Assembly Hall

I think this is a very good idea and I would support it as a small corp/alliance type of person, where it would enable smaller entities a better chance against Supers and the like, I am especially thinking also about the impact on Sov warfare, which would shake things up a bit even with the blob...

Any reason it is not a good idea? Or just no? Actual input is required here please.

I appreciate your input Null and with the implemention perhaps the best way to manage it is with active drone control units. Meaning you must sacrifice high slots to fit 5 bombers total.....leaving options for remote reppers and energy transfers to zero as carriers only have 5 high slots. So to reasonably equip a carrier for xfer you would only be capable of launching 3 bombers to save space for 1 energy xfer and 1 shield/armor remote repper.

Perhaps those numbers are a bit more reasonable or equip some carriers full bombers and others full triage capable. So while a fleet of carriers is potent (as it should be) this tactic could be added as fleets wouldnt know which carrier to primary.

Numbers From EFT (not sure how accurate it is):

Max Skills Thanatos With 15 Fighters = 1875 DPS (can't attack POS)

Max Skills Thanatos With 15 Sentries = 675 DPS (can attack POS)

Max Skills Thanatos With 10 fighters and 5 bombers = 3250 DPS

Max Skills Nyx With 25 Bombers = 12500 DPS

Max Skills Moros With 3 Ion Siege Blaster I loaded with Anti-Matter and Siege Module I = 5711 DPS

These numbers are on skills alone set to 5. (No extra weapon upgrades or drone upgrades aside from Drone Control Units)

If these are any reflection of true in-game numbers the carrier group will still be well below Dreads and far below Super Carriers.

This change would allow carrier pilots to be a fighting force for their alliances who can jump farther than any class capital and be a true asset for quick and effective strikes while being able to use other drone assets to defend against sub capital fleets. Adjusting the need for high slots to deploy bombers would limit the carriers ability to be used for logistics which would be the balance effect to require a pilot to give up something for added versatility.

Well a boosted moros can reach almost 13kdps with mods which helps prove my point that unboosted it still ranks above carriers with up to 5 bombers. But thats tech 2 siege faction ammo and 3 mag field stabs II and 2 rigs (lvl 5 skills ofc) so its not actually comparable damage.

Perhaps it is the fighters who need love for the carriers sake.

3250 dps max on a thanatos (who receives bonuses unlike other carriers) isnt in the realm of overpowered when you are sacrificing your ability to remote rep or xfer energy. The only increased threat here are stations, other caps and finally we can hit a POS respectfully.

BTW what is your range of "not particularly expensive"?

Appreciate the reasoning ElextriX. It's pretty sound.

By not particularly expensive - I'm not saying they're cheap of course, but wealth per capita has never been higher, isk grinding is easier than its ever been, and it really wouldn't take that long to replace if you know what you're doing with isk making. If you're in a corp that supports helping members into supers it should be even easier.

The problem wouldn't be that dreads don't do more damage still, of course they would, the problem would be that a carrier could do a decent chunk of that damage without dread like vulnerabilities, which is a really big deal. Once you've sieged green, there's no aligning out, no rr, and at the mercy of anything that might jump in during that 5 minute cycle. A carrier with your proposal could jump in (out of the range of a sieged dread if it wished) align out, recieve reps from buddies, refit on friendly carriers which inevitibly jumped in with you, and warp out should the fc decide at the presence of a hostile cyno, it would also still have the ability to hit sub caps hard on its own too, which a dread cannot. I don't know if you've been playing long enough to remember when supers could use all drones, it sucked.

For what its worth I would support an increase in fighter damage, not as high as 3250dps, or with the existing ability to assign fighters but somewhere around the 2k mark for about 10 seems OK to me. Currently, they are terrible.

10/10 would buy that novel

I don't have the time or patience to explain, in detail, why giving carriers in their current state the ability to deploy fighterbombers is a horrendously bad idea. So, cliff notes:

• There is a reason we don't allow supers to deploy drones other than fighters and fighter-bombers. A very good reason. There is a reason we don't let dreads use drones anymore. A very good reason. There is a reason why carriers have their specified, intended role in the capital tree. A very good reason.
• Capital proliferation is bad enough as-is. Giving high-SP alliances/corporations easier access to fighterbombers, regardless of place in the ~nullsec cartels~ or lowsec/facwarfare groups is a recipe for disaster and less-fun.
• Carriers already fill a plethora of roles, some of them questionably not where the ideal carrier should be. Giving them the additional DPS role that should really belong to dreads, supercarriers, and (maybe) titans is a recipe for disaster.
• Fighters have been meta-outed for a while now due to their inability to be used against subcaps to much of a degree of usefulness (or, for most of my alliance, against the red-cross menace at an acceptable ISK/hr ratio). They really need to be rebalanced to be useful for defending capital groups from BC/BS gangs instead of reliance on sentry drones.
• ADI is a skill that needs redesigning anyway. This is not the redesign it needs.
• I really don't want lower-SP characters getting access to fighterbombers just because they own a carrier. There is a degree of e-peening that comes from achieving the ability to field a supercarrier, and being given access to fighterbombes on that ship may as well be an exclusive perk of the craft. Plus, I hate people whining about instant gratification of their goals when they realize that EVE actually takes some time and investment to get to where you ideally want to be.
• As previously mentioned, getting a supercap isn't that hard these days. If you find it really hard to do, you're REALLY doing something wrong.

In its current state supers are already quite useless except in certain situations, they also require a dedicated character and are ******* expensive, if you give FB to carriers it will just make them completly useless so NONONONONONO.

Nothing prevents you (apart from a skillful bump) from warping off once you are aligned, that is the whole idea of it, I have bashed a few things on grid with a carrier such as POCO's, but the low damage I can apply means that POS's are not really a good idea because I do not have immunity to the POS disruptors, so in answer to you its no different to Supers in terms of Sov modules except that everything can point you, but different in terms of POS's as you need to take the point modules down fast, and with fighters it is not fast.

Also note that you cannot assign fighter bombers like you can fighters, so you have to be on grid, and supers being immune to all but HIC's and dictors have it easier.

Do you understand it now?

When you say role, the issue arrived because CCP added drone damage modules to the game, to me a carrier applies fighters and has logistics and tank, the drone issue needs to be resolved and my preferred way is a separate drone bay and fighter bay, the fighter bombers sits well with their original role, not the sentry drone role which developed from those modules.

Note that I never carrier ratted with sentry drones, the reason was that they were just too vulnerable for me, I continued to use fighters and aligned out as soon as I could, this made me very difficult to catch compared to all those around me that switched to sentries, ISK per hour stupidity wins Eve, lol.



The fact was that the I-win was down to them being able to switch to drones, clear tackle themselves and get out, which is why the drone bays were removed, because they were limited to only being tackled by HIC's and dictors made it easy for them, in that respect as the carrier can be tackled by anything their vulnerability is much greater. In fact with the change to an actual drone bay, I would add a limited drone bay back to supers. (Prepares asbestos suit for incoming flames...)



I was replying to an earlier post, but I never said it was wise to do so and agree with your comment here, but isn't that a good reason for have a low number of Fighter Bombers? If you fly a Super you should have Cap ship 5, the racial Carrier 5 and be packing the right implants. The Super has other advantages, such as Remote ECM burst, immunity to all but HIC's and dictors and the ability to apply a large amount of fighters and fighter bombers.



Unless CCP sees sense, death to supers and all that! This would be a good way to open up the game a bit more in terms of the Sov modules EHP and enable smaller entities a chance to kill things without making it easy for the blobs, with this change I believe that there will be a lot more pressure on those empty sov systems, lets take a group that uses a character with a cloaked carrier or two, they get control of the area, then drop SBU's and once online they use their already in place carriers that were used as mobile bases along with mobile depots with their fighter-bombers, now at last we have truly effective small group impacts on sov. Maybe it will pan out that way, maybe not, carriers are cheap and effective, I have 3 on this toon alone.

CCP have started to look at making 0.0 more fluid, this suggestion would be a great leveler, but I seriously doubt CCP has it in them to do this, so your little crack here may be the reality, which is why that when a certain game is up and running in 2015 I am likely to be running around on that instead.