EVE Search - Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 :: one page

Author	Topic
Osiris Occido Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:01:00 - [1441] Make sure to unnerf triage while you're at it so that drones can still be used, and we'll call it even. Perfect Quality with Windows Movie Maker
xBANDWAGONx	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:02:00 - [1442] Its a good start CCP, but you need to take it a little further... why not reduce HP's or damage output? I'll be happy to see the importance of BS's boosted again. For those whining that this is a bad change, can you see where 0.0 warfare is headed? Its on path for all cap vs cap fleets... BOB alreaky fights this way. This is not a trend we want to see play out... -- so as not to confuse you, everything below those two little lines is my forum signature. Now i just need to think of something worth putting here...
Larsonist	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 - [1443] Quote: I find the whines of the carrierbear pilots in this thread amusing. I can fly a carrier, and totally understand why CCP is considering this (or something like it) nerf. Carriers should indeed be more "fleety". And i have no issues with that. But alot needs to be done before you totally change the "solo" capability of a ship to the point where it is totally useless until alliance/corp field commanders send a mail out saying, "cap ships mobilize!" hampering the quick response of a carrier/mom for those introuble or needing help by forcing fighter delegation is ********. Tackled carriers running logistics will be the next big juicy bullseye. but hey, it will work itself out, in the end all carriers will drop in price and peeps will stop using them except in defense.
Tzrailasa Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 - [1444] Originally by: Kagura Nikon People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because for sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online. This'll not happen ('capitals online' that is). As many others has pointed out, a capital fleet without a support fleet is either a dead or fleeing capital fleet! The reason we do see huge capital blobs are not because of the ships themselves, but rather that there is absolutely no form of crowd control in the game! This leads to an alliance A vs. B scenario quickly becoming Alliance A+CDEFGH vs. B+IJKLMN... This then causes the capital and sub-capital blobs that bring the lag-hell we-ve come to know and NOT love! This is THE(!) problem in 0.0 warfare! And CCP are consistently first of all ignoring it exists, and secondly are continously adding new 'features' that makes things worse! More or less ALL deciding battles in the southern parts of EVE over the last 6+ months have been decided by blobbing or lag (most often both)! I don't think more than maybe a handful of battles has been decided by strategy, tactics and skill (which is not equal to SP). If that's not a very clear hint about what's wrong with the game, I don't know what is. Carriers are perfectly fine as they are. They cost ~10x a battleship, and gives ~2-3x battleship damage. Mommies are 100x battleship cost, and gives ~4-5x battleship damage. 'Fixing' them in this way would be like putting a bit of band-aid on a broken leg. It may look effective, but the problem remains and gets worse. To 'fix' 0.0 you need to break the blob! Nothing else will do anything to improve matters. PS: I still think it would help the discussion a lot if CCP would tell us what the problem actually is..... My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance.
Kowaii Hitori StoneDogS Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 - [1445] don't be ******** ccp please. after having trained for those ships, if i want to bring a fury of death using drones then my opponent is gonna have to deal with it. if the opponent wants to deal, he can cloak or he can equip smartbombs.
Mersault Gallente LFC FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:04:00 - [1446] Edited by: Mersault on 22/10/2007 15:06:36 Edited by: Mersault on 22/10/2007 15:05:37 if your whole point is to kill the MOM 'I win' button, as you say, then why not just limit a MOM to not having 3 fighters per level? As one who fought the Serpentis scum Admiral such and such back in Syndiciate many moons ago in the stolen Nyx, i have no issue with the MOM being a powerful ship. Tha fact is no ship is all powerful and anything can be taken down with the right gang and tactics. Recent events show us all this. What of your latest film CCP? 'Metal behemoths roamed the skies, gorging themselves on lesser beings' hardly a gorging, a snacking, or even a little nibble if they cant do what you have always advertised them as doing and we have trained and worked to get into. Better still - leave it alone. A MOM is to be feared. EvE needs scary ships that are hard to deal with. Don't make the game too easy.
Solant Minmatar Ventis Secundis R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:07:00 - [1447] Its really quite sad to see the community act like this to a dev team that has made consecutively excellent changes to this game for several years now.. one proposed change and people are already flaming ccp and demanding the new guy is fired? seriously. grow up.
Toku Jiang Jiang Laboratories and Discovery	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 - [1448] The changes sound very limiting to a ship that is already limited to drone and fighter damage. Considering a carrier costs a small fortune, the fighters aren't exactly cheap, and the fact that it takes months and months of training to fly one of these, I would fully expect it to be a better killer than a BS and it should. If the drones and fighters are causing mass amounts of lag, and you want to limit them, then you need to make changes to the carrier to compensate for the lost firepower.
Attack Dog Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 - [1449] ccp y do u constantly endevor to shoot urself in the foot???????????? STOP THE NERFS, nerfs do bugger all to the game, just making it more complex than it needs to be, LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS, THEY PAY UR F'ING SALERY. ------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day
Dracon Vidi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 - [1450] Originally by: Bruno Bonner well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon. How about: -Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag. -Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage. The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around. Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area. With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage. Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw. a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno So lets bring BS guns and launchers down to 6 as well, or maybe 5.

