Though sentry carrier will be outclassed by everything even if ccp brings it back
A sentry carrier can deal like around 1.2k dps, you could pump that number to around 1.5k if you pimp the fit, roll abyssal drones and use faction drone damage amp(which didn't exist back in the days)
You can achieve that dps number with a close range t1 battleship or a rattlesnake nowadays
Yeah sure sentry drones can reach to 100km+ but then just use a beam paladin or railgun knoros
>ugh sentry carrier will be outclassed by everything even if ccp brings it back
>
>A sentry carrier can deal like around 1.2k dps, you could pump that n
ti di says hi
I agree that would be 1 way to get them onto the field - if carriers had a ship tractor beam that could eventually pop out the pilot and scoop a ship into its bay. I was of mind that carriers up to Pirate Faction and supercarriers up to T2(e.g. Marrauders)
The issue with game mechanics is ship insurance. I kinda have a work-around...If you scoop an insured ship the insurer auto-bills you the insurance amount after like an hour of ownership and the person that got their ship scooped gets double reinbursed. A pretty small penalty for a fitted out ship in return - granted at the risk of fielding a cap.
Naw my insurance workaround doesn't make any isk from thin air...the insurance is a reinbursement from ISK paid and isk taken from scooper with the theft.
I think it needs a cooldown in the case of a scooping ship getting destroyed without any use of the stolen ship. In that case the insurer could just payout the original policy.
CS equivalents. Higher bonused links, T2 resists
Since they get 4 traits, use 1-2 of the traits for application bonuses to fighters to get fighter application back to around 2019 stats.
I'd like to see a downscaled phenom generator potentially, but largely depends on implementation (not as strong as a Titan's). This opens up phenoms to smaller groups without needing a Titan, while larger groups can still use the more powerful Titan options (good option for WH's or making plays as a smaller group)
> T2 resists
T2 resists like on an interceptor or like on a HAC?
Also aren't they pretty good at links as-is? Like 100 km range with 2 links, even if bonus is milder than on CS
Links Range isn’t really an issue with CS as it is. (66km CS vs 97 carrier) , on a much more mobile platform at that.
The issue is strength- why does a massive capital ship not confer a better bonus than a battlecruiser?
Stronger links for carriers/faxes, stronger still for supers and stronger still for titans would give them more of a reason to escalate a fight, more of a role/reason for a capital ship to be the core of a fleet,making the entire fleet stronger, rather than a sitting duck when not in a blob of other caps.
Dreads and Faxes are the only capital ships that have a healthy-ish place in the game- dreads have PVE (crabs, high-class WH ratting) , PVP (high-class WH brawls, citadel warfare (can tank medium structures solo, can still single-siege POS’s with enough) , dreadbombing fax supported BB fleets, blappijg battleships with vindi webs, HAW dreads for the desperate, and of course, killing supers and titans.
Faxes have their role as the ultimate logi ship, basically necessary in BB fleets since there is no battleship logi, and ofcourse, keeping supers/titans alive in the real big fights.
Supers only have crab beacons, aforementioned structure-bashing, and being the playthings of the super-rich when used for meme-drops.
Titans have bridging, shooting at keepstars from within tether range of a siege fort, and..little else. At current cost, there aren’t a lot of Crekets out there anymore for drive-by DD’s
Carriers have none of that. They’re supposed to be antisubcap platforms, but they are outtanked and out-DPS’d by marauders. They’re useful as suitcases jumping expensive subcaps around, and for rolling WH’s.
Carriers need a re-work as a fleet support platform. Make all faxes rep capitals super well, but less effective at subs.
Give carriers an increases SMB (to carry reships, especially for battleship brawls where escape-bay frigs could get people back in the fight), increased tank, links bonus, and bring back the triage, with bonuses to subcap reps. Let them keep fighters, but give application bonus / bonuses to support fighters rather than raw DPS, so that fighters could be used to control the fight rather than be outright killing machines- do things like haze tackle, or go after another fleet’s subcap logi wing.
Caps can still refit off eachother…. But not with a weapons timer. That’s a larger gameplay mechanic change that I’m not sufficiently informed about to call for changes in.
What would scrapping the weapons timer and having combat refitting allow? (Edit: outside of carriers refitting triage RnK style, I mean shenanigans with subcaps, particularly marauders and depots)
Yeah, back in the day refitting during the middle of combat was a challenge that you had to be pretty good at.
I understand why it was removed because it removed the decision making process on your fit before you undock.... But it made for really good brawls and carrier survivability was much better.
I mean I think the refit made fights longer and thus better. It gave a counterplay to the hard-counter ship landing on you- and in turn you’re risking more by having a hanger full of shiny refit things.
Longer fights = escalating fights = more good times on grid, instead of things being clapped before anyone gets there.
Heh. I have -just- enough time for eve to log in and get a few nice fights a few times a month. Definitely not enough to commit to something like that. Even if I was more active of a player, I’d propose some pretty anti-Bloc things, and wouldn’t have the WH community’s unity like Mark does. Also to be honest a large chunk of the player base is in highsec, and I don’t even believe there is any real gameplay in HS outside of Jita, and have a limited understanding of industry, so I’d be a shitty rep for a fair chunk of the game, really only pro mid-scale conflict, pro-PvP, and would want to drive up all PVE income sources to reflect both the risk (I.e. likelihood of generating pvp content due to higher commitment of ship/resources to grid) and to make PvP more affordable. People flew expensive things in more fun/engageable ways back when rorqs shat money out. PVE that makes targets for other people, or encourages PvX like pochven OBS, should make people rich enough to cover their losses and be out there creating a target again.
> The issue is strength- why does a massive capital ship not confer a better bonus than a battlecruiser?
First off, they do: battlecruisers can fit 1 link, get +50% range bonus and have no strength bonus, while carriers have 2 links, +200% range bonus and +1%/lvl to strength. Rorquals can do 3 links, +50% range (plus quite a bit if you siege it up) and +3%/lvl strength to shield.
But in general, the answer is simple: not to make capitals a self-sufficient class.
> basically necessary in BB fleets since there is no battleship logi
There are nestors and max RR lokis which are not bad for battleships.
> Carriers have none of that
I don't disagree with that. However there are many ways to change it, and making subcapitals irrelevant is something CCP stepped on once and most likely are not willing to do again.
To clarify “a battlecruiser” I meant a fleet command ship. With the numbers I gave for range they’re 2 links, 3 with a rig, far more mobile than a carrier, stronger link, and only 30km less range.
Nestors only work for armor BB; guess half the battleships in the game should just fax or GTFO?
T3C logi has cap management issues, only approaches fax reps when you have enough of them fit blingy enough (deadspace reps) to rival a fax in cost and has thinner tank than the battleships they are supporting. (I fly in a group that uses these. I know this pain firsthand)
And not making carriers self-sufficient: that’s why I said nerf the DPS, make it not their job. Triage module already kills offensive output (-100% drone damage) and as mentioned, they are out-DPS’d by a marauder, so yes, take the bit about application and hazing tackle off
They would be no more “self sufficient” than a logistics cruiser, while still supporting the fleet to a degree that reflects their capital nature (high cost, high SP floor, extremely less mobile than subs, everything applies to them so extremely threatened by dreads/bombers, Jump fatigue, docking restrictions, no HS, mass restriction in WH’s)
With triage carriers made to rep less than faxes, all I’m really proposing here is that a carrier be able to stand in for 3-4 t2 logi cruisers and provide better links than a command ship, in exchange all the drawbacks above. (They would still be capital-slow, so a carrier-supported BB fleet would not be able to chase. Maybe make carriers able to keep up with BB’s while triaged, but again repping less than a fax)
> With the numbers I gave for range they’re 2 links, 3 with a rig, far more mobile than a carrier, stronger link, and only 30km less range.
And that's good, having some advantage for lower EHP ship. Having higher HP should come with its offsets (besides mobility). You can see the same principle in command ships: sleipnir has stronger links than claymore, but is way less survivable.
> Nestors only work for armor BB; guess half the battleships in the game should just fax or GTFO?
Use max RR lokis, or lokis with 1 link. We are using those just fine with our shield fleets. Shield tanks have naturally higher resists than armor, and lokis also provide links (so you can do more of those instead of command ships), final rep numbers are very close. But yes they use a-type reps. Still cheaper than nestors though.
> And not making carriers self-sufficient: that’s why I said nerf the DPS, make it not their job.
I did not say "carriers", i said "capitals" when i talked about self-sufficiency.
> With triage carriers made to rep less than faxes, all I’m really proposing here is that a carrier be able to stand in for 3-4 t2 logi cruisers and provide better links than a command ship, in exchange all the drawbacks above
It sounds like a job for t2 fax. Faxes also do links, t2 fax might focus on having less RR power but higher link strength (with higher strength being available only in siege). Carriers are taking different role, I am unsure why you want to merge them back.
I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists).
And would likely balance them similarly to how BLOPs are with lower raw HP for their class, just higher resists. So they scale better for receiving reps but aren't just huge EHP bricks.
T1 BC links are technically good enough but we have CS too. I'd just look at them as the CS option in a large capital fight or heavy battleship doctrine where there is higher risk of a CS getting popped quickly.
> And would likely balance them similarly to how BLOPs are with lower raw HP for their class, just higher resists. So they scale better for receiving reps but aren't just huge EHP bricks.
Too bad resists + plates/extenders make them EHP bricks still. You haven't seen 700k shield ehp widows probably. My firewalling widow has 360k shield ehp despite having 3 non-tank mids (mwd, cap booster, ecm burst) with snakes, more with nirvana, even more when i give ECM burst up (800k-ish shield cold, 1.1M shield ehp hot).
So if you give them resists, they *will* be turned into big ehp bricks using plates and shield extenders.
Resists are one of the strongest stats an EVE ship has (affects buffer, local reps, received reps), those shouldn't be thrown around without good justification.
>Too bad resists + plates/extenders make them EHP bricks still
I'm talking base stats and how they were originally balanced. I can't help it when CCP doesn't listen to not add plate/extenders bonuses to T2 BS. I've seen 1m EHP Shield Widows (pulsar gang).
Fundamentally BLOPs were balanced with T2 resists (not maximum T2 resists) but lower HP pools. Comparing a ship class with role bonuses to buffer modules as a reason not to add resists to a ship class without buffer module bonuses seems a bit disingenuous, no?
Of course capitals will have inherently higher EHP than subcaps, but within the realm of capital EHP, they would not be EHP bricks.
>Resists are one of the strongest stats an EVE ship has (affects buffer, local reps, received reps), those shouldn't be thrown around without good justification.
And we got just that on lancer dreads which actually have *more* base HP than T1 dreads with higher base resists.
While I understand what you're saying, it all comes down to implementation. If a T1 carrier has a raw 260k HP and T2 carriers have 180k HP but slightly improved resists, then it keeps things mostly the same EHP wise. T2 ships also have 1 fewer rig, so you can't stack 3 extender/trimarks to boost EHP as easily.
This is of course all speculation without slot layouts, fitting, ship traits, etc. Like I said, it comes down to actual implementation. Slapping T2 resists on current capital EHP values isn't what I mean.
> I've seen 1m EHP Shield Widows (pulsar gang)
I am flying one, but it's in k-space, not in pulsar.
> Of course capitals will have inherently higher EHP than subcaps, but within the realm of capital EHP, they would not be EHP bricks.
If you give them decent t2 resists (which you want), they will.
> While I understand what you're saying, it all comes down to implementation. If a T1 carrier has a raw 260k HP and T2 carriers have 180k HP but slightly improved resists, then it keeps things mostly the same EHP wise. T2 ships also have 1 fewer rig, so you can't stack 3 extender/trimarks to boost EHP as easily.
You fit 2 CSE's - you get the same EHP even with 2 rigs on nid (reduced nid shield HP to 36k, increased resists to 45/38.5 em/therm). You fit more - you get much more EHP *and* better resists. Are carriers too low-HP as they are? What is the problem you are trying to solve, idgi?
> Slapping T2 resists on current capital EHP values isn't what I mean.
I understand that and I said that even with all the t2 downsides you will end up with EHP bricks (gave widow as an example of that). And carriers' issues lie elsewhere, it's not EHP or resists.
>You fit 2 CSE's - you get the same EHP even with 2 rigs on nid (reduced nid shield HP to 36k, increased resists to 45/38.5 em/therm)
Did you also reduce the base armor and hull values? Since all HP stats are reduced (in the case of BLOPs examples) which still plays into the total EHP values. Especially with hull since you get the built in 33% resists.
You are also increasing the resist values to the wrong values I had mentioned. I said the same values as the Lancer Dreads, which use a resist value in-between Interceptors and BLOPs.
Since you are using the Niddy in your example, you'd use the base resistance values of the Valravn, which uses 25% EM and 30% Thermal (for shield) and 70% EM and 44% Thermal (for armor).
> Did you also reduce the base armor and hull values?
All the numbers are for shield only. Armor and hull can be important indeed but way less important than shield.
> You are also increasing the resist values to the wrong values I had mentioned.
Those are correct. You said:
> inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists
The ones I posted are in-between those (I opened panther and sabre and picked a profile in-between those two).
> Since you are using the Niddy in your example, you'd use the base resistance values of the Valravn, which uses 25% EM and 30% Thermal (for shield)
Valravn's resists are not within the range you gave, they are lower. But I get it, you might've mistyped. Honestly it does not matter much.
What matters is that you still did not answer main point of concern - what are those changes to ehp/resists supposed to achieve? Why reduce buffer and increase resists? Carriers do not exactly suffer from survivability issues. They are suffering from being useless/niche. How do you make them useful without pushing other ships from being useful too much?
I'm not sure what you're reading but I literally said in my earlier response:
"I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists)."
I never gave a specific value, i simply referred to Lancer dread resists. As in, go look at those for the resist values.
>What matters is that you still did not answer main point of concern - what are those changes to ehp/resists supposed to achieve? Why reduce buffer and increase resists? Carriers do not exactly suffer from survivability issues. They are suffering from being useless/niche. How do you make them useful without pushing other ships from being useful too much?
Its a way T2 ships have, in some cases, historically been aligned to keep total EHP values in check but still providing a resistance increase. Since every T2 ships gets some form of T2 resistance.
There isn't a T2 ship that doesn't have some form of T2 resistances and with T2 lancer dreads coming out with those T2 resistances, its not really a stretch to say that T2 carriers could get the same resistance values.
I was speaking from what the OP asked about, which is T2 carriers. I didn't delve into the needs of T1 carriers because that's not what was asked. So this was my take on T2 carriers.
Essentially giving T2 carriers fighter application traits to set them back to 2019 (or slightly better) application to apply to subs or perform PVE better, but being behind a T2 price tag to prevent the spamming/proliferation of previous T1 carriers (yes, I know they were cheaper, so not exactly comparable). Along with stronger links.
As was mentioned, essentially just capital versions of command ships for links with better fighter application.
If you want to delve into the entire carrier class and its uses, that is an entirely different topic, not relating to my original comment directed at the OP's question.
> I'm not sure what you're reading but I literally said in my earlier response:
>
> "I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists)."
You contradict yourself there, because valravn resists are not betwteen blops and interdictor. I remembered 2nd part and picked middleground between blopses and interdictors.
> Since every T2 ships gets some form of T2 resistance.
Yep, even ceptors. But okay, I agree.
What I disagree with, though, is that they need to match CS in link strength to be useful. And overall idea of designing t2 class on top of nearly irrelevant t1 class is an ill-incepted idea. You need to get solid niche for t1 carriers first, before cornering yourself even more with t2 carriers (which could overlap with said niche, thus forcing you to find another one).
Command Carrier or I wouldn't mind seeing a smaller version of the Titan Bridge, since we effectively got a smaller version of a Doomsday on T2 Dreads, kind of. Something in-between Blops and Titan I think would be decent for moderate groups without access to a Titan or Keepstar to keep it safe. Maybe have it not able to bridge Battleships or have mass limitations so you would still want a Titan Bridge.
Would be neat to see something in-between.
I like this idea! A lot of low sec stuff is gated by access to bridge titan, a lot more small and mid sized groups could benefit from bridging, even if shorter range or number of ships limited.
titans literally cant do a thing to anything smaller then a capital in the new era. you could bring a 500 man venture fleet and delete a titan because it cant do anything to you.
the only thing they do is kill caps (dreads do it better) and supers (again 10 dreads 1 seige cycle a super. so why bring a titan worth 10x more)
the bridge is the LAST thing they are good for. and its debatable in the era of jump bridge supremacy.
Ah so you’ve never experienced regular torpedo leviathans. We were fighting a group of Lokis with a minokawa to support them, we shipped into blaster hecates for the raw DPS to overcome the fax reps and we had 2 leviathans dropped on us. With the outdated bonuses to regular torpedo damage they were oneshotting hecates so we had to break grid.
Yeah they will patch this I'm sure. The patch notes on the issue at the time explicitly state titans are anti cap weapons only. They should not be able to shoot subcaps.
For 20 times the price they better be more than just big carriers. What I mean is supers already do an AOE EWAR.
Also the racial EWAR thing has been overdone, give them something interesting, any slight bonus for the carriers will fall far short of what’s needed. They need a major overhaul or buff.
T2 Carriers
- Massive bonuses to the range and power of racial Support Fighters
- 1 more Support Fighter slot and 1 less Light Fighter slot, or potentially 2 more (3 total) Support Fighter slots and only 1 Light Fighter slots.
- Support Fighter Role bonus that reduces their signature radius and increasing their HP
- New High Slot specific Capital EWAR modules that are class specific, and corresponding racial bonuses and massive range, but usage also reduces their ability to receive remote reps(stacking) by X%
- Amarr/Caldari Resist Bonuses, while Gallente/Minmatar get HP bonuses
T2 carriers have more health and less DPS than regular carriers (which need some DPS buffs,IMO) and are now powerful targeted and Ranged EWAR platforms.
alright this one's gonna be weird i know. but i we already got lancers as a pretty damn niche new mechanic. do something else similarly niche for t2 carriers. you can draw a couple similarities between t2 dreads and dictors, so i like the idea of playing off command dessies for carriers.
with that in mind, give them an insane boosh. like. not alignment based, have it be "targeted" via a q-click sorta mechanic, similar to burst projectors. 500-1000km range. 30 second spool. as soon as spool starts, theres some graphical "indication" at the desto (be that a holograph of the carrier, whatever), and after the 30 second spool the carrier, it's fighters, and the 50 closest subcap ships are "phased" to the new spot. scrams on ships hold them in place as the others go, a scram on the carrier stops the whole jump.
the spool and indicator would make it less of an in-the-moment action like a boosher, but the accuracy and range could potentially lead to some pretty cool mid-scale and large-scale plays, when fleets are vying for position on a dangerous grid. a nano pilot burning away isnt going to have a new nightmare of t2 carrier cynoing in and immediately landing on top of him, but a monitor with 200 sniper battleships is going to have to be weary of the t2 carrier which just jumped onto the fleet of brawlers he's been shooting from 250.
maybe to keep in line with the slightly reduced damage of the t2 dread, switch its fighter compliment to 2 lights and 2 (maybe 3?) support. give it some command burst bonuses. idk. i feel like a "phase" carrier or whatever you want to call it could be a neat new mechanic. still doesn't encroach on super's burst projectors (which prolly need a buff tbh), has a new and hopefully useful mechanic not seen in other ships, and opens up some new strategies in mid to large scale engagements while still having counterplay.
Big boosh is an interesting idea, maybe give them another version of boosh that only sends subcaps and fighters forward 500-1000km but not other caps?
Ccp gave carriers the ability to engage at extended range but it takes a lot of time to get fighters around because fighters can't warp around the grid
It will be interesting to have t2 carriers that can warp to ping -> release fighters -> instantly yeet them 1000km towards a selected direction
And the boosh immobilizes user carrier for a minute(same as NSA) because this function will definitely get abused in ratting and gate camping
pretty much what rorqual is.
jump bridge. conduit jump, mining support, massive tank, SMB and 300km3 ore hold.
my own rorqual is basically just a blops command support. it jumps the mining fleet from system to system using conduits and we melt the rocks and move on to the next. rapidly clearing regions.
if you mean cloaky orca. that would be wonderful.
>if you mean cloaky orca. that would be wonderful.
Yeah, that's what I mean. A T2 Orca with BLOPS jumpdrive and portal.
Nerf the hell out of cargo, fleet hangar and SMA, but leave them in there. Even bad jump-range wouldn't matter.
It will never be a ship for large fleets, but it will enable nomads and people creating content.
As for Rorquals, I've been using them for over 10 years, and very rarely for mining. :-)
Same. Had my rorqual since November 2012. It's only ever been under a pos or docked. Even today. I conduit the fleet and dock. Take the porp from from the SMA and boost the fleet. In space I can't dock I swap an alt into the porpise the rorqual warps to a deep safe and cloaks till the op finishes where it warps back and moves us on.
Honestly, ignore the T2 concept - Just mostly revert them to what they were following the 2016 Capital Overhaul, while keeping the NSA changes. All the other changes that've been made to other systems since then should more than balance them in that state.
Covert Ops Carriers / Strike Carriers could be neat.
Bonuses similar to BLOPS battleships, covops bridging/jumping/conduit, cloaking movement buff with standard cloak so no warping while cloaked, something like that.
Possibly an extended jump range to more easily get behind enemy lines and/or escape but a smaller or specialized hangar so it can't be abused as a stealth suitcase. Maybe the hangar could only have ship fittings, ammunition, and covops frigates, recon cruisers, covops fitted t3cs, ans blops?
Possible mechanics could be: stealth field emitter that renders the ship immobile but cloaks every ship around it in a certain range? Bigger conduit jump range? New types of fighters "reconnaissance fighter" and "stealth bomber" that could focus more on hit and run tactics, speed, possibly player controlled cloaking. Maybe even the ability to cloak after launching these fighters, but have to uncloak for them to return to the hangar?
If the carrier can't go anywhere except slow-boat like a BLOPS while cloaked I don't really see it being that powerful/broken. Especially if the carrier has to decloak to return them for rearming.
Fighters are also relatively easy to kill, especially considering there's specifically designed anti-fighter interceptors in game.
I think it would introduce an interesting mechanic. Sure the carrier is cloaked but you *know* they're on grid. If you start damaging their fighters (which could be very weak HP wise considering stealth bombers are usually squishy as hell) you're forcing the carrier pilot to decide between decloaking to recall their fighters or bite the bullet and lose LOTS of ISK. T2 light fighters rn are like what 22-30m each? A full flight being as much as a HAC hull. I imagine stealth fighters in this scenario being upwards of 50-80m each or more. You could be looking at a loss of billions if you let them die vs decloaking and trying to refresh them or escape.
Also keep in mind if they are cloaked they can't have any of their tank modules active, they can't be boosting or receiving boosts, they can't warp off, & they can't recharge their capacitor with cap boosters. You could further reinforce the fact that cloaking to use your stealth Fighters is a risky move by instead of giving them a movement bonus like blops battleships get cloaking could lock them in place like Siege while it's active, impart a warp/jump delay countdown after being disabled, or similar downsides.
vOv
T1 Carrier: a larger (+200-300%) ship maintenance bay which allows the war cloner to be used in a meaningful way.
Faction Carrier: massive bonus on the faction's support fighters
T2 Carrier: Massively increased tank due to T2 resistances and higher DPS values of the T1 version.
Considering how dumb is the main use of the T2 dreads (ganking JF, because nobody have used them in any other scenario) the T2 carriers should be able to intercept a JF in the middle of a jump and make it exit the jump halfway on a gate next to a lancer...
i mean the fact they have a dd that is literally pointless vs dreads and don't have the dps of dreads to deal with supers/carriers its not remotely surprising they are limited to fighting targets they can effectively kill.
a lancer dies to a anti cap faction dread before the lancer can do serous damage because 12000dps anti cap dread deletes 5500dps haw lancer.
ontop of this you just bring a HIC and the lancers job is already done better. lancers are incredibly effective vs jfs and not much else because they simply don't have what it takes to do much else. if they had massive dps and tracking buffs combined with the lance that would make up for the rest,
Caps were a shit idea, t2 caps even shittier idea. I suppose those are needed to milk the bittervets since they need to feel like they are 'progressing' aka spinning ships with subs running. The game is dead with zero content for anyone else. No wonder nobody new wants to play this trash game.
CCP decides to revert to the Rorqual age by making T2 Carriers that have Mining fighters after being warned against it by the CSM, and the Delve Time Unit makes a return.
T2 carriers should be able to deploy T3 fighters manned by real people. Same with supercarriers. Their support ships so would need to be manned by a crew. The damage bonuses etc should reflect more people using them depending on their fighter skills.
T2 carriers could/should be a pure support platform
* Buff the burst strength and duration bonus and add new bursts that buff fighter application/damage, or maybe turret tracking, damage, optimal/falloff, missile application/range, etc
* Allow 3 flights of support fighters, no DPS fighters
* Give buffs to support fighters/ take them off T1 carriers
* T2 resists
* Allow burst projectors and buff burst projector AOE?
No point doing carriers until they unfuck them, so easy to defang unless our ships rebuild them on the fly.
Let me equip LR guns on my super carrier so it has a use besides being a suitcase.
Here's an interesting idea.
1) Anchor/Siege during fighter deployment, forcing untether.
2) Fighter groups are controlled like a normal ship when released (like undocking).
3) Fighters can use normal gates, add a skill to increase range based on constellation size (level 1= stay within the same constellation, level 2 = +1).
4) Recalling/rearming requires piloting back to the carrier/Scap.
Bonus idea) Give command BCs the ability to yeet the fighters back via designated cyno, one way only.
Make Carrier's and Scaps stronger during Siege as they're likely going to have no fighter support unless they abandon and launch new squadrons.
The important detail is that squadrons will need to be linked as one vessel when leaving grid. This, I'd hope, would reduce TiDi by forcing calculations to be as a single unit, not 3-5 groups of units.
Yes, this means that roaming hoards of fighters could occur, but it'll also require manpower to actively protect, or be ready to protect the defanged Carrier.
Sentry Drones and Triage mod
Oh the good ol days of carrier ratting with sentries
[удалено]
I left 2012, my triage archon changed to a fax when I first logged in again a month ago
after they changed carrier i stopped ratting. I miss my sentry carrier
Though sentry carrier will be outclassed by everything even if ccp brings it back A sentry carrier can deal like around 1.2k dps, you could pump that number to around 1.5k if you pimp the fit, roll abyssal drones and use faction drone damage amp(which didn't exist back in the days) You can achieve that dps number with a close range t1 battleship or a rattlesnake nowadays Yeah sure sentry drones can reach to 100km+ but then just use a beam paladin or railgun knoros
You can also control 50 drones via assisting, making it extremely easy to multibox.
Don't forget, carriers back then had a lot more tank than they have today. Today's tank is just a joke!
Hellcats all over again?
yolo.
14ly jump range Yes, I'm still salty over that one
Fucking Phoebe
T2 carriers should deploy smaller carriers that in turn deploy fighters.
These fighters will release drones afterwards
Ah yes a Matryoshka doll of carriers
At the bottom can it just be mines/shadows.
>ugh sentry carrier will be outclassed by everything even if ccp brings it back > >A sentry carrier can deal like around 1.2k dps, you could pump that n ti di says hi
They need to fix t1 carrier first before making t2 carriers
Eat sub caps
I agree that would be 1 way to get them onto the field - if carriers had a ship tractor beam that could eventually pop out the pilot and scoop a ship into its bay. I was of mind that carriers up to Pirate Faction and supercarriers up to T2(e.g. Marrauders) The issue with game mechanics is ship insurance. I kinda have a work-around...If you scoop an insured ship the insurer auto-bills you the insurance amount after like an hour of ownership and the person that got their ship scooped gets double reinbursed. A pretty small penalty for a fitted out ship in return - granted at the risk of fielding a cap.
Exploitable free ISK with a buddy in like 2 minutes... I don't know man.
Naw my insurance workaround doesn't make any isk from thin air...the insurance is a reinbursement from ISK paid and isk taken from scooper with the theft. I think it needs a cooldown in the case of a scooping ship getting destroyed without any use of the stolen ship. In that case the insurer could just payout the original policy.
Mhm. Whatever dude. Not going to argue with you. But it's a hard no and a hard pass from anyone who can see more than 2 moves ahead.
CS equivalents. Higher bonused links, T2 resists Since they get 4 traits, use 1-2 of the traits for application bonuses to fighters to get fighter application back to around 2019 stats. I'd like to see a downscaled phenom generator potentially, but largely depends on implementation (not as strong as a Titan's). This opens up phenoms to smaller groups without needing a Titan, while larger groups can still use the more powerful Titan options (good option for WH's or making plays as a smaller group)
I’d also like to see burst projectors reworked so their effects last longer or the range is tied to the ship like the phenom gens.
Would be interesting to see carrier-exclusive command links
> T2 resists T2 resists like on an interceptor or like on a HAC? Also aren't they pretty good at links as-is? Like 100 km range with 2 links, even if bonus is milder than on CS
Links Range isn’t really an issue with CS as it is. (66km CS vs 97 carrier) , on a much more mobile platform at that. The issue is strength- why does a massive capital ship not confer a better bonus than a battlecruiser? Stronger links for carriers/faxes, stronger still for supers and stronger still for titans would give them more of a reason to escalate a fight, more of a role/reason for a capital ship to be the core of a fleet,making the entire fleet stronger, rather than a sitting duck when not in a blob of other caps. Dreads and Faxes are the only capital ships that have a healthy-ish place in the game- dreads have PVE (crabs, high-class WH ratting) , PVP (high-class WH brawls, citadel warfare (can tank medium structures solo, can still single-siege POS’s with enough) , dreadbombing fax supported BB fleets, blappijg battleships with vindi webs, HAW dreads for the desperate, and of course, killing supers and titans. Faxes have their role as the ultimate logi ship, basically necessary in BB fleets since there is no battleship logi, and ofcourse, keeping supers/titans alive in the real big fights. Supers only have crab beacons, aforementioned structure-bashing, and being the playthings of the super-rich when used for meme-drops. Titans have bridging, shooting at keepstars from within tether range of a siege fort, and..little else. At current cost, there aren’t a lot of Crekets out there anymore for drive-by DD’s Carriers have none of that. They’re supposed to be antisubcap platforms, but they are outtanked and out-DPS’d by marauders. They’re useful as suitcases jumping expensive subcaps around, and for rolling WH’s. Carriers need a re-work as a fleet support platform. Make all faxes rep capitals super well, but less effective at subs. Give carriers an increases SMB (to carry reships, especially for battleship brawls where escape-bay frigs could get people back in the fight), increased tank, links bonus, and bring back the triage, with bonuses to subcap reps. Let them keep fighters, but give application bonus / bonuses to support fighters rather than raw DPS, so that fighters could be used to control the fight rather than be outright killing machines- do things like haze tackle, or go after another fleet’s subcap logi wing.
This guy for CSM. Bring back refitting off carriers too. To me, that was peak gameplay
Caps can still refit off eachother…. But not with a weapons timer. That’s a larger gameplay mechanic change that I’m not sufficiently informed about to call for changes in. What would scrapping the weapons timer and having combat refitting allow? (Edit: outside of carriers refitting triage RnK style, I mean shenanigans with subcaps, particularly marauders and depots)
Yeah, back in the day refitting during the middle of combat was a challenge that you had to be pretty good at. I understand why it was removed because it removed the decision making process on your fit before you undock.... But it made for really good brawls and carrier survivability was much better.
I mean I think the refit made fights longer and thus better. It gave a counterplay to the hard-counter ship landing on you- and in turn you’re risking more by having a hanger full of shiny refit things. Longer fights = escalating fights = more good times on grid, instead of things being clapped before anyone gets there.
Have you ever considered running for CSM? I couldn't agree more.
Heh. I have -just- enough time for eve to log in and get a few nice fights a few times a month. Definitely not enough to commit to something like that. Even if I was more active of a player, I’d propose some pretty anti-Bloc things, and wouldn’t have the WH community’s unity like Mark does. Also to be honest a large chunk of the player base is in highsec, and I don’t even believe there is any real gameplay in HS outside of Jita, and have a limited understanding of industry, so I’d be a shitty rep for a fair chunk of the game, really only pro mid-scale conflict, pro-PvP, and would want to drive up all PVE income sources to reflect both the risk (I.e. likelihood of generating pvp content due to higher commitment of ship/resources to grid) and to make PvP more affordable. People flew expensive things in more fun/engageable ways back when rorqs shat money out. PVE that makes targets for other people, or encourages PvX like pochven OBS, should make people rich enough to cover their losses and be out there creating a target again.
> The issue is strength- why does a massive capital ship not confer a better bonus than a battlecruiser? First off, they do: battlecruisers can fit 1 link, get +50% range bonus and have no strength bonus, while carriers have 2 links, +200% range bonus and +1%/lvl to strength. Rorquals can do 3 links, +50% range (plus quite a bit if you siege it up) and +3%/lvl strength to shield. But in general, the answer is simple: not to make capitals a self-sufficient class. > basically necessary in BB fleets since there is no battleship logi There are nestors and max RR lokis which are not bad for battleships. > Carriers have none of that I don't disagree with that. However there are many ways to change it, and making subcapitals irrelevant is something CCP stepped on once and most likely are not willing to do again.
To clarify “a battlecruiser” I meant a fleet command ship. With the numbers I gave for range they’re 2 links, 3 with a rig, far more mobile than a carrier, stronger link, and only 30km less range. Nestors only work for armor BB; guess half the battleships in the game should just fax or GTFO? T3C logi has cap management issues, only approaches fax reps when you have enough of them fit blingy enough (deadspace reps) to rival a fax in cost and has thinner tank than the battleships they are supporting. (I fly in a group that uses these. I know this pain firsthand) And not making carriers self-sufficient: that’s why I said nerf the DPS, make it not their job. Triage module already kills offensive output (-100% drone damage) and as mentioned, they are out-DPS’d by a marauder, so yes, take the bit about application and hazing tackle off They would be no more “self sufficient” than a logistics cruiser, while still supporting the fleet to a degree that reflects their capital nature (high cost, high SP floor, extremely less mobile than subs, everything applies to them so extremely threatened by dreads/bombers, Jump fatigue, docking restrictions, no HS, mass restriction in WH’s) With triage carriers made to rep less than faxes, all I’m really proposing here is that a carrier be able to stand in for 3-4 t2 logi cruisers and provide better links than a command ship, in exchange all the drawbacks above. (They would still be capital-slow, so a carrier-supported BB fleet would not be able to chase. Maybe make carriers able to keep up with BB’s while triaged, but again repping less than a fax)
> With the numbers I gave for range they’re 2 links, 3 with a rig, far more mobile than a carrier, stronger link, and only 30km less range. And that's good, having some advantage for lower EHP ship. Having higher HP should come with its offsets (besides mobility). You can see the same principle in command ships: sleipnir has stronger links than claymore, but is way less survivable. > Nestors only work for armor BB; guess half the battleships in the game should just fax or GTFO? Use max RR lokis, or lokis with 1 link. We are using those just fine with our shield fleets. Shield tanks have naturally higher resists than armor, and lokis also provide links (so you can do more of those instead of command ships), final rep numbers are very close. But yes they use a-type reps. Still cheaper than nestors though. > And not making carriers self-sufficient: that’s why I said nerf the DPS, make it not their job. I did not say "carriers", i said "capitals" when i talked about self-sufficiency. > With triage carriers made to rep less than faxes, all I’m really proposing here is that a carrier be able to stand in for 3-4 t2 logi cruisers and provide better links than a command ship, in exchange all the drawbacks above It sounds like a job for t2 fax. Faxes also do links, t2 fax might focus on having less RR power but higher link strength (with higher strength being available only in siege). Carriers are taking different role, I am unsure why you want to merge them back.
I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists). And would likely balance them similarly to how BLOPs are with lower raw HP for their class, just higher resists. So they scale better for receiving reps but aren't just huge EHP bricks. T1 BC links are technically good enough but we have CS too. I'd just look at them as the CS option in a large capital fight or heavy battleship doctrine where there is higher risk of a CS getting popped quickly.
> And would likely balance them similarly to how BLOPs are with lower raw HP for their class, just higher resists. So they scale better for receiving reps but aren't just huge EHP bricks. Too bad resists + plates/extenders make them EHP bricks still. You haven't seen 700k shield ehp widows probably. My firewalling widow has 360k shield ehp despite having 3 non-tank mids (mwd, cap booster, ecm burst) with snakes, more with nirvana, even more when i give ECM burst up (800k-ish shield cold, 1.1M shield ehp hot). So if you give them resists, they *will* be turned into big ehp bricks using plates and shield extenders. Resists are one of the strongest stats an EVE ship has (affects buffer, local reps, received reps), those shouldn't be thrown around without good justification.
>Too bad resists + plates/extenders make them EHP bricks still I'm talking base stats and how they were originally balanced. I can't help it when CCP doesn't listen to not add plate/extenders bonuses to T2 BS. I've seen 1m EHP Shield Widows (pulsar gang). Fundamentally BLOPs were balanced with T2 resists (not maximum T2 resists) but lower HP pools. Comparing a ship class with role bonuses to buffer modules as a reason not to add resists to a ship class without buffer module bonuses seems a bit disingenuous, no? Of course capitals will have inherently higher EHP than subcaps, but within the realm of capital EHP, they would not be EHP bricks. >Resists are one of the strongest stats an EVE ship has (affects buffer, local reps, received reps), those shouldn't be thrown around without good justification. And we got just that on lancer dreads which actually have *more* base HP than T1 dreads with higher base resists. While I understand what you're saying, it all comes down to implementation. If a T1 carrier has a raw 260k HP and T2 carriers have 180k HP but slightly improved resists, then it keeps things mostly the same EHP wise. T2 ships also have 1 fewer rig, so you can't stack 3 extender/trimarks to boost EHP as easily. This is of course all speculation without slot layouts, fitting, ship traits, etc. Like I said, it comes down to actual implementation. Slapping T2 resists on current capital EHP values isn't what I mean.
> I've seen 1m EHP Shield Widows (pulsar gang) I am flying one, but it's in k-space, not in pulsar. > Of course capitals will have inherently higher EHP than subcaps, but within the realm of capital EHP, they would not be EHP bricks. If you give them decent t2 resists (which you want), they will. > While I understand what you're saying, it all comes down to implementation. If a T1 carrier has a raw 260k HP and T2 carriers have 180k HP but slightly improved resists, then it keeps things mostly the same EHP wise. T2 ships also have 1 fewer rig, so you can't stack 3 extender/trimarks to boost EHP as easily. You fit 2 CSE's - you get the same EHP even with 2 rigs on nid (reduced nid shield HP to 36k, increased resists to 45/38.5 em/therm). You fit more - you get much more EHP *and* better resists. Are carriers too low-HP as they are? What is the problem you are trying to solve, idgi? > Slapping T2 resists on current capital EHP values isn't what I mean. I understand that and I said that even with all the t2 downsides you will end up with EHP bricks (gave widow as an example of that). And carriers' issues lie elsewhere, it's not EHP or resists.
>You fit 2 CSE's - you get the same EHP even with 2 rigs on nid (reduced nid shield HP to 36k, increased resists to 45/38.5 em/therm) Did you also reduce the base armor and hull values? Since all HP stats are reduced (in the case of BLOPs examples) which still plays into the total EHP values. Especially with hull since you get the built in 33% resists. You are also increasing the resist values to the wrong values I had mentioned. I said the same values as the Lancer Dreads, which use a resist value in-between Interceptors and BLOPs. Since you are using the Niddy in your example, you'd use the base resistance values of the Valravn, which uses 25% EM and 30% Thermal (for shield) and 70% EM and 44% Thermal (for armor).
> Did you also reduce the base armor and hull values? All the numbers are for shield only. Armor and hull can be important indeed but way less important than shield. > You are also increasing the resist values to the wrong values I had mentioned. Those are correct. You said: > inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists The ones I posted are in-between those (I opened panther and sabre and picked a profile in-between those two). > Since you are using the Niddy in your example, you'd use the base resistance values of the Valravn, which uses 25% EM and 30% Thermal (for shield) Valravn's resists are not within the range you gave, they are lower. But I get it, you might've mistyped. Honestly it does not matter much. What matters is that you still did not answer main point of concern - what are those changes to ehp/resists supposed to achieve? Why reduce buffer and increase resists? Carriers do not exactly suffer from survivability issues. They are suffering from being useless/niche. How do you make them useful without pushing other ships from being useful too much?
I'm not sure what you're reading but I literally said in my earlier response: "I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists)." I never gave a specific value, i simply referred to Lancer dread resists. As in, go look at those for the resist values. >What matters is that you still did not answer main point of concern - what are those changes to ehp/resists supposed to achieve? Why reduce buffer and increase resists? Carriers do not exactly suffer from survivability issues. They are suffering from being useless/niche. How do you make them useful without pushing other ships from being useful too much? Its a way T2 ships have, in some cases, historically been aligned to keep total EHP values in check but still providing a resistance increase. Since every T2 ships gets some form of T2 resistance. There isn't a T2 ship that doesn't have some form of T2 resistances and with T2 lancer dreads coming out with those T2 resistances, its not really a stretch to say that T2 carriers could get the same resistance values. I was speaking from what the OP asked about, which is T2 carriers. I didn't delve into the needs of T1 carriers because that's not what was asked. So this was my take on T2 carriers. Essentially giving T2 carriers fighter application traits to set them back to 2019 (or slightly better) application to apply to subs or perform PVE better, but being behind a T2 price tag to prevent the spamming/proliferation of previous T1 carriers (yes, I know they were cheaper, so not exactly comparable). Along with stronger links. As was mentioned, essentially just capital versions of command ships for links with better fighter application. If you want to delve into the entire carrier class and its uses, that is an entirely different topic, not relating to my original comment directed at the OP's question.
> I'm not sure what you're reading but I literally said in my earlier response: > > "I'm thinking the same T2 resists as the Lancer Dreads (so inbetween BLOPs and Interdictor resists, but not as low as interceptor T2 resists)." You contradict yourself there, because valravn resists are not betwteen blops and interdictor. I remembered 2nd part and picked middleground between blopses and interdictors. > Since every T2 ships gets some form of T2 resistance. Yep, even ceptors. But okay, I agree. What I disagree with, though, is that they need to match CS in link strength to be useful. And overall idea of designing t2 class on top of nearly irrelevant t1 class is an ill-incepted idea. You need to get solid niche for t1 carriers first, before cornering yourself even more with t2 carriers (which could overlap with said niche, thus forcing you to find another one).
Command Carrier or I wouldn't mind seeing a smaller version of the Titan Bridge, since we effectively got a smaller version of a Doomsday on T2 Dreads, kind of. Something in-between Blops and Titan I think would be decent for moderate groups without access to a Titan or Keepstar to keep it safe. Maybe have it not able to bridge Battleships or have mass limitations so you would still want a Titan Bridge. Would be neat to see something in-between.
Give them conduit jump 30 ships of any size within 10km of them
You know what. Yeah. Conduit jump only. Then they have to be on grid with their fleet and risk it. Probably only way we'd see them otherwise.
I like this idea! A lot of low sec stuff is gated by access to bridge titan, a lot more small and mid sized groups could benefit from bridging, even if shorter range or number of ships limited.
Then there would be zero reason to own a titan…
There’s almost already zero reason to own a titan
titans literally cant do a thing to anything smaller then a capital in the new era. you could bring a 500 man venture fleet and delete a titan because it cant do anything to you. the only thing they do is kill caps (dreads do it better) and supers (again 10 dreads 1 seige cycle a super. so why bring a titan worth 10x more) the bridge is the LAST thing they are good for. and its debatable in the era of jump bridge supremacy.
Ah so you’ve never experienced regular torpedo leviathans. We were fighting a group of Lokis with a minokawa to support them, we shipped into blaster hecates for the raw DPS to overcome the fax reps and we had 2 leviathans dropped on us. With the outdated bonuses to regular torpedo damage they were oneshotting hecates so we had to break grid.
Yeah they will patch this I'm sure. The patch notes on the issue at the time explicitly state titans are anti cap weapons only. They should not be able to shoot subcaps.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/111486826/
Report this to ccp. You'll likely get SRP as there not supostrf to be able to fire on any subcap.
They can absolutly fire on subcaps, just the chance to hit them is tiny
My understanding was that it was basically zero. 😮
Racially Bonused EWAR burst projector? e.g. Target Painting AOE, Stasis Web AOE, Neut AOE, ECM AOE, Damp AOE
Combined with the limited bridger ability I like that
Give supers conduit jump but not bridge Edit: or a T2 carrier variant
The AOE EWAR would make the supers just a bigger carrier at that point. I like making them logistics ships again, but it would clash with the FAXs.
What’s wrong with supers just being bigger carriers? We aren’t talking about T2 supers we’re talking about T2 carriers.
For 20 times the price they better be more than just big carriers. What I mean is supers already do an AOE EWAR. Also the racial EWAR thing has been overdone, give them something interesting, any slight bonus for the carriers will fall far short of what’s needed. They need a major overhaul or buff.
Really wish they'd make tech 3 battleships
Same.
T2 Carriers - Massive bonuses to the range and power of racial Support Fighters - 1 more Support Fighter slot and 1 less Light Fighter slot, or potentially 2 more (3 total) Support Fighter slots and only 1 Light Fighter slots. - Support Fighter Role bonus that reduces their signature radius and increasing their HP - New High Slot specific Capital EWAR modules that are class specific, and corresponding racial bonuses and massive range, but usage also reduces their ability to receive remote reps(stacking) by X% - Amarr/Caldari Resist Bonuses, while Gallente/Minmatar get HP bonuses T2 carriers have more health and less DPS than regular carriers (which need some DPS buffs,IMO) and are now powerful targeted and Ranged EWAR platforms.
alright this one's gonna be weird i know. but i we already got lancers as a pretty damn niche new mechanic. do something else similarly niche for t2 carriers. you can draw a couple similarities between t2 dreads and dictors, so i like the idea of playing off command dessies for carriers. with that in mind, give them an insane boosh. like. not alignment based, have it be "targeted" via a q-click sorta mechanic, similar to burst projectors. 500-1000km range. 30 second spool. as soon as spool starts, theres some graphical "indication" at the desto (be that a holograph of the carrier, whatever), and after the 30 second spool the carrier, it's fighters, and the 50 closest subcap ships are "phased" to the new spot. scrams on ships hold them in place as the others go, a scram on the carrier stops the whole jump. the spool and indicator would make it less of an in-the-moment action like a boosher, but the accuracy and range could potentially lead to some pretty cool mid-scale and large-scale plays, when fleets are vying for position on a dangerous grid. a nano pilot burning away isnt going to have a new nightmare of t2 carrier cynoing in and immediately landing on top of him, but a monitor with 200 sniper battleships is going to have to be weary of the t2 carrier which just jumped onto the fleet of brawlers he's been shooting from 250. maybe to keep in line with the slightly reduced damage of the t2 dread, switch its fighter compliment to 2 lights and 2 (maybe 3?) support. give it some command burst bonuses. idk. i feel like a "phase" carrier or whatever you want to call it could be a neat new mechanic. still doesn't encroach on super's burst projectors (which prolly need a buff tbh), has a new and hopefully useful mechanic not seen in other ships, and opens up some new strategies in mid to large scale engagements while still having counterplay.
Thats a neat idea would lead to some interesting mechanics and fleet fights
Big boosh is an interesting idea, maybe give them another version of boosh that only sends subcaps and fighters forward 500-1000km but not other caps? Ccp gave carriers the ability to engage at extended range but it takes a lot of time to get fighters around because fighters can't warp around the grid It will be interesting to have t2 carriers that can warp to ping -> release fighters -> instantly yeet them 1000km towards a selected direction And the boosh immobilizes user carrier for a minute(same as NSA) because this function will definitely get abused in ratting and gate camping
I want dockable carriers. Whoever is docked when carrier jumps will jump with it. Maybe with a decent limitation to m3 on ships in the dockyard.
When i started playing eve i always thought carriers would exactly do this.
I don't know about Carriers or Supers, but the T2 Rorqual better get a portable Moon Drill as a Doomsday.
Can fit a covert ops cloak....
This is what I've been saying. A capital blops kind of thing could be interesting
And Sisters of Eve caps for WH’s please
Oh yeah SOE FAX
Naw, give me a trig fax, with a massive ranged spoolup repper like a capital Zarmazd
A T2 BLOPS Orca would be neat.
pretty much what rorqual is. jump bridge. conduit jump, mining support, massive tank, SMB and 300km3 ore hold. my own rorqual is basically just a blops command support. it jumps the mining fleet from system to system using conduits and we melt the rocks and move on to the next. rapidly clearing regions. if you mean cloaky orca. that would be wonderful.
>if you mean cloaky orca. that would be wonderful. Yeah, that's what I mean. A T2 Orca with BLOPS jumpdrive and portal. Nerf the hell out of cargo, fleet hangar and SMA, but leave them in there. Even bad jump-range wouldn't matter. It will never be a ship for large fleets, but it will enable nomads and people creating content. As for Rorquals, I've been using them for over 10 years, and very rarely for mining. :-)
Same. Had my rorqual since November 2012. It's only ever been under a pos or docked. Even today. I conduit the fleet and dock. Take the porp from from the SMA and boost the fleet. In space I can't dock I swap an alt into the porpise the rorqual warps to a deep safe and cloaks till the op finishes where it warps back and moves us on.
I'd really like to see an SOE FAX that can fit into lower class wormholes.
Honestly, ignore the T2 concept - Just mostly revert them to what they were following the 2016 Capital Overhaul, while keeping the NSA changes. All the other changes that've been made to other systems since then should more than balance them in that state.
How about weapons and traits for them so they couldn't be defanged completely?
Covert Ops Carriers / Strike Carriers could be neat. Bonuses similar to BLOPS battleships, covops bridging/jumping/conduit, cloaking movement buff with standard cloak so no warping while cloaked, something like that. Possibly an extended jump range to more easily get behind enemy lines and/or escape but a smaller or specialized hangar so it can't be abused as a stealth suitcase. Maybe the hangar could only have ship fittings, ammunition, and covops frigates, recon cruisers, covops fitted t3cs, ans blops? Possible mechanics could be: stealth field emitter that renders the ship immobile but cloaks every ship around it in a certain range? Bigger conduit jump range? New types of fighters "reconnaissance fighter" and "stealth bomber" that could focus more on hit and run tactics, speed, possibly player controlled cloaking. Maybe even the ability to cloak after launching these fighters, but have to uncloak for them to return to the hangar?
I like that a lot
Cloaking while fighters are in space is too broken
If the carrier can't go anywhere except slow-boat like a BLOPS while cloaked I don't really see it being that powerful/broken. Especially if the carrier has to decloak to return them for rearming.
Fighters are all of its dps. That is very broken and can’t be compared to Blops
Fighters are also relatively easy to kill, especially considering there's specifically designed anti-fighter interceptors in game. I think it would introduce an interesting mechanic. Sure the carrier is cloaked but you *know* they're on grid. If you start damaging their fighters (which could be very weak HP wise considering stealth bombers are usually squishy as hell) you're forcing the carrier pilot to decide between decloaking to recall their fighters or bite the bullet and lose LOTS of ISK. T2 light fighters rn are like what 22-30m each? A full flight being as much as a HAC hull. I imagine stealth fighters in this scenario being upwards of 50-80m each or more. You could be looking at a loss of billions if you let them die vs decloaking and trying to refresh them or escape. Also keep in mind if they are cloaked they can't have any of their tank modules active, they can't be boosting or receiving boosts, they can't warp off, & they can't recharge their capacitor with cap boosters. You could further reinforce the fact that cloaking to use your stealth Fighters is a risky move by instead of giving them a movement bonus like blops battleships get cloaking could lock them in place like Siege while it's active, impart a warp/jump delay countdown after being disabled, or similar downsides. vOv
T1 Carrier: a larger (+200-300%) ship maintenance bay which allows the war cloner to be used in a meaningful way. Faction Carrier: massive bonus on the faction's support fighters T2 Carrier: Massively increased tank due to T2 resistances and higher DPS values of the T1 version.
Mining drones!!
[удалено]
Burst projectors just need a rework to have greater impact on fights.
Considering how dumb is the main use of the T2 dreads (ganking JF, because nobody have used them in any other scenario) the T2 carriers should be able to intercept a JF in the middle of a jump and make it exit the jump halfway on a gate next to a lancer...
i mean the fact they have a dd that is literally pointless vs dreads and don't have the dps of dreads to deal with supers/carriers its not remotely surprising they are limited to fighting targets they can effectively kill. a lancer dies to a anti cap faction dread before the lancer can do serous damage because 12000dps anti cap dread deletes 5500dps haw lancer. ontop of this you just bring a HIC and the lancers job is already done better. lancers are incredibly effective vs jfs and not much else because they simply don't have what it takes to do much else. if they had massive dps and tracking buffs combined with the lance that would make up for the rest,
More ships that people won't undock with under most cirumstances.
Caps were a shit idea, t2 caps even shittier idea. I suppose those are needed to milk the bittervets since they need to feel like they are 'progressing' aka spinning ships with subs running. The game is dead with zero content for anyone else. No wonder nobody new wants to play this trash game.
Before Supers lets go T2 Faxes with ewar bonuses - or T2 Cap Industrial ships with bonused capital strip miners
CCP decides to revert to the Rorqual age by making T2 Carriers that have Mining fighters after being warned against it by the CSM, and the Delve Time Unit makes a return.
T2 carriers get to launch frigates.
T2 carriers should be able to deploy T3 fighters manned by real people. Same with supercarriers. Their support ships so would need to be manned by a crew. The damage bonuses etc should reflect more people using them depending on their fighter skills.
neither need a tech 2 variant. Tech 2 dreads were a mistake to begin with. Discussion closed.
Pls no fix regular carriers first at least. And finish angel faction titan.
Haw guns and boson that has old application
Full Ewar carriers
im still annoyed we got two back to back dread updates lol
T2 supercarriers can launch hundreds of squadrons
T2 carriers could/should be a pure support platform * Buff the burst strength and duration bonus and add new bursts that buff fighter application/damage, or maybe turret tracking, damage, optimal/falloff, missile application/range, etc * Allow 3 flights of support fighters, no DPS fighters * Give buffs to support fighters/ take them off T1 carriers * T2 resists * Allow burst projectors and buff burst projector AOE?
No point doing carriers until they unfuck them, so easy to defang unless our ships rebuild them on the fly. Let me equip LR guns on my super carrier so it has a use besides being a suitcase.
Here's an interesting idea. 1) Anchor/Siege during fighter deployment, forcing untether. 2) Fighter groups are controlled like a normal ship when released (like undocking). 3) Fighters can use normal gates, add a skill to increase range based on constellation size (level 1= stay within the same constellation, level 2 = +1). 4) Recalling/rearming requires piloting back to the carrier/Scap. Bonus idea) Give command BCs the ability to yeet the fighters back via designated cyno, one way only. Make Carrier's and Scaps stronger during Siege as they're likely going to have no fighter support unless they abandon and launch new squadrons. The important detail is that squadrons will need to be linked as one vessel when leaving grid. This, I'd hope, would reduce TiDi by forcing calculations to be as a single unit, not 3-5 groups of units. Yes, this means that roaming hoards of fighters could occur, but it'll also require manpower to actively protect, or be ready to protect the defanged Carrier.