These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

[Proposal] Fighter Bombers for Carrier Pilots

Author
Commander Shivari
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Brave Collective
#1 - 2014-02-16 18:00:04 UTC
First I would like to state that I understand the importance of an impact fighter bombers have on game play. However I do believe it is unfair that only the wealthy in EvE have the ability to use fighter bombers. While I would like to see this implementation actually happen it needs to be deployed in a controlled manner as to not greatly overpower the usefulness of this particular capital class ship.

Proposal 1:
Allow carriers to deploy bombers according to their Skill level in the respective Carrier skill.
Example: Amarr Carrier IV allows 4 Fighter Bombers Maximum for the Archon while Gallente Carrier V allows 5 Fighter Bombers for the Thanatos on the same character. (Never to exceed 5 deployed bombers for any carrier in one instance.)

Proposal 2:
Allow the Advanced Drone Interface skill regulate Fighter Bomber use on standard carriers in one of two ways.

First: Allow one fighter bomber deployment from carriers per skill level of Advanced Drone Interfacing
OR
Second: Allow one Fighter Bomber deployment for each Capital Drone Control Unit activated. (Regardless of carrier or drone skill levels that would not naturally effect deployment of drones)

Either proposal would limit standard carriers to 5 maximum deployed Fighter Bombers per Carrier. I believe this change will allow standard carrier pilots to be more useful in pvp and allow different strategies for the fielding of Capital ships for the future.

I would appreciate any insight others would have to amend this proposal or explain why this is a very bad idea. Please keep remarks clean.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#2 - 2014-02-16 18:35:03 UTC
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...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#3 - 2014-02-16 19:05:06 UTC
No. No no no no no no no no no no. No. No. NO. NO!

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Commander Shivari
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Brave Collective
#4 - 2014-02-16 19:34:35 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
No. No no no no no no no no no no. No. No. NO. NO!


Any reason it is not a good idea? Or just no? Actual input is required here please.
Null Interface
Saints Among Sinners
#5 - 2014-02-17 03:45:13 UTC
A carrier at max skills/fit can deploy 15 fighters (5 baseline, 5 w/ carrier skill, 5 w/ Drone Control Units) at 52.5 DPS each for 787.5 baseline DPS. The carrier is cheaper, has less tank, and can deploy any other drone out there other than fighter-bombers.

A supercarrier at max skills/fit can deploy 25 fighter-bombers (5 baseline, 15 w/ carrier skill, 5 w/ Drone Control Units) at 200 DPS each for 5000 baseline DPS, or ~6.35x as much DPS. The supercarrier is more expensive, has appreciably more tank, and can only deploy fighters or fighter-bombers.

Under your proposed new mechanic, a carrier fit for maximum drones could deploy a mixed squad of 5 fighter-bombers in addition to 10 other drones. This puts the maximum baseline DPS potential at 1525 (525 fighters, 1000 fighter-bombers), reducing the DPS spread to 3.28x.

I could probably calculate for the various skills and bonuses boosting drone DPS, but that's what EFT, EveHQ, etc are for.

This would increase the appeal of the already-versatile carrier. I do wonder about how it would unbalance the existing capital ship hierarchy...

  • I don't see near-doubling of carrier damage potential being good news for the crazy-expensive and decidedly un-versatile dreadnought.
  • It would point towards a new avenue for carriers in PVP besides triage and carrying infinite sentry drones for spider-tanking efforts
  • Given the immense differences in tank between a carrier and a supercarrier, it would be sort of like the "tier 3" battlecruiser-vs-battleship tradeoffs (or the new destroyers-vs-cruisers)... a lot more damage potential, but still can't fully punch above your weight class one-on-one
  • POS's (already easy targets for capital blobs) will be that much more vulnerable with carriers able to hit harder than normal at less cost than dreadnoughts and with longer legs
Commander Shivari
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Brave Collective
#6 - 2014-02-17 04:34:56 UTC
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.
Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#7 - 2014-02-17 05:02:54 UTC
Personally while the idea is noble, I think it isn't the best idea out there.

Dreadnaughts are the capital killers and damage dealers for the average pilot. When you look at most killmails after the supers and titans the dreadnaughts make the rest of the damage with the carriers at the bottom.

Carriers really are more of a logistic ship than a damage dealer, while their fighters can do very good damage, most of the carriers bonuses are to repping and cap transferring (depending on the race).

While dreadnaughts are more expensive, they still aren't completely out of reach.

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.

Commander Shivari
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Brave Collective
#8 - 2014-02-17 06:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Shivari
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.
ElextriX
Ghost Net Industrialists
Valkyrie Alliance
#9 - 2014-02-17 07:39:51 UTC
Firstly, supers aren't even particularly expensive anymore. Secondly, carriers already have a huge role in combat, well multiple roles actually, so why would they possibly need buffing further? Thirdly, your numbers in the above post are completley meaningless, why would anybody use a no damage mod moros for example? Fourth, why would anybody use supers if carriers could do the same job at a fraction of the price? Fifth, you've just killed any point in using dreads too, well except maybe structure bashing, carriers wouldn't be stuck in siege for 5 mins with all resulting vulnerabilities and doing comparable damage.

The only thing I really agree with in this post is the suggestion that fighters need some love. I'm not sure what, but, they need a boost of some kind. Perhaps, fighters get damage increases from use of DDA's, but definately wouldn't include fighter bombers.
Commander Shivari
Industrial Mining and Mayhem
Brave Collective
#10 - 2014-02-18 03:56:53 UTC
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.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2014-02-18 18:49:27 UTC

The only way I'd be alright with carriers having fighter bombers is if/when they sieged. Allow them to fit a Siege Module that gives them the ability to deploy fighter bombers, and perhaps it would be alright.

The truth is, I don't believe this would be a good idea, even if they had to "Siege" for such an ability. Simply put, they'd be competing with dreads but with less damage and less damage range. I just don't see a reason to give carriers more attack potency.

ElextriX
Ghost Net Industrialists
Valkyrie Alliance
#12 - 2014-02-18 21:24:15 UTC
Commander Shivari wrote:
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.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#13 - 2014-02-19 06:49:20 UTC
Why not just unsuck fighters. What a novel idea.
Preceptor Stigmartyr
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-02-19 13:06:59 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Why not just unsuck fighters. What a novel idea.

10/10 would buy that novel

**4/19 **NEVER FORGET ಠ_ಠ

Kutka
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-02-19 13:17:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kutka
Commander Shivari wrote:
I do believe it is unfair that only the wealthy in EvE have the ability to use fighter bombers.


"If You Don't Have A Hustle And You're Not Space-Rich, Don't Blame The ISK, Blame Yourself"
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#16 - 2014-02-19 18:03:30 UTC
Commander Shivari wrote:
Any reason it is not a good idea? Or just no? Actual input is required here please.

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.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#17 - 2014-02-21 15:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
The biggest issue I have at this point is being able to hit a POS effectively, waits for the get more friends, your space poor, blah blah blah.

I think the carrier should have a Fighter / Fighter-bomber bay and a drone bay, I think that the number of sentries that a carrier can carry is stupid! Fighters need improvement, that is for certain.

In terms of the comment about some sort of siege module for carriers when using fighter bombers, why, they are easy to get a point on anyway, anything can point them unlike Supers and Titans, if you make it certain death like a dreadnought then no one will do it. I don't use a dreadnought simply because its just too damn vulnerable for smaller entities, I am not playing this game to feed easy kills by the way, if its certain death I don't do it, which is why I don't use a dread!

Fighter Bombers are good at attacking certain Sov modules, IHUB's SBU's and TCU's, also good on stations, they should also be good on certain POS modules, which have big tanks, such as warp disruptor Batteries, ECM batteries to name a couple. Smaller entities would have more chances if they had fighter-bombers in carriers IMO. Also this would reduce the importance of Supers, death to all supers and all that.

In terms of Supers the reason why the drones were removed was that the drones made them too difficult to hold down, they could clear off the Interdictors and Heavy Interdictors easily ON THEIR OWN, now they can't and are very vulnerable and need a support fleet, a carrier can be pointed by anything, so having drones makes no difference to them, while for a super it made them virtually immune! That is why you did not want to explain it!

Drones on dreads made little difference, before the Moros could have cleaned some small tackle, big deal...

Making carriers more useful in terms of sov bashing is a win win situation for small entities and will produce more fights in the game, bigger entities will take more risks with a carrier fleet and have a reason to use them still after the drone nerf is applied, when it comes. Everybody moans at the amount of DPS needed for sov, givving another option to apply DPS on sov modules is a good thing.

A carrier applies logistics and fighters and has a tank and cap to be able to survive to a degree, that is its roles, it carries fighters as its main weapon, why not a lower number of fighter-bombers.

I find the comment about allowing lower skilled people getting fighter bombers on a carrier laughable, all you have to do is train fighters to 5, what the hell is the difference, I can jump into a Super with carrier I, and the advantage of Supers is the large number of fighters and fighter-bombers and the immunity to all but interdictors and Heavy Interdictors let alone the Remote ECM Burst.

No wonder you just said no with no elaboration.

As for getting a super, sorry but I don't want another account so I can baby sit a super.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Zeoxan
ZF Industries
#18 - 2014-02-21 23:04:59 UTC
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.
Electric Dott
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2014-02-22 05:15:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

In terms of the comment about some sort of siege module for carriers when using fighter bombers, why, they are easy to get a point on anyway, anything can point them unlike Supers and Titans, if you make it certain death like a dreadnought then no one will do it. I don't use a dreadnought simply because its just too damn vulnerable for smaller entities, I am not playing this game to feed easy kills by the way, if its certain death I don't do it, which is why I don't use a dread!


Now admittedly my area of experience is mostly lowsec which I understand has slightly different mechanics but, as soon as you land on grid in the carrier, what prevents you aligning off and warping off if anything decloaks? So no, carriers are not easy to put a point on. The siege like damage in a hard to catch ship is one of the best attributes of supers and should definately not be applied to cheaper ships and particularly ones which already have a huge role.

Dracvlad wrote:

In terms of Supers the reason why the drones were removed was that the drones made them too difficult to hold down, they could clear off the Interdictors and Heavy Interdictors easily ON THEIR OWN, now they can't and are very vulnerable and need a support fleet, a carrier can be pointed by anything, so having drones makes no difference to them, while for a super it made them virtually immune! That is why you did not want to explain it!


They were removed because they were an I-win button that didn't require sub-capital support; something that isn't supported by CCP.

Dracvlad wrote:

I find the comment about allowing lower skilled people getting fighter bombers on a carrier laughable, all you have to do is train fighters to 5, what the hell is the difference, I can jump into a Super with carrier I, and the advantage of Supers is the large number of fighters and fighter-bombers and the immunity to all but interdictors and Heavy Interdictors let alone the Remote ECM Burst.


Just because you have the prerequisites to fly a ship doesn't mean that you should fly a ship. The difference is low skillers aren't likely to jump in a super because of the cost of a loss, whereas carriers are cheap. For smaller and less cap heavy entities things like align out speed are a big deal. So skills like capital ships 5 become more important in a super.

Dracvlad wrote:

As for getting a super, sorry but I don't want another account so I can baby sit a super.


Enjoy not using fighter bombers then.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#20 - 2014-02-22 09:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Electric Dott wrote:
Now admittedly my area of experience is mostly lowsec which I understand has slightly different mechanics but, as soon as you land on grid in the carrier, what prevents you aligning off and warping off if anything decloaks? So no, carriers are not easy to put a point on. The siege like damage in a hard to catch ship is one of the best attributes of supers and should definately not be applied to cheaper ships and particularly ones which already have a huge role.


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.

Electric Dott wrote:
They were removed because they were an I-win button that didn't require sub-capital support; something that isn't supported by CCP.


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...)

Electric Dott wrote:
Just because you have the prerequisites to fly a ship doesn't mean that you should fly a ship. The difference is low skillers aren't likely to jump in a super because of the cost of a loss, whereas carriers are cheap. For smaller and less cap heavy entities things like align out speed are a big deal. So skills like capital ships 5 become more important in a super.


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.

Electric Dott wrote:
Enjoy not using fighter bombers then.


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.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

123Next page