Player Features and Ideas Discussion

^^This

I was just referring to the undocking animation. And you're right, only one Mach in a carrier but other battleships can fit 2. And it's not the insane cargo mechanics in eve, but the actual animation problem of making something big come out of something small.

1+

this is a great idea..

+1

I've always thought a carrier should have the ability to move ships and pilots, creating the ability for a strong raiding force backed by capital-class firepower, but also risking a capital-class loss, as well as the loss of their ride home.

Problem with the whole docking bit is the "Ownership" of docked vessels. For example, what happens when pods are docked and the carrier docks in station? can the carrier pilot move the pods to his ship hangar? Can the pods undock from a carrier while the carrier is docked in station. Then there is the issue with afk docked pilots or if and when someone should log while docked.... etc etc... There is alot of variables that have to be reworked, The mooring options just allows a short cut, add new code, fish and edit a lil bit of old code and bam... Dunzo!

Granted its not that simple but I would imagine its easier then going over old code and figuring out what needs to be edited, cut or added in place of another line of code but with all that aside, I would like to see walking in ships, docking in carriers and all that jazz, but it just seems like a lot of work and would need a lot of attention and would most likely be an expansion in itself. If its easier to do the mooring bit, then lets get it done just so theres something to work with to allow more time for whats mentioned above.

There would be ownership concerns with anything a developer does that involve more than one person, though I do see the specific angle you're coming from. Eve already has many situations where ownership of items is transferred to and from players. True, Pods are a bit different. In their case, any time a carrier logs, simply force ALL docked pods out. If it docks and logs, force them out in station(Yes, code would have to be revised to push them to their own hangar). If it's in space, then force them out wherever the server last had the carrier placed(No this isn't a clean option for disconnects, but disconnecting isn't a clean feature). Carriers going multiple jumps often dock quickly to get capacitor back up, but it's not the end of the trip, so we wouldn't want an auto forced undock from carrier every time a carrier docks. The Carrier pilot should also have the ability to eject pods, just like ships.

In Eve, half the experience is building up relationships, for lack of a better word, so you can get farther in the game. This route to carrier transporting goes the same way. Alot of people already contract lots of ships to alliance carriers to move when alliances move, and those carriers can, at any point, steal themselves billions of isk. But, they'd be out on their own. Players have to make a decision as to whether to give them that opportunity though. Same thing would go with these pods/docking in carriers. Pilots would have to actively decide to take the risk, for a gain. The carrier pilot could either be a dependable pilot, or jump pods into the middle of enemy bubbles, eject them, and have their friends kill them. That's Eve though.

Mooring, while it is quick, I don't think another rushed, band aid is right for capital ships. They've already been pretty hampered already with rushed concepts and band aid fixes. Anything that helps bring them into the depth of design, balance, and purpose as the rest of Eve I think is good.

In the past, yes this active vessel problem has been just that, a problem. Fortunately, we are playing Eve at a very exciting time. Much of the fabric of the game has been redesigned this last year and a half, and just as much is still awaiting revisit/redesign. Why can't we fix capital ships now as well? I don't know where I read it but I do seem to remember dev's commenting that the carrier concept was rushed, that there wasn't a good reason for one carrier to be both logistics and drones, but after an hour of forum searching, I can't find it so I can't say for certain.


But why can't it be redesigned now? I'm not at all suggesting that it would be quick or easy. But it would make much more sense. A carrier is large enough to hold ships. Why could it not hold an extra passenger on top of its crew?

The intention behind the line of thought I've put forward was never to bypass a problem. It was to resolve it and build in a new element that can have some very far reaching developments and effects. Mooring, while it doesn't require a 'fix' to the ownership problem, is also a quick fix/band-aid to the problem. Where I am not sure real life applies is in the ability of a mooring line to pull another ship into a jump and keep it while jumping, then drop it out of jump with it. In real life, Mooring lines are put under immense amounts of strain just towing ships slowly through water, much less instantaneous mass acceleration and deceleration.

Unless there is something in the lore I am not familiar with(quite possible) I don't see any reason two capsuleers should never be on the same ship, assuming the ownership issue could be resolved. And even within that, there is all kinds of room for future interactions between Eve and DUST.

Personally, I'd be happy for either option, with the sole provision that moored ships must either suffer a lock penalty similar to a decloak, or must be pods, ships themselves stored in SMB for the jump. As it is, Hot dropping is already way too prevalent, though fun at times. I don't think adding a quicker, cheaper way to do it would be good for Eve. If anything roaming needs some major helps. But that being said, I'm much more of a fan of the Walking in ships route than tying ships to carriers. The ownership issue can be resolved. It'd be a challenge, and maybe not viable to be looked at til post tiericide, but should definitely be looked at, IMO.

After reading your last post, I gotta wonder how much you've actually dropped.

You say it's not quicker or cheaper, but a Carrier is far quicker to train into and far cheaper than a Titan, and comparative to a proper fit BLops in cost. Recons have huge force multiplication, if limited dps, so only take a few to really turn the tables of a fight, provided pilots are anything resembling competent.


A carrier can just dock and solve the cap problem or pop a couple cap boosters and have it solved in about a minute. If one of its BC's webs it it warps in about the same time it'd take to pop a couple cap boosters, if not less. A carrier landing on a fight is, in most cases, an instant GTFO, because dropping a carrier shows a pretty significant investment into a fight. Most BLops fleets have a carrier or two on standby, in case things go south. Not all, but alot.


There is almost NO reason for a carrier to remain on field for an entire reship and return to field, unless there is a fight to support it, at which point there will be a force to win it, not just a single carrier.

The Concept of 'risking carriers' sounds good on paper, and yeah, there will be people that do it, just like people use them to aggress on station. But the vast majority of people who would use this function for this reason have the force to back it up, and are willing to throw it down, and their targets aren't.

The instant 'go, go go!' fight carrier idea is only going to hurt those groups.


Just my two cents on the subject.


Either way, seeing Carriers being able to be used more and able to provide an alternative transport method would be great.

coolest idea yet!! This would just make the game far to cool.

Context tweaking here, as I believe you took some of my points outside their intended meaning.

Actually, my point had more to do with risk to the jumping group.

For comparable threat to a titan bridge, the BLOPS group needs to send more ships, and individual ships per dps basis are more expensive.
Try to keep in mind, the BLOPS can't send in anything not using a covert cloak, while the titan can send anything, including these force multiplying recons just like the BLOPS does.

Neither requires the expensive bridging ship to follow.

Force being used with backup support is not being faulted, and you make a good point regarding it.

This is not significant to my point, which reflected risk investment needed.
It doesn't matter how much you gamble, if you know you are going to win. Advanced preparation and overwhelming support reduce any level of risk to manageable amounts.

It does make carrier jumping, as it is now, something to be done by those properly prepared, and far less casual than bridging to balance the risk involved.

Carriers make sense being used to bring players to conflicts this way. Not just their unmanned ships.