Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If Triage isn't used (thanks for your lovely analysis confirming as much) and goes against the spirit of the use of the ship in a multiplayer (and this time i mean blobbing) environment then remove triage and add new e-war capital sized threats to balance it out.

Oh you don't understand the notion of introducing e-war gangs to break the logi chains you can't shoot apart? you do now.

There is no such thing as the "spirit of the use of a ship in a multiplayer" Such a thing is entirely subjective. Don't project your opinions onto CCP without any hint of a suggestion from them to back it up.

And we are back again to the "Why would we remove triage" part. You said it would "stop carriers in large groups from blah blah blah" which was completely incorrect.

And yet even once you realize triage carriers have nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish, you still stand on a platform of removing triage, but without even the erroneous assumptions you had before as a reason. Whut?

If you remove the Triage module you kill the role of Triage as a subcap supporter in small to mid sized fleets. This is actually one of the least offensive things about capitals atm. Nobody who deals with them in nullsec views the easily killable Triage carrier as a problem.

An ordinary carrier is all but useless for repping anything except a prelocked FC command ship because of the incredible amount of time it takes to lock a subcap. A t2 triage module gives a 900% increase in scan resolution. Without the scan res bonus, ships die long before you can lock them in a carrier. A carrier that cannot lock a target in a reasonable amount of time is useless for providing support.

Even if carriers could suddenly have triage lock times out of triage, they rep 1/4 the amount of a triage ship per rep, and....

And if you remove the Ewar immunity from triage mode, a single T1 Celestis cruiser with four 71% damps can take two carriers and increase their lock times by 10x over. in a ship totally 20 mil. From 100km away.

YOU DON'T NEED CAPITAL EWAR TO **** UP A NON TRIAGE CARRIER. A CELESTIS, OR A BLACKBIRD, OR A SCORPION WILL DO IT JUST FINE. SO WILL FOCUSED VOID BOMBS

Go ask the CFC about FuckYouFleet. It basically got carrier blobs thrown out as an offense tool single handed by locking down entire fleets of dozens or hundreds of carriers to the point where it would take a minute to lock a carrier, and your lock range was miniscule. And that was before the limitation on drone bunnies made Aeons useless as ewar immune drone triggers.

You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist anymore, and has not for a very long time. Big blob of carriers sitting somewhere? You can't kill them? Grats. Ignore them. They are sitting on one of literally dozens of constellation capture points in the upcoming Fozziesov. It's not like they are going to sit there and grind down an Ihub while you gnash your teeth in impotent wrath.

P.S: If I get a bit cranky sometimes, it's because people spit out "POORLY THOUGHT OUT UNRELATED CHANGE" and then insist it will have "EFFECT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ACTUAL CHANGE" on a regular basis. And when you point out what was wrong with the idea, they get defensive like you had insulted their sister and double down on insisting it was a good idea after all. You are a wonderful example, since neither of your posting involving changes had any relation to the change you are trying to accomplish.

It's like the t3 nerf commando's that sit around and circle jerk about how t3's should be worse at every single thing than t2's, but when you ask them why would you would ever fly a t3 they sit there and spasmodically shout "VERSATILITY!" over and over again without ever being able to come up with a situation where the "unique" ability to change subs would be a benefit that makes them worth flying.

Add one more module based mode, so that you have "Normal", "Triage", and "Drones"

"Drones" would be a module based mode like triage, similar to current carrier in terms of bonuses, but without the ability to receive reps. Using it would increase usable drones (Carrier bonus rolled into the module basically), slightly increased fighter damage and application, along with greatly increasing base drone control range so that it can use Sentries at long ranges without DLA's. It would not prevent any ewar, would not prevent you from warping or docking, or jumping. Basically a current carrier with slightly higher damage and application used for ratting, bashing POCO's, POS mods, isolated capitals, camping stations, or hotdropping on individual targets, but useless when expecting heavy resistance due to inability to receive reps.

Module Cycle time would be 10 minutes to prevent coasting out to try and catch reps in combat situations.

"Triage" would remain basically the same. It's what I consider highly balanced in terms of risks and effects. I would however quadruple the cycle time of capital reps and quadruple the amount repaired per cycle on capital reps, while the triage module would bring the cycle time and rep amount back to the same values as current. This would mean triage was more vital for supporting subcaps due to the 12-20 second cycle time of non triage reps, without changing the normal rep/sec of triage or normal repping of structures.

"Normal" (No module required) would gut the pretense of carriers being damage oriented combat ships. It would gain BS level scan resolution and extremely high lock range and sensor strength, would lose the carrier per level drone bonus, the resist bonus, and the ability to field fighters, and would gain powerful range utility bonuses modules designed to bonus other ships or increase damage dealt to a target.

They would gain high range bonuses to webs, paints, and disruptors, or alternatively be able to fit capital modules of these which are basically normal ones with extremely long range, but lower strength in the case of webs.

They would also gain high strength (but not range) bonuses to Tracking Links, Remote Sensor Boosters, and Projected ECCM.

It would NOT get bonuses to Neuts, Nos, Smartbombs, ECM, Damps, or TSB's, as those are not what I would consider direct cooperative force multipliers.

They would continue to be able to use and receive remote repair like current, though the above mentioned 12-20 second cycle time would mean that enemies could quite easily volley through a sub between cycles.

If there is a group of mixed carriers and subcaps on the field, the rational should be:

"I shouldn't go in there because the carriers will increase the damage application of the on field subs enough to **** me up"
Not
"I shouldn't go in there because there's a 100km wide capital sentry Slowcat deathball that will **** me up unless I bring 200 Celestis"


That's my two cents. Obviously this is nowhere near a perfect proposal, and I'm sure there are some significant holes in it atm (Like the power of long range 60% webs), and it really doesn't cover the issue of Supercarriers, but it would remove the issues with how effective unsupported carrier groups can be, would provide a excellent purpose to scatter capitals around capture nodes amplifying the effectiveness of nearby defenders in Fozziesov (or offense, I don't discriminate), and doesn't kill off Triage, ratting/mission carriers, the over time effectiveness of non triage to rep structures, or hotdropping non entrenched targets.

I for one would love to fly a nano 100km 30% web/paint Nidhoggur in Fozziesov. Fuckit, lets roam in one as well.

*Manifesto over* I make no claims about the idea not having issues you might be able to drive a bus through.

On the first part, I'd say halve the size of fighters, but I say that currently, so w/e.

Honestly though, since the drone mode is primarily meant for solo, hotdrops, or small groups, losing all the fighters while being shot at probably means you got jumped and are about to die. You can fit 18 Fighters + 2k room for non fighters in a carrier drone hold, and if you factor in the 10k corp hangar, you can get 2 full fighter flights + 4k m3 in non fighter drones (if you have a refit buddy or depot). That's already quite a bit.

On the second part, if it were me, Amarr and Caldari would lose the resist bonus and gain a raw armor or hp % bonus, then Gallente would have the Fighter bonus removed (The drone mode on all races would have a 5% fighter bonus per level to compensate for losing the ability to be repped) and replaced with a 5%/5% Repair Range/ Repair Cycle Speed bonus and Nidhoggur would lose the rep strength bonus and replace it with a 5% agility bonus, for relatively rapid movement around a constellation.

Those are not really set in stone either though, could strip it all the way down to the differences just the range bonuses on armor/shield/energy without a second bonus, but that feels bland.

Remove fighter bonuses from Super Carriers. Bonuses should only apply to fighter bombers.

I still go with the idea that Supers and Carrier numbers in fleets should be tied to Warfare links and curve where if you go past X number of Supers, Carriers in fleets they will be un-bonused. Where the efficiency of WarFare links is controlled by the fleet mix.

Or possible solution, Supers can only occupy wing command position, carriers / dreads only squad positions.

Structure bashing and repping is going to be thing of the past, so Triage and Siege is not going to be needed. With them being stripped down and re-modded, one way of keeping them versatile is by giving them MODE´s in one form or another.

In unchanged form, there will be no purpose to Supers and Carriers other than to cause lag and prevent gameplay, which in a way they do already.

TL:DR Ranged AOE from Dreadnoughts are a bad idea and should not be considered in even the slightest.



I could sing you the greatest song on the planet and you would still come back saying "its terrible because I say so".

I'm not trying to convince you that your idea is a bad idea. I am flat out stating to everybody around you "this is a bad idea".

"Here Are The Reasons" (with quotes for easy viewing)

1) AOE camps at range (Basically Screw Smart Bombs on a gate, let me bring a group of dreads to AOE the area whenever a gate flashes at 50 to 200 km away). Wanna wreck a undock, blam.

2) Removal of the use of smart bombs (because now I can smartbomb at range).

3) Lets screw over every light frigate, interceptor and interdictor pilot because "WHAM" aoe. At least if you want to smart bomb, you have to refit your ship to equip one, means a depot, or a Nestor or something similar. This way? Anything comes towards you that risks any type of non heavy tackle, dead.

4) Drones out? Let the dreads take care of them cause "AOE every drone dead".

5) Lets do a mission? Why bring anything but a dread. Warp in, AOE, wow dead x's everywhere.

I'm not trying to convince you that your idea is bad. The sky is blue, you believe its pink. I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. You wanted reasons and truth, you have it.

Enjoy.

Except they don't function like bombs. This isn't a 1 shot deal with a reload timer and a 12 second flight time. This is instantaneous damage at range, repeatedly, with each shot, with no maximum cap (anymore than 7 bombs, your blowing up your own bombs, there is a damage cap on them). There would be no damage cap on these as there is nothing in space to destroy.

0 Flight Time
Repeat damage
infinitely scale-able with more dreads you bring out with no end cap (you could potentially bring enough dreads to aoe destroy every subcap in a area in under 3 seconds). Now while you could bring enough dreads to alpha a subcap currently, it is on a 1 to 1 scale, this would obliterate that scale.

They have to be balanced with current gameplay, not remove all other gameplay except for blap AOE Dreadnought.

Interesting, however Logi BS modules should only benefit capital ships (i.e. long cycle time or useable on XL hulls only). Otherwise you will see invulnerable subcap fleets.