|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:42:00 -
[1]
So can anyone at CCP tell me what the point of having a mothership in combat is at this point?
You have just turned the hard work of thousands of EVE players from fairly well balanced machines that can play a role in fleet combat while still being highly vulnerable into giant jump hauling logistics ships. I hope you are proud of yourselves and what you just did to your player base.
This is the most senseless change in the history of EVE.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:48:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Antraxx Jeez...What a way to start ya Dev career eh? If this is due to the Low Sec MS thing...Just ban em' from low sec..
Obviously they would just have to ban the launching of fighters in low sec to solve that problem.
They cannot ban MS from low sec as that would effectively trap them in the part of 0.0 where they currently reside.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:55:00 -
[3]
Quote:
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
Zulu, this is, at best, a laughable stated motivation for the change.
No one in the entire game will spend 15billion isk + years of training + officer fitting + pirate implants on a logistics ship. It makes much more sense to buy yourself an infinite supply of battleships and heavy armor repair drones.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a mothership fight in grid again because of its enormous cost, ease of death, low firepower and the fact that its logistics capabilities are most the same as a carrier.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a carrier fight in grid unless its in triage in the attempt to save a titan. No one will spend 1 billion isk on an armor repair ship because less than that money would be required to pay for the number of ships the carrier is likely to save in fleet battle over its entire life.
You have just eliminated two ship classes from the game and completely slapped an enormous part of your user-base in the face. If this was your intent, then great job. If this was not your intent, then you should be reconsidering this.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Each class of ship should have a role. There should be a reason to bring a BS over a carrier besides isk, and skilltime. With this change there will be. Want firesupport? Bring BS (or dreads for capital battles). Want defense/logistics? Bring carriers/Moms.
We could think in this simplistic and incorrect manner OR we could put our thinking caps on.
Q: What are the kinds of ships that carriers/motherships actually can repair in the middle of a fleet battle? A: Other carriers/motherships.
Q: If there are no carriers/motherships on the frontlines and nothing else has a large enough HP buffer to be remote repped in a fleet battle, will there be anything for carriers/motherships to repair on the frontlines? A: No
Q: If there is nothing for carriers/motherships to repair on the front lines and they can assign their fighters from outside a POS, will they ever be on the front lines at all? A: No
Q: If carriers/motherships are not on the front lines then can they be "front-line logistics ships"? A: No.
There is a reason that existing pure logistics ships are not used in fleet battles. YOU CANNOT REPAIR PRIMARY TARGETS FAST ENOUGH, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HP. This same reason will be why carriers/motherships aren't used in fleet battles.
Please people, start thinking.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Sinder Ohm
The big problems here are
1. MS pwning in low sec, they shouldnt be allowed to imo
2. Fighterswarms and lag = couldnt warp out in time where did my ship go
fix the problems and dont make new ones.
Amen.
This suggestion only accidentally fixes problem #1, while making problem #2 infinitely worse and essentially removing 2 ships classes from the game.
While fixing problem #2 is undoubtedly coding related, there are a great many ways to fix problem #1 that are not this terminally overbroad.
Here are two easy ones: 1. Disabling MS E-War invulnerability in low sec 2. Disabling MS ability to start offensive actions in low sec.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:00:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Baun on 21/10/2007 22:00:04
Originally by: Deacon Ix
I'ld love to know where you got the idea that carriers are WTF solo PWN mobiles, any carrier *OