EVE General Discussion

Right, so if a battleship has a mining bonus then battleships are mining vessels. That makes perfect sense. In stupid land.

Seriously, do the world (and English language) a favor and self detonate already.

Near as I can tell, you're the only one who thinks carriers should be logistics and not dps, and I don't see anyone in the thread agreeing with that. Not even Habib the battleship-miner up there.

Are you daft? The carrier bonus to logistics is hardly a "tacked on" affair. Carriers ARE repair platforms, end of story. They were designed for fleet support. To keep a fleet alive, to extend command bonuses, to house replacement ships, act as a refitting platform away from a starbase, and in some situations (not all), to provide supplemental DPS. They are defensive in design, and defensive in nature. Fighters have always only ever put out DPS on par with a well-fitted BS - this is intentional. They are not meant to be dropped in numbers to kill things. Tempests and Abaddons do this much better for 1/10th the cost per equivalent DPS.

If the carrier logistics bonus is "tacked on", than on what ship is a Triage module supposed to be fitted? Do you really think they "tacked on" an entire specialized module to coincide with a "tacked on" bonus?

Yep. Because it was easier than making seperate ships, and because they needed something that would be the defensive counter to siege modules (even if it's often used in other ways). They could have made new ships specifically for this purpose, but instead they slapped it onto carriers where it doesn't make much sense existing.

You seem to be as dense as the other guy when it comes to reading. How they currently function is not the dispute, yet you seem to want to make it so. The dispute is what they should be, and what is the proper role of a carrier. And that is not to be a mobile repair station. You seem to think they should continue to be a generic mish-mash, but mostly logistics. I'm saying if you want logistics, there ought to be a real capital logistics ship leaving carriers to do what the class of the ship implies it ought to - carrying fighters and killing things from far away, and being very good and specialized at it.

That's what carriers do. They don't repair other vessels. They don't repair buildings. They launch fighters and blow **** up. Seriously what is so hard to understand?

Based on what? Real life?
The problem with that argument is that if we followed it, battlecruisers would be probably the most powerful ships in the game.
Frigates would be the greatest threat ever to carriers.
Battleships would not exist.

etc. etc. etc.

You are still arguing a role based on the name, for no adequately explained reason.
No, that's what real life carriers do, and real life is almost 100% irrelevant when it comes to determining how stuff works in EVE. Why is that so hard to understand?

Put another way: why should carriers work the way you say they should work? “Because RL” is not an acceptable answer.

The rage is strong in this thread.

Translation:

Whaaaaaaa Whaaaaaa Whaaaaaa Whaaaa *sniffle Whaaaaa Whaaaaa Whaaaaaa

Reading this thread feels like having sex with a brick wall...soooo much rage and gnashing of teeth...

Fair enough, I'm certainly not the oldest player around, I started in 2009.

I'd respond again to Jade Maroo, but plenty others have done that for me :)

I love it when people think EvE should mimic RL and somehow feel that CCP designed their own game incorrectly and that their own arbitrary idea about what a fictional spaceship should be is somehow the only legitimate use for it.

USA almost rolled out a new battleship known to almost everyone else an Arsenel ship which would just be nothing more than a tomahawk missile spamming boat that other ships would slave fire control for. BB-52 Louisana I think was its designation before it got cancelled by clintion if i recall right, it was before my time in the navy so meh. A mordern battleship in todays navy would have a lower radar profile, trimerian hulled, more missiles and bigger/more rail guns and nuclear reactors. Possible a microwave shielding system as well to cook off torpedos and FEL lasers to shoot down inbound missiles. Meaning the only way you're really effectively going to hurt this ship is at point blank or with shells of your own provided you survive the close in range of the railguns but in a real shooting war, you can crank the sonar up to the point you're boiling the water and good luck hiding a submarine in that and the reason why alot of people think that is the case now should recall that US navy isnt allowed to boil water with sonar for the sake of dolphins and whales.

And from a mordern warfare view point, your modern submarines are your battleships

Remember real life is great for inspiration.

Not for balancing.

Now off to lala land

If I was making a space armada it would almost make perfect sense to have a carrier to be able to repair other ships, they have all the facilities to support thier onboard wings and they go though alot of materials that have to be remade remanufactured and then repaired. Where a small tin can destroyer would barely have the work shops for it. Of course in that fantasy the wings are very dangerous, fighters are just there to shoot other things down, its the bombers and boarding marines you'd be most worried about, and Id have a FTL catapult for not only far away deployments but as a weapon as well.

They're still center of the fleet, they'll probably have the largest cargo bays as well to store all spare materials and the only thing that can make the carrier better would be a refinery/mining ship tagging right behind it.

I'd would have also been pushing for my battleships/dreadnaughts to accurately nail someone clear across the solar system and letting the tin cans keep em nailed down but that just me capsullers cant seem to do that here then again they cant lock somone that far.