EVE General Discussion

I said 'look', which is subjective, and therefore true to me.

I'm one of those players that doesn't care if his gameplay style is optimal, or even useful. I'll spend my isk on things I think look pretty :D

Why field links? Plus Thanatos gets no bonus to links. OGB Commandships and T3s will still fill that role. Thanatos doesn't have near the tank of the Archon or the Chimera, and nothing close to the reps of the Nidhoggur.

The only thing it had going for it was DPS, but most people don't field carriers unless they are triage in which case they cannot use drones or fighters.

This is my overarching feeling on the whole thing too.

It's like how removing the harsher penalties for being podded has allowed CCP to introduce NPCs that aim for the pod too.

I can't help but wonder if reducing Fighter capability in this regard is setting up for either a new gameplay mechanic that will make sense of this change, or it is in preparation for a general Carrier-class overhaul in the upcoming months.

Nids have their niche - their local burst rep capabilities and bonused remote rep can be pretty useful for surprise attacks outnumbered where your working on the premise of crippling the other fleet before they are organised enough to turn the tables i.e. log on ambushing a multi-dread escalation fleet.

A delusionary niche created by the superb failure of purchasing a Minmatar Carrier skillbook and the lack of interest in spending another 500M and >50 days to train for a real ship.

Could someone link the video please.

Keeping the abilty of fighters to warp, maybe not by following a target, but to return tot he carrier if it warps off without its fighters, or it disconnects, should remain. As an ex carrier and super pilot, losing 200m is fighters (10 fighters X20m each) cause i had to run or forget to pull them in will make me cry.

yes tears.. *cries*

All it needed really was making it so that you can't assign* fighters within a certain proximity (say 50km or something) of a control tower (the code is already there anyhow) due to "harmonic distortion" from POS mods or some other reason for the somewhat arbitrary restriction and giving fighters damage scaling based on target sig like titans and most of the biggest issues are fixed in a balanced way rather than taking the nerf bat to it and destroying part of the game for people who are entirely unconnected to the "skynet" issue.




* *cough* cough* assist *cough*

I have some proposal for nerfing assing fighter without kill the mechanics and fighters :
creating a bs ship or bc with the hability to have assissing figthers or a modul hight slot only for carrier and ms making ayble to assist one fighter.

You killed nerfed inoff capitals spending 1 year skilling time for only remote is a little to hard no?

And fighter would be totaly use less if this comme out : a set of sentry makes more domage than a set of fighters.


or other thing you creat an option (in petition) for reinbourse sp spend for a carrier and buy back if players dont wanna play this ship anymore. (and eventualy the time i spend to skill alts for assissting figthers and get a mother ship
Thx in advance for this


you nerfed before the capacity of travel and mouving assets i dident say anything i was interested about thes changes.
BUT ON THIS I DONT agree totaly

Possibly. There has also been a spate of people sitting just outside their POS shields and assigning fighters to frigate camps in lowsec = instadeath for anyone jumping in without a cloak. Aggro was assigned to the carrier, so no gateguns for the frigs to worry about.

I fail to see why everyone's so mad. It's a broken mechanic. If you want the effects of your ship to be felt, you should be on grid risking it.

Asking every gang who wants to take frigs into low to bring a) enough people and b) the right ships to deal with bumping a carrier into it's POS is missing the point a little. Crappy gameplay for all involved despite the 'imagination' shown by the risk-averse in their caps.