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) |
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:55:00 -
[121]
As someone on SHC pointed out, Eve is not WoW. In WoW, respeccing into a new focus is easy. In Eve, it can take months and months to do so. Further, in Eve, given the tremendous time commitment, people absolutely flip out when changes are made to a ships role that had little or nothing to do with the original aim(s) of the ship. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.
Within an hour, there were targeted critiques intelligently attacking the deficits of said blog and giving more intelligent (and consistent with Eve) suggestions for improvement. Again from SHC, someone mentioned that this should have been released in the game development forum with some padding to hide your true intentions. You would have received the same level of intelligent discussion without all of the "OMG the sky is falling and lets all kill the Dev. Burn the Witch" comments that inevitably happen from nerd rage. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.
Also, Zulu mentioned this change was change 'only about balance and not about lag'. At this stage of Eve's development, you cannot consider ship changes without simultaneously considering performance questions. If, in example, retaining the front line combat ability of carriers requires (by your own admission) lower sp pilots having a new use for fleet/large gang use, then lower sp pilots will be used (of course, this assumes that more people can be brought to bear whether alts or actual people). So, more players in gang, more lag, more crappy gameplay experiences and more frustration. Making balance changes to ship MUST take into account more than just raw dps applied/ dps repped/ stuff hauled. Ignoring things like lag are ignoring the Greater Eve Game. And that's just idiotic. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.
One final thing and then I'll shut up. You characterized carriers as EXTREMELY proficient (caps added) in multiple roles without refitting. Guys, my Oneiros is extremely proficient in repping, a freighter is extremely proficient in hauling, gank battleships are extremely proficient in laying down the pain (looking at cost/dps of course). The carrier is proficient (NOT extremely proficient) at these things. You're disconnected from the reality of the ship class which leads me to think you are working from false assumptions; always a bad thing when looking at balance issues in my opinion.
Please reacquaint yourselves with the carrier class before you start messing about.
__________________________________________________ FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them. clicky |
Delphi Disra
Gallente An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:55:00 -
[122]
I really want to laugh and cry at the same time? You dont get it do you CCP? I can completley disable a carrier with less than 1m in ships and 3 noob alt pilots, yet you think of them as MULTITASKING GODS?
They are very vulnerable as they are, if anything they need a boost in some aspects, nerfing them further? I think it would be logical for carrier pilots to sell all their accounts and just buy 20-30 noob accounts LOL
|
Thargor II
Amarr Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:57:00 -
[123]
I do not feel that the developers of this game play enough eve when it comes to PvP and different fleet sizes on Tranquility. A fleet of 14 sub battleship class ships can take a solo carrier with ease it isn't funny. As a player I think there is something wrong when a fleet of 15 ships only 1 or 2 being tech 2 can take out a "Capital" ship. Ok I don't care if the capital ship cant wtfpwnbbq a fleet of small ships but a tiny fleet shouldn't be able to lock down and kill a capital ship either. You can't have it both ways. Honestly have you guys ever tested out your ideas when there are 800 people in local? I think in principal the idea is good but quit with the delegation thing. Make people choose if they want to be a logistical carrier or a hauling carrier or a front line carrier but don't tell them unless you have enough people to lock the grid they can't field their carrier fleet.
It is a serious flaw in a business model that come before a fairly close nit player base and just throw out a entire shift in 0.0 warfare post planning stage. You should have ask us about it during the entire process. No one here would deny that the game would be a poorer place if fleets were entirely consisting of carriers or moms. We all just feel that the way you are going about rectifying the short sighted design of carriers caused is to make them very unenjoyable to play. If you anger enough of the carrier pilots that significant portions cancel their accounts you will decimate the ability of corps in 0.0 to logistically support themselves and politics will be turned on its head. It will also drive more than ever the idea that to win any war you just need Swarms of cannon fodder to lag out the system. A Battleship is still the most cost effective way to unless fire power onto the field of battle even with carriers if there was no lag. They are also much easier to get into warp "if the lag is not present".
I agree that allowing a ship to dominate a battle field that takes 2 years to fly would make attracting new players near impossible but you will drive away your current player base if 1,000 4 month old accounts with 20 3 year old acounts can absolutely dominate a group of 350 3 year old accounts just because the sheer numbers as opposed to pilot skill.
Fix the need of alliances to lock down systems for 7+ days to take 1 system and make POS warfare a much faster pace affair and you will see the numbers of carriers drop. You have made certain parts of the game so ridiculous that it is obvious what the player base will do in your sandbox to counter it.....make a POS be able to nuke any BS in 1 volley....ok we need bigger ships so we can out rep the damage...make 0.0 warfare be slanted towards the side that has the most ships....ok everyone gets the biggest ship they can afford to easily replace...most massive fleet engagements have battleships that are primaried lasting less than 3-5 seconds (if you are lucky) people want to have a much longer sustained battle so they get a bigger ship with more fire power....everyone that can brings a carrier. Its your own fault for having game mechanics that drive the player base to blob so they can insta pop the dps of the opposing fleet. Also, if the lag gods are kind you can just decimate a fleet when they are almost helpless to do anything.
My suggestion is to FIX 0.0 WARFARE THEN REVISIT CARRIERS.
|
Callthetruth
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:58:00 -
[124]
we just need more types of carriers, seperate damage dealers, fighters , perhaps a new mini titan that has a reduced dps and a smaller range.
|
James Draekn
The Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:58:00 -
[125]
Looked at your goals for what you want to achieve as far as carriers and moms go. This ship class only needs a small fix to achieve your goal rather then a massive adjustment. The main fix to make this ship the center of the fleet (ie logistics and punch) would be to fix the Triage module. Now that I understand your goals, here is a few proposals.....
1. You want the carrier to be effective versus BS and larger but vulnerable to smaller vessels. Remove the ability to launch regular drones (minus the ECM and Logistics drones). You already have a effective anti-BS and up weapon (fighters), but the smaller drones make this ship class to versatile. Most of us that train for carriers want to be able to field 15 fighters (just looks cool) rather then 5 (lame). Then reduce the sig radius a bit on Destroyers and Battlecruisers to separate them from the next tier of ship class.
Now the Triage Module..............................
Triage mode: This module has a great idea behind it but it lacks a bit of foresight into how combat in eve is played.
1. Cap usage is doubled due to the halved cycle time on remote reppers, but their is no cap decrease on the remote reppers. Add a bonus to decrease cap usage to the module, by about 65% when module is active.
2. When in Triage you can't be remote repped, understandable when you factor the other bonuses, but see point one as to why your tank is now screwed when supporting others. Why bother supporting others. See point 1 as to why this is a important reason why Triage isn't used as much as damage, fix the cap usage, see more logistics.
3. Mobility, speed is life, at least for smaller ships. But if you are suck at gate XZY and the fight moved to gate ABC you aren't much good to your gang when the enemy changes the field location on you and you can't follow due to Triage mode keeping you stuck. Your opponents in this game will quickly switch the field to kill the remote repping advantage you have one location. I completely agree that jump drives should be offline, but warp drive needs to be online. Allow warping while Triage module is active since POS warfare isn't the only warfare in-game, fights move very quickly.
4. Your 1 Billion isk ship lost all ability to provide your gang with some extra punch. Allow the carrier to launch its fighters when in Triage. But require them to be assigned to another player to engage the enemy.
5. Range. enough said. If it is on Grid (250km), you should be able to rep it. Increase Capital reppers range to 250km (or at least double it from current levels), carriers and moms aren't able to nano-fit so it makes sense to be able to provide logistics on the field.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:00:00 -
[126]
Carriers have never seemed unbalanced to me. Big, versatile, powerful under the right situations - they fit their price bracket perfectly.
The problem with carriers en masse is just lag - you have no manoeuvering options, because of the lag. If it was actually possible to warp in around a carrier group then you'd be able to *****fighters with impunity unless it was supported (and, eventually, the carriers).
There is no problem here. If you want carriers to be used more for support, then look at the problems which are GENERAL TO ALL SUPPORT ships, and fix those.
|
Ket Halpak
Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:16:00 -
[127]
Thankyou for the dev blog and adressing our concerns, but unfortunatly I do not belive that this response was adequate. I will attept to adress some of the concerns I currently have with a carrier:
Logistics. The current problem with logistics is the lock time of a carrier. Throw in a sensor damp or 2, and it is seriously screwed. While triage mode can help here, it has a serious drawback in that the carrier effectivly becomes a sitting duck and needs to micromanage more due to the increased cap consumption rate.
Hauling. With the introduction of the Jump capable freighters, I believe that carriers will be pushed aside in favour of the t2 freighters due to increased cargo capacity. While their range may not be so great, a carrier can still be used in a pinch for small sized high value cargo.
Current Hanger capcity. The current ship maintainence array on a carrier only allows for a maximum of 4 cruiser sized vessels to be hauled to the front lines. In the current face of warefare in eve, where there can be hundreds of participants on either side, this is a serious drawback.
The corporate hanger is only 10km3. The majority of this will be taken up by reserve jump fuel. In reality, the corporate hanger is largely useless for anything other than holding reserve fuel.
Tanking. This is more related to a chimera. For an effective tank, a chimera must use ALL med and low slots to compensate for a crappy capacitor. A chimer pilot cant fit a sensor booster or even a warp disruptor. With the long lock times of a carrier, any prey can easily escape before a carrier can acheive a lock, kinda sways them away from being solopwn mobiles.
In short, carriers are not solopwnmobiles, they are already nerfed. Changing them will result in many unhappy customers. There are some great ideas floating around these threads and I suggest you take note of them.
Hmm, attempt no 4 to post this, forums dont like me :(
|
Cosmo Raata
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:17:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 24/10/2007 03:38:03 Still not good enough. Drop this completely and focus on something that actually needs fixed. This does nothing to alleviate lag, and only encourages more blobbing (instead of cap vs cap fights, you're going to have cap + intys + fighters vs cap vs intys + fighters).
Stop searching for problems that don't exist. Here are some you can work on instead:
Fix Amarr. Fix the blobbing. Fix the lag. Fix the "risk vs rewards" of empire vs lowsec vs 0.0. Fix everything else you promised to deliver at release but haven't.
In that order.
Signed!
Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr! |
Frug
Zenithal Harvest BROTHER'S WORD
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:26:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Menellaix Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...
I find the explosive nerdrage of these douchebags hilarious.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
SIr Urza
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:32:00 -
[130]
Do you guys(nerfers) like EVER play the game?? You are speaking of the carriers and MoM's as if they were ALLMIGHTY... well they are NOT! Lets take this by parts. Carrier: -Enemy gets damps on you... you are just a big dumb animal sitting in space -Fighter drones: Slow and EASY to kill... technically speaking an untanked cruiser at most -they are FAT and SLOW... you undock and a fraking ceptor can bump the heck out of you and then web you while support kill you... I mean its like a fly hitting a wall and moving it. -YOU NEED to fit it for the occasion... exmpl, you are not gonna go support ur fleet w/ a jumping setup, furthermore you have to adjust your setup according to the intelligence you get of the battle lying ahead... else general fitted carrier= dead - When you go to 0.0 (if you nerfers and whiners EVER GO THERE) you FEAR the dictors... 1 dictor can trap a whole fleet of carriers... when they can't warp and they dampened... its just a matter of how log will it take for ur friends to come and play and BAM I just lost a carrier fleet. -Fighter drones yeah, you can assign them to ur enemy... big deal they warp into a bubble and ur enemy MWD away and SHAZAM u just lost X ammount of figher drones WHICH BTW are 18mill a pop (and a pain to transport to 0.0 unless you do it in ur carrier, and if you lost ur drones that means jumping to "empire" JUST to buy em)... -They require A LOT of planning before being moved... ergo who is gonna pop me a cyno?? its not like they can just jump around like bunnies... if you got no cyno U STUCK!
