These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Limits on Carrier Drones
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1 - 2015-02-24 21:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
My proposal: give carriers and supercarriers separate bays for them to store fighters (and fighter bombers) in, and give them traditional drone bays that are far smaller than current. The new fighter bays should be the same size as current carrier drone bays and only allow fighters or fighter bombers, and their drone bays would be reduced to something on the order of 600-800m^3 (roughly twice what a drone battleship can carry). This would resolve the problem of carriers having an effectively limitless supply of non-fighter drones while still allowing some degree of drone utility and allow supercarriers to once again use regular drones, in small numbers, without becoming absurdly overpowered. All other drone and fighter mechanics would remain the same.

My original idea was rightfully shot out of the water. Thanks to Lugh for pointing out the painfully obvious detail that I missed.

As an alternative what about this:

1. Change the "Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter" bonus on carriers to "Can deploy 1 additional Fighter".
2. Change the Drone Control Unit into a Fighter Control Unit that allows a carrier to deploy 1 additional Fighter, but not an additional Drone.

This would limit the number of drones that a carrier could use to 5, just like subcaps. They'd still have a vast supply of them at their disposal, but they wouldn't be able to use as many of them at once.

Thoughts?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2015-02-24 21:24:26 UTC
no to suppers getting drones



also this would just mean solo carriers would get Nerffed where large groups just use fleet hangers to store drones and move them to drone bays with the fitting service

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#3 - 2015-02-24 22:10:07 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
also this would just mean solo carriers would get Nerffed where large groups just use fleet hangers to store drones and move them to drone bays with the fitting service

I hadn't considered that.

Well, there goes that idea. Ugh

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#4 - 2015-02-24 22:47:49 UTC
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-02-24 23:06:53 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars


No. Large size drones (heavies) do half the dps as XL size drones (fighters), but has better targeting resolution and tracking. If someone wants to fit small guns on their BS, that's perfectly fine. Not to mention by this train of thought, Domis shouldn't be able to carry light or medium drones because they're frig/cruiser weapons.

Any real issues with carriers has to do with the power of blob rr, not them using small drones (seriously?). All I see here is someone whining that they can't take down a ratting carrier solo for easy cap km. Htfu.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#6 - 2015-02-24 23:26:04 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars


No. Large size drones (heavies) do half the dps as XL size drones (fighters), but has better targeting resolution and tracking. If someone wants to fit small guns on their BS, that's perfectly fine. Not to mention by this train of thought, Domis shouldn't be able to carry light or medium drones because they're frig/cruiser weapons.

Any real issues with carriers has to do with the power of blob rr, not them using small drones (seriously?). All I see here is someone whining that they can't take down a ratting carrier solo for easy cap km. Htfu.


yes cos the comparison of a domi doing 200 dps with lights compared too a carrier doing what 900 dps with gecko's or something makes a lot of sense

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Kabark
Schilden
#7 - 2015-02-25 03:41:06 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars

I grit my teeth in aggreance. I do love my Chimera's ability to take down anything smaller than a dread and solo gank but drones do need to get removed from carriers.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2015-02-25 03:42:07 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars



subs do not have such a limitation so long as they are near something with a SMB or mobile depot



and no drones are just fine in carriers up until you get them in large numbers and at that point most things break and become just N+1

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#9 - 2015-02-25 04:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Harvey James wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars


No. Large size drones (heavies) do half the dps as XL size drones (fighters), but has better targeting resolution and tracking. If someone wants to fit small guns on their BS, that's perfectly fine. Not to mention by this train of thought, Domis shouldn't be able to carry light or medium drones because they're frig/cruiser weapons.

Any real issues with carriers has to do with the power of blob rr, not them using small drones (seriously?). All I see here is someone whining that they can't take down a ratting carrier solo for easy cap km. Htfu.


yes cos the comparison of a domi doing 200 dps with lights compared too a carrier doing what 900 dps with gecko's or something makes a lot of sense


Both are using undersized weapons in order to hit smaller targets more effectively. Both sacrifice dps compared to their larger weapons for better damage application. Both can swap out from their primary weapon system to a smaller damage application set of drones simply by recalling or abandoning the previous set. Sounds like a good comparion to me.

I wouldn't call 900 dps with Geckos a huge deal when a ratting carrier can get upwards of 3300 dps with fighters.

P.S: Gecko's are a **** comparison. Stop using special case equipment to try and prove your whines about general game balance.
vikari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-02-25 04:29:03 UTC
I'm not against limiting the number of drones a carrier can carry, but 600-800m3? Does are not exactly the perfect weapon. Using them comes with some big negatives. They are destroyable. You can't do that to turrets. Further, is that they are easily destroyable. Most of the nullsec groups have developed bombing wings to handle them, and you only need a couple guys to do it. If bombs are out of the question, you can use suicide smart bombing tactics, which tbh, are nearly free to run as the ship is fully insured. If you do limit the drone bay of a carrier, it should still be significant enough to carry a hundred plus large drones.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#11 - 2015-02-25 13:41:35 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
first off remove drones from carriers altogether, there effectively battleship weapons on capital ships, so OP.
then make the limitation that sub caps have with no drones from cargo to dronebay applied to hangars


No. Large size drones (heavies) do half the dps as XL size drones (fighters), but has better targeting resolution and tracking. If someone wants to fit small guns on their BS, that's perfectly fine. Not to mention by this train of thought, Domis shouldn't be able to carry light or medium drones because they're frig/cruiser weapons.

Any real issues with carriers has to do with the power of blob rr, not them using small drones (seriously?). All I see here is someone whining that they can't take down a ratting carrier solo for easy cap km. Htfu.


yes cos the comparison of a domi doing 200 dps with lights compared too a carrier doing what 900 dps with gecko's or something makes a lot of sense


Both are using undersized weapons in order to hit smaller targets more effectively. Both sacrifice dps compared to their larger weapons for better damage application. Both can swap out from their primary weapon system to a smaller damage application set of drones simply by recalling or abandoning the previous set. Sounds like a good comparion to me.

I wouldn't call 900 dps with Geckos a huge deal when a ratting carrier can get upwards of 3300 dps with fighters.

P.S: Gecko's are a **** comparison. Stop using special case equipment to try and prove your whines about general game balance.


whines eh? .. i see one person being a little emo here.
and 900 was just a stab in the park im sure you can get more, and on carriers geckos are small change.
comparing ratting fits with actual pvp fits is pointless also.
i wouldn't be against removing the bonuses for all drones from drone ships, i have mentioned in other threads that now they have the specific skills for drones, like gurista ships etc

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-02-25 18:43:32 UTC
My mothership (what you call supercarrier now a day) had drones before... true story Lol

Id like to be able to grab spare fighters/fighter bombers without using fitting service... For that rare occasion i'm alone Oops

Been around since the beginning.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#13 - 2015-02-25 19:02:01 UTC
As an alternative to separate drone and fighter bays (which wouldn't really limit anything due to carrier refit abilities), what about this:

1. Change the "Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter" bonus on carriers to "Can deploy 1 additional Fighter".
2. Change the Drone Control Unit into a Fighter Control Unit that allows a carrier to deploy 1 additional Fighter, but not an additional Drone.

This would limit the number of drones that a carrier could use to 5, just like subcaps. They'd still have a vast supply of them at their disposal, but they wouldn't be able to use as many of them at once.

Thoughts?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#14 - 2015-02-25 19:10:30 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
As an alternative to separate drone and fighter bays (which wouldn't really limit anything due to carrier refit abilities), what about this:

1. Change the "Can deploy 1 additional Drone or Fighter" bonus on carriers to "Can deploy 1 additional Fighter".
2. Change the Drone Control Unit into a Fighter Control Unit that allows a carrier to deploy 1 additional Fighter, but not an additional Drone.

