Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
|
CCP kieron
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:51:00 -
[1]
It is obvious that the last Dev Blog concerning some proposed changes to Carriers was the equivalent to kicking the proverbial ant hill. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty.
We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes. We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.
We hope the new proposed changes will be more palatable than the previous. To find out what those proposed changes are, please read Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???
kieron Director of Community Relations, EVE Online EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang Look Ma, I'm in a Dev thread! Oh wait... |
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:57:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:03:42 I'm 10 lines in and already laughing. This is comedy GOLD.
ed: Finished reading it. So many ridiculously clueless statements, it makes me wonder if you guys even play this game.
for those who didnt bother reading, the tl;dr is "We're sorry and we're delaying the nerf will not be implemented YET".
Same line we got with compression and cloaking changes. As close as we're gonna get to a full refutation. But, a full refutation might be required on this one CCP.
Further ed:
Carriers are not multi-role ships. They can perform multiple roles. To perform multiple roles with the aid of a support fleet. The requisite for a support fleet is already there, another artificial requisite is not required.
and..
Originally by: CCP kieron some proposed changes
There's a difference between a proposed change and one that's ready to be deployed to sisi. Stop the bull****.
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:58:00 -
[3]
Same stuff repeated with more words saying the same crap. Not constructive but neither is this blog.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Abyssal Angel
Caldari Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:59:00 -
[4]
will fill Fixed Yay! have a cookie - Deckard
Originally by: CCP PrismX My name is Prism X and I support this message. |
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:00:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Idara on 24/10/2007 01:01:08 How are they masters of all right now?
They get damped, they're screwed.
You don't want them to be as effective against smaller ships, yeah, makes sense. But again, they get damped, they're screwed. They have to recall their fighters to deal with the smaller ships, and if they can't deal with the tacklers fast enough, the big damage dealing ships that are apparently there to take the carrier down won't have to tank. They should be able to launch a crapload of Warrior IIs and BBQ the little frig fleet that's come after them without battleship support. ---
in EVE - Idara |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:02:00 -
[6]
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 01:02:57
1 damp frig 2 damps = 15k lockrange chimera. add anotehr damp whooha = 9k lockrange!
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:02:00 -
[7]
Needing refits, but still keeping the flexibility. That resonates with the rest of EVE, but how exactly is this planned to be done?
IF the 5 fighter rule is still coming into play, I would highly urge a +dmg to the adv drone interfacing skill much as you did with the previous drone nerf. Keep the damage on par even if there are less drones.
maybe +30% per level under the control of a carrier, 60% under a mothership. But something to keep the survivability (which is already limited) where it is.
Just an unbiased recommendation.... alongside the possibility of a minor respec if it's REALLY bothering a player. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
Alcrista Somez
Amarr The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:03:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:01:53 Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:00:14 I'm 10 lines in and already laughing. This is comedy GOLD.
ed: Finished reading it. So many ridiculously clueless statements, it makes me wonder if you guys even play this game.
for those who didnt bother reading, the tl;dr is "We're sorry and we're delaying the nerf will not be implemented YET".
Same line we got with compression and cloaking changes. As close as we're gonna get to a full refutation. But, a full refutation might be required on this one CCP.
Further ed:
CARRIERS ARE NOT SWISS ARMY KNIVES. CARRIERS CANNOT PERFORM MULTIPLE ROLES ON THEIR OWN TO PERFORM MULTIPLE ROLES A CARRIER REQUIRES A SUPPORT FLEET YOU ALREADY HAVE THE SUPPORT FLEET REQUISITE, YOU DO NOT NEED A NEW ONE. STOP THE NERF.
How the f**** did you read all that, digest it, and then post within six minutes?!
Oh, and youre in the wrong corp.. :)
|
Knuck
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:03:00 -
[9]
Glad to see you guys are taking a more rational look at things, appreciate the update. As the poster above me mentioned tho, remember they aren't exactly solo pwnmobiles. Damps and a bit of dps and you're ****ed.
Moms are really only a problem tackling wise in low sec but I'm sure you guys are looking into that.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Alcrista Somez How the f**** did you read all that, digest it, and then post within six minutes?!
Whorum Foring level 5, mate. It's rank 16, but totally ******* worth it ;D. oh, and i posted a placeholder, then edited in a post as i went. That's why my post is different to your quote.
|
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:06:00 -
[11]
If the discussion has now shifted to forcing the carrier pilots to make choices with regard to what they will be specializing in, then those areas need individual boosts.
Damage: As is, a carrier's DPS isn't much more than a well-fitted Megathron or Astarte. This needs addressing if the pilot is choosing to specialize in damage, otherwise why not just fly one of these other ships, which has no problem wasting smaller ship classes?
Remote Repair: If the offensive capability is going to be nerfed by the triage module or similar proposed modules, then the capability needs to be much more pronounced (maybe the ability to rep sieging dreads? or retain the ability to be remotely repaired themselves?). As has been stated, the triage module, as it stands, is not a good solution.
Jump-Hauling: The idea of forcing a module to be fitted for corp hangars does a bit of havoc on the fourth wall, but I am not out and out opposed to the idea, so long as the carrying capacity gets significantly boosted (as it has been suggested will be the case).
In the end, carriers are no more a swiss-army knife than a Battleship, just on a different scale. Force specialization, sure, but do not nerf them. Make the specializations go beyond current capabilities and you will have a much less angry playerbase, and a game with a lot more flavor.
Sometimes, I wish the rumors about MC having devs on MSN were true...I'd love to talk to you guys in realtime.
|
Menellaix
Angel of War Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:07:00 -
[12]
Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...
|
Knuck
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:09:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Menellaix Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...
last I saw they were spamming sisi local, lol
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:10:00 -
[14]
Edited by: LordVodka on 24/10/2007 01:13:59 Can't say I'm happy but this is better then the last blog.
I like that you looked at some of our ideas in the previous forum section on the nerf. I really dislike the nerf to the drone control though, surely theres a better way to do this, I didnt spend 3 bil (ship, skill, and fit) to only use half a ship. Sure you don't want carriers to solo the world, I already guarantee they can't... Anyways at the current build cost of fighters its rediculous that you are asking me to send 100's of mil out to "low sp pilots" in my corporation or alliance and most likely suffer the costs of lost fighters myself. If you do this nerf then I just ask ccp to compromise with me and drastically lower fighter build cost and introduce t2 variants.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:11:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Yaay on 24/10/2007 01:14:32 There's a very simple solution to the problems you mention. Since the battlefield is the big concern here as most everything in eve relates to pvp... just remove the ability to launch normal drones. Then, provide new fighters with similar roles to drones... ie sentries (can't be assigned), ew, Missle, warp jamming (a must when fighters chase), webbing, etc.
Make everything capital class, and relate said fighters to the capital class. Currently, Fighters are not overpowered, and to even tweak them is not needed yet. Start small, work your way from there. Big changes **** of the community the most.
The problem you're not seeing is that your not tweaking carriers so as to change how they work, you're changing carriers to intentionally reduce their numbers on the battlefield. So what do we do as carrier pilots, rotate shifts of who gets to use the ship we trained years for? You've created a problem that has no solution in that regaurd. Fix blobbing in general if you don't like the numbers.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID |
Vaedian GER
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:11:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vaedian GER on 24/10/2007 01:13:16 You just don't get it do you? I can't help myself but getting the impression that since you lost T20 as the RKK CAPITAL FLEET BOSS you lost your sense for reality of capital ships in Eve. You're just talking theory!
No capital pilot with a bit of sense has 15/25 Drones/Fighters. No Carrier/Mothership is a solo pwnmobile, a group of 3-4 experienced players can take out ANY carrier, a group of 30-40 experienced players will own a mothership. And that's the way it should be, no solo player should be a threat to a billion-isk capital ship and no random 10-man-gank-squad should be a worthy opponent to a mothership, it's just stupid. No Carrier will ever be able to repair his support fleet at the front as long as you don't fix the 10-minute-lag!
Stop living in a dream world, start playing your own game again and fix the real problems please.
Like the Local, the Shipscanner that doesen't even deserve the name, the LAG, the problem that I can't load courier contracts into haulers in my carrier, the problem that I can't contract Amarr ships because of damaged crystals while other races can contract theirs perfectly...
Just a few examples where you should spend your time on.
|
Saladin
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:13:00 -
[17]
I have to admit, the assertations made in the dev blog look nice on paper but are baseless and not relevant to actual game play. Carriers are frequently attacked and destroyed by small to mid sized gangs. The effectiveness of ewar and web drones is overhyped, and the complete vulnerability of fighters (which can be easily baited and killed) is overlooked. Fighter/Drone selection is cumbersome in most fights and often fall victim to smart bombs. The author of the dev blog, as well as others at CCP, are completely out of touch with reality. How about you use your own kill mail system and tell us how many carriers are killed, and how many carriers participate in kills (as major damage dealers) of non-cap ships? ----
|
Cosmo Raata
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 -
[18]
Now that this major catastrophy is being avoided, WHAT ABOUT AMARR? Is it ok to address this and ignore another talked about just as much? Where has the communication gone?
Its one thing that you were going to just suprise nerf carriers dispite how much everyone felt it was unneeded, but its a completely different monster when you promise a fix and never follow through. A lot of us are really beginning to dislike the attitude. I got forum banned recently for talking about Amarr!!?!? Is this what its coming to between players & developers? We dont want to follow through, so lets ignore it, ban those that bring it up and move on?!
To be continued...
Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr! |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 -
[19]
Good start. Now, make it better, and drop this completely. Then we'll all be happy, and you won't have to worry about trying to justify ridiculous claims that have no basis in the realities of carrier operation.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 -
[20]
You might not like the fact that carriers can do many things well, but they are not even remotely overpowered.
If you want to make a carrier more specialized then you will need to make it SIGNIFICANTLY stronger in the areas in can specialize in. If you want to make it choose a type of ship to damage (i.e. anti-BS, anti-cruiser, anti-frigate, anti-capital fighters that are all the same sized) then you need to increase the damage it will do to that ships class by something on the order of 500-1000%.
If you want to make carriers capable of being front line logistics ships that aid smaller ship you need to significantly change the current remote repair system or dramatically increase the HP of smaller ships (keep in mind that this will require a similarly larger increase in fighter damage).
More than anything else though, you need to make motherships more special. At the moment it is an underpowered oversized carrier. It has a single utilizable special ability (no the clone vat does not count because it is worthless), the remote ECM burst, and that ability is fairly useless unless the mothership has about 5-6 mothership wingmates. A mothership right now is a virtual prison for its pilot and is only worth being stuck in for a currently overpowered trip to low sec empire.
You have alot of planning to do. My accounts will remain canceled until you demonstrate that the last idea you thoughtlessly pitched out there was an abberation. The mere fact that you are capable of thinking of such an inconceivably terrible idea makes me question whether there is any point in continuing to give you money.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
Reos Vex
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:15:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Reos Vex on 24/10/2007 01:15:43 Glad to see your going to look at things again.
You would better served not lying to the Eve player base. Telling us one day it's an idea and seeing it on SiSi the next day is not very cool.
I'm about done with the swinging of the nerf bat around here, every time you reach a goal CCP takes your legs out with their bat. When does PotBS come out again?
|
BlackKnight1717
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:15:00 -
[22]
Stop trying to change the role of the carrier.
Most people baught their carriers purely for fighters and you keep trying to turn the carrier into a remote repping ship that not many people want. This is why triadge was such a huge failure. (that and rediculous skill requirements)
You can expect people to be very ****ed off if you change a ship that takes hundreds of hours of work to get into something no one wants.
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:16:00 -
[23]
Well achieving what CCP wants really isn't that hard. Just require that each carrier fit a "computer core" (and can only fit one maybe two on a MS).
A fighter control core, allows you to make use of drone control units and carrier skill base fighter control abilities but limits you to a max of five drones (not fighters out) and halve remote repping abiity.
A drone control core switches fighters and drones there.
A jump core, increases the carriers jump range from 3 to 5 but you may only have 5 drones out.
Logistics core: full logistics bonus but only 5 fighters or drones
Get the picture.
Dal Sig? I don't need no stinking sig... |
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:17:00 -
[24]
Hmm, these changes might work if they're not implemented so harshly -
Latest Video |
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:18:00 -
[25]
Originally by: CCP kieron We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.
This quotes bs... sorry to say it but carriers arnt the master of pvp, seriously you can tank them in drakes, let alone bs's.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Crovan
In the end, carriers are no more a swiss-army knife than a Battleship, just on a different scale. Force specialization, sure, but do not nerf them. Make the specializations go beyond current capabilities and you will have a much less angry playerbase, and a game with a lot more flavor.
Holy-intelligent-post batman!
If CCP were less arrogant they might actually listen to their player base that contains people like this and they wouldn't risk destroying 6 years of work in 3 days again.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sevani
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:20:00 -
[27]
Posting while thread is fresh.
I don't fly a carrier, but have been flying a BS in fleet in 'the great war'
I don't see the correlation with what the dev blog thinks is true with what I've seen to be true.
"Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big." I've seen lots of solo carriers get killed. Maybe a Mom camping a lowsec gate, but other than that I'm don't think this is true.
"Great logistics ships" Lock time is horrid on any non cap ships. In small gang you can bet you butt they are jammed.
"Jump capable haulers " So? I've seen hulks jumped into belts inside Dreads.
"Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines," Not very often and only very small ships.
"In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it." each of the above tasks requires a refit.
I am about to move into my first capital ship. I am no longer so thrilled about it.
-7
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:21:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Baun You might not like the fact that carriers can do many things well, but they are not even remotely overpowered.
If you want to make a carrier more specialized then you will need to make it SIGNIFICANTLY stronger in the areas in can specialize in. If you want to make it choose a type of ship to damage (i.e. anti-BS, anti-cruiser, anti-frigate, anti-capital fighters that are all the same sized) then you need to increase the damage it will do to that ships class by something on the order of 500-1000%.
If you want to make carriers capable of being front line logistics ships that aid smaller ship you need to significantly change the current remote repair system or dramatically increase the HP of smaller ships (keep in mind that this will require a similarly larger increase in fighter damage).
More than anything else though, you need to make motherships more special. At the moment it is an underpowered oversized carrier. It has a single utilizable special ability (no the clone vat does not count because it is worthless), the remote ECM burst, and that ability is fairly useless unless the mothership has about 5-6 mothership wingmates. A mothership right now is a virtual prison for its pilot and is only worth being stuck in for a currently overpowered trip to low sec empire.
You have alot of planning to do. My accounts will remain canceled until you demonstrate that the last idea you thoughtlessly pitched out there was an abberation. The mere fact that you are capable of thinking of such an inconceivably terrible idea makes me question whether there is any point in continuing to give you money.
Bauns right, whats the point in having a specialized ship that can do things only about as well as any other ship, yet with longer lock times, yet more tank.
Stop going for a giant shift in it's roles and introduce things slowly to see how they effect it's overall performance. The Fear here is that you're going to kill it then it'll take 6 months to a year to revive the damn thing.
The irony here is that carriers aren't the do it alls you suggest. Carriers only become the do it alls when they have help. I can't move a carrier w/o support to back me up. I can't use a corp hanger effectively, that's my fleets job. I can't refit myself, I can only allow others. Put any carrier on it's own and you realize just how impractical it is. It takes the support to make it effective already. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID |
Closer Still
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:21:00 -
[29]
lets keep *****ing about these ideas until they dont nerf the carrier at all
but in all seriousness...
not enough has really been released for a very contstructive view point, but thank god they arent doing the previous nerf..
|
Breathing
Mork Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Sevani Posting while thread is fresh.
...I don't see the correlation with what the dev blog thinks is true with what I've seen to be true.
"Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big." I've seen lots of solo carriers get killed. Maybe a Mom camping a lowsec gate, but other than that I'm don't think this is true.
"Great logistics ships" Lock time is horrid on any non cap ships. In small gang you can bet you butt they are jammed.
"Jump capable haulers " So? I've seen hulks jumped into belts inside Dreads.
"Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines," Not very often and only very small ships.
What I was trying to type.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |