Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Hurtado Soneka
Stronghelm Corporation Solyaris Chtonium
266
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:18:31 -
[691] - Quote
WTF with the rocket damage nerf? Absolute massive drop. CCP get a grip.
Also to a lesser extent, nerfing cap shield modules because of passive regen? HUH???
Rollback this nonsense immediately, ffs. |

Dirk Stetille
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:19:37 -
[692] - Quote
This nerf? Bad idea. Carriers just became useless at hitting small stuff, which makes them almost completely useless in general. No PvE for carrier pilots, and PvP is relegated to BS and below, cause there's no way they can stand up to dreads now. |

ApolloF117 HUN
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
39
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:21:40 -
[693] - Quote
I think i got what the problem is, CCP devs got some lessons from WG devs how to **** with the playerbase 
|

Hurtado Soneka
Stronghelm Corporation Solyaris Chtonium
266
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:23:09 -
[694] - Quote
Also wtf is our daily 10k sp? that been binned as well? |

Robertina Palazzo
33
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:24:04 -
[695] - Quote
Dirk Stetille wrote:This nerf? Bad idea. Carriers just became useless at hitting small stuff, which makes them almost completely useless in general. No PvE for carrier pilots, and PvP is relegated to BS and below, cause there's no way they can stand up to dreads now.
hey dreads have haw weapons.
Just remind people who ***** about "carriers shouldnt kill subcaps" of this fact and watch them shut up immediately. |

Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
288
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:29:35 -
[696] - Quote
the damage application nerf to missiles is too extreme. put it some where in the middle. the alpha vs # missiles we can live with, but that application means they dont even hit battle ships for full damage anymore. so please, change the exp rad to 200. its enough to make them not alpha ceptors but enough to not be helpless against them. |

Blusa Annages
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:33:24 -
[697] - Quote
Especially since carriers cant use drones only fighters, you dont really have any more options for protection from small ****. Yes instapoping ceptors was to much, but its just ridiculous now . |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
155
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:49:19 -
[698] - Quote
Marcin Ichinumi wrote:Too Much Fighter nerf! Too Much Fighter nerf! |

Halina Halinawino
Vodka Is Primary Southern Sitizens
3
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:55:58 -
[699] - Quote
Once again some brilliant mathematician from CCP is trying to convince me that after this patch Carriers will still be awesome. They were awsome for the entire month. So many players have invested bilions of ISK because they were promised that buing a carrier will finally be a smart move and now they just nerfed them to the ground. We all paid for "porsche" and now we are left with "fiat". CCP is probably extremly happy with all the injectors they sold but now it is time to give all that money back to the players. Last thing - maybe instead of making those "brilliant" changes you could work on ingame browser or some other useful stuff ? |

Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3061
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:58:06 -
[700] - Quote
I see the patch day crowd has arrived... |
|

Kelly Riley
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:03:08 -
[701] - Quote
Too much Fighter Nerf |

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1039
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:11:05 -
[702] - Quote
Robertina Palazzo wrote:Dirk Stetille wrote:This nerf? Bad idea. Carriers just became useless at hitting small stuff, which makes them almost completely useless in general. No PvE for carrier pilots, and PvP is relegated to BS and below, cause there's no way they can stand up to dreads now. hey dreads have haw weapons. Just remind people who ***** about "carriers shouldnt kill subcaps" of this fact and watch them shut up immediately.
Yeah but no one moans about HAW, because they don't apply well to small things. I.E. the zeitgeist is that anything is OK if it only decimates battleships, because no one flies battleships. Which is in itself strange, as Battleships didn't need another thing on a rather long grocery list of why no one flies them.
Welcome to EvE, where its okay that small things are functionally immune to large things, but large things are hobbled, humbled, ineffective, and quite frankly worthless against small things. Hence, we only get people flying small things, and the Svipul remains the top ship in the game for a two year period.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
156
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:20:30 -
[703] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:... and the Svipul remains the top ship in the game for a two year period. The Svipul has only existed for 16 months. |

Jack Colfield
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:21:24 -
[704] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Marcin Ichinumi wrote:Too Much Fighter nerf! Too Much Fighter nerf!
Too Much Fighter nerf! |

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1041
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:26:51 -
[705] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:... and the Svipul remains the top ship in the game for a two year period. The Svipul has only existed for 16 months. Yeah because 2 more or 2 less months of playing Svipuls online really changes the nature of the reactionary and biased balancing that this threat has really become to be about.
Every other part of CCP gets that change keeps the game fresh. Every other facet has improved by leaps and bounds for the past year, but the ship balancing people just ruminate about the golden age of nano, and never want to make the game fresh and exciting again. No one will smack talk AegisSov now; months after entire oceans of complaints and anger over it, most people have come to accept it as a force of good.
...But they won't even give carriers the chance. 
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|

ApolloF117 HUN
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
44
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:33:49 -
[706] - Quote
k , if Hyde not doing anytihng then i give you the idea, now that you nerfed the heavy "rocket" (citadel cruise missile) salvo to a level that can't be used unless the target is webed by a vindicator, make the fighters use the carrier pilot Missile Operation skills,programing much? |

Nikel Ivanovich
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:42:14 -
[707] - Quote
give the carriers something to enable them to be called the capital. the distance of the jump? lot armor shield? dps? many drones? remove useless buttons F3. for what it's ridicule
do the developers not understand that to play in a T1 cruiser I can free the first 14 days. why would so humiliate the ships for which it is necessary many days of subscription? |

mgr71 Dragon
Vodka Is Primary Southern Sitizens
6
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:49:09 -
[708] - Quote
Nikel Ivanovich wrote:give the carriers something to enable them to be called the capital. the distance of the jump? lot armor shield? dps? many drones? remove useless buttons F3. for what it's ridicule
do the developers not understand that to play in a T1 cruiser I can free the first 14 days. why would so humiliate the ships for which it is necessary many days of subscription?
Not even days - you need MONTHS to fly capital class ship.... |

Cade Windstalker
460
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 15:59:46 -
[709] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Carriers are 100% fine as they are and CCP are catering to crybabies. Not taking it back. The balance team really needs to try and embrace playstyles and philosophies that are sophisticated and complex, not nano conquers all, always.
.........
It's nauseating to think that carriers, which have shaken the meta and been as brisk, enervating, and effervescent as a good breath mint are being tossed in the rubbish bin, but the Svipul, which has had a far greater, sustained effect on ruining diversity and the meta, is unchallenged, and unchanged. EvE is largely fun due to the depth and breath of the ships in the game: gutting carriers like this is basically draining the lake of the rich pvp ecosystem, and replacing it with a toxic svipul factory.
Grrr balance.
Trimmed for post length. Probably going to bow out of this thread since the changes have dropped. Pleasure discussing this with you though, even if we don't see eye to eye.
I guess the biggest reason I disagree here is because I see a lot of the same arguments being used against Svipuls applying to the initial Citadel release of a Carrier. While an organized group, with a specialized fleet comp, and experienced pilots can certainly hunt down and kill solo Carriers under the old changes anyone outside of those groups kind of ends up as camping-Carrier fodder. Solo players, roaming gangs not equipped for Carrier killing, and people trying to PvE in Low and Null who previously would have been hunted by those other groups all just sort of die to a solo-camping-Carrier on a gate. How is that not just as easy of a kill as the kiting Svipul who can just run away from anything he can't easily tackle and kill?
I'm not saying I think Svipuls are good for the game, quite the opposite, but I think any counters to them should come from within the sub-cap meta and not from Capitals, and especially not at the expense of a lot of other types of PvP.
The reason I think Svipuls haven't been balanced yet, while Carriers are getting significant swinging changes, is because Svipuls (and a lot of smaller ships in general) are down in a much more crowded meta-space, where if something gets nerfed too hard it doesn't so much solve the problem as just transfer it onto the next best thing. We saw this was AFs when the T3Ds came out, so finding a place where T3Ds and AFs are both useful and fun to fly is a lot trickier than jiggling around Carriers until they get to a pretty good place, because Carriers are doing something unique up at the top end of the spectrum and there's a ton of room between Battleships, Dreads, and Supers that they can occupy without stepping on toes.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Stuff and things
Not really a lot I can say here. You're pretty clearly salty and you're certainly not being terribly respectful. Also if "pedantic" isn't an insult I'm not sure what meets your definition of the term...
Anyways, you don't need a huge sample size to get an indication of where things are heading. From there you can test, look at where things are likely to go, and make a decision. If I had to guess CCP probably didn't have a lot of hard fleet data to go off of, but they did have the CSM and a lot of in-house Capital pilots and FCs and went "uh, we may have made these things too strong..." and decided to nerf them before people spent trillions of ISK on new fleet doctrines.
That's all speculation though, just like most of your post about the potential outcome of these changes.
Also for reference releasing beta features is perfectly professional and becoming more and more common in Software and Game Development as the importance of early and through user-feedback from real-world use-cases becomes more recognized. As long as you aren't forced to use a beta feature then there's nothing unprofessional about including them in a production product release.
Lastly it's kind of interesting to contrast your feedback and Vic's. You're both reacting negatively but Vic seems to think these changes will be good for Nano-gangs, while you seem to think Carriers with support will still wreck them. Personally I think Vic has a better case for his speculation than you do, but that's me.
Saleya Blackheart wrote:I know your post was some time ago but please bear with me.
This is bad reasoning. If carriers are supposed to be anti-fighter crafts, how would they be able to hit fighters at all if (in your opinion) they should just be able to hit slow moving battleships? You are contradicting yourself.
The main attack still applies fine to Fighters (better than it used to, actually), and there is also a second set of Light Fighters (which weren't touched by these changes) that have an attack specifically for killing other Fighters which isn't terribly effective vs actual ships.
Robertina Palazzo wrote:solopwnmobiles generally win vs equal firepower.
and an isd removed a post when i pointed this out(lol), but HAW weapons and light fighters are indeed meant to combat subcaps. Period. That is their sole reason for existence (and sorry mr isd for pointing this out again, but it's the blooming truth).
PS tldr; HAW weapons are made for smaller targets. So are light fighters. They are easily countered by minimal effort and that's something that shouldn't be bitched into nerfs, but played around like every other tactic
HAWs are a lot easier to counter, and have a lot more counters, than Light Fighters nuking small ships off the grid easily and effortlessly.
If you don't want posts getting removed then read and apply the forum rules...  |

Robertina Palazzo
36
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:11:48 -
[710] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:HAWs are a lot easier to counter, and have a lot more counters, than Light Fighters nuking small ships off the grid easily and effortlessly. If you don't want posts getting removed then read and apply the forum rules... 
Quote was removed for "negative rant" because i said haw weapons were designed for subcaps. Indeed....They were designed for subcaps Deal with it.
Watch any pvp video on youtube over the past month involving carriers vs subcaps. Only the forum whiners somehow lost where everyone else stomped them by obliterating the fighters with minimal losses.
My point was, HAW weapons are for subcaps. Light fighters are for subcaps. Reg capital guns are for caps. Heavy fighters are for caps. Is that really that hard to comprehend? I know you want to defend your point while blindly ignoring any and all experience of others, but you cannot deny the core structure of these modules and fighters  |
|

Necrothitude
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:26:05 -
[711] - Quote
The nerf does seem a bit ham-fisted. Too much, I think. |

Denver White
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:30:12 -
[712] - Quote
This is too much, please rethink numbers!
Come live in null sec! Join ingame channel PUBLICFUSEN today!
|

Blusa Annages
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:31:31 -
[713] - Quote
Aaaand, if network sensor array has been this heavily nerfed it should not have such high cap cost. |

Golrag Kion
Aperture Deep Space Worlds United Fedo Force
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:33:48 -
[714] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Marcin Ichinumi wrote:Too Much Fighter nerf! Too Much Fighter nerf!
Too Much Fighter nerf! |

Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
629
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 16:57:56 -
[715] - Quote
mgr71 Dragon wrote:Nikel Ivanovich wrote:give the carriers something to enable them to be called the capital. the distance of the jump? lot armor shield? dps? many drones? remove useless buttons F3. for what it's ridicule
do the developers not understand that to play in a T1 cruiser I can free the first 14 days. why would so humiliate the ships for which it is necessary many days of subscription? Not even days - you need MONTHS to fly capital class ship.... His English seems a bit wacky, but I think that's precisely what he's trying to convey. Also, without diving into EvEmon to check for exact numbers, I'm pretty sure you'd need more than one full year to adequately fly a carrier. Drone support skills are a bugger, and there's a lot of them, and they're time-consuming.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
156
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 17:03:33 -
[716] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:mgr71 Dragon wrote:Nikel Ivanovich wrote:give the carriers something to enable them to be called the capital. the distance of the jump? lot armor shield? dps? many drones? remove useless buttons F3. for what it's ridicule
do the developers not understand that to play in a T1 cruiser I can free the first 14 days. why would so humiliate the ships for which it is necessary many days of subscription? Not even days - you need MONTHS to fly capital class ship.... His English seems a bit wacky, but I think that's precisely what he's trying to convey. Also, without diving into EvEmon to check for exact numbers, I'm pretty sure you'd need more than one full year to adequately fly a carrier. Drone support skills are a bugger, and there's a lot of them, and they're time-consuming. I have about 26m SP specifically into skills applicable to carriers. The training is indeed long. |

Cade Windstalker
460
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 17:31:10 -
[717] - Quote
Robertina Palazzo wrote:Quote was removed for "negative rant" because i said haw weapons were designed for subcaps. Indeed....They were designed for subcaps  Deal with it. Watch any pvp video on youtube over the past month involving carriers vs subcaps. Only the forum whiners somehow lost where everyone else stomped them by obliterating the fighters with minimal losses. My point was, HAW weapons are for subcaps. Light fighters are for subcaps. Reg capital guns are for caps. Heavy fighters are for caps. Is that really that hard to comprehend? I know you want to defend your point while blindly ignoring any and all experience of others, but you cannot deny the core structure of these modules and fighters 
The ISD don't remove posts for content, if they did this thread would be three pages long. In short it wasn't what you said it was how you said it... 
For reference, several others in this thread espoused similar views to yours and didn't get their posts removed, because they weren't ranting and insulting the devs and other players.
PvP videos on Youtube aren't a particularly good source for anything, because people rarely post losses or bad fights, they post things that will look impressive, attract views, or make them look good.
I'm not denying anything, Light Fighters are still clearly an anti-Subcap weapon, they just don't nuke Cruisers and smaller off the field instantly before they can respond now, the same as HAWs. As you yourself have pointed out, no one is complaining about HAWs and I don't see anyone saying they're worthless either.
Khan Wrenth wrote:mgr71 Dragon wrote:why would so humiliate the ships for which it is necessary many days of subscription? Not even days - you need MONTHS to fly capital class ship.... His English seems a bit wacky, but I think that's precisely what he's trying to convey. Also, without diving into EvEmon to check for exact numbers, I'm pretty sure you'd need more than one full year to adequately fly a carrier. Drone support skills are a bugger, and there's a lot of them, and they're time-consuming.[/quote]
Last I checked it takes around a year and a half to get a Carrier or Dread to what most would consider a respectable level from a brand new blank character. Though for most looking to fly a Carrier on a main account it ends up being more like 2 years because while focused Drone skills are nice you pretty much need gun or missile skills to earn ISK along the way, as well as other non-T1 ship hulls or other races' hulls. |

Robertina Palazzo
37
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 17:37:45 -
[718] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The ISD don't remove posts for content, if they did this thread would be three pages long. In short it wasn't what you said it was how you said it...  I said what i will keep on saying. HAW's are for subcaps just like light fighters. continuously deny and blame all you want, that is what was removed and what i will keep saying. 
Cade Windstalker wrote: PvP videos on Youtube aren't a particularly good source for anything, because people rarely post losses or bad fights, they post things that will look impressive, attract views, or make them look good.
PVP videos on youtube are recorded evidence of performance on both sides where carriers are killed or kill. Sorry if you think recorded footage is not admissable by your standards rofl Two way streets aren't good enough for a point of view where you only see one side i guess? 
Cade Windstalker wrote: I'm not denying anything, Light Fighters are still clearly an anti-Subcap weapon, they just don't nuke Cruisers and smaller off the field instantly before they can respond now, the same as HAWs. As you yourself have pointed out, no one is complaining about HAWs and I don't see anyone saying they're worthless either.
They are an anti subcap weapon, but as i am tired of repeating because people refuse to comprehend.... the argument was "omgroflpwn god mobile" is what anti subcap is. When it clearly isn't, read the arguments rather than just griping your case one-sidedly man, this is getting repetitive. |

Ida Aurlien
Cerberus Federation Cede Nullis
72
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 18:25:05 -
[719] - Quote
well let them see a couple weeks where carriers are not being used , Then maybe they will get the idea..I personaly do not see how a bunch of ants can kill a elephant. However this is eve and anything is possible |

Flipster1990
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 18:26:47 -
[720] - Quote
Stop whining and learn how to ******* deal with carriers/drones. FFS! Whiners are winners apparently... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |