Friday, April 08, 2011

Ratting Carriers Are Bad, m'kay?

A discussion started up last night in which a member questioned why the alliance and our corp has prohibition on ratting/plexing in a carrier. After all, the reasoning goes, carriers will cost roughly the same order of magnitude as a Golem or Tengu, work just as well or better, and if lost give a better insurance payout.

Win-win, right?

Well, not quite. There are several reasons why we do not like people ratting in carriers.

First off, survivability: a sub capital ship has better agility and warp speed and thus has a better chance to roaming hostiles. Secondly, the gain in ratting performance is minimal over a tech 1 battleship.

Thirdly, capital kills look worse to your allies and better to your enemies, giving a morale boost to the roamers who were just hoping to catch anything. This is more likely to bring them around again and again, making ratting harder for everyone. Plus, they can hold it up in public and point to why your corp/alliance is bad and deserves to die. No one cares if a Raven goes down, and not much is said about a caught Tengu (unless its ridiculously fitted with super expensive mods).

Lastly, and most importantly, carriers are strategic assets. Their size and jump capability makes them far more useful to your corp and alliance and coalition than any ratting ship. They are used for logistics, repair ops, capital fights, structure reinforcements, hot drops... you get the point. No fleet is ever going to call for your Golem or Tengu, but they will ask for carriers and if you lost yours last night due to stupidity in a belt, you let your corp and alliance down.

* * * * *

As part of the discussion, my live event BMTHOKK last January where I piloted a Chimera to its doom on purpose was referenced as an example as to why a pilot should be allowed to rat in a carrier. I responded that it was "the difference between streaking and getting caught with your pants down" but I want to elaborate a bit more here.

It was a carrier purchased for the purpose of destruction in the event (the Ninveah was secured in Placid already), and no hostile force can claim a morale boost for killing it. It was, in fact, great publicity for myself and my corp and generated a lot of goodwill with the larger community, well worth the billion ISK plus I invested in it.


I'm going to do it again this summer, and I'm hoping its going to be bigger and crazier than last time. If my corp or alliance told me I could not do it, I would be very surprised but would ask for a short leave of absence in order to complete it anyways. My death will not be stopped.

5 comments:

  1. Got it. Ratting Carriers = bad...what about ratting Wyverns? I hear ratting Titans are pretty boss tbh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the other option is use an alt in a bs and leave the carrier at a pos, and just assign the fighters. The extra DPS from the fighters would cream the bs's rats. Even 5 fighters would be significant damage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So...while I generally agree with you, I'd like to see something more precise than "the gain in ratting performance is minimal over a tech 1 battleship".

    Under what conditions (region, fits, etc.) will a T1 battleship accomplish even 75% of a carrier's ratting output (assuming we're measuring ISK/hour, bounties only, multiple anomalies)?

    IMHO two or more ships is the way to go (2 T1 battleships is still a lot less than a single carrier, and WILL outperform), but not sure if that's what you meant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tbh, if you're going to be using a carrier to rat then just assign fighters like maniac said. Even better if you use lolsupers with lolbombers.

    That having been said, any word on whether BMTHOKK II will have a super instead of a regular?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Still Chimera :) Unless I win a lottery.

    ReplyDelete

AddThis button