Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Yes, my bad I had forgotten the order of the battleship changes.
And yes carriers were often reprocessed but not for isk profit (like so many subcaps were), it was for convenience, like the freighter loads of 425 mm railguns shipped to nulsec.

NB; While the history lesson is interesting, it is not addressing the issues with the coming changes - Carriers need to be looked at and it would be really nice to hear some feedback from a Dev.

hahaha, funny.

Rats. Rats my friend.

I know that this is sad, they made carriers so.... flat in terms of solo pvp game play - that it will be no longer possible.
But people can abuse it - if they have time, and pos on the lowsec station.
They can just deploy fighters sitting on the edge of the shields and harass every thing that will be docking or undocking.

Looks like they made some updates recently. Nid picked up 75 cpu, but lost 105k power. Good step in the right direction, brining it to ~980 cpu and 625k power with skills.

edit : wrong topic

That has most certainly not always been the case. Carriers can currently do triage and use subcap drones while supers can't. That gives them a different role; not necessarily equal or better, but different. They're losing both abilities, thus having their entire remaining role filled by supers. And since supers have stronger bonuses and the ability to launch more squadrons, they do everything a carrier does but better. As for the downsides, 20% longer align time isn't going to mean very much when you're in a fleet and have 25 warp core strength. I'm not sure how being bigger is supposed to be a significant disadvantage either.

We're not saying that carriers should be comparable to supers. We're saying carriers should have some role they fill better than supers so price and docking concerns aren't the only reasons to use one. Keep in mind we're not talking about a T1 hull vs a T2 or faction hull. We're talking about different classes of ships where one went from being different and better at some things to being roughly the same and better at everything.

Nowhere else in Eve do you find an entire class of ships that are strictly better than another class, except for possibly T3Ds and assault frigates, which people have been complaining about for ages. It feels like carriers are supposed to be used against subcaps, but when supers can use exactly the same fighters with better bonuses and more tubes for other stuff, why bother?

their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out

the only ships fighters kill faster than a supported dread are faster than the fighters themselves.

in pvp we have found it very easy with a small destroyer group to spread out and kill fighters they may get one of us but by the time they are thinking of flying to the next guy most are dead and they have to go back to the carrier.

the reload time has now actually brought their range lower than that of a dread

so have they gotten better? yeah a little bit but they are far from being viable even if you don't count the super carrier issue



i'm still in support of giving them an extra support fighter and a bonus to local e-war make them an e-war capital at that point them having this low dps makes seance as its not their main role.

if ccp does want their main role to be anti sub cap then they need to do it as good or better than dreads


ALSO

Minmatar and amarr fighters got their racial ranges will caldari also be getting its range changed?

so they did get a range change sort of... but it puts them between amarr and gal

now not only is this not racial range its not good for ballance as the differance does not give a reason to use caldari over gal

if they got their range there would be a slow long range and a fast long range as well as a fast short range and a slow short range each also balanced with damage where you trade range for speed

O.o those worked for me since week one

They started with a laughable 3% on explosion velocity and radius. Not its 8.5% on the T2 variant.