This would limit the number of drones that a carrier could use to 5, just like subcaps. They'd still have a vast supply of them at their disposal, but they wouldn't be able to use as many of them at once.

Thoughts?


Does nothing significant except annoy the bads that use sentry carriers for ratting.

Carrier blobs will still easy **** up Dictors and Hictors that get in close, would not effect the RR circlejerk or their usefulness as supercapital supporters, would only slightly reduce their ability to DPS down mid-large sized targets nearby. And end sentry ratters.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#15 - 2015-02-25 19:27:06 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Does nothing significant except annoy the bads that use sentry carriers for ratting.

Carrier blobs will still easy **** up Dictors and Hictors that get in close, would not effect the RR circlejerk or their usefulness as supercapital supporters, would only slightly reduce their ability to DPS down mid-large sized targets nearby. And end sentry ratters.

I didn't realize that "slightly" meant "roughly half" (assuming Carrier IV) or "more than half" (assuming DCUs and/or Carrier V). Carriers make up for their lack of drone bonuses by fielding more of them at once. Cap them to five drones, and suddenly they have considerably less drone DPS than a Domi or a 'Geddon. Yes, capital blobs would still have significant drone DPS, but they'd have considerably less (half or more) than they do now. I'd call that a pretty significant change, and one that keeps carriers in-line with their role as fighter combat platforms.

Capital logistic is a separate issue that I agree need to somehow be addressed. Save that for another thread though.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#16 - 2015-02-25 19:49:21 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Does nothing significant except annoy the bads that use sentry carriers for ratting.

Carrier blobs will still easy **** up Dictors and Hictors that get in close, would not effect the RR circlejerk or their usefulness as supercapital supporters, would only slightly reduce their ability to DPS down mid-large sized targets nearby. And end sentry ratters.

I didn't realize that "slightly" meant "roughly half" (assuming Carrier IV) or "more than half" (assuming DCUs and/or Carrier V). Carriers make up for their lack of drone bonuses by fielding more of them at once. Cap them to five drones, and suddenly they have considerably less drone DPS than a Domi or a 'Geddon. Yes, capital blobs would still have significant drone DPS, but they'd have considerably less (half or more) than they do now. I'd call that a pretty significant change, and one that keeps carriers in-line with their role as fighter combat platforms.

Capital logistic is a separate issue that I agree need to somehow be addressed. Save that for another thread though.


Carriers are frequently primarily fielded as support to Supercaps on fields, to provide reps and cap, and use their drones to kill off HIC's and DIC's that get too close, not as the primary DPS dealers.

Even halving the sentry DPS would still leave plenty for large groups of carriers to shred HIC's/Dics and other small stuff that gets near them in an attempt to tackle the supers. It would reduce the ability of large carrier blobs to kill BS and t2/3 cruiser gangs that get within range, but that's not what they are usually there to do.

Keep supers alive, stay alive yourself, kill bubblers, and only then worry about your ability to DPS main combat ships through logistics.

A reduced effectiveness of your fourth priority as a slowcat is not exactly a huge deal. Maybe if you were trying to field a slowcat only group without supers or subcap support, but that's not all that common anymore.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#17 - 2015-02-25 20:08:58 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Keep supers alive, stay alive yourself, kill bubblers, and only then worry about your ability to DPS main combat ships through logistics.

Again, separate topics, and topics worth discussing, but not really relevant to the point at hand. From some of your comments, I think we agree on the direction this needs to go, but I digress.

If you don't think that a 50% or more reduction in DPS significantly impacts their ability to kill 'Dictors and HICs I'm really not sure what else to say. Sure, when carrier blobs get big enough they'll be able to kill tackle with ease. This is a given. But you could say the same of any sufficiently large blob of any type of ship. Dropping their drone DPS by 50% means that carrier blobs would have to be twice as big to be equally effective at it, or that carrier blobs of the same size would be half as effective at it. I see that as a pretty significant decrease in ability.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2015-02-25 21:04:42 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Keep supers alive, stay alive yourself, kill bubblers, and only then worry about your ability to DPS main combat ships through logistics.

Again, separate topics, and topics worth discussing, but not really relevant to the point at hand. From some of your comments, I think we agree on the direction this needs to go, but I digress.

If you don't think that a 50% or more reduction in DPS significantly impacts their ability to kill 'Dictors and HICs I'm really not sure what else to say. Sure, when carrier blobs get big enough they'll be able to kill tackle with ease. This is a given. But you could say the same of any sufficiently large blob of any type of ship. Dropping their drone DPS by 50% means that carrier blobs would have to be twice as big to be equally effective at it, or that carrier blobs of the same size would be half as effective at it. I see that as a pretty significant decrease in ability.

by your same arguement, since 10,000 frigates with t1 guns can 1 shot a carrier (rough estimate, likely wrong, its to make a point), then ALL guns should be nerfed because they have too much DPS when blobbed.

you cannot balance ships based on what they are like with 100+ on field, because all that will end with is REQUIRING having that many on field to have those ships even be viable, which throws smaller groups or solo guys completely out of the game

which, I think i AM going to have to remind you, is a bad game decision, mmmkay?
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#19 - 2015-02-25 21:39:30 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
by your same arguement, since 10,000 frigates with t1 guns can 1 shot a carrier (rough estimate, likely wrong, its to make a point), then ALL guns should be nerfed because they have too much DPS when blobbed.

you cannot balance ships based on what they are like with 100+ on field, because all that will end with is REQUIRING having that many on field to have those ships even be viable, which throws smaller groups or solo guys completely out of the game

which, I think i AM going to have to remind you, is a bad game decision, mmmkay?

I think you misunderstand me. My motivation here is based more on the fact that, in my own opinion, carriers should be more fighter-based than drone-based. If you go back to my original post, you'll see that my initial concern, carriers having an essentially limitless supply of drones, applies just as much to single carriers as it does to large groups of carriers. After realizing that my solution wouldn't work due to carrier refitting, I proposed an alternative solution as a compromise: if you can't limit the large supply of drones a carrier can store, limit the number it can deploy at once. And, again, this applies equally to single carriers and large groups of carriers.

I only brought up balancing in terms of fleet size in response to the gentleman I was replying to.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2015-02-26 00:03:05 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
by your same arguement, since 10,000 frigates with t1 guns can 1 shot a carrier (rough estimate, likely wrong, its to make a point), then ALL guns should be nerfed because they have too much DPS when blobbed.

you cannot balance ships based on what they are like with 100+ on field, because all that will end with is REQUIRING having that many on field to have those ships even be viable, which throws smaller groups or solo guys completely out of the game

which, I think i AM going to have to remind you, is a bad game decision, mmmkay?

I think you misunderstand me. My motivation here is based more on the fact that, in my own opinion, carriers should be more fighter-based than drone-based. If you go back to my original post, you'll see that my initial concern, carriers having an essentially limitless supply of drones, applies just as much to single carriers as it does to large groups of carriers. After realizing that my solution wouldn't work due to carrier refitting, I proposed an alternative solution as a compromise: if you can't limit the large supply of drones a carrier can store, limit the number it can deploy at once. And, again, this applies equally to single carriers and large groups of carriers.

I only brought up balancing in terms of fleet size in response to the gentleman I was replying to.

I disagree, sicne in the rebalancing phases CCP has repeatedly stated that carriers are MEANT to be the anti-subcap defense for the rest of a capital fleet, being that dreads dont have the tracking and titans dont really have much of a combat purpose outside DD other capitals.

taking away drones for the most part leaves capitals with fighters, which are APPALLING to use against subcaps, and if you dotn have a capital designed to fight subcaps, then you have a biased separation between capital fleets and subcapital fleets, where the subs get free reign fo engagement and capitals are given no choice but to sit there and do nothing
123Next page