Dracon Vidi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:12:00 - [1451] Originally by: Verone Originally by: gordon cain If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that. we do... we walk away. We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals. When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down. For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away. And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember. All i can say is NUTS!, look at real life? What happens to the squeaky wheel? It gets Greased. if a small corp gets set upon by a corp that can field Super caps, what did they do to **** them off? It happens in life, let it happn in EVE. Firepower wins the day.
Msihcs Neff	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:12:00 - [1452] CCP please dont do this, as many have said here carriers take so long to train, and are so expensive, that they really should be able to pwn a battleship. Using your current logic battleships should be restricted to using 1 gun/launcher because they pwn cruisers in .2 seconds. You continually nerf carriers and dreads to the point where people wont even undock them without a blob to support them (causing more of a problem than fixing it) Please Zulupark if you stay on the dev team try tackling something a little smaller prior to alienating a large portion of the eve community. If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do? They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is? I know it causes sometime unbearable lag, but you can fix that with reinforced nodes and server upgrades its not hard to anticipate where the action is going to be. Also think about how many players have devoted their eve lives to capital ships (i have only been playing for a year and have devoted most of it to flying capitals). Please I'm begging you not to do this and if you've ever flown or killed a carrier you'll know they are actually rather fragile and most battleships with decent skills and a couple remote reps/shield transports can tank a carrier.
Sikozu Prioris Suns Of Korhal YouWhat	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:13:00 - [1453] You say you've played eve for two years but you are clearly still a utter NOOB, let me explain; LOGISTIC SHIPS ARE MEANT TO BE THE REMOTE REPAIR/HELP GANG MATES. They are perfectly set up and much much better at helping out gang mates than a carrier. A carrier's remote repair ability is only useful AFTER THE FIGHT IS OVER, to rep any pos's back up, thats ALL PPL USE IT FOR. They SUCK at repairing gang mates since lock time SUCKS ARSE. Carriers cost 10 times more than a bs and over 15 times more than a bs when fitted, so why should it HAVE THE SAME/WORSE DPS. It doesnt make sense. Also carriers cannot kill a bs in 0.2s unless it has cargo expanders and no tank. Dude actually see how long a carrier takes to kill a single fully tanked bs, its not that fast and for the massive investment in isk the dps it can deal at the moment IS FAIR. Yea I dont think ppl will be buying you drinks at all at fanfest, or looking/talking at you for that matter. "A enemy fleet emerges from the shadows" - What shadows!?! We're in ****ing space for gods sake
Captain Schmungles Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:14:00 - [1454] So, I'm reading these 55 (56?) pages of replies, mostly against this nerf, and yet I find a few people who are in favor of it and just can't understand why at least 1000 other people hate it. Here are their reasons: 1. Dropping a blob of caps/supercaps on a small pvp fight is "unfair" and blah blah blah... My response: You're darn right it's unfair. Sorry you got hit with a large fleet, but the alliance using that tactic is, frankly, way smarter than you are. Either come in a massive show of force yourself, or accept that a five-man gang is not invincible. In short: don't be so naive. 2. Carriers cause lag with all those fighters... Yes, they do, but is the answer really to nerf them into obsolescence? No. The answer is for CCP for fix their rampant database issues and to upgrade their server clusters to address a server-side problem that has been known about for some time now. CCP obviously likes the existence of well-organized alliances, knows that large fleet combat is an inevitable by-product of large alliances, and yet is apparently unwilling to have the right hardware in place to support this kind of gameplay. 3. People kill me with their carrier in low sec and it's just not fair... Stop whining. Carriers are going to be allowed in low sec whether you like it or not. Triage mode, level V missions-- the whole point of that was to "populate" low sec space with better organized corporations that, on occasion, will field a carrier to support the other four guys running a mission (or mining, etc.) If that carrier pilot happens to get bored running remote reppers and, for example, camps a gate and kills you and your friends, well, you take a risk in low sec each time you go through a gate. Sorry you died, but that's the way it goes. You can buy another Raven. 4. My battleship can't perma-tank a carrier (or tank it at all). That must be because the carrier is "overpowered" and needs nerfed. LOL. This has to be the best one. You think your 100 million ISK bs should be able to effectively tank a multi-billion ISK carrier?! I know the comparisons to reality can get kind of lame, but honestly, no navy on Earth expects that one of it's battleships (or, in the case of the US Navy, Ticonderoga class cruiser) can go up against an aircraft carrier on its own. You would expect the carrier to win. Every time. The same is true in EVE-- a multi-billion ISK capital ship SHOULD ALWAYS DESTROY your (comparatively) dinky battleship. Stop whining about how you died. It's a game. You can buy another ship.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:17:00 - [1455] Originally by: Msihcs Neff If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do? They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is? Well, it's not. All it's really proof of is that people took advantage of having super'ed characters to try out the ships they're least likely to be able to try out easily any other way. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Dracon Vidi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:18:00 - [1456] Originally by: Kagura Nikon People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because fore sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online. Maybe buff the battleships? Give BS a bit more of HP so they can survive long enough to do anything? Maybe create a new module that for example gives 20% extra damage and 20% rof but with 20% tracking penalty (so would be useful against capitals only) THis is a silly. tarin your skills up and the BS can live just fine. If your skills aren't up....well that is YOUR problem,not the carriers. Limit fighters deployment in 1 per second ( example) to avoid the mom warp in target, you dead ....
ER0X Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:19:00 - [1457] Originally by: xBANDWAGONx Its a good start CCP, but you need to take it a little further... why not reduce HP's or damage output? I'll be happy to see the importance of BS's boosted again. For those whining that this is a bad change, can you see where 0.0 warfare is headed? Its on path for all cap vs cap fleets... BOB alreaky fights this way. This is not a trend we want to see play out... << Simply this >> Study the pictures listen to the language it's exactly as was expected.
Greenbolt Minmatar Universal Exports	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:20:00 - [1458] This would put cap ships back as pos huggers 99 percent of the time...with a few gangs using htem as logistic ships..and MOMs would never be front line. no point risking that kinda isk when a carrier is about as good for logistics work. serious nerfage there...or atleast serious change of direction in there use. i can see people with 15-20B isk invested in Motherships beingreally annoyed. --------------------------------------------------- Scordite -Who was it that said that flying minmatar is kinda like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an uzi?
Shina Parea	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:22:00 - [1459] Maybe it has already been mentioned but... i will just say these words: "change of gameplay" "making a game better cough" "Star Wars Galaxies cough cough" Many ppl chose to train for carriers cause they like having 10-15 (20-25) drones around them...
Katashi Ishizuka	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:22:00 - [1460] I think if you want to make carriers more fleety: Make fighter drone guns have a higher sig radius - therefore needing someone who can target paint. Make fighter drones move slower - therefore needing someone to web. Introduce subsystem targeting for capitals allowing small ships like destroyers, frigates, and stealth bombers to selectively cripple large ships. These subsystems will have a small sig radius such that it would be difficult for battleships to hit these systems. Make sig radius a bigger factor in damage calculations.

Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:23:00 - [1461] Originally by: Solant Its really quite sad to see the community act like this to a dev team that has made consecutively excellent changes to this game for several years now.. one proposed change and people are already flaming ccp and demanding the new guy is fired? seriously. grow up. Seriously this game was a hell of a lot better BEFORE Revilations. Most of the changes that they've made have directly lead to the detriment of the game from a design stand point. I'm guessing most people wont quit the game if they make this change. Most of them will just take whatever poor garbage CCP spoon feeds them till the other MMOs are ready. When that happens Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time.
Neoromi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:24:00 - [1462] Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in.
Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:26:00 - [1463] Originally by: Neoromi Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in. Bingo, exactly the same here. People ask why are you so ****ed. Because I've seen it else where when the Dev's have absolutely no comprehension of what they are doing as I've seen from this crew at the moment. I literally have no faith in their abilities to do their job from a technical to a design standpoint. Seen it before gonna see it again. Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time.
Attack Dog Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 - [1464] lets take a look into the past -scary nano battleships (which fighters can't hit) -ccp's desicion NERFED -nos epidemic -ccp's desicion NERFED -ppl using carriers in a way we don't like (already had a whack from the nerf bat) -ccp's desicion NERFED *AGAIN* ------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day
Theladder	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 - [1465] Think of it for 1 sec ccp plz, why the hell on earth would u buy a ship that cost u 20b a hull and 10b in equipments which cannot even defend itself in a 1v2 situation?? With 5 fighters u probably cant even kill a SINGLE BS!!! How is it possible to grab a buddy with u all the time when you login to this game? Just to assign 5 fighters to him?? What are u going to do when your buddy IS NOT online?? park the MOM in a cap ship maint array and go with a BS????
The Kan Gallente The Circle STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 - [1466] woa guys, calm down! I just found CCP reasoning for all of this.. http://www.eve-online.com/background/potw/23-10-06.asp
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 - [1467] im impressed really of this thread, usally there is bob vs goons, north vs umm, well(we nap everyone really) but in this thread we all come toghter like a nice big blob against ccp
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 - [1468] Did I say I didn't like your proposal, at all?
Msihcs Neff	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:29:00 - [1469] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Msihcs Neff If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do? They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is? Well, it's not. All it's really proof of is that people took advantage of having super'ed characters to try out the ships they're least likely to be able to try out easily any other way. Maybe True Matthew but you cant deny the appeal of capital ships, the few times i've had my capitals in combat are some of my favorite eve memories and this nerf threatens those moments.
Neoromi	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:31:00 - [1470] Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:33:32 Originally by: Ztrain Originally by: Neoromi Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in. Bingo, exactly the same here. People ask why are you so ****ed. Because I've seen it else where when the Dev's have absolutely no comprehension of what they are doing as I've seen from this crew at the moment. I literally have no faith in their abilities to do their job from a technical to a design standpoint. Seen it before gonna see it again. Z Theyre doing a grade A Sony mistake, starting out unique and fresh but down the line they want more and succumb to being bland.

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 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.