12:16:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?


Yes, i have looked at standard carrier fits, talked to players who operate in low/null and they all pretty much say the same thing, carriers are logistic ships. This version of a carrier would break from that standard, without stepping into an other ships territory, too much.

Again, why?

For fun, to use a carrier in pvp for a reason other than logistics, to blow up a carrier that wouldnt cost 1.5 to 2 billion

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#29 - 2012-08-20 12:21:43 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?


Yes, i have looked at standard carrier fits, talked to players who operate in low/null and they all pretty much say the same thing, carriers are logistic ships. This version of a carrier would break from that standard, without stepping into an other ships territory, too much.


Yes but you're not asking for a carrier, you're asking for a BS with carrier weapon system. It'll still be equivalent EHP to a BS with BS equivalent dps and it doesn't have a jump drive.

I'm assuming that you've never flown a carrier otherwise you'd be aware of the vast difference between the tank on a BS and the tank on a carrier. You can't really compare the two in terms of survivability. Yes, with enough enemies the carrier will go down. With a BS a couple of enemies can arguably kill it but they simply couldn't even dent the carrier's tank.

Be that as it may, I personally have no problem with CCP giving people a ship that's no better than a BS but requires ~100mill worth of drones to be able to fight. I also like the fact that once pointed the only thing I'll need to do is kill off the fighters, which will incrementally drop the incoming dps making my job easier.

I do see it as a complete waste of development time though as I don't think they'd actually get used much in the incarnation you've got here.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-08-20 12:32:45 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Tchulen wrote:
I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is you're after. So, is this about it:

A battleship with no guns or missile launchers that can field 5 (or more outside of high sec) fighters and has no remote repping bonuses whatsoever?


Yes, i have looked at standard carrier fits, talked to players who operate in low/null and they all pretty much say the same thing, carriers are logistic ships. This version of a carrier would break from that standard, without stepping into an other ships territory, too much.


Yes but you're not asking for a carrier, you're asking for a BS with carrier weapon system. It'll still be equivalent EHP to a BS with BS equivalent dps and it doesn't have a jump drive.

I'm assuming that you've never flown a carrier otherwise you'd be aware of the vast difference between the tank on a BS and the tank on a carrier. You can't really compare the two in terms of survivability. Yes, with enough enemies the carrier will go down. With a BS a couple of enemies can arguably kill it but they simply couldn't even dent the carrier's tank.

Be that as it may, I personally have no problem with CCP giving people a ship that's no better than a BS but requires ~100mill worth of drones to be able to fight. I also like the fact that once pointed the only thing I'll need to do is kill off the fighters, which will incrementally drop the incoming dps making my job easier.

I do see it as a complete waste of development time though as I don't think they'd actually get used much in the incarnation you've got here.

Did you feel this way when the tier three battle cruisers came out? This is not that much different from that in a comparitave fasion, it is a mini carrier. It also requires similar skills as a carrier, allowing players to use something while they train up to a carrier or super carrier.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Selaya Ataru
Phalanx Solutions
#31 - 2012-08-20 12:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Selaya Ataru
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Did you feel this way when the tier three battle cruisers came out? This is not that much different from that in a comparitave fasion, it is a mini carrier. It also requires similar skills as a carrier, allowing players to use something while they train up to a carrier or super carrier.


Again, why introducing a new ships without a role?

A Dominix is already considerably better than a BS sized carrier with 5 not asignable fighters.
Tier 3 BCs do at least have a role and are fun as hell.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-08-20 12:39:05 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Did you feel this way when the tier three battle cruisers came out? This is not that much different from that in a comparitave fasion, it is a mini carrier. It also requires similar skills as a carrier, allowing players to use something while they train up to a carrier or super carrier.

The reason I keep asking "why?" is because, unlike t3 BCs, I don't see this as filling a niche role, it's just a bigger dominix. t3 BCs are highly mobile, highly powerful, paper-thin ships which die if you sneeze at them, and their impact on the battlefield have been huge since they basically require hit and run guerilla tactics.

I've seen no indication of a change of that type from your idea.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#33 - 2012-08-20 13:34:16 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Did you feel this way when the tier three battle cruisers came out? This is not that much different from that in a comparitave fasion, it is a mini carrier. It also requires similar skills as a carrier, allowing players to use something while they train up to a carrier or super carrier.


That's not a particularly good analogy. You're comparing the bastardisation of a capital ship and a battleship which will cost a lot more than any other battleship but has no more survivability or dps than any other battleship with a battlecruiser and a battlecruiser that's traded tank for dps. They're completely different situations.

As I said, the only issue I've got with CCP giving you this overpriced pinata is the waste of dev time it will incur.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-08-20 14:03:27 UTC
So the fact that tier 3 BC do the exact same thing as tier 3 BS with only a fraction of the HP and about half the cost is not a good analogy as a ship that does the same thing as a carrier but only has a fraction of the HP and about half the cost?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#35 - 2012-08-20 14:07:42 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So the fact that tier 3 BC do the exact same thing as tier 3 BS with only a fraction of the HP and about half the cost is not a good analogy as a ship that does the same thing as a carrier but only has a fraction of the HP and about half the cost?


lol. You think it should cost half a carrier? Hell, I'll get behind you if only to gank the things for jokes in high sec.

+1 from me. CCP, make it so!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-08-20 14:11:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So the fact that tier 3 BC do the exact same thing as tier 3 BS with only a fraction of the HP and about half the cost is not a good analogy as a ship that does the same thing as a carrier but only has a fraction of the HP and about half the cost?

See, a t3 BC doesn't do "exactly the same thing as a t3 BS", not even close. It has BS sized guns, sure, but the lack of HP and the agility means it can't stand up in a fight; if it gets locked, it dies. This is vastly different from any BS.

So, what new tactics will your oversized dominix bring to the table?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-08-20 14:12:30 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So the fact that tier 3 BC do the exact same thing as tier 3 BS with only a fraction of the HP and about half the cost is not a good analogy as a ship that does the same thing as a carrier but only has a fraction of the HP and about half the cost?


lol. You think it should cost half a carrier? Hell, I'll get behind you if only to gank the things for jokes in high sec.

+1 from me. CCP, make it so!


Current carrier cost is 1.2 - 1.4 bill un-fit, is 600-700mill un-fit unrealistic, it is twice what a tier 3 BS costs, and yes you will get to gank lots of these, people will use them, and if they use them they will get destroyed, with any luck full of officer mods also

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2012-08-20 14:26:37 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
So the fact that tier 3 BC do the exact same thing as tier 3 BS with only a fraction of the HP and about half the cost is not a good analogy as a ship that does the same thing as a carrier but only has a fraction of the HP and about half the cost?

See, a t3 BC doesn't do "exactly the same thing as a t3 BS", not even close. It has BS sized guns, sure, but the lack of HP and the agility means it can't stand up in a fight; if it gets locked, it dies. This is vastly different from any BS.

So, what new tactics will your oversized dominix bring to the table?

Fun

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-08-20 14:27:18 UTC
Fun isn't a tactic.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#40 - 2012-08-20 14:34:26 UTC
drop it guys.. im starting to think Omnathious Deninard is just trilling us to hell and back :P
Previous page12