Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:52:00 -
[511]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 10/11/2007 01:53:05 Thank you, CCP, for continuing to ignore the very real concerns of your customers.
Amusing how my anti-carrier-nerf sig got "modded," yet they still work for others. signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 06:13:00 -
[512]
There were quite a few awnsers to the carrier question, and a *lot* of awnsers to other Trinity stuff in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=2
Perhaps not entireley the awnsers we were looking for but well worth the read.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 15:15:00 -
[513]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Alski Re-reading what I wrote before, about CCP being unaware of just how much of a pain in the ass POS logistics are, I think I might have been wrong, and you (Kerfira) came up with an interesting questionà
Originally by: Kerfira
I'm not going that far, but the jump-freighters does mess up the picture..... I can see what CCP tries to accomplish (or at least what I think is what they try to accomplish), and I agree fully on that purpose.
See IÆm not sure that CCP actually knows what its trying to accomplish!
From what I've read and deduced, I think this is what they're trying to do: 1. Resources that are present in 0.0 should be harvested in 0.0, not imported from empire. This mainly goes for low-end minerals and fuel isotopes. 2. 0.0 empires should shrink (dramatically) in size. 3. Current PvP-centric alliances must bite the bullet and invite other player types to live in 0.0.
Most of the nerfs is placed well in this picture, except that the implementation of the jump-freighter and the Rorqual messes it up a bit. Alliances will also need access to all 4 ice types in 0.0, which means more ice fields, and the ice fields containing all 4 types of fuel. There'll also be a need for some access to the other POS fuel components (possibly by making the available in NPC stations and some/all types of outposts)...
I think this scenario makes for a more interesting and lively 0.0 than what we see today.
I would agree with your guess work on point 1 that this may well be an intended goal of CCP.
However IÆm surprised that you included points 2 and 3 which if you havenÆt noticed are in actual fact contradictory.
In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The interesting thing about this observation is that the same types of contradictory observations are being made by many of the community with many of the changes presented to us in Blog and on SiSi.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 18:49:00 -
[514]
Originally by: ER0X In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The "number of members" size is not the same as the "number of systems controlled" size.
That is, the points there would mean a 0.0 alliance should utilize all the resources in their territory before it needs to grow: One person per 4 belts in a system ratting and one miner per belt mining in the least before conquering another system. Right now, the alliances have vast expanses of space with empty systems that are still "controlled." My guess is that that is intended to change.
|
bobtheminer
Damned Legion
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:40:00 -
[515]
Edited by: bobtheminer on 18/11/2007 19:43:36 their is 1 problem with space though, vast tracks of it are useless though, the entire pureblind region bar about 2 systems has shocking sec status and ore no better than empire, similar problems with most space, yes their are really good systems but like agents every 1 gravitates towards them, and while some ppl would argue 0.0 is safer than empire/lowsec considerable effort goes into living out their,
im woundering if it would be such a bad thing even just to increase the number of belts in 0.0 systems, just to make the "real estate" clamed better able to fullfill an alliances needs
id argue a possible better general sec status for 0.0 would be called for but i dare say that would be very hard to balance and possibaly make 0.0 too profitable
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:45:00 -
[516]
WTF!
I mean WTF!
Did i mention WTF?
Seriously WTF!
Ok u get the point how stupid is CCP. Not only have they nerfed so many parts of the game over the last year and pised so many ppl off in the process and knowing damn well they are annoying the crp out of the eve community they continue to make the most insane nerfs.
I know i know forum whiners unite and all that crp but serious if trinity is just a new gfx and plenty o nerfs then i really cant wait for my Crysis game to arrive in the post so i can finally abandon playing this downhill game as ive spent most of my time training for a ship which had purposes fitting to what "WE" needed then we find out its getting revoked and at compensation for this is more training to compensate for our loss.
IF IT AINT BROKEN DONT FKING FIX IT!!!!!
The sooner you realize this CCP u will have half the braincell you need to keep your paying customers happy and the other half is making new blinky gfx to keep ppl happy and bring in more money for your company.
Well my whine and 2C
Regards
Muff
|
Agif
Templar Republic R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 20:39:00 -
[517]
Edited by: Agif on 18/11/2007 20:41:22
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carrier != Hauler
Ships will be allowed to carry ammo in their cargo hold even while inside a ship maintenance bay. As it stands now carriers have a ship maintenance bay of 1m on Sisi. Nothing on Sisi is ever final. Please provide constructive feedback with minimal misinformation and speculation where possible.
I reiterate:
Carrier != Hauler
Ah now i see where the narrow mindedness of eve is spawn from. You give the most biased answer to our questions and try to make a witty comment and mb even consider you as a troll to this thread for it.
Can we get someone from CCP who will actually comment on this thread with some intelligence other than STFO?
So if you truly speak for the company and say the nerf is because the carrier is being used as a hauler, well your no further from the truth but is this nerf justified with the T2 Freighter thats coming?
The answer is simple - NO! NO! NO!
The fact that it is more profitable to use a t2 freighter in logistics to 0.0 star bases is completely true so why do you need to nerf it? I mean if its more cost affective then most will cross train and others will choose not to but hey thats the word we were as the players wanting to have the right to "CHOOSE"
I say CCP sell to another company who will listen to there player base like blizzard or Microsoft as you no longer take our views into consideration...
Ever consider holding voting polls/surveys..... No you just act on a few whiners and ignore the majority as usual.
Sorry for double post but the more i read this thread the more it fraks me off.
|
Lanscaper
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 02:43:00 -
[518]
Well, i just haven't got the time to read all this topic from the beginning (it's fu**ing HUGE :P), but i don't see any player who agrees to this carrier nerf... I mean, do CCP want to make all Alliance's hauling ops in 0.0 to collapse?
Maybe i'm repeating something already said thousands of times in this topic, but perseverance is good to make the difference when so many ppl agree to the same matter.
1. If CCP introduces the carrier nerf in the same time in which introduces the jump freighters, there will be a huge mess everywhere in eve... So many players have skilled carrier to provide resources in their 0.0 systems, at least it would be "reasonable" to postpone the carrier nerf to let players skill for the jump freighters.
2. Jump freighters don't have the same jump range of carriers, which means: if your ally is in a region in which the empire's nearest system is out of jump freighter's range, the hauler will have to make a waypoint system in the middle of the route, which will probably be an hostile system, so just use some imagination...
This means that even if the carrier nerf is postponed, using the jump freighters will surely complicate 0.0 hauling a lot!
I simply don't get the point. Everything just went fine until now, why this nerf? I can just "understand" a nerf like the one on the nosferatu, some players cried for their blown ships caused by a nos fitted ship... So in that case i imagine that many players were happy for this (not me, i wanted to shut down their ships :P). In the case of the carrier nerf, NO-ONE will be happy for it. It only gives us a HUGE problem to deal with, and no-one will take advantages for that but those full-invention-skilled-and-rich players who will surely SPECULATE a lot when they begin to produce jump freighters (i just can't imagine the prices for the first months!!!).
Now, speaking of real money... CCP earns money from players, so they should have to listen to them and make the game balanced and satisfying. This nerf goes completely against this simple fact.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.24 02:56:00 -
[519]
The comment that "jump bridges are making logistics too easy" is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be a fulltime job to keep towers in deep 0.0 fueled.
As it is, there are people in every alliance who log in, see the DED fuel messages (of which we still get two copies every single time for over SIX ******* MONTHS NOW), and their hearts sink because they're not going to get to cruise around and enjoy themselves because they've got to spend their online time hauling fuel.
CCP, most of us already have jobs. We play Eve to get away from them.
Nerfing logistics is just insanely cruel to your customers.
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- I've emailed 3 times now. No answer. |
TOPSTER
Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 14:01:00 -
[520]
what ****es me off most about this carrier nerf is not that the nerf is so bad but that i would have NEVER have trained for a carrier (which mostly sucks in a combat role) if i would have known they were nerfing their logistics capacity. Thanks for ******* my wallet and training time over CCP.
_______________ MK2 |
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.25 23:06:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Raketefrau The comment that "jump bridges are making logistics too easy" is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be a fulltime job to keep towers in deep 0.0 fueled.
As it is, there are people in every alliance who log in, see the DED fuel messages (of which we still get two copies every single time for over SIX ******* MONTHS NOW), and their hearts sink because they're not going to get to cruise around and enjoy themselves because they've got to spend their online time hauling fuel.
CCP, most of us already have jobs. We play Eve to get away from them.
Nerfing logistics is just insanely cruel to your customers.
This seems to be the general consensus of the eve community as a whole unless I missed a few posts from those who actually enjoy the masochistic tedium that is the care & feeding of POSs.
So how about it devs...take this abortion of an idea and scrap it. No one wants it. Dreads will be used once again as the preferred 0.0 logistics ship. How dreads are considered more appropriate than carriers as a logistic platform is yet another theory that is beyond my comprehension.
|
Darth Sylar
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 12:09:00 -
[522]
Now, not wishing to tempt fate, but are they going to nerf Dreadnoughts too?
You take away the carriers ability to carry one fully laden decent industrial plus other ship(s) and all that will happen is the Dreadnoght will step up as the most sensible alternative, kitted out with cargo expanders, and if anyone is insane enough, cargo rigs. The Revelation Dread could get near 100km3 cargo capacity with cans in the hold. The possible nerf I've heard here is to make specific cargo holds for Stront, Isotope, Ammo, Charges etc (madness!)
I speak as a small Alliance member who needs jump capable logistics vessels for POS, and although the new Jump Freighter sounds lovely, it will be way out of our reach for quite some time.
Are CCP going to nerf every ship that we use not as they intended? The mining barge or hauler able to fit warp scramblers to bait pirates with? The interceptor or covert ops as a fast courier ship for expensive BPOs and other small goods? The Battlecruiser as an all around combat vehicle capable of taking on Capital Ships, POS, BS and Frigs (or was that intended?), a Hulk for ice mining (surely that's a Mackinaws job! Mr Union rep!), etc etc
We have trained long and hard for our Carriers with the aim of using them as Logistics ships (what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!), and they cost us a small fortune. We are not combat oriented, so they will become v expensive white elephants for us if they insist on nerfing them!
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 00:41:00 -
[523]
The one thing I'm sick of hearing from all my alliance mates is, "Man, I wish I could spend more time fueling POSes."
Really CCP, why would you take what is easily THE most tedious part of your game, and force us to do more of it?
Making jump freighters isn't going to lessen that load any - because of the reduced jump range, we're going to need MORE towers for the cynonets.
Let us carry some piles of fuel in our carriers.
Why you gotta **** on our party?
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- I've emailed 3 times now. No answer. |
Vrenth
Gallente 23rd Armor Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 01:31:00 -
[524]
This thread is made of fail and lulz...
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 05:54:00 -
[525]
Originally by: Vrenth This thread is made of fail and lulz...
Of which you would be the expert on since your entire existence is based upon it.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 22:13:00 -
[526]
Well, it was all for ****. Like the last carrier logistics nerf, it got in regardless.
Patchnotes
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:15:00 -
[527]
Originally by: Druadan Well, it was all for ****. Like the last carrier logistics nerf, it got in regardless.
Patchnotes
Actually no. This thread DID make them correct the one thing that was wrong with this change.
Originally by: Pathnotes It will no longer be possible to use the cargohold of a ship stored in a ship maintenance array for additional storage. Only charges will be storable.
As long as charges are storable, this is a good change for the game.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:19:00 -
[528]
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:39:00 -
[529]
Originally by: ER0X
Originally by: Kerfira My post
I would agree with your guess work on point 1 that this may well be an intended goal of CCP.
However IÆm surprised that you included points 2 and 3 which if you havenÆt noticed are in actual fact contradictory.
In what way would the invitation to swell the ranks of established Alliances/Corps with æother typesÆ of players be conducive to æshrinking dramaticallyÆ the size of these already established Alliances/Corps?
The interesting thing about this observation is that the same types of contradictory observations are being made by many of the community with many of the changes presented to us in Blog and on SiSi.
Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.
I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using! The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.
This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Minmatar Citizen 4521577
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:34:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Uh. Carriers haul stuff, like fuel, you know? IRL.
|
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 16:13:00 -
[531]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 29/11/2007 16:13:38 It looks like they really are going live with this crap. I would really love to hear from CCP about why they are so dead set on making a change that makes their game less fun. Is it really just because hauling was not the "intended role" of the carrier as they have said before?
Listen to this and dozens of other posts Devs! Your logistics game is a grind and NOT FUN. This change makes it even more of a grind and LESS FUN. I read a Dev post where he said carriers make logistics too easy. I'm fine with logistics being more difficult; challenge is fun. I'm not fine with logistics being more tedious which is not fun.
Allow jump freighters and other logistics solutions to mature before you nerf carriers or better yet, just make them better solutions and watch carriers slowly cease to be used as haulers.
Trinity: The best content release ever, completely overshadowed by the worst nerfs ever. |
mamolian
Madhatters Inc. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 19:19:00 -
[532]
Surprised this is going live to be honest.. this change with Carriers and Motherships is really after destroying my will to play.. and certainly altered my skill training plans for the next year.
I'm a grown man now unfortunately I can't get away with whining Guess its a case of work around it or quit.
-------------------------------
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:26:00 -
[533]
Originally by: Kerfira Sorry for not answering before, but I've been busy RL.
I don't really see them as contradictory. The density in people per system would go up, and I don't think anyone (CCP, me, anyone...) minds alliances/corps claiming territory that they're using! The thing that needs nerfing is them claiming territory they AREN'T using, since that space could be used by corp/alliances that were willing to do so, but can't because <big alliance> is claiming it.
This'll help a bit, and the compression nerf will help some more. I don't think it's enough, but every little bit helps.
Too bad that the Jump Freighters shoot a hole in this entire argument. All it will do is allow the super-rich alliances to keep logistics at the status quo they're at right now and make it difficult to near-impossible for any smaller alliance to claim space unless they get help from the bigger alliances. Bigger alliances will still have POS fuel, trit and manageable logistics two months after Trinity when they get their hands on Jump Freighters: the smaller alliances (e.g: drone regions) will probably not be able to afford it.
The nerf to carrier logistics ranges from a pain in the ass to a mild annoyance to bigger alliances, and a death sentence to smaller alliances. Your whole "NERF THE BIG ALLIANCES" speech was inspiring, though, but unfortunately you're entirely off the mark!
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:06:00 -
[534]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:17:00 -
[535]
Originally by: infinityshok
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Darth Sylar ...what is a bleeding carrier if not a logistics ship? it has no primary weapon for god's sake!
Try walking up the the captain of the USS Nimitz and tell him his ship is a logistics ship. My guess is you'll get a fist in the face...
A carrier is a COMBAT ship! Not a bloody hauler!
Come up with an analogy that has some vague relevance. When was the last time you saw an aircraft carrier warping around outer space in a far off galaxy.
The reason for people bringing this analogy to the table is that so many posters use the logic:
carrier=carries stuff=hauler
Which is just not true, carriers are combat ships that carry mostly what they need to support their own combat ability. This should also hold true for carriers in eve, they are combat ships that were always meant to be used for combat logistics as opposed to POS fueling logistics. In my previous post on page 18 I explained how logistics for large scale POS networks are being moved over to ships that are less geared toward combat tasks. They will need combat support, and carriers will still be very useful in that role.
|
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:44:00 -
[536]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 29/11/2007 21:45:48
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Carriers now have the ability to transport up to two battleships fully combat ready, that includes ammo, in their massively upgraded ship maintenance bays. They lost the ability to be fully combat ready haulers instead. Where is the nerf?
I get the feeling the majority of the people posting here do not check their facts, I am still seeing people on page 18 claim that ammo will not be allowed in ships stored in the ship maintenance bays. Jump freighters will not take that long for people to train for and on top of that there is already a jump capable industrial ship on TQ that has a rather nice cargohold (please check these facts on Singularity before commenting on them) so all in all the changes being made are:
a) Combat ships are being made more combat related b) Industrial ships are being made more important in the logistics of running a large POS network
It is true that many alliances now count on carriers for logistics work, it is not true that the coming patch will completely cripple alliances that run large logistics networks.
The nerf is in that you are are making logistics more of a grind without giving replacements a chance to mature. On top of this, the expanded ship bays are hardly a replacement for the loss of cargo capacity.
Rorquals are still so rare at this point that the construction of one is news. There are hardly enough in place to replace carriers.
While its true that the skill requirements for Jump freighters are now reasonable, the build requirements are not so they will be useful only to the largest alliances for months. Also, I see your claim that the patch will not cripple logistics networks and you may be right. With enough griding, spending many hours running freighters and industrial ships alliances should be able to make up for the loss of carriers. Id love to hear you explain how this is a good thing.
The only reason for this nerf I can come up with is some irrational attachment the Devs have to making carriers pure combat ships. Let them become obsolete as haulers, a nerf isnt needed.
Trinity: The best content release ever, completely overshadowed by the worst nerfs ever. |
bobtheminer
Seven. Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:45:00 -
[537]
have the gal bs's been looked at or is it intentional that u can only move 1 gal bs at a time as the mega certainly and i belive the hyp are over 500k each, where as other races bs's are under 500k each
|
Cassius Yaoma
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:32:00 -
[538]
Yes, carriers are haulers. But not in the industrial sense. They haul war supplies/ships/persons into battle. They also repair ships and provide intel. IMO, this change is a step in the right direction, but still not perfect.
The thing that differs between carriers in game and carrier irl is that you cannot dock at a carrier and it take you where you need to go, and then you undock. I would LOVE to see this change. Have carriers be able to be able to haul fuel, ammo, guns, extra ships. And let people be able to dock at moms to be cyno'd to whereever.
As far as the fighter "nerf". I don't see a problem with it. You can still put out just as many fighters, you just need people there with you.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:35:00 -
[539]
There is no fighter nerf, that was simply a suggested solution to the fact that carriers were in essence combat ready haulers. Instead we are removing the hauling ability from them and adding more combat logistics power.
|
|
Natalie Jax
Battlestars
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:57:00 -
[540]
I'm still a bit baffled by the fact that you are allowing ships in the maintenance arrays to carry ammunition but nothing else. So for some reason a ship containing explosives is A-OK but a ship containing soil is not? Wait, what? Usually y'all are consistent with metagaming logic, this one is just way off the mark.
BTW, kudo's to Gangleri for posting CCP's opinions on the matter, too often of late all we get are generalities and vauge promises that "we know what we're doing just trust us" without any insight into the logic behind things. Even if I disagree with the reason for something I much prefer knowing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |