Highsec carrier gameplay

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
41

Please don’t place words in my mouth - I never said “overpowered stuff”. But since you wanted some ideas, here goes. *Note: This hasn’t been heavily fleshed out, so don’t jump all over everything…
…

Amarr - Abaddon hull; same base resistance profile as Paladin. -1 high slot, +1 low slot. 4 turrets. 2 Fighter launch tubes.
• Amarr Escort Carrier bonuses (per): 5% to Fighter damage, 2.5% bonus to Tracking Speed
• Amarr Battleship bonuses (per): 10% to Medium Energy Turret activation cost
• Role Bonus: Can fit one Command Burst Module, Can launch Light Fighters, 100% bonus to Shield Extender hitpoints, 50% bonus to Armor Plate hitpoints, 5% additional bonus to Reinforced Bulkhead hitpoints
• Role Bonus: 50% Fighter damage, 25% Escort Carrier Velocity, 4.0 AU/s warp speed

Caldari - Rokh hull; same base resistance profile as Golem. -1 high slot, +1 low slot. 4 launchers. 2 Fighter launch tubes.
• Caldari Escort Carrier bonuses (per): 5% to Fighter damage, 2.5% bonus to Optimal range
• Caldari Battleship bonuses (per): 5% to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion radius
• Role Bonus: Can fit one Command Burst Module, Can launch Light Fighters, 100% bonus to Shield Extender hitpoints, 50% bonus to Armor Plate hitpoints, 5% additional bonus to Reinforced Bulkhead hitpoints
• Role Bonus: 50% Fighter damage, 25% Escort Carrier Velocity, 4.0 AU/s warp speed

Gallente - Hyperion hull (gets a redesign); same base resistance profile as Kronos. No slot changes. 4 turrets. 2 Fighter launch tubes.
• Gallente Escort Carrier bonuses (per): 5% bonus to Fighter damage, 2.5% bonus to Fighter hitpoints
• Gallente Battleship bonuses (per): 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed
• Role Bonus: Can fit one Command Burst Module, Can launch Light Fighters, 100% bonus to Shield Extender hitpoints, 50% bonus to Armor Plate hitpoints, 5% additional bonus to Reinforced Bulkhead hitpoints
• Role Bonus: 50% Fighter damage, 25% Escort Carrier Velocity, 4.0 AU/s warp speed

Minmatar - Maelstrom hull (also gets a redesign); same base resistance profile as Vargur. -1 high slot, +1 low slot. 4 turrets. 2 Fighter launch tubes.
• Minmatar Escort Carrier bonuses (per): 5% to Fighter damage, 2.5% bonus to Fighter velocity
• Minmatar Battleship bonuses (per): 10% to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
• Role Bonus: Can fit one Command Burst Module, Can launch Light Fighters, 100% bonus to Shield Extender hitpoints, 50% bonus to Armor Plate hitpoints, 5% additional bonus to Reinforced Bulkhead hitpoints
• Role Bonus: 50% Fighter damage, 25% Escort Carrier Velocity, 4.0 AU/s warp speed

1 Like
42

^ Note: I haven’t run any kind of detailed stats, so I have no idea where the DPS might fall on these. So they may need to be curtailed to a single fighter launch tube.

43

at first … do you want another gunship or do you want a carrier ? oO if you want a carrier then why do you have weapon slots ?
if you want a T2 version of a ship then the resi profile sounds legit … and now … what is whith the HP ? how much HP does this hulls have ? and why ?

on all ships the same dmg boni for fighter ? doesnt make sense … then just create a role bonus if you want dmg ! but instead of the damage bonus for every ship

lets say you need to be more in line with the faction boni ! → Caldari and Amarr get a resi boni and Minmatar and Gallente will get a repair boni as first hull bonus !

instead of the first boni with resi and rep you also could switch the bonus from hull to the fighter … so amarr and caldari fighter have more HP / EHP and minmatar and gallente fighter will have more speed or something else … no dmg or rof bonus ! a repair bonus for fighter also does not make sense …

and the second bonus should be also more in line of a faction … lets say your support fighter have bonus for all the e-war specifics of the faction ! Amarr - Neut or tracking disrupting / Minmatar - Web or painter / gallente - damgs or tackle / caldari jam or ? ( did they have a second e-war ?oO )

why you are using BS size but medium weapons ? doesnt make sense … why didnt you just switch this boni from weapon to the my first “idea” of carrier bonus ? resi or rep boni on the hull !?
or you could have a boni for the faction e-war ?!

kill the command burst from role bonus ! we already have enough ships with command bursts !
add also the support fighter as possible launchable fighter !
and there is the role bonus for damage ! if you have 2 fighter launch tubes you will have with a 5% dmg bonus per hull about 1100 dps without any mods fittet ! but 5% per lvl are only 25 % at all … you want 50% so you have way more … about 1300 dps ( if i calculated correct ) and then you can add damage mods so you will have at 2x T2 damage mods round about 1900 dps !

if this is corret then you have another extremly strong dps ship for PvE !

25% velocity as role bonus ? why ? just add the velocity for all and kill the bonus !
4 AU warp speed as role bonus ? why ? just add the warp speed and kill the bonus !
why do you want such role bonus ? just be happy with the damage bonus … and still this can be killed for a HS capital ( light )

easy to calculate ! look at the dmg for the real carriers and just delete one fighter squad ! then you have to add your boni to this and tada … you will see how much dps you have !

But at all … this still looks to strong and overpowered ! we already have to much overpowered ships ingame and CCP dont want or cant balance them !

the basement is bad and needed a lot of adjustments because you didnt think about the faction boni …then you have 1 of these with a neut bonus and the other ships have a weapon bonus … not logical ! also not logical are the medium weapons on a large hull ? oO
i dont see why do you need weapons at all … you want to have a fighter based ship then you can kill the weapon slots ! make them utility HS and maybe reduce the ammount of slots !

at least the slot layout sounds reasonable if you want T2 …

if you bring the numbers for the HP then i think we have all important stats we need to say its realy overpowered or not !

last word … still a big no ! doesnt looks like a big difference from other carriers ( and this does not change )

44

Nice thought. I considered it right after my earlier post where I mentioned the tier 1 hulls, and it probably would make sense to use the tier 3s since they don’t have Tech 2 variants yet.

This was actually in part why I didn’t initially think of using these hulls, but doing a redesign in the spirt of the stealth bombers would be a pretty good way to address this. The Amarr and Caldari ships would also need a slight redesign, but it would only be minor adjustments for the addition of flight bays (the overall geometry wouldn’t need to change much.)

My initial reaction is that these ships ships not have any of these slots and purely use the high slots for utility and fighters. But your inclusion of bonusing medium weapons with damage application bonuses is interesting.

Still, I think I’d rather have all the bonuses be fighter related, maybe tracking and fighter max velocity related instead?

It really depends on what the damage profile for this ship will be. My initial thought was 1 fighter group with 5 fighters in it, but it could potentially be 2 if the damage is too low with one group.

Another possibility here, is to let 2 of the escort carriers run light fighters, and 2 run support fighters. That way we’re not stepping on the normal carrier’s role, while still filling all the potential options for anti sub-cap warfare.

If we go that route, since Amarr and Caldari are the more fleet focused factions, and Gallente and Minmater the more skirmish oriented factions, the former could run the support fighters, and the later the light fighters.

Alternatively, we could have the escort carrier be bonused to support and heavy fighters, thus fulfilling a unique anti-capital subcap role while being mostly harmless to sub caps itself. If we go this route, I’d say the ship shouldn’t have any turret / launcher slots, leaving all the extra high slots for utility.

A 3rd option is to do both, meaning a total of 8 new ships, instead of 4. The light fighter / support variants could be navy ships (escort carriers), and the support / heavy fighter variant could be Tech2 (Assault Carriers.)

All in all, good general concept.

1 Like
45

No its not … its still bad … and at first you wanted “only” caps in hs so you createt a carrier for hs … now you want to have them fittet aitnj heavy fighters ? Wtf …

A bad idea got worse the before …

46

The bonuses for medium weapons is so that the escort carriers have the ability to protect themselves against smaller ships (even more important if we drop the number of fighters launch tubes down to 1). And yes, we could give Amarr and Caldari resistance bonuses instead of fighter bonuses (not opposed to that).

1 Like
47

Yeah, that would also work.

1 Like
48

why not simply shooting them with your fighters ? oO
and why do you need to defend a big ship against smaller ships ?

still not working because its not a good design… only you want such ship does not make any design of it as good desgn !

49

oh look, it’s this discussion again.
it comes up every six months or so.

1 Like
50

and its always shitty ! the most HS carbears are not able to think more then 1m and the result is " i want an overpowered ship and it need to be a capital but dont call it capital because capitals cant go to HS "

51

For good reason.

1 Like
52

you dont have a good reason oO

your reason is “i want this cool overpowered stuff” nothing else … nobody of you have said any good or realreason why we need a carrier in HS wich is called as BS and still be a carrier … and carriers are caps …

maybe you start to find good reasons then we can discuss !

53

Not trying to be combative, just trying to learn. Ive played since 2011 but marauders are the biggest ive flown.

What about, since someone is about to have an aneurysm, sub-fighters. Like half the m3 but still significantly larger than a drone?

54

No worries, you’re fine.

I don’t know that there’s any reason to make a different class of fighter. There was supposedly, at some point, an air superiority fighter that was anti fighter / drone, but that doesn’t currently seem to be in the game. That could potentially fill the role you’re talking about, but if CCP removed it (probably because it would eat frigates and destroyers,) then there were obviously issues with it.

The more obvious choice here is just to make sure it’s balanced. Lower the total amount of fighters the thing can make use of and/or keep the dps bonus in line with carriers. (The Thanatos has a 5% fighter damage bonus, so CCP would maybe choose a 1-3% damage per level bonus depending on where it needs to be balance wise.)

I would say in terms of raw dps, you’d want these ships (light fighter escort carriers) to be more powerful than drone ships for killing cruisers - battleships, but less powerful than marauders and pirate battleships.

(If the Anti-Capital heavy figher Assault Carrier concept is something that CCP also finds interesting, that would fit a similar role as stealth bombers and attack battlecruisers do, just in an anti capital role.)

1 Like
55

Fighter mechanics are fun to use, that is a good enough reason to make them available to highsec players, make the game more fun. Balance for them would be CCP’s job, not random forum goers

2 Likes
56

Exactly. “Escort carriers” would basically be “carriers 101” for players.

1 Like
57

No its not xD its simply only YOUR personal reason… this is not valid ! just an opinion !

58

Seriously… how do we get you to go away and crawl under a rock somewhere?

2 Likes
59

Never will happen… there are always uneducatdd ppl and they need to get educated ! But they dont want to be educated so … i always will show that such ideas are bad for our all loved game otherwise we wouldnt play this game !

60

Just stop trolling. No one’s interested in your crap.