Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Yggdrassil
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:36:00 -
[31]
Not quite sure I like this idea at all, but...
If you push through with it - you might want to look at the abilities of carriers to lock friendly ships for repairing them, along with locking times.
Having a few super logistics ships on the field don't help much when you're damped and jammed to hell and back...
Yggdrassil |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:36:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Caiman Graystock I can totally understand the want for cap/supercaps not be solowtfpwn machines, really- but is this yet another change which makes it harder for the smaller guys? Everything seems to be going in favour of the large corps/alliances who can take on board a nerf like this and field massive support fleets. The rich get richer...
massive as in....3 people... ROFL.
----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
CaldFighter
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:37:00 -
[33]
While the idea might look good on scribbled matchbox down the pub, i really don't think this is pratical.
too many what if's... and what about the logistics of repair drones if you can only use a max of 5
Someone nerf them damn wow players
|
Zeus
Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:38:00 -
[34]
This will essentially turn carriers and motheships into logistics only ships, no mothership pilot flys around with 3 buddys at all times to help it out in case it gets into trouble. Your essentially taking away its ability to defend it self and its 10bn value over a carrier. Other than holding more ship and I'm sure wed love to pay 10bn for that.
if this happens there will be a yard somewere where all the motherships in the game are sold of for cheap to rot because you cant refine them and the only supercap worth building will be titan's, which atleast can defend them selves if pushed......
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:38:00 -
[35]
Does this change come in conjunction with altering fighter code to reduce the amount of lag they create, or is this your theorized resolution to that problem?
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[36]
you have no friends sir. no friends. - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Feng Schui on 21/10/2007 11:41:28
pilgrim.
energy neutralizer capacitor.
powergrid.
capacitor amount.
cargo hold.
these are the things i'm worried about
as far as carriers, why not have the ability to have 5 drones / fighters per group, can deploy any amount you currently can, but can only control 1 drone group at a time.
Ex:
Launch 20 Drones in space. 4 Drone Groups. Then you can control only 1 group at a time.
edit: even having a limit: 1 drone group on any given target at a time. (Instead of 20 fighters on 1 target, you can have 5 fighters, on 4 different targets -> based on drone groups).
other than that, I will add nothing to this thread. |
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Scavok The problem is the lag fighters generate making it impossible to counter them since the most effective tactics require a lot of micromanagement, not the fighters themselves. 5 fighters are still going to kill a typical 0.0 sniping battleship in around a minute when he's unable to warp, rep, be remote repped, smartbomb, lock, shoot, or put drones on the fighters that are killing him. This really fixes nothing.
I don't think it fixes lag at all, but it certainly fixes (or nearly fixes) lowsec motherships. People are look at this in the wrong sort of context.
Of course, you're correct that CCP's fighter code is still ludicrous, but this change doesn't appear to be an attempt to change that. *snip* sig removed due to it containing nothing relating to eve or the character - hutch |
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Miriyana on 21/10/2007 11:40:11 oh btw, except fleet support what's the point of flying a carrier as opposed to a moros now?
thanks -_- - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Phoenus
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Easy Kill
Fixed it up some more for you.
Poor attempt at trolling. I don't have, nor can fly - capital ships.
This is not 'balance'. This is utter ******ation.
Now shoo elsewhere.
|
|
Sylia
Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[41]
GOOOOOOOO CCP luving this idea. Cap warefare sucks, this is a godo step in reducign its gank factor
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[42]
Does seem to be adding unnecessary micro-management. what's to stop the carrier/mom from launching 5 -> attack target, launch 5 -> attack target.
While its true that carriers seem to be the new battleship in fleet engagements making them virtually ineffectual against their primary predator is counter-productive.
The suggestion of focusing the fighters themselves on damaging capital appears workable. Put in a module the carrier can use to increase effectiveness against battleships and below (like drone tracking links) .. this will allow the pilot to sacrifice tank to deal damage, like every other ship currently does :)
Can't wait to see what the DEVs cook up in relation to drone bandwidth though, lot of potential for drone/fighter tweakage in that I think.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[43]
Im not sure if you have noticed, but a lot of times carriers gets bumped out of docking range, and you will now take away their only defence against the attacking force.
Even carrier pilots cant expect to have a fleet guarding whenever they want to jump to other systems. Im sorry, but these changes will not in any way help on 0,0 warfare at all.
|
Grytok
HighTech Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:42:00 -
[44]
Uhm... err...
Yay, finally CCP is going towards EvE Online again
Capital Online was interesting in the beginning, but 2 Carriers solo-camping a gate is just... meh.
Carriers and Moms should've been Fleet-Support-Ships from the very beginning. If you want to fly oversized battleships, then jump into Dreads and web and targetpaint the BS to instapop them.
Good ideas, make them happen! .
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:42:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Daveydweeb
Originally by: Scavok The problem is the lag fighters generate making it impossible to counter them since the most effective tactics require a lot of micromanagement, not the fighters themselves. 5 fighters are still going to kill a typical 0.0 sniping battleship in around a minute when he's unable to warp, rep, be remote repped, smartbomb, lock, shoot, or put drones on the fighters that are killing him. This really fixes nothing.
I don't think it fixes lag at all, but it certainly fixes (or nearly fixes) lowsec motherships. People are look at this in the wrong sort of context.
Of course, you're correct that CCP's fighter code is still ludicrous, but this change doesn't appear to be an attempt to change that.
Are lowsec motherships really that much of a problem that you have to change the way an entire class of ship operates?
I don't really see this being a productive change either way, because lowsec motherships are still nigh on invincible.
|
benwallace
Mercenary Coalition Holding Corp Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[46]
How often do you see a mothership fly around in 0.0 solo and not get wtfbbq'd by dictors and bs? These things need support already.
Anyone who does that is just idiotic. Saying mom's need to be nerfed is just wrong. Being able to bubble was all the balance they needed.
I'm starting to think you guys just nerf for nerfs sake now or nerf by majority moan.
"omg my 1000 man 1 day old char alliance keeps getting bbq'd by 100 man 800 day old chars alliance cause they can fly better ships, lifes so unfair"
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[47]
I have a few gripes with this idea. a) most ppl buy their own fighters, which means many arnt fond of delagating 100's of millions of isk worth to other ppl. b) RL carriers are deathbrining pwnmobiles, they just need other ships to defend them not add to their firepower. & EVE carriers & ms' are equally vulnerable when left without support despite what some would say (granted when theres 10 ina a turtleshell tank its takes a huge amount of firepower & Ewar to bring them down but so it should) c) in asizeable fleet engagement the micromanagement & time consuming nature of delegatingfighters really makes it not worth the hassle, especially when your the attacker & you dont have time. c) making motherships & carriers effectively the exact same thing further defeats the point of investing in supercaps imo. I doubt many will see the remote ECM thing as reason enough for a 20bill purchase (ive never even seen remote ECM used).
Personally, id much prefer if whoever is involved in caps & supercaps would just sit down & decide amoung eachother "right, this is what we want these ships to do & what role they should play" rather than the nerf this buff that till it finds its own niche philosophy that seems to be how theyre planned. (I want that jovian deathray from the eve chronicle , motherships were a complete letdown having read somuch about the Jovian ones).
Back to the topic at hand though, the idea as is is impracticle for larger 0.0 conflicts, & unattractive for smaller gangs/gatecamps. Im glad its just an idea & hope it never moves from discussion to drawingboard let alone tranquility.
|
Easy Kill
Minmatar Rens 911
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Phoenus
Originally by: Easy Kill
Fixed it up some more for you.
Poor attempt at trolling. I don't have, nor can fly - capital ships.
This is not 'balance'. This is utter ******ation.
Now shoo elsewhere.
I actually tend to agree that this won't do much to change anything to do with lag. Your post however was a whine based on CCP listening to whiners so I decided to have a little fun with it.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[49]
Lag is really the killer in most situations - the super fighter blob wouldn't be a problem if it was at all possible to see/lock/shoot/activate smartbombs against them.
Honestly, I don't think I like it.
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[50]
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. ---
|
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Waterfowl Democracy on 21/10/2007 11:46:07 So instead of now where a large carrier and mothership fleet can completely destroy an enemy fleet that is unable to respond at all thanks to the lag that the massive number of fighters create because fighters will continue to do their thing no matter how bad the lag we have a situation where those carriers and motherships can assign their fighters to disposable frigates and do the same thing?
Nice fix CCP, you haven't actually addressed the real concern. Why don't you make it so fighters won't agress on things automatically so that they don't just bandsaw through helpless players during high lag? This combined with limiting carriers and motherships to 5 drones would mean that the fighter bomb wouldn't work anymore (as everyone would need to actually act to kill things).
|
Nekumi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[52]
While it is good to see that development is being done in this area this doesn't really solve any of the perceived problems with fighter blobs and instead makes the perceived ones worse. It simultaneously promotes making massive capital fights more laggy because of the need for extra support to wield the fighters and also prevents smaller groups from fielding capital ships unless they do so understrength. This doesn't seem in any way fair or rebalanced.
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[53]
Originally by: benwallace How often do you see a mothership fly around in 0.0 solo and not get wtfbbq'd by dictors and bs? These things need support already.
Anyone who does that is just idiotic. Saying mom's need to be nerfed is just wrong. Being able to bubble was all the balance they needed.
I'm starting to think you guys just nerf for nerfs sake now or nerf by majority moan.
"omg my 1000 man 1 day old char alliance keeps getting bbq'd by 100 man 800 day old chars alliance cause they can fly better ships, lifes so unfair"
Yep, it's true, it's hardly like cap ships are unbeatable. Especially carriers. Now a carrier or mothership can't even solo kill a battleship!
Pretty ****** up - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[54]
I really hope this is a joke. SERIOUSLY, I hope this is a joke.
Many players in the community are aware of the power of capital ships, not to mention that of supercapitals. This makes them a worthwhile goal to pursue, and once they reach the level of skills required to fly them, and acquire the funds to purchase or build one, it's a huge accomplishment. Even more so with the construction of a supercapital such as a mothership or titan.
Capital ships are already very vulnerable considering their costs, yet their firepower doesn't increase nearly as much as the cost. As an example, a carrier costs about 1.5 billion fully fitted, but its firepower, using today's numbers, is about 1000 DPS, equivalent to that of a short range battleship. Its strengths its stronger tank and the ability to project this firepower over a longer distance. This for a cost that is ten times that of the battleship.
It's also a fact that carriers are very easy to kill. This has been proven time after time as lone carriers get caught and are unable to defend themselves against even moderately sized gangs.
Now, motherships are even bigger and more costly. The ability to field upwards of 20 fighters is rather significant. However, this is still only the firepower of two to three short range battleships, to the cost of a hundred times of said battleship. If you include the cost of modules for a mothership, the cost is 200 times that of the battleship. And, once again, a mothership is not an invulnerable behemoth. This link shows that almost a dozen motherships have died since August 1st, most of them to gangs that didn't have any capital support whatsoever.
Even despite the vulnerability of these capital ships, many players are training for these vessels, or gathering ISK to buy one, for the simple reason that they are big accomplishments. Electronic-Ego-Boosters, if you wish.
Now, by nerfing them to the level where they individually have less firepower than many BATTLECRUISERS, you are also reducing a LOT of the incentive of having said ships. Carriers and motherships will no longer be able to perform in any offensive role, but will be reduced to purely defensive ships.
I predict that if this change goes through, a LOT of the fun of fighting with or against carriers will be gone. Using my own alliance as an example, we are using our capitals in a very offensive role. This means that we take full advantage of the firepower they provide us. This ALSO means that we take risks with these ships, which may have significant consequences. The loss of an MC as well as an ISS mothership during our battles in 49-U is a perfect example of this. By using our motherships agressively, we gain advantages, but we also provide the enemies with means to win major victories. I doubt anyone in IAC will deny that killing not one but two Alliance motherships in the same system was a huge victory for them.
If this change goes through, this will no longer happen. There will be absolutely no reason to forward-deploy motherships or carriers anymore. We will instead go back to the tactic of POS hugging, so much more viable with the introduction of faction towers, where carriers and motherships will sit right on top of a tower and simply delegate fighters while spidertanking each others. There will be no epic battles where capitals and supercapitals charge in and save the day, or go down in a blaze of glory.
And, there will be complaints about the amount of capitals that are sitting invulnerable at towers and just delegating fighters, and no one can do a thing to kill them. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
jeffb
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40
Looks like goons are gunna get there way again....
Maybe you should have put some ideas forward instead of trying to drown the subject out in a sea of ****?
|
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[56]
I like it. Anything to reduce the number of fighters on a grid at once gets an A+ in my book. Even if it doesn't reduce the total number of fighters but transfers them to a conventional, (and killable), support fleet - that's A-OK. (This is coming from a carrier pilot, by the way). |
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[57]
I really fail to see anything positive coming from these 'changes' (by which I mean massive nerfs).
Please, for the love of god, no-one give this man a nerfbat.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Zakgram
Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[58]
For those complaining about the price of carriers, or the price of fighters - come on... if it's supposed to be a gang ship then why isn't the gang (corp/alliance) funding it? If you're having to fund all your own losses then that's your own choice...
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[59]
So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming?
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
rompetroll
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 -
[60]
Has CCP ever gone back on ideas they had in dev blogs?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |