These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I feel as if regular carriers are fine
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#1 - 2011-09-14 01:03:18 UTC
I hope CCP doesn't accidentally nerf regular carriers. While a super carrier can both deploy fighters and fighter bombers, I don't believe fighters should get a nerf. Carriers should be left alone. They're right where they need to be.
Crunchmeister
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-09-14 01:05:57 UTC
I agree. Carriers are fine the way they are. And I don't think there's any plan to nerf them that I've heard of anywhere. If there is and I missed it, then by all means, please link the source.

People were constantly telling me I was crazy. For a long time I didn't believe them, but after a while, I started to think they might be right.

But it turns out that they were all wrong. One of the voices in my head is a psychiatrist and he says I'm perfectly sane.

Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#3 - 2011-09-14 01:08:35 UTC
My concern is that they'll nerf both fighters and fighter bombers to nerf the super carrier, and end up nerfing the carrier accidentally
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-09-14 01:21:39 UTC
AFAIK, neither fighters or Fbs are getting a nerf at all.

And carriers are getting a buff too

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Jita Alt666
#5 - 2011-09-14 01:31:45 UTC
Headerman wrote:
AFAIK, neither fighters or Fbs are getting a nerf at all.

And carriers are getting a buff too


I to have heard this. Increased space in the SMA for regular carriers and the Drone deployment options for Supers modified with an EHP nerf.


Let us hope some idiot at CCP doesn't try a work around involving fighter/fighter bomber attributes.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#6 - 2011-09-14 01:38:14 UTC
Well - there are many possibilities for CCP messing them up - like accidentally changing drone deployment options for carriers as well or overpowering dreads (although I'd welcome having overpowered dreads for a change).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-09-14 01:42:32 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Well - there are many possibilities for CCP messing them up - like accidentally changing drone deployment options for carriers as well or overpowering dreads (although I'd welcome having overpowered dreads for a change).


OP dreads would still be pretty damn hard pressed to take out a spider carrier gang :)

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#8 - 2011-09-14 01:51:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Well - if they couldn't take out a couple of pantheon-archons, they wouldn't be properly OP - but I still have faith in CCP properly messing it up ;)
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Crystal Liche
ACME Mineral and Gas
#9 - 2011-09-14 01:54:47 UTC
I feel like something was announced and I missed it, did they give more detail on what is coming Question
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2011-09-14 02:07:04 UTC
Crystal Liche wrote:
I feel like something was announced and I missed it, did they give more detail on what is coming Question


Nope. Need to sit tight and wait, sorry

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-09-14 02:14:56 UTC
Crystal Liche wrote:
I feel like something was announced and I missed it, did they give more detail on what is coming Question

I wasn't aware anything had been formally announced - though http://www.evenews24.com/ I think had a speculative article based on something a source said iirc. If I don't recall correctly, apologies to the Intranets What?
Alec Freeman
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-09-14 02:41:23 UTC
Too be honest i wouldnt worry about anything being nerfed until CCP give up on space barbie & ken.
Lord Wiggin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-09-14 03:21:22 UTC
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I hope CCP doesn't accidentally nerf regular carriers. While a super carrier can both deploy fighters and fighter bombers, I don't believe fighters should get a nerf. Carriers should be left alone. They're right where they need to be.


Yes, by all means, don't nerf the ships you fly, only other peoples stuff...What?
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-09-14 13:49:43 UTC
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I hope CCP doesn't accidentally nerf regular carriers. While a super carrier can both deploy fighters and fighter bombers, I don't believe fighters should get a nerf. Carriers should be left alone. They're right where they need to be.


carriers actually need a tiny buff...namely the size of the fuel bay...3000m3 is too small for making multiple jumps.... especially if the carrier is triage fitted cos strontium takes up loads of corp hangar space.

increase the fuel bay to match that of dreads @ 8000m3

this would allow for enough fuel for 4 jumps and still have enough room for upto 8 triage cycles (for pos/i-hub reps)

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Vicar2008
MCMLXXVI
#15 - 2011-09-14 13:56:52 UTC
David Grogan wrote:
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I hope CCP doesn't accidentally nerf regular carriers. While a super carrier can both deploy fighters and fighter bombers, I don't believe fighters should get a nerf. Carriers should be left alone. They're right where they need to be.


carriers actually need a tiny buff...namely the size of the fuel bay...3000m3 is too small for making multiple jumps.... especially if the carrier is triage fitted cos strontium takes up loads of corp hangar space.

increase the fuel bay to match that of dreads @ 8000m3

this would allow for enough fuel for 4 jumps and still have enough room for upto 8 triage cycles (for pos/i-hub reps)


Well, I wouldnt go that far David, you have too factor the Jump range of a Carrier against a Dread, I wouldnt match the fuel Bay, maybe say 5500m3.....? Oh and btw I am all for Ship Maint Bay increase :D
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#16 - 2011-09-14 13:57:31 UTC
Jump Fuel Conservation 5 ftw.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Crunchmeister
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-09-15 15:42:18 UTC
I'd be for an increase in fuel bay size for carriers. For a general purpose combat carrier, it's ok, but once you throw triage into that equation, not so much. The cargo hold on carriers is ridiculously small, and the corp hangar isn't very large either. I would love to see an increase in cargo bay size instead, which would make carriers a lot more useful in general for corp / alliance moves as well as serving the purpose of holding more fuel for combat / triage operations. But I'd be ok with just an increase in fuel bay size.

People were constantly telling me I was crazy. For a long time I didn't believe them, but after a while, I started to think they might be right.

But it turns out that they were all wrong. One of the voices in my head is a psychiatrist and he says I'm perfectly sane.

Shionoya Risa
The Xenodus Initiative.
#18 - 2011-09-15 16:05:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jump Fuel Conservation 5 ftw.


That.