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) |
Hi Lo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:56:00 -
[151]
hey CCP, listen to the people that pay for your wages.
With Love, Hi Lo
|
Skidblatnir
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:57:00 -
[152]
It's so funny seeing all the people moaning the devs aren't playing enough when a couple of months ago they demanded they are forbidden to do so by death sentence.
Hilarious.
As for carrier specialization, we have that already. Thanatos = damage carrier Archon = armortank carrier Chimera = shieldtank carrier Nidhoggur = logistics carrier
The problem is, that spec works only on paper. Thanatos = good damage, sufficient tank, sufficient logistics Archon = good tank, sufficient damage, sufficient logistics Chimera = honestly no idea if after the CPU buff the tank is up to par, otherwise see Archon Nidhoggur = sufficent logistics (no cap to make the bonus shine), insufficent tank (crap slots / fitting), sufficient damage
The spec choices right now really are: "good in one aspect, same as everyone else in others" or "generally worse".
So instead of "cripple everyone", differentiate them further. The people that got into a Thanatos probably did so because of the fighter damage bonus. Same with the guys that went Nidhoggur, they knew they would get a more-logistics carrier.
Buff their characteristics, tone down aspects that other carriers are supposed to fill. Make them excel at something, traded for versatility. They way people can use their carriers gets limited, and many won't like it. But they most likely chose their carrier for their defining characteristic - buff that one.
|
Quutar
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:58:00 -
[153]
if you want a carrier to choose... adjust the modules it uses in it's high slots... add modules for the mids's low
for example...
take away the +1/3 fighter per level... and change it to +2/5 fighter per DCU equipped (carrier/mothership)
so if a carrier is fully logistics equipped... then they will only have 5 fighters... if they are battle equipped... then they will have DCU on the highs instead of logistics modules
maybe not this specifically... but somethign along these ways Quutar Research Services Selling Amarr Outpost BPCs ME:10 |
Peter Powers
Master Miners Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:58:00 -
[154]
while i dont see why it should be necessary to nerf carriers (they allready have that "huge-target-sign-on-hull"-nerf, and as a carrier pilot you have to be a lot more carefull then in other ships (for example everyone sees and is able to warp to your incoming cyno if you enter a system)).
Your a bit wrong about that "can fill all roles at once"
- for a hauling carrier you will be fit for maximum cap recharge and have your maintenance bay full of haulers to have a maximum of transport capability and a cloak for hiding in systems without pos.
- as a fighting carrier you have drone control units & neutralizers, maybe a smartbomb in your highs, and a heavy tank
- as a support carrier you have your highs full with support modules (remote repairers/shield boosters), a "medium" tank (well speaking of carrier tanks - still larger then the tank of other ships) and the rest fitted for cap recharge
so you see - you allready have several choices to make.
IF you are not satisfied with that allready, then please please please make sure that if you do something like the proposed hangar module and so on - players can use it without additional training, cause i dont want the carrier which i just got for my alt (finishing training for the capital shield boost today...) to be worthless until i put even more training in it, its allready a frustrating long step from flying a non capital to flying a carrier.
I love CCP Morpheus<3 xXx CCP Morpheus xXx <3
|
Scorched Evil
The Silent Rage M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:03:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Skidblatnir It's so funny seeing all the people moaning the devs aren't playing enough when a couple of months ago they demanded they are forbidden to do so by death sentence.
You mean the devs we caught cheating? Those ones? Yeah they can **** off and go work for apple. The rest who seem to have a clue can get back to listening to the playerbase.
CYVOK > All you station jockies better get out their and start killing these idiots
|
Ms Tinker
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:03:00 -
[156]
Nice blog, it states the reasoning behind the change pretty well. Tho the solution should not be what was proposed in previous blog. Having logistical modules sounds pretty feasible. But like said, it's not a solopwnmobile at present either, without support it's a dead carrier.
As you say, you can make it with modules, I might think it this way: drone control units decrease efficiency of remote repairs and vice versa? Make a drone bandwidth module for the pilot to choose a drone/fighter type they want to use? Try to fix the small problems on this blog, not the whole role at once, let carrier have it's abilities.
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:04:00 -
[157]
Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 01:02:57
1 damp frig 2 damps = 15k lockrange chimera. add anotehr damp whooha = 9k lockrange!
I'm both a chimera pilot and a roaming gang PVPer. Enthusiastic about both roles, but I can tell you some things about my experience.
If I'm in my carrier, I'm either 100% safe (station/pos hugging) or I've got 2 dozen plus support and scouts. If youre bringing it into a small battle its too easy for your support to get wiped quickly and what did you gain for your 1bn investment? No point in risking a big ship for a couple kills vs a roaming gang. Plus if you do, they come back next time with damps, a cyno gen, and 10 dreads undocked in jumprange.
If I'm roaming, and we see a carrier, thats the next best thing to a mining op. Its like a frigging christmas present. We might worry about having enough DPS to break its tank, but we dont care one bit about fighters or drones it might put out, especially if we have damps (and most good roaming gangs do.)
A carrier alone is not a solopwnmobile. Its a sitting duck. Nerf it down to just fighters if you want, then you can make it a completely defenceless sitting duck, either way its going down anyway.
A friend of mine in a solo interceptor held a carrier for 20 minutes until his cap ran out. Wasnt the least bit worried about anything that carrier had. So much for the "pwns everything" theory. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:06:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Z'kario so 3 200k isk frigs dampening a 2 bil isk carrier to the point it can't defend itself is not good enough.
No. Carrier support will kill 3 frigs in less than 20 seconds.
|
Forty Three
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:07:00 -
[159]
While I didn't think the originally proposed change was particularly good (although I didn't think it was as catastrophic as people made it out to be), I just want to say that I think it's really *really* poor form what a lot of people here have been doing. Threatening the devs? Attacking them personally instead of using proper arguments? Please.
there are much better ways to convince the devs that the change they proposed is not healthy to the game than being total arsehats and threatening people...
oh, and at the people who accuse devs of not playing their own game, when probably about half of them were the same ones that a few months ago were WHINING that the devs got to play the game.
stop the hypocrisy please -----------------------------------------------
UNITY!!!
|
Treelox
Amarr Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:12:00 -
[160]
Originally by: "nozh" Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental.
{{{translation}}}
[with a small wave of his hand] "You don't need to see his identification
These aren't the droids you're looking for. "
---
Anyways on to the "constructive" part of my post........
Oh wait I dont have much more of anything to add here, all my objections were raised in the first thread. All this "new" devblog is a rehash of yesterdays ill thought out idea, with slightly less inflamitory language and a bit more sugarcoating, so my post in the first thread continues to apply to this one.
I do have one additional comment to this "newer friendly, but still full of it devblog".
Originally by: "CCP Nozh" In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it
So that huddle of carriers and moms that I see over on the other side of the POS from me arent refiting from their travel setup to their repper setup, or their DCU setup, or their UBER tank setup??
So Nozh I have a question for you, think about it, and get back to me.... "Why do you think that carriers are being used as the "swiss army knife of eve"? Is it due to lack of player imagination, or a limitation of how the mechanics work in the real world VS the idealic world of the CCP offices, or maybe because the "logistics" side of carriers is woefully borked?" --
|
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:32:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Gyle 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
+1 this is the carrier i want to see
goods ideas Gyle
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:34:00 -
[162]
More words, same refrain.
How the hell is a carrier the master of all trades?
You know what, forget it, whats the effing point. Have at CCP; nerf to your hearts content. |
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:41:00 -
[163]
Carriers are not the master of all trades and operating on this premise will produce sub-par results. They just have the benefit of starting with the single most useful in EVE - the longest range jump drive of any ship.
People have developed every other use for them from there.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:42:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Regaul Kinath Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...
The strike has already begun. Many of us have cancelled their accounts and are waiting to see if CCP gives us a reason to renew. So far even with this new blog they have not yet done so.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
humbleThC
Gallente The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:50:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Regaul Kinath Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...
The strike has already begun. Many of us have cancelled their accounts and are waiting to see if CCP gives us a reason to renew. So far even with this new blog they have not yet done so.
Z
Here's something anyone on any side of any war agree's on... CCP listen to us... or fear the wrath of loosing our dollar.
|
Jazmyne Lee
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:51:00 -
[166]
LOOK coming from someone who is starting to get sick of eve just a little. I have two char's skilled to fly carriors all level4 skills so i could have all but 2 fighters out per carrior all the fittings are the best i could find i have them fully outfitted in a 0.4 station AS I SAID TWO DAM CARRIORS and never left the station cos i still need a support ship to move dam thing i need to be friendly with 0.0 corp and on top of that 14mil a fighter. come on there good ships but still not a solo ship. also i was hoping level5 missions would need the carriors as support ships but again ****** NO!!!!!!! not happy guys i trained for carriors now i have to go back train a support ship to do level5's salfly DAM IT PLAY THE GAME YOU WRITE ABOUT.
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:52:00 -
[167]
Someone had a good point, make Drone Control Units to where they only allow more fighters, not more drones. Also, if you give every carrier another low slot, and add a module that is the SMA, that's fine. Maybe make the SMA and Corp Hangar both require separate modules, and only give us 1 slot. You've got soo many options.
The main thing is that you balance the carrier while not nerfing any one aspect. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Mindlles
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:54:00 -
[168]
Yeah offcurse carrier is abit off a swiss knife, have to agree on that. But is it as powerfull in the diffrent sections as u say, no. Well maybe the hauling bit :/.
Sure 80 carriers toghter is a nasty tought, but so is 80 bs, or 80 intys. Tho u can meet 80 carriers with 80 carriers, just as u can meet 80 bs with 80 bs...... So no bigger diffrence there.
Do they do alot off dmg? Yeah 5 carriers toghter is nice dmg, if something gets close enough to be locked down by some off eves most slow ship. Can they tho work good as a logistic group with some firepower ? Oh yeah. But they are best when it comes to kill other captials. A group off 5 carriers toghter with skill pilots can be hard to kill with a group off 20. But at the same time that group off 20 "smaller ships" can easly kill does 5 carriers if they know what they do. Pick them off one by one, and kick their arse while keeping them loocked down.
May i ask why this need so much attantion when u still havent delt with ppl exploting logg off mechanics, "even in the worst pvp mmorpg ever - WOW - u cant save ursefl by logging off". And why have u not delt with ravens cloaking in belts. We all know most battleship pilots with cloaks are isk farmers annyway?.
I cant help my self from standing with my jaws in the floor and wondering if ur even in this game, i been around since beta and some off the biggest problems in eve is not delt with, but some **** problems that have started to occure now becouse one group is good at using it, and one is worthless. Has to be delt with right away..
Eve is a cold hars place someone said,, i tought in this cold harsh place the skilled pilot surive, and the guy without anny imagination, displine die. Isnt that what have made all us vets played the game for such a long time?
So far the changes towards carriers have been great "at realse they where abit to easy to use". Just a fact off not letting carriers realse drones in side pos shilds have caused extrem amount off carriers deaths.
As u understand by now, i have a hard time agreeing with u how good this ships are.. Specilly not when my corp kills them on regular basic with commands, bs, and nano groups???
Or is this just another proof that u guys are really bad in this game? Or is it the fact that u are just implenting another thing to make the game even more in easy mode for all does masses who dont use their heads when they play?
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:02:00 -
[169]
I still don't know what you guys want a carrier to do during a fleet op.
Logistics is a rather broad term... You want them repping other ships? If so then why does it take ages to lock anything? You want them on the front lines assigning fighters? If so don't you think they either need to become a lot cheaper/less skills required or A LOT thougher to kill? You want them to sit at a safespot assigning fighters to others? Yeah that sounds usefull and fun to do.
Wouldn't it be better to implement ships that can better counter cap ships? For example boosting dreads so they can tear through them without going into siege mode?
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Merrick Solipsus
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:12:00 -
[170]
I havent read all the pages here so this may have been covered but I wanted to add something about the blog.
In it, you say you want to change it so Carriers are not as effective against small ships. I can understand this however want to point out that the 25+ second locktime is already a large "penalty".
Shortly after you say youre looking at tracking on Fighters and drones. I am guessing this means you want to lower the tracking so they cant hit small things very well.
I understand the reasoning but would like to point out that fighters already have a very hard time hitting anything smaller than a battlecruiser. As for other drones, Im worried that if you change them because of carriers you will be severely hurting all other ships that depend heavily on drones.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:15:00 -
[171]
So how about this... if you don't want them to be OH-so-versatile and stuff:
* can ONLY launch fighters * can only control a maximum of 5 * [1 + (ships_in_fleet/carriers_in_fleet)] fighters
This way, you make them COMPLETELY vulnerable to small ships (so you NEED to bring smaller support with you) *and* you can only launch as many as you could have normally delegated anyway.
Fixes ALL of the things that this ridiculously initially proposed change tried to, and even nerfs them a bit more, but at least it retains their FEASABILITY. Because once you make it dependant on assigning, you're opening up to lagtasticity, and it's all downhill from there. _
1|2|3 |
Shigawahhhhh
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:22:00 -
[172]
I still don't like the idea of having to have fleet members just to lunch fighters...imagine if you said to a dread pilot that (s)he had to have a fleet member for each gun. They would just look at you and laugh. This is in reply to the person above this post not the blog itself as thats not what the blog was suggesting.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:24:00 -
[173]
The blog itself is ******** because there is nothing objectively wrong with carriers, as far as can be presently discerned. There is a major issue with lag and the effectiveness of drones in it.
You can't balance carriers when we in fact have no idea about how they actually work or how hard they are to fight against.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:28:00 -
[174]
Although I was flaming CCP for past 2 days, I am at least satisfied that they've explained what bothers them now. I don't really like them nerfing carriers, but I can understand it.
Minor detail which everyone seems to ignore: There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play
A carrier is not overpowered nor is a solopwnmobile. And it is easy to kill.
However, 50 carriers in a gang are overpowered. We're nearing the stage where you end up having more carriers in a gang, than support ships. And that is not good for the game. And it's only going to get worse.
Before making any carrier nerfs, though, CCP has to fix the lag problems. Because, nerf like this would kill carriers totally, if lag isn't fixed.
If this is CCP's attempt to "fix" lag, then we can only laugh.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:29:00 -
[175]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47
Good Morning All.
I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.
One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.
We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.
Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?
Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?
Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?
These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.
Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice.
"Tux did it!" |
|
Khan Soriano
Beyond Divinity Inc Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:32:00 -
[176]
I just can't find another word that best describes CCP without using some massive curse words, so I'd have to go with idiots & cowards.
After the carrier/ms devblog a bunch of people start whining about their UBERWTFPWNZORMOBILES being straightened to fit a role that they were designed to do!!! What is the reaction of CCP? Immediately issue a second devblog in which they appologise to people flying carriers (abusers totally ruining this game for everyone else) and then they retract the changes they thought of (I think it was a great change to force them into logistic, fleet support) and delay any nerf by 3 months!!!
But when people are whining about Amarr being UTTER CRAP nothing happens for over a year. This is despite promising OMPH (well we got a little with Khanid but thats like 5 ships out of 30), repeated promises about finding a role for the whole race (as currently it lost its guns&tanks to Gallente) and ships (APOC!!!).
So basicly when you've got a ship thats completely unworthy of flying, you have to wait 1+ years for something to happen. But when you have a SOLO-GROUP-WHATEVER-YOU-NAME-IT-PWNMOBILE then you can be damn sure CCP will do all it takes so that you will preserve your UBERNESS a lot longer.
CCP you are clearly understaffed in terms of creative&thinking departament maybe its time to do something about it? If you can't hire people with this characteristic maybe its time to use some of your playerbase ideas, I'm sure nobody will mind if in the end they'll get a better, balanced game. ----- Arbitrator - Life & Death |
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:36:00 -
[177]
Rather nice blog filling in the 'why' part mostly missing from the previous one. It just might work out.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:36:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 24/10/2007 07:41:21 Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 24/10/2007 07:40:34
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice.
- Carrier pilots must be able to 'preassign' fighters, so when they cyno in and launch fighters, fighters automatically follow the controlling pilot. Otherwise, anyone cynoing into big battle will be useless.
- Make it possible for carrier pilots to be able to control full number of fighters. But, make them sacrifice high slots to be able to do that. Fill all high slots with modules that allow you to control 12 fighters = no smartbombs, no repping, etc.
- If carrier wants to fit for repping (POSes, gangmates, etc), make it impossible to control many fighters.
- Even if number of fighters that can be controlled will obviuosly be limited, let carriers control full number of drones, which their skills allow.
- You want a carrier to be more like a 'real world' carrier? Fine. Allow carrier to choose X number of ships of certain class that can jump (bridge ;) through cyno with him. Frig/destroyer/cruiser class, for example - so carrier can at least have some support when he jumps out through cyno, as opposed to being a sitting duck as it is now.
- FIX THE LAG
|
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:38:00 -
[179]
Quote: No ship in EVE should be the ôend gameö vessel, but that's what we feel we've got now. There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play, a vessel which can be everything you want it to be (which is part of the problem) without having to fit for the occasion.
/me reminds you about Moros vs Carrier results in carrier carcass.
So is the dread the endgame ship? (rhetorical). I know the devs mean well, I might spend a lot of time chuckling about the mixxed intentions in the EULA, but if you truely want to keep the game fun, then make sure that the rewards for true effort and long term planning dont go up in smoke as the result turns out to be a co-dependant useless wretched mass of spacefareing steel.
You want to weaken them a bit? Don't bother. It'll make people mad. But if you wanna tone em down in the scale of things try for the Dragon Ball Z effect (much like a sphere of soap made of many old bars of soap). Just tack on something else into the game that specializes in taking those ships out.
hint: just so you dont have to nerf ANYTHING on the mothership and still address the problem of them just waving / jumping away; try a stealth neut ship that can neut enough cap to kill the ability to jump while completely disabling its own offensive.
|
Mindlles
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:38:00 -
[180]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47
Good Morning All.
I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.
One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.
We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.
Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?
Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?
Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?
These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.
Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice.
Do me a favour, go focuse on some more importen problems in eve - like logging off to save ur ship witch is still a big problem, as said before in my post wow the worst mmorpg pvp game have better system for this then eve-online that are suppose to be the top pvp mmorpg.
Deal with the cloaking problems on battleships?
Deal with the sovernity problems, "yeah poses and sovernity has just made the game more easy and more laggy".
Or are u magicly playing this game and missing does problems? And only reading numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |