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) |
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[751]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Gyle
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
I wont have to dude. after 99% of the people get through with this ccp will accept that it was a dum idea since All of the people that are paying our wages hate it. my point is since you dont fly em you dont understand enough about them and their role. but the fact that your commenting on somthing that you dont understand will only have detrimental effects on the game. It is a question aof balance. and just becuase your new this does not give you the right to fight on a fully even playing field with someone who has been playing for 4 years, no matter what peeps think ccp stands for... that aint it.
I am not ******* new you idiot. I have been playing Eve for over 2 years. Get that threw your thick, brainless skull.
You're right, it is a question of balance. Right now players are using Carriers in more offensive roles then CCP would like, hence the change. No one knows what other changes could be coming to carriers in the form of buffs that will go along with the decrease in drone control numbers for the carrier pilot himself. All you people are doing is crying and *****ing about how awful this change is when no one knows what else will change with it.
They could get a better tank. They could get better bonus for remote reps. Triage could be getting a buff to make it a little more convenient to use.
This change is good for the balance of the game, and bad for those who think just because it costs more and takes more time to train it should be an uber killing machine.
Dude , i think u have too much dumb "firepower" , u need to be nerfed . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Degarion Soth
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[752]
Well just in case CCP ignores the public reaction I'll vote on the side of 'thanks but no thanks'
Time will tell if they ignore this outcry or not, if they do they'll be percieved as playing the the low skilled 'newbie' player-base (and i'm not specifically referring to the goonies - who have also stated this is a terrible idea).
This smacks a bit of reacting to the public image of eve (future sub-scribers if you will) that because you cant 'grind' 23 hours a day and skill up to match the established playerbase that its not worth joining eve. If this is the way Eve is changing (and I hope not) it will soon turn into a flavour-less bland space-mmorpg, and will loose what it is that makes eve truly great.
There must be soemthing for the playerbase to strive for - else whats the point?
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:05:00 -
[753]
Originally by: LordVodka and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
I like the way you think!
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:09:00 -
[754]
IBTL
Worst idea to date. Even worst that playing WoW! ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Dri Kulsane
Amarr Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:09:00 -
[755]
Edited by: Dri Kulsane on 21/10/2007 21:14:17
Credit to Jin Entres!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
GeneralD
Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:10:00 -
[756]
Bad Idea, A carrier should be able to defend itself. If CCP limits the number of fighters the carrier can launch then it should be allowed to mount Launchers or Turrets. If you invest a year of your time to acquire the skills on a carefully laid out development plan it is unacceptable to change the ground rules after the fact. As the average age of the Eve player base increases, players have higher skill points and thus will normally want fly larger more complex ships. When we were younger and had fewer skill points these kind of ôafter the factö modifications were a annoyance but now higher level skills simply require to much of an investment. I can think of several other options than just an across the board fighter nerf. Roll out a new skill the Jams fighters or add an EW module that limits band width or introduce some kind of interdiction sphere that attacking ships can deploy that limits fighter activity. All of these ideas modify game play by adding content rather than changing what has already been released. If CCP is going to continue with these kinds of major game play modifications then we should be allowed to Re Spec our characters to the new environment or they can simply reset the player data base and we all start over flying Kestrels.
Just my 2 cents worth GeneralD
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[757]
Well the lag in fleet fights will go down by a lot ... so go for it
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[758]
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[759]
Well then, where to start..
I do not post very much on the forums, but this latest, "we added it into the game but now we think they have gone to far" addition has brought me out of the shadows. Where does this end CCP? Please tell me where you, as a company, will stop adding things and then for the greater good rebalance? Tweaking is fine but for the love of all that is holy this has got to be the most amazing thing ive seen since 2004. We arent talking about a change in fighter dps. Nope. We arent talking about a tweak to some aspect of a interface. Nope Nope. We are talking about TOTALLY changing a vessels capabilities. If i, along with the rest of the community interested and in carriers, had known you planned on giving me a glorified hauler with a jump drive i would have already been in other ship classes.
If you MUST do something as totally moronic as this inorder to stop the lag/nerf carriers/whatever, then consider this alternative:
1. Only allow carriers to launch 5 fighters at a time. When carriers are on grid AND within 400kms of Field Commander(or whatever range you deem acceptable), ALL delegated fighters get a 10% dps boost and armor boost when delegated. On top of this, all fighters MUST have a standard damage bonus to compensate for the loss in 5-10 fighters for a carrier and 15-20 fighters for a mother ship. This achieves what you are wanting as far as reducing launched fighter numbers. This also achieves your desires for putting the carriers in the fight. To summarize, you are still giving carriers and moms their fire power but reducing, as you did with the drone launch nerf back in early 2006 or late 2005, the number of objects in space. Unfortunately, having 20 fighters in space is better than 5 tactically, even if both numbers are doing similar dps but this is the only way both sides could even be remotely happy. SOLO on the other hand, reduce fighter damage to -10% when launched solo for carriers and moms. I know i am going to be absolutely smashed and flamed for that, but its better than getting just 5 anyway. If i have to make a suggestion that would be relatively acceptable to most pilots, its the best i can come up with. It reduced their BBQ capability a bit, still keeps them at 5 fighters but does not make it so a carrier or mom is totally useless when caught alone. It also allows them to keep their status as decent large vessels to be feared.
2. for all the carebear nonadaptable whiners out there who get owned by Moms in low sec. If this blob of a blog is partly due to that, then here is a possible solution. Mom's need to be able to get into low sec period! Their 2.5 million m3 ship bay and logistics capability proves that. Their ewar imm. is questionable though for low sec. CCP you put them(supercaps) in game damn near invincible and you are slowly removing their power, go ahead and remove the ewar invincibility(or lower it a bit) for low sec traveling. This will make it so moms on gates will be just as powerful(damage wise almost) but yet vulnerable.
In summation..
Delegation idea is horrid i myself am not a Mom pilot but i do fly multiply caps. To voice concerns of others that are extremely valid, not only will you lose accounts to something like this, but you will lose respect from alot of players in cap ships and seeking them. I have played alot of MMO's. It is always better to reduce effectiveness of combat ships and characters than to boost them nonstop(asheron's call is a good example of a game that boosted nonstop instead of tweaking and reducing). So i applaud you guys for keeping ships incheck. Now, CHANGING ships so that they wont perform ANYTHING like they did before and making them useless compared to their isk cost is insane To all of those that use the "well isk doesnt matter compared to ship affectiveness" arguement. STFU You are just a filthy little carebears and have no grasp on game mechanics. |
Kagutsuchi
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[760]
Its not just a bad idea, its a ******** idea.
Carriers and Motherships are too vulnerable if you remove the deterent that is a huge drone swarm.
Sure its better than a BS.... but hell, it isnt better than 10 BS which equates to the same in cost.
Deal with borked aspects of the game instead of messing around with stuff that isnt broken!! A freind by your side is like an army at your back. |
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:13:00 -
[761]
omg who is this guy zulupark? plz go back to the front desk seling tickets and let the old devs make the rules
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:13:00 -
[762]
I demand bring back TomB NOW !!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Captain Plumbo
Caldari NorCorp Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:14:00 -
[763]
Welcome to Nerf Online™
Guess who's going to be most wanted at the fanfest
Seriously, the devs need to read this blog on mmorpg nerfs.
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:14:00 -
[764]
Jamm fighters? how about ECM ships for this?
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:15:00 -
[765]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 21:03:00
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
You seem to have our philosophy in Bob incorrect. We adapt to current game mechanics and there are plenty of ways to kill carriers (take a look at our killboards sometime, we have killed plenty of yours). However game mechanics don't need to be changed as a broad stroke when it doesnt address any of the root causes of problems in eve (IE, motherships terrorizing low sec, which one WAS killed in low sec recently).
So don't feed me the "adapt" line. A lot of players in Eve did adapt by training and taking a lot of time to earn the isk for a carrier. Rather then you adapting to the game and having to invest the same type of effort, time and isk to be able to do the same, you would prefer that the game be adapted to you.
Spot on. a well formed 30 man BS gang with smartbobms and remote reps can easiyly hold 2 mother ships at bay. KIA have proved it. So just becuase other gangs cant be bothered to setup properly for a fight all the mom and carrier pilots in eve have to suffer. Thats dum.
Titans are alardy nurfed to hell. nurf moms and oh look super caps that arent super thats cool. that doesnt seem like somthing massive got skewed in the balancing somwhere.
|
Ethaet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:16:00 -
[766]
This idea fails.
Seriously, perhaps CCP should concentrate on fixing problems like desync, lag or Jita rather than introducing new ones - TQ has encountered a database issue, we are sitting around wondering why it has crashed this time, waiting for 500,000 petitions and watching the forums fill up.
Post with your alt! |
Head ButtonPusher
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:16:00 -
[767]
Either CCP are mean bastards for sending the new guy out to deliver really stupid news that is going to be flamed to death, OR Zulupark needs to get transfered back to Quality Assurance.
Either way, this is piles and piles of fail. |
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:17:00 -
[768]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
your an idiot basically, first off i can EASILY tank a carrier in my bs, 2nd off if i engage you with my carrier at 100km's try docking or jumping outa system genius not like i have a warpscram for 100km.
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:17:00 -
[769]
Go through with this and you might as well make carriers a POS module.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[770]
Well ****.
I can't really add anything that hasent allready been said, Worst... Idea... Everrrrrr.
While i'm fairley confident that on the basis of this thread alone CCP will get the right idea and NOT go ahead with this ****** plan, i can say with 100% completeley confidence that if this does ever make it to TQ, i'll be selling my carrier alt, I DID NOT spend over a year training for carriers to sit at a %&$*(*!"!!ing POS or to sit in suicide mode... sry "triage mode" trying to repair stuff that will die anyway, i trained it to FIGHT.
wts: uber carrier pilot char. wtb: new sig. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
|
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[771]
I think limiting a carrier's number of drones it can directly control to just 5 seems like a bit overkill with the nerf bat. I like the idea with the fighter drones, but I think a carrier pilot should still be able to launch more than 5 regular drones. A carrier is a damn powerful ship, and it shuould be reflected in the amount of regular drones they can control.
Like I said, I like the idea with fighters, but if a carrier can only launch 5 heavies or 5 armor maintenance bots...well hell we should all just fly remote rep domis instead of anything else.....
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[772]
Edited by: Larsonist on 21/10/2007 21:25:45 fixed original
|
Rawthorm
Gallente The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:19:00 -
[773]
Right so you want to remove a carrier or MS's ability to defend itself once all its gang is dead?
Tell me, you gonna limit dreads to firing one gun at a time when not in gang or battleships for that matter? **shakes head**
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[774]
Originally by: LordVodka
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
your an idiot basically, first off i can EASILY tank a carrier in my bs, 2nd off if i engage you with my carrier at 100km's try docking or jumping outa system genius not like i have a warpscram for 100km.
calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
XiticiX
Gallente Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[775]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
I just wanted to thank CCP for bringing the idea to the public forum FIRST before putting time into changes without the player's input. I realize this is a lot to read, but the fact that you ARE reading says a lot. That said, this change shouldn't be implemented as it is. Others have come up with more viable solutions, but tbh I don't see a problem with carriers in the first place. If the problem is too much fighter blobbing, find another method, as the one proposed drastically reduces the playability of the ship. ~~~ This is my sig. Do you like it? ~~~ |
omega21
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[776]
i tihnk this is a vary bad idea nerfing the carriers the fighters are the carriers only defence/offence meaning if they do this carriers will have to be in a gang at pretty much all times i hope they dont do this
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:21:00 -
[777]
Originally by: Silvion This idea of transforming Carriers into capital logistics ships with limited firepower is a direct contradiction to what has been taught in every naval school for the last century. In the real world, capital ships (i.e. the Iowa Class Battleship and Nimitz Class Carrier for the U.S. Navy, the Queen Elizabeth Class of the U.K. and the Bismark Class of Germany in WWII) act as the centerpiece of naval fleets. The reason for this is simple to the extreme:
THE CAPITAL SHIP IS THE ONE BEST SUITED TO THE PROJECTION OF COMBAT POWER! NOT SUPPORTING OTHER SHIPS!
That could also be part of the problem. The game is developed in Iceland. Using references to countries that have active military may be a completely foreign a concept as having a development outline.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:22:00 -
[778]
Originally by: UPS Truck Go through with this and you might as well make carriers a POS module.
QFT: My corp mate said the same thing
|
Sooshie
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:23:00 -
[779]
Edited by: Sooshie on 21/10/2007 21:25:12 This dev is ****ing stupid. Carriers do about the damage of a well fitted blasterthon and cost so much more and they want to nerf that? If anything they need to be rebalanced to give fighters more damage capability. About the only thing I can possibly think of is different classes of fighters for different damage outputs like the damage of blasterthons and maybe reduce the amount deployed but drastically upscaled the DPS.. But the dev here seems to have nothing of that in mind and is otherwise a bloody idiot. I'd just cancle my carrier alt account if they did this so there's one customer committment to do such publicly.
|
Iluthien
Caldari Valiant Logistics Inc. EternalRising
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:24:00 -
[780]
If you're going to take away carriers ability to do direct DPS, increase their efficiency with logistics/gang links/gang mods/whatever to the point where it is completely noticeable to have a well skilled carrier in the gang, and make sure they can still defend themselves against enemy support to an EXTENT, be less prone to lone EWar (oh hay damp nerf), and increase the dreadnought's ability to do anti-fleet combat. Also lower the cost of fighters and make them smaller.
Also, for those whining about the logsitics ships, the difference between a carrier (when used as a logistics capital) and a logistics cruiser is survivability (assuming fleet/gang). "Primary that 40k effective with no tank HP cruiser! 10 seconds later *pop*" versus "Primary that 200k+ effective HP with tank carrier! 10 minutes and lots of losses to carrier support later *pop/retreat*". At least that's what the idea is supposed to be.
Let me ask you all, why did you train for a carrier/mom in the first place? So you could fly something with more DPS and tank than a battleship?
Originally by: Snaut IMHO most people wanted a carrier because of its solo combat and tanking abilities.
They aren't supposed to be solopwnmobiles. Or something that cost less/more effective than a dread? Maybe dreads are too expensive/ineffective for fleets? So you could smartbomb pods on gates with impunity? Because you were tired of losing ISK everytime you lost a BS? Because training for a capital is a natural progression in skill training? Because you ran out of things to train?
The idea, I believe, is to change from carriers direct DPS to carriers indirect DPS through the use of having an advantage through skills/logistics. At the moment, there is no reason for a carrier to provide indirect support.
Suggestion: Increase carriers logistics abilities (give scan res bonus for triage, remote rep amount/range/cap use buff, gang link fire control for extra damage/tracking/range, whatever), give them moderate defense against tacklers/support whether it be drones or hardpoints, give dreads a reason to be fielded in fleets other than looking pretty, buff fighters, and nerf Velators all while keeping blob size down.
Or don't change anything, except nerfing the Velator.
On a different note, players still do need a unique way to solo PvP that is available to each race. Just not using capital ships.
Finally, if you don't like it, sell/reprocess your carrier, buy/build the dread/skills, or adapt. It is CCP's game, you pay them to play. If they want to change, they can, and WILL change it. -----
I'm in your space podding your mans! |
|
|
|
|
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 |