These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

hi sec carriers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2017-05-10 20:30:27 UTC
if you people are worrying about 'learning to use fighters', then go on the test server. A gimmicky as hell battleship that puts out less damage than a rattlesnake is not a good replacement for a carrier.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2017-05-10 21:06:39 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
if you people are worrying about 'learning to use fighters', then go on the test server.

I don't think that would work. The test server characters are "regularly" mirrored for the main server, so even if I set up a completely different skill queue that takes months to learn, all progress will be lost and replaced with the skills I'm actually learning.
At least that's what I got from how it works.

Also, fighters work completely differently than drones now.
Also also, it's not rally fair to compare the potential damage of this mini carrier to a battleship that has 2 remote-controlled cruisers. The damage should be about the same as the marauders' damage.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2017-05-10 21:24:03 UTC
You will learn fighter mechanics in about half an hour, maybe an hour. Then you will never undock your gimmick battleship again.

Please define 'the same as a marauder's damage' for me. Is that the same ~1k damage you get out of a rattlesnake?


What role does this light carrier thing actually fill? A droneboat with expensive, fragile drones and no more dps than a regular droneboat?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2017-05-11 11:50:23 UTC
It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things.
These wouldn't be drone boats.
Fighters are not capital drones anymore.
Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either.
You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#25 - 2017-05-11 13:59:37 UTC
One way or another, capital ships and fighters are not needed in High sec and no whatsoever warped training purpose to "learn fighter mechanics" make capitals or either overpowered or useless ships more plausible.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2017-05-11 17:26:54 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things.
These wouldn't be drone boats.
Fighters are not capital drones anymore.
Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either.
You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads.


So, what is it's role? What niche does it fill? What does it do that is not covered by 'attack another ship by sending waves of smaller ships at it'? What is the point of flying one, other than 'to learn fighter mechanics!!1' in a manner that is worse than killing half an hour on the test server?

I bought my first carrier in 2011, it was a droneboat then and it's a droneboat now. The drones just changed.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2017-05-11 18:36:12 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
It's quote hard to argue with you if you keep repeating the exact same things.
These wouldn't be drone boats.
Fighters are not capital drones anymore.
Just because you wouldn't use something, that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it either.
You keep comparing these to the Rattlesnake - a droneboat that was designed to be OP. Speaking of Guristas, I think it would be easier to make not completely broken these, than the dreadnought CCP announced, which (at this point) would have 2 fighter squads.


So, what is it's role? What niche does it fill? What does it do that is not covered by 'attack another ship by sending waves of smaller ships at it'? What is the point of flying one, other than 'to learn fighter mechanics!!1' in a manner that is worse than killing half an hour on the test server?

I bought my first carrier in 2011, it was a droneboat then and it's a droneboat now. The drones just changed.

The way I can imagine these:
- as a battleship based fighter platform, these are able to use any gates, and move through hi sec, this also allows you to send fighter support to a fleet that got caught in a cyno-jammed system (historically escort carriers were used to protect convoys and to provide air support at places where carriers weren't able to go)
- bonus for space superiority drone effectiveness: while the capital carriers do the battle, the escort carriers focus on keeping the space clear from drones and hostile anti-fighter fighters, something that current carriers have no bonus for
- able to use light and support fighters
- no command burst ability, NSA maybe

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2017-05-11 18:57:12 UTC
...Err...why fighter support for a subcapital group when subcaps are already pretty good at shredding subcaps? What do you think a wing of fighters can do that a handful of Jackdaws can't do?

You...don't know much about capital combat, do you. Carriers are for shredding subcaps, if you have hostile caps on grid then you are dropping dreads on them, not carriers.


This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no niche here.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#29 - 2017-05-11 19:11:01 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:


You...don't know much about capital combat, do you. Carriers are for shredding subcaps,




well in theory anyway. in practice they use is now rather niche. most cases what ever you try to use them for can be done better by something else. they may have had a strong place if not for HAW but they are too expensive too vulnerable and too SP incentive for most things. people thought it was ridiculous that a large swarm of ECM drones could keep a dread jamed yet carriers are allowed to be jammed out by a pair of ibis

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#30 - 2017-05-11 19:57:59 UTC
I accept that there are people that hate the idea of some kind of carrier that can use fighters in hisec for whatever reason - and they are fully entitled to their opinion. However, there are also people that like the idea, otherwise I doubt that this idea would keep coming up in some form or another.

In my mind a type of carrier that can be used in hisec is a subcapital ship that can use fighters at significant longer ranges (though nowhere near the ranges of normal carriers) than any drone boat can and the dps should probably be comparable to a high-end battleship.

Some will say that fighters should not be usable in hisec, but the already are available in hisec via citadels – the citadel expansion opened that door. Furthermore, there is also precedence for using “oversized” weapons for “undersized” ships, e.g. heavy drones usable on cruisers or large sized guns on battle cruisers. I think using fighters on a subcapital carrier will fall into the same category.

As for existing ships which can be utilized for some of the same tasks that potential hisec carrier there may be some overlap, but I think this is also case with existing ships. If there should only be one ship for one specific task, then I think quite a few of the existing ships should be taken out of the game. As such a hisec carrier would just be another tool in the tool box that will appeal to some and not to others. And the idea is to here is to have a ship that uses fighters and not drones.

For those that do not like such a ship or think that another ship can do the job better, then simply do not invest in or fly the ship. Nobody will be forcing you to. Instead use whatever other ship (drone boat, destroyer, cruiser or whatever) that you prefer and think is suitable for the task at hand and what suits your play style.

Some will see a hisec carrier as over powered for hisec but this is matter of balance, and, as I mentioned earlier, there are some many parameters on the ship and the fighters themselves that I am sure that a reasonable balance can be found - although the balancing would have to be evaluated carefully.

I know hisec carriers are a controversial issue and probably will continue to be. Though I personally think a hisec carrier is a good idea and would like to see it implemented, I doubt that we will see any such ship for a foreseeable future.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#31 - 2017-05-11 21:40:22 UTC
okay there are also some people who think it would be a great idea to give titans powerful smart bomb style DDs that can be shot through cynos.



as for this idea its not just "some overlap" i have yet to see something posted where this HS carrier adds to the overall balance in eve or brings in something new. basically what is the niche that it would fill




it seems to me the people who want it just want to play with fighters but don't want to invest in a carrier.... that is not a good enough reason to add more ships to eve. remember each ship added does not just take time and resources to be implemented but also adds a permanent draw on balancing and art. this is why the "because it would be cool" argument doesn't work

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#32 - 2017-05-11 22:37:29 UTC
@Lugh
I respect your opinion concerning the necessity for a hisec carrier to fill a specific niche and that fighters on ships should be restricted to low/nullsec, but I just disagree.

The light carrier would be a damage dealer as much as any other combat vessel just with its own mode of delivering the damage and since fighters are already in hisec I do not see why it should not also be possible to use them on ships in hisec.

However, I do agree on the matter of resources which is also why I wrote that I doubt that we will see any such ship for a foreseeable future. Though I am confident that a suitable balance can be achieved, I am fully aware that designing and implementing the ship (including stats, art design etc.) will require resources at CCP - resources which are limited and need to be prioritized for other tasks at hand.

We can discuss all the ideas that we want, but in the end it comes down what CCP prioritizes and decides.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#33 - 2017-05-11 22:46:30 UTC
There isn't a niche. It's a droneboat with expensive and fragile drones.

What do you think you can do with a light carrier that you cannot do with a rattlesnake or a dominix? or even an ishtar?
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#34 - 2017-05-11 22:58:36 UTC
@Danika
As I mentioned in one of my previous comments the point is to have a ship with fighters in hisec and not drones.

Both of them will be damage dealer, however, in my mind the range of the carrier ship will have a much longer range + some of the special fighter abilities.

While drone boats may appeal to some, the carrier type ship may appeal to others. It is a matter of diversity. Just because you can do the same with both type of ships does not mean that the other cannot exist. I happen to disagree with the argument that a hisec carrier should not exist just because you can do the same with a drone boat.

If you prefer a drone boat then you are of course free use that type of ship rather than a hisec carrier (should such a ship ever come to exist). Eve is a sandbox and you can play it like you want to Big smile.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2017-05-11 23:14:16 UTC
Kindly explain to me what the difference is between a droneboat and a carrier. Use small words, I am the bitterest of bittervets and years of dlying carriers has left me unable to tell why one type of drone is different to another type of drone in any meaningful way.

Seems to me that they are both ships that project their damage by using drones, and that carrier drones are more fragile and more expensive than regular drones, which can be repped in flight.

There is as much diversity in damage between a dominix and a thanatos as there is between a dominix and an ishtar.

As I keep asking and none of you can actually answer, what do you want to do with a carrier that you can't with a battleship? Is it literally just range? Fit range mods to your domi and you can get to 165km without rigs, or 200+ with. Is that long enough range, or do you really think you're going to get NSA range out of a battleship?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2017-05-12 00:33:14 UTC
Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters:
- light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones
- support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities
- heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures
In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type.

You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use.

Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#37 - 2017-05-12 05:33:18 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
It is a matter of diversity.

And here you got this wrong: High sec does not need this diversity. This diversity is one of the pushing factors that makes people want to leave High sec in order to experience more of the game. Removing these pushing factors just to please some afraid people's desires is not a good justification to implement such a broken and unnecessary feature.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2017-05-12 06:15:38 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Fighters aren't simply a group of drones that you can send to a specific point of the battlefield. We have 3 different types of fighters:
- light fighters are general purpose against other ships, or space superiority units against other fighters or drones
- support fighters with neuting, jamming, webbing and warp disrupting abilities
- heavy fighters have long range weapons or heavy weapons against capitals and structures
In addition each fighter has 2 or 3 abilities based on their type.

You can toggle your drones' auto attack and focus fire, you can send them against a target or call them back. Fighters need much more micro managing. Even if they are more fragile than drones, they are also much more diverse and complex to use.

Guns and missiles work the same way regardless of their size, but the citadel expansion changed how fighters work completely. Investing money and skill learning into a carrier before you even know wether or not you can/like to use fighters doesn't seem logical to me.


Like light, medium, heavy and ewar drones you mean?

Do remember that heavies are supercarrier only as well, and that your 2 or th3 abilities are 'shoot, go fast, shoot a little bit harder' (or 'use ewar, go faster' for supports).

They are no more diverse than drones, and they are only more complex in that you can make them go faster on the way to their target.

Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers.


What niche are you going to pretend these fill?
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#39 - 2017-05-12 11:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
@Rivr

I understand your position, but I do not agree. I think this is a matter where I think we can agree to disagree. I may have agreed with you before the Citadel expansion when the fighters were introduced to hisec, but that expansion changed my view.

I do not think a hisec carrier will have a significant impact on the flow of people going to low/nullsec. It may for some, but overall I think that for most people going to low/nullsec would have done so anyway because they like that kind of gameplay, and those more prone to stay in hisec will stay in hisec.

To fly the carrier you will need to invest close to 1 bill isk for the skills alone (+training time) and 1-2 bill isk on ship and fittings. For some these amounts may be pocket change but for me at least these are significant amounts.

For a character that prefers hisec, to go to low/null just to pilot such a ship and likely just to be blown up quickly (because a carrier will be a juicy target, and inexperience with the ship) is neither fun for the pilot nor worth the investment. You could join a corp/an alliance to learn how to pilot it, but if you more prone to stay in hisec, I doubt this will happen. End result the character stays in hisec.

It is true that you can train the skill on Singularity (though it may eb easier said than done). You will still need to train the necessary skills and (depending on when you start the training) this may be reset when a new mirror is put on Singularity. Personally, I have another character where I consider training the necessary skills on Tranquility in order to have the skills available on Singularity in order to try out a carrier on Singularity. However, this will not change my playstyle on Tranquility in any way.

Rather than a detriment to the flow of characters to low/nullsec this could be an opportunity. Some people may want to go to low/nullsec to fly a true carrier after having experienced the mechanics in a cheaper hisec carrier.

Personally, I would like to see a hisec carrier added to the game although this is not likely to happen – for the foreseeable future at least. If things stay as they are that is fine with me but that does not mean that I will go to low/nullsec to fly a carrier – rather I will just not bother trying out that mechanic.

I know that some people would like to force more players to low/nullsec. However, I cannot see how this can be done if people do not want to. Eve is a sandbox and people can play it the way they want. A large part of EVE’s player base is located in hisec and seriously changing hisec could pose a large risk to the income of CCP from the paying players playing in hisec.

Likely, things will remain as they are, and as I said above, that is fine with me.

I know you likely disagree with me on these points and you are fully entitled to have your opinion - as I am to have mine.


@Danika

Based on your latest comments I can see that on this matter we can only agree to disagree. Nothing that you or I say will change that.

You feel that a new ship should fill a specific niche/role. I do not think this necessarily should be the case.

You do not think that those things that set fighters apart (e.g. the controlling mechanics and special abilities) from drones is enough to create a new ship. I think it could be.

Anyway thanks for your insights into the matter.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2017-05-12 11:52:28 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Yes, there is a different control mechanism for them, no, there does not need to be an entirely new ship class added to 'teach' people how to use them. Half an hour on the test server will teach anyone anything they want to know about carriers.


What niche are you going to pretend these fill?

Super carriers have the bonus of being able to use heavy fighters.
Carriers get bonus for support fighters.
Escort carriers could get bonus for space superiority effectiveness: they can counter other carriers better while having significantly weaker tank, they can be used to counter the citadels' fighter defense everywhere including hi-sec and cyno zones.

Also, if I start to train carriers (which takes about 2 months) on the test server today, can you guarantee that the test server's character database won't be mirrored from the main server before I can try how fighters work?

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.