Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Awful idea, there is a good reason why there is no stronger sub-cap than the BS.
And i have to disapoint all of you guys, there won't come that one imba ships which will kill everything else, with its tousands combined roles (large dmg, logistic, mining?, ecm?) in one ship. It would just break the game, so as supercaps broke the game with their combined roles of different ships.
Think about a ship whichs fills out a real gap, logistic carrier which can fly with battleships isnt one it, you got logistics cruisers for sub-caps which are strong enough and you got carrier/motherships for caps.

From what i have gathered, the op wants it to do everything a carrier can currently do without a triage module and no jump drive, less training time and a smaller price tag

How do you get that impression?

Much much less remote rep ability than carriers

Much much less tank than carriers

No fighters

SO how does it do everything a carrier does?

I do actually... But what if I didn't? People are not allowed to suggest something because they don't own every ship in the game?
That is just a strange reaction don't you think?

I have a carrier, I am admittedly not a multi year alliance war carrier pilot veteran, but I do have a carrier.

I legitimately feel that the following are true:
1. Skill requirements to get into a battleship are much much less than to get into a carrier
2. SKill requirements for capitals are sufficiently above the requirements good BS's that they represent a barrier to entry.
3. The style of combat represented by carriers is something that no ship provides and so there is no learning curve.
4. There are not many BS sized options for utility/support ships.
5. The difference in movement style with capitals makes them difficult to get into or used to.
6. There is room for a new class of ship in the Eve universe.

The combination of 1-5 creates a significant barrier to entry for players to make the leap from battleships to capitals and when they do, they are typically bad at it and either require significant tutoring from vets, or they lose their capital and have a negative experience.

I feel that the Escort Carrier, being somewhat larger than a BS, and able to jump through gates with a support specific role and based on the use of drones and drone management, with skill training that is slightly more than a BS but less than a capital makes them a good logical step to progression after Battleship V. The learning curve for large support ship and drone management makes for better carrier pilots when they get to that point.

The people who have argued against it have said one of the following:
1. THis doesn't fill a unique role.
Rebuttal: this is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to make a difference, and I assert that it DOES fill a role.
2. This is overpowered.
Rebuttal: This is basically a very tanky battleship that gets less DPS than a gank BS's, is able to provide some limited remote repair, and only adds utility to a fleet but which would be very dicy to use solo. As long as cost is balanced well, power is not an issue since it is not, as some have tried to claim, a carrier able to fly in high sec.
3. You just want a carrier for cheaper
Rebuttal: I have one, I don't care about that at all and saying such is a straw man argument.
4. We don't need more capital ships in this game.
Rebuttal: This is not a capital ship, its a slightly larger than BS class support vessel (something that we don't really have currently)

If I have missed any arguments, please let me know. All the ones I can think of are represented in some form by those four.

You forgot to mention that it will have a bigger signature then a BS an only sligtly more EHP, but around the same DPS (~1000 with all Skills V). So those will be easily killed by capitals especialy Dreadnaughts, and also will be as weak against sub-capitals as good tanked BS are. So something like a destroyer is for small vessels, and BC for medium Vessels.



If this cheap Carrier is easily killable it means it is a cheap killmail for both sides. So this could also be a reason for this "light" Carriers...

Supercarriers are way more powerful than a battleship, if they cost the same, that would be unbalanced, but since a super carrier costs 200 times as much, its fine....


Don't read one line of the entire thread, then comment on it without understanding what you are saying. Make an argument that is not just "huh uh!" and maybe I will have a discussion with you.

You don't know how to read do you?

Please point to what in this idea is a capital ship ability...

I'll wait.

P.S. I responded in that way because the other guy was deliberately ignoring the point. If something is slightly better tank than a battleship with more utility, and costs 2-3 times as much, then that is balance whereas a ship that costs 2-3 times a battleship but that is 10 times the ability is unbalanced.

To distract from the original point to say "cost and balance are not linked" is poor logic and not true in nearly every sense.

Nope.

Reading comprehension level 1 would help you out.

Read Page 9 and page one, then come back and participate.

On page one, I said, "Some additional iterations posted at the tope of page 9"

So it is assumed that the reader will proceed to page 9 to read the rest and not read the 9 pages of discussion that went into changing them all.

If I change page one, without noting such, then people will read 9 pages of discussion about something that is no longer true and wonder what is being discussed, and unable to understand the thread of the discussion from one iteration to the other.

In the way it is now, you can read the OP as it was, and either proceed through 9 pages of discussion so that you know what is being discussed, or skip to page 9 and see what the current state of the idea is.

If/when the idea takes on a new iteration, I will either make a new link to a later page, or I will create a new thread all together and link to the original.

Either way, you are making an argument against something that has been discussed at length and has been amended in response. That is one of the biggest problems with trying to have discussions in this forum, people don't actually READ the threads...