Now MoM's: -For startes...THEY ARE 30 BILLIONS EACH (NOT INCLUDING FITTINGS OR DRONES!) -Yeah they got ECM immunity...just takes a Dictor to get you killed -All the problems mentioned in the carrier section except for the damps part -MoM pilots have to spend BILLIONS in FITTINGS in order not to get killed; so if they get it destroyed they just lost 50-70+ BILLIONS in one painful experience -They are exclusive; not everyone has the money to buy the equivalent to 30+carriers in one shot -They take MONTHS to be built soo if you want one u Need to wait and If you lost one... sucks for you cause now u need to get a crap load of isk to get a new one then find the mods u need (can take MOTHS just to find a mod)
NOW are they Overpowered? in the case of The MoM well they are Pwnmobiles...BUT THEY BETTER BE FOR 70B of investment!!! What bout carriers? In my oppinion as a REAL carrier pilot (not like those quickfit whining m.orons) NO they are not overpowered... everytime you use it you are like touching wood every min or soo to give u luck on the next onslaught soo you won't die on a blob of who knows how many. If you are in 0.0 (which is the only Worthy place to use carriers imo) you are gonna use your carrier in Fleet ops... and guess what's there in the fleet ops? OMFGWTFPWN LAG!! Soo you might have died 5 mins ago and you don't even know it... plus you probably lost your pod with all your slave (in my case) implants (and billions keep going to the toilet)
Conclusion Ships that atm can barely fend themselves in battle (not speaking 1v1 cause who would be S.tupid enought to 1v1 a carrier in a bc?), and by battle I mean more than one foe (which apparently you guys at the Nerfing HQ only consider carriers like GODS in 1v1 which almost never happens), what would happend if you take out the ability to deploy more than 5 drones? They become nothing less then a huge, expensive, useless Dominix. If you decide to take away something else (that you havn't specified yet) from them what will they be? just useless big junks of junk. SOO In order to NOT S.CREWING the people that went on the harsh way of training for a carrier LEAVE EM ALONE!!If you start listening to the real players in eve (not the whining bunch o I.diots in the forums) then the real eve community will be happy!
How to make this happen? Make a POLL! Make US decide wha WE want for ourselves as WE are the ones PAYING YOU!
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:36:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Menellaix Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...
I find the explosive nerdrage of these douchebags hilarious.
Nice late 2006 player with a 6 men corp and a brand new Alliance talking smack. Care to try it when I'm in local with you noob?
|
BlackKnight1717
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:42:00 -
[132]
Hammerhead, Oveur and our janitor in any ill thoughts you may have as a result of EVE's direction.
You all fail, expecially the janitor, atleast he should know better.
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:44:00 -
[133]
Keep in mind that in a carrier/mom life, 75% of his life he's "alone" with his cyno buddy.
What do you (for example) expect when a carrier jumps to a system, but when jumping in, get's bumped from the station and end's up several km's away?
It's very common.... and .. the end result is also v.common: WRECK.
It's just too much efforts to get one of this things and isk to see it all go away now. I speak for myself, i just worked too hard for my mom, all seems useless now.
You nerfing something that dont need nerf.
|
Gix
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:44:00 -
[134]
Make a POLL! Make US decide what WE want for ourselves as WE are the ones PAYING YOU!
/signed
|
Captain Schmungles
Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:49:00 -
[135]
Somewhat better post, but honestly I still fail to grasp CCP's logic for this nerf at all. They reason that:
Carriers are used by a lot of people for a lot of different roles Carriers constitute an "endgame" ship for many people Carriers can (apparently) win every pvp engagement Therefore, a nerf is needed to make carriers less effective at pvp and to make them more specialized.
Okay, so, let's look at the premises. Yes, carriers are used for a lot of different activities, but I thought this game was predicated around the concept of players having the freedom to use features/ships in ways that the devs never thought of? What happened to the "open sandbox" concept that this game is (theoretically) based on? The fact that one ship can be used for so many different rules should be lauded as vindication that the "open sandbox" concept can function in a MMOG. Yes, there aren't a lot of refits involved, but frankly, there aren't a lot of capital-class mods that you can use on a carrier, so I doubt that, given current game content, there are a lot of other viable fits for carriers anyway.
And yes, carriers do constitute an endgame ship. They're outrageously expensive. The skill training takes forever. Why shouldn't players perceive them as an endgame ship? Furthermore, why is that a bad thing? Would CCP be using this same line of argument if a lot of people viewed a crow as an endgame ship? Once again, this is an "open sandbox" game where players are free to set their own goals. It's not a problem if some players ultimately look to be carrier pilots.
Also, carriers cannot win every pvp engagement. Especially since anyone flying a maulus can use ewar on a carrier (which, honestly, makes absolutely no sense save for the fact that people were whining), and that carriers aren't specialized to do anything well, I'd say that so long as the enemy is intelligent and organized a carrier is quite vulnerable. Now, if CCP means I should be able to hop in a Raven and have a fair fight against someone in a Thanatos, well, a capital ship SHOULD ALWAYS WIN against a single battleship (or anything smaller).
This nerf is unnecessary. CCP simultaneoulsy recognizes that this nerf will screw most carrier pilots yet they don't seem disinclined to go forward with it. Asking people who have spent significant amounts of time working for a carrier to delegate multi-million ISK fighters to a bunch of noobs in their kestrels is so ignorant and disrespectful of the time and effort players put in to getting a carrier that I can't accurately put it into words.
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:54:00 -
[136]
lmao.. so "were not making changes to ur capital fleet... for like 3 months ..lol..then we will dribble in the changes....ffs ... man this still is a crok od shi;te guess i will be parking up my 1 man pwnmobile in 3 months and trowing away the keys then as ccp seem to have no clu how capitals are used...
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders Free Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:55:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 24/10/2007 04:55:43 Now this one should be in place of Zulus blog. You'd have fewer problems.
disclaimer: I do have no experience with flying carriers first hand.
I would say that the carrier versatility comes from the fact that they are actualy not versatile at all. I mean the come with a drone bay to hold fighters and drones. they come with a maintenance array and a corp hangar. and they have slots only for tank and logistic modules.
So where exactly is the versatility offered by different fittings ? I mean can the carrier choose NOT to fit a hangar but a larger drone bay instead (or the other way around)? Or some guns instead of logistic modules ?
You created a ship class that has all the capabilities out of the box, has almost NO fitting options and now you complain it is too versatile ?
And the relevant point, that delegated fighters loose out on skill/ship bonuses of the owning carrier pilot is silently omited. It's one of the main reasons why fighter delegation is not popular.
The other one being to assign a few 10s of millions of isk to another pilot so he can play for free with them.
Sort out the fighter mechanics (boht points mentioned above) and then come again with this nerf, you may find different replies next time.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:03:00 -
[138]
Even if the carrier was a master of all trades (it is certainly not), your paying customers do not care about your original design concept and we do not want a carrier nerf.
but if you are still determined...
I understand your goal but mindless swings of the nerf bat are not going to do it. Where in your latest blog were the suggested buffs that would make the carrier better in a particular role if we have to choose just one at a time?
Before you nerf carriers or really any ship for that matter, ask yourselves and ask your players "is the ship still worth the time and effort put into acquiring it?" If the answer is "no" you need some buffs to counter your nerfs and with a "NO!!" this big, you need to be showing us some serious buffs.
|
Reticenti
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:03:00 -
[139]
This truly makes me sad. I was looking forward to carriers, but now they're even more like a giant e-peen, and I already have an Iteron for that role.
It makes me disgusted that CCP isn't listening to the ENTIRE EvE community in this matter.
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:12:00 -
[140]
It hurts to keep reading that CCP still believes solo carriers are capabable of "fighting off any kind of foe, small or big" and "ripping apart everything that gets in their way". That simply isn't the truth for a solo carrier. And actually "pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support" is the truth.
Focused fire from carriers is not a lot different to focused fire from regular fleets.
"We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases" and that's good because we don't want forced delegation of fighters or drones. We want to directly control the same number of fighters and drones as it is now. We don't care how easy it will be either with the new overview. Delegation does not solve focused firepower from a fleet and focused firepower does not need fixing: it's how disciplined fleets operate.
If there is a problem with carriers and motherships might it be more related to how they are used in low-sec? At least, the ability to deploy fighters in low-sec should to be removed from carriers and motherships. Pirates would still be able to use the same numbers of drones and be as effective.
Quote: Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.
Simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of carrier pilots do not use triage for any purpose.
We have toyed with the idea of using triage to repair station services but still dismissed it as too risky. We certainly don't use it in small scale fleet combat because fights are decided quickly and having a defenceless carrier exposed on the field for 10 minutes is bad.
Want triage to be used? Scrap how it works right now. When triage is used make it impossible to deploy fighters and drones and have no other drawbacks with using the mode. And then give the carrier pilot options to choose one single benefit while in triage mode i.e. double repair, or double the speed of repair, or double the range of repair. A bit like the ARM enabled modules. It doesn't have to be like dreadnoughts in siege mode, carriers could enter triage mode and still move, warp and change session without the same drawbacks as siege mode. They would still be vulnerable to electronic warfare.
Quote: Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines.
Module sizes being increased in Revelation III would probably have something to do with that.
For example, capital modules being increased from 1,000m3 to 4,000m3 in volume. Carriers tend to carry capital logistics modules in the corporate hangar and fit them when needed. And then they carry other non-capital modules that they might need to fit and modules that other ships in the fleet might need to fit. All of those modules will have more volume in the next expansion, kind of making the point about increased hangar size moot.
What kind of a boost in ship maintenance bay are you talking about? 5%, 100% ... not meaningful without numbers.
|
|
Brock McF
Caldari Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:21:00 -
[141]
I am glad CCP realizes this was not the correct way to change such a class.
I am still concerned, but glad we now have a chance to come up with some more realistic changes.
I wouldn't mind a specialized role, because as most have pointed out, the carrier does not really fit a role, and is ok at many.
It is really going to be hard to find the role, since everyone trained them for what they are now.
I think it is important to distinguish what we are actually concerned about, the class by itself, the class as a _BLOB_, or the class vs other classes of ships. It is ok at all these categories, but where should it specialize to combat the real issue in EVE _LAG_.
Long road ahead.
Brock
Killboard |
Regaul Kinath
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:23:00 -
[142]
Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...
|
James CX
Dark Destiny Inc. TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:25:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Gix Make a POLL! Make US decide what WE want for ourselves as WE are the ones PAYING YOU!
/signed
SIGNED !!
|
Vaarmoth Malinigvious
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:26:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Vaarmoth Malinigvious on 24/10/2007 05:32:19 I read about two lines and stopped.
Do you guys at CCP understand the problems you 'think' carriers represent are inherent flaws in Eve? Such as agro'ing at a station/tank/redocking. I could go on, but really why bother.
Before you even THINK about touching carriers/moms overhaul POS warfare(and I dont mean another half-assed band-aid).
Edit: THe masochist in me read more: Triage? lol? has anyone even fit that mod on tq? Secondly, your grandious ideas about usage such as remote repping and delegation eveporate with your game ruing lag (thx largly to pos warfare).
|
shuckstar
Gallente Hauling hogs Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:31:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Lightof God allow me to say it simply CCP
YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE FRICKING POINT
your playerbase on the whole has said that carriers do not need to be nerfed in any way shape or form. The module slot system provides the limiting choice factor you desired NOW.
You can choose to have a good defense or you can choose to help you mates.
Carriers need no nerfing. NONE WHAT SO EVER. Go back to the drawing board from which this idea came and erase it, then burn that drawing board for it can no longer be the bearer of anything good. After you have done that take who ever thought of the idea and fire him, if it is multiple people fine fire the lot of them. If it was all 3 orignal designers FINE leave your own game cause you are ruining and poisining it.
This
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:35:00 -
[146]
Ok now since it seems the devs are watching this post then it would be a logical place for discussion.
The reason CCP seems to have an issue with carriers is because they call them a master of all traits in their latest blog. If they still believe that something needs to give and there needs to be changes on these vessels it then becomes a case of damage limitation.
CCP, as too many forum posts to mention have demonstrated, the general feeling of outrage at the original proposalswas a direct result of your intent to disable their offensive capabilities. If you canÆt look here for a change then you must consider other alternatives.
Here are my proposals at a sort of compromise.
1. Leave their offensive power as it is
As previously discussed carriers offensive power is perfectly balanced. This must not change. They are not solopwnmobiles as most people agree. (Apologies to the noobs but itÆs a fact. An arazu or a gang fitted with sensor damps can paralyze a carrier) If CCP can just leave sensor damps as they are this will not change. Motherships should remain immune to EW as this is the benefit of the price tag.
2. Rethink their support role all together
A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donÆt freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (cÆmon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonÆt get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.
3. Shift their logistical role completely.
Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.
To sum up Introduce new capital ships for capital repping on stations and other caps. Push harder down the lines splitting hauling and carriers and introduce better tools and ships to deal with the gap that would create. And finally and most importantly stay well away from any changes you are even thinking about making to carriers drone/offensive capabilities.
All comments welcome
|
Vaarmoth Malinigvious
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:36:00 -
[147]
Originally by: shuckstar
Originally by: Lightof God allow me to say it simply CCP
YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE FRICKING POINT
your playerbase on the whole has said that carriers do not need to be nerfed in any way shape or form. The module slot system provides the limiting choice factor you desired NOW.
You can choose to have a good defense or you can choose to help you mates.
Carriers need no nerfing. NONE WHAT SO EVER. Go back to the drawing board from which this idea came and erase it, then burn that drawing board for it can no longer be the bearer of anything good. After you have done that take who ever thought of the idea and fire him, if it is multiple people fine fire the lot of them. If it was all 3 orignal designers FINE leave your own game cause you are ruining and poisining it.
This
yep
|
Cyana Fox
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:44:00 -
[148]
Originally by: DevBlog Let's take a look at what Carriers and Motherships are currently capable of:
* Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.
Based on that comment I am going to sit here and assume you people have never flown a carrier in a solo pvp situation. Because a gang of 5 could kill a carrier. Once it gets damped, webbed, scrammed, and is off station....its DEAD. Don't believe me? Go to Sagain where carriers undock and are automatically outside dock range and count how many have died there. I've seen at least 4 and none of them had a real chance to defend themselves even with SENTRY support.
12 deployed fighters/t2 drones of choice will do NOTHING if the carrier is already damped. If it were immune to EW, then maybe I'd say its broken...but its NOT. The Mom is, but its also a SUPER CAPITAL. Seriously, before you make changes trying using the ship in pvp solo and see how much of a 'solopwnmobileofsuck' it is.
You guys who play war games on paper should actually try playing them in the game before you start jotting notes on how to nerf how uber they are on paper. At least you didn't emphasis that they melt BS's in 0.02 seconds again...oh wait..you did. =/
It really seems you guys behind the desks have more issues with MOM's *gettin podded by a smart bombing MOM on your newbie mains while flowing through low sec are we?* than carriers. Because carriers are completely useless on their own.
|
Cyber Blue
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:48:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Reticenti This truly makes me sad. I was looking forward to carriers, but now they're even more like a giant e-peen, and I already have an Iteron for that role.
It makes me disgusted that CCP isn't listening to the ENTIRE EvE community in this matter.
As of now in this thread around 180 people, even if that goes up to 2400 to 3000, I really do not believe that represnts the entire EvE community. It does not represent my feelings on this matter at all. CCP is trying to do the right thing in my opinion. Also, it appears CCP is listening to this small minority and actively trying to decide on a compromise to this problem. One of the reasons I stay with EvE is the fact that CCP really seems to care so much for its community and its game.
Now lets all have a group hug. Well, maybe leave Backdoor Bandit out of it. |
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:55:00 -
[150]
Quote: ItÆs against everything that EVE stands for that one ship is able to counter ôalmostö every other ship, can do all roles, all the time, without drawbacks. And that must change.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |