Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
4 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

hi sec carriers

Author
#1 - 2017-05-04 21:25:29 UTC
whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2017-05-04 21:30:08 UTC
Why?
#3 - 2017-05-04 21:31:06 UTC
That question comes up regularly and it's regularly explained why this would be a terrible idea.
Forum search is your friend.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.

Evictus.
#4 - 2017-05-04 21:51:38 UTC
The regions of space are designed to be different, with different rules and different gameplay. You have choices - carriers and other capital ships are available everywhere except highsec, though the only way to get them into the smaller wormholes would be to build them there. That's 75% of space - caps OK, 25% not allowed.

It's not clear what role "baby carriers" would fill. They couldn't be more powerful than existing battleships or they would automatically become the goto platform for PVE content like missions and incursions.
#5 - 2017-05-04 22:02:23 UTC
Domi, geddon, orca and soe battleship thingy.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#6 - 2017-05-04 22:15:38 UTC
In general? Because it would be horribly imbalanced on multiple levels and for multiple reasons.
#7 - 2017-05-05 00:19:47 UTC
so...orcas and DSTs?
End of Life
#8 - 2017-05-05 07:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.

The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.

By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-05-05 10:37:23 UTC
kurowscara wrote:
whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea



Basically, the power levels in HS are reasonably well balanced.

Adding a minicarrier, would tend to assume it would be more powerful to make it worthwhile.

There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.

But then why would anyone actually want one?
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2017-05-05 10:41:00 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.

The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.

By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.



Of course any corp EVEN ONCE seen with a carrier in HS would be permanently wardecced. So that negates that.

But it still would be absurdly overpowered, or crippled in HS ensuring they were of no real value.

So thats a big no to carriers in HS
Triumvirate.
#11 - 2017-05-05 13:45:52 UTC
kurowscara wrote:
whats stopping having normal carriers in hi`sec or have something like baby carriers not drone boats bigger then battleship smaller then carrier..... don't shot me down just idea


Why stopping at carrier? Why not a super ? Why no Titan ?

-1
#12 - 2017-05-05 14:15:35 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.

The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.

By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.


Don't forget camping the 4-4 undock with about 150 corps wardec'd.
Ivy League
#13 - 2017-05-05 14:38:57 UTC
Alderson Point wrote:

There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.

But then why would anyone actually want one?


I was firmly 100% in the camp of "no carriers in HS" right up until you said this... and it actually got me thinking.

Marauders are essentially mini-dreadnoughts, bastion vs siege modes, long range high damage, local reps etc.
Flying a Marauder in HS isn't going to teach you everything you need to know about flying a Dreadnought, but it will give you a basic foundation in what to do.

There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones.
the more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind seeing a T2 battleship, similar to a marauder, that uses light fighters instead of drones.
I'm sure that things could be balanced in such a way as to put them more or less on par with a marauder (off the top of my head i'm thinking more dps but lower tank???)

Personally I would love to fly something like that, not only would it give more options for T2 battleships, but more importantly it would let me learn fighter mechanics in relative safety before jumping into a multi-billion isk ship.
DARKNESS.
#14 - 2017-05-05 15:04:10 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones.

And why should there? Isn't your low sec in Solitude or Syndicate null sec campus the best test environment to figure these things out? Why should this testing phase be possible to do in high sec?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Ivy League
#15 - 2017-05-05 15:20:42 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones.

And why should there? Isn't your low sec in Solitude or Syndicate null sec campus the best test environment to figure these things out? Why should this testing phase be possible to do in high sec?


yes those work just fine. so we should get rid of marauders as well then right? because why should people get the chance to try out and learn the basics of how dreadnoughts work in HS?
DARKNESS.
#16 - 2017-05-05 19:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Basics? A Dread uses fuel to start their siege, a Marauder does not. A carrier uses fighters, which are improved drones, and the ships are about managing and assigning drones to targets. Any drone boat teaches you the basics about how you use and manage drones/fighters.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

#17 - 2017-05-07 16:06:24 UTC  |  Edited by: DrysonBennington
Carriers in High Sector would allow High Sector and Alliances to demolish other corporations, especially new corporations founded by rookie CEO's.

The absolute destruction that a High Sector Carrier Group would bring would satisfy many corporations engaged in ship and module manufacturing.

War Dec's would be never ending as well and High Sector would become more volatile than even Drifter Space.

Carriers in High Sector would mean absolute madness....which some might like.

Maybe not Carriers...but a ship slightly smaller than a Force Auxiliary with the ability to fly three fighters or bombers along with the normal drones upto Heavy TII would solve the problem.

Not to much firepower but enough.
#18 - 2017-05-07 22:59:52 UTC
Alderson Point wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
They can't mine. They can't run missions. They can't pvp and they are massive overkill for highsec anomolies.

The only purpose allowing them in highsec would serve, would be to bypass the force projection limits, through completely safe transit.

By the time players get into flying Carriers, they should be able to manage their safety adequately enough that they don't need the immunity to risk that highsec would provide them.



Of course any corp EVEN ONCE seen with a carrier in HS would be permanently wardecced. So that negates that.




You may want to take more than a few seconds to thunk about what you just said


I'll just ignore npc corps that completely negate your point.


So many corps would have these in hs if it were allowed that would be like saying "any Corp seen with a freighter would be permanently wardecced.


Real problem would be the station games. Good luck killing one of these camping you in station within a weapons timer
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2017-05-10 19:33:58 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:

There is no reason why a minicarrier could not be available in HS if it was no more powerful than say for example, a maurauder.

But then why would anyone actually want one?


I was firmly 100% in the camp of "no carriers in HS" right up until you said this... and it actually got me thinking.

Marauders are essentially mini-dreadnoughts, bastion vs siege modes, long range high damage, local reps etc.
Flying a Marauder in HS isn't going to teach you everything you need to know about flying a Dreadnought, but it will give you a basic foundation in what to do.

There is nothing currently that teaches you the basic skills for carrier use, besides using a carrier. and fighters use quite different mechanics from drones.
the more I think about it the more I wouldn't mind seeing a T2 battleship, similar to a marauder, that uses light fighters instead of drones.
I'm sure that things could be balanced in such a way as to put them more or less on par with a marauder (off the top of my head i'm thinking more dps but lower tank???)

Personally I would love to fly something like that, not only would it give more options for T2 battleships, but more importantly it would let me learn fighter mechanics in relative safety before jumping into a multi-billion isk ship.

I would also like to try how fighters work, they look fun, but currently I would need to spend about 2 months to learn something that I may not like at all.
As marauders are similar to the dreadnoughts, the idea of an escort carrier as BS sized fighter platform pops up regularly, because it's a logical idea. The problem and common argument against them is that a single squad of light fighters is OP in hi-sec, but I think I found a solution for this - thanks to CONCORD Aerospace.
The role "bonus" of the escort carriers is actually a penalty to the fighters HP and damage if they are in hi-sec: they won't be much stronger than the heavy drones, but they will keep their mechanics so people can try them.
The required skills should be a Battleship 5 and the Fighters 1 skills, I think these two take enough time to have it close to the other T2 battleships.

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

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

#20 - 2017-05-10 20:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
Personally, I would like to see some kind of light carrier usable in hisec, but whether that will actually happen is for CCP to decide.

In terms of balancing, I think that there are so many variables (both on the ship and the fighters themselves) that can be adjusted that I am confident a reasonable balance can be found in case a light carrier is ever made.

For those asking for a light carrier for hisec I have often seen the comment to "get a Domi". Before the fighter changes I might have agreed with this comment, but after the changes to controlling fighters, the ways for controlling drones and fighters ARE different and a light carrier would be an opportunity to learn to control fighters without the need to invest in a full carrier or citadel.

I have also seen comments concerning the role of a light carrier. However, personally I am not so sure that it needs a specific role that is much different than a normal battleship - it can just be a long-range damage dealer. I have also seen other people suggest that it could have a defensive purpose for escorting vessels such as freighters. Recently, I suggested an cloak hunter role in another thread. But I am sure there are many other ideas out there. Personally, I do not worry too much about the role.

Anyway, whether a carrier will ever see the light of day will, in the end, depend on what CCP decides. But we can always hope Big smile.
4 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump