|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:13:00 -
[1]
My question is why anyone would field a mothership instead of a carrier if those changes make it?
It seems to be totally brainless, if that is the case, since the amount of firepower will be the same and the amount of remote rep/shield transfers/etc will be the same as a carrier. It will basically mean that it will make a mothership about 30 times more expensive than a carrier and have exactly the same function in every single aspect.
When taking a look at the assigning potential aspect of carriers/motherships it again doesnt make sense as battleships allready have their drone bays as well as almost all cruisers that are short/medium range (drone range) and this will not have any use for the fighters (since they allready have their own drones). The only shipclass that you would want to assigning fighters to are frigs/interceptors, that are so flimsy that you will most likely not have time to assign fighters fast enough in a fleet condition. Add to this that a carrier exteremly seldom have time to lock a gang mate to rep them before they pop as it is.
I conclusion, in theory this is a great idea but converted to practice, it only renders motherships totally useless (compared to a carrier) and carriers almost useless (unless you boost scan resolution to like 1000mm so that they can instalock friendlies in need of reppage) ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:22:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Zakgram I've been watching the growing replacement of battleships in gangs with carriers and we jokingly refer to it as capital-online.com.
This should make it less a "how many capitals can we field" and more a "for each capital we field we'll need proper support".
Good.
In one sense you are right, that more people fly capital ships when they can, but at the same time in 100% of the cases that I have been in an MC cap fleet and we have chosen not to engage something it has never ever been because we have had to few capital ships and every single time it has been because we didnt have a support fleet to match the enemies.
In short, there needs to be a limiting factor so that you cant run 100% carriers and nothing else, but to gimp their MAIN ROLE is, imho, absolutely counter propductive. I guess what will happen is that people will melt down all the carriers and motherships and build titans instead and then youll face 20vs20 titans instad, and I promise you that that will be MUCH more boring. ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[3]
First of all, a Titan is still absurdely powerful and still has a GREAT logistical capability. Motherships lack that totally.
I can see the problem in where the game is going with a metric ton of capitals and motherships in low secs as well. A good start would be to ban motherships from low sec and only allow carriers/dreads there.
Second of all, it would be fair to make it so that you need a gang size of 5 for each mothership launcher 20 fighters or another way to make carriers and motherships more interdependable. ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Emsigma on 21/10/2007 12:10:02 First of all, I think that 0mega touched a very sensible point together with another goon guy (omg, i gonna get shot for this on the MC boards :D).
Reasonable suggestion to START to fix moms and carriers would be:
1) Make motherships unable to enter low sec 2) Make fighters more stupid than a puppy, ie. you have to manually chose "Attack" for them to do anything and when target is destroyed they go back and idle. All in order to make carriers/moms have the same drawback to lag as everyone else. Normal drones should work in the same way though, 3) Make a drone overhaul again as last time. Make it so that you always launch 5 fighters and then you get bonus to them instead. Ie, Nyx would at lvl5 have +400% struct,armor and shield HP and +500% damage on fighters. DCU would give +20% HP and +20% damage to each fighter(absolute ofc and not cumulative). This makes fighters alot easier to get rid of and also reduces strain on the clients. ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Are you asking this question because you don't know or because of a rhetorical impact?
In both cases, the situation is very scary.
Let me explain why: For me to log in and go and do something with my mothership (that I have about 6 months of training to be able to fly over the carrier skills) I need about 3-4 cyno alts to move me where to fighting is going, then I need an inudstrial char where I land to refuel me and most likely another carrier or a POS to change fitting at. Then I need about 10 people to be able to assist me when I cyno in so that I can actually defend me if there would be a single hostile battleship and a dictor where I happen to cyno in. This is a little bit to much for me to be honest.
Again I ask you, what are your interest in making these changes? What is it supposed to lead to and in what way will it make eve a better game for the majority of the players?
Apart from that I must say that if you ever tried delegating fighters while actually fighting you would know that it is nothing you do while in a second. Most likely it will take 5 minutes to delegate them and then I dont even think the MS pilot have enough time to re-assign again. ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:07:00 -
[6]
I think that people should unfock themselves and start realizing that this is players vs devs and not bob vs goons+devs.
Some of the best ideas in this thread has come from goons and some of the most vocal resistance has been from goons.
NOONE gains from this suggestion while EVERYONE loses =/ ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:24:00 -
[7]
After reading 50 pages of stuff, I can still not see the incentive anyone would have for this patch to be introduced nor can I see how it would benefit... well... any gameplay at all.
My biggest fear now is that the community is gonna accept the upcoming rework of a carrier/mom nerf and accept it just because it is relatively better than this creation from a friday afterwork joke.
We must remember that when this suggestions gets an overhaul and a new version is presented, we must look at it from an unbiased position. ---
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:08:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Emsigma on 22/10/2007 16:12:29 I just cancelled my 4 accounts and unless I see some kind of promise that this is not going in, they will remain in that state.
As Pallidum said; I am protesting with my wallet. That is Ç60 less for you / month! ---
|
|
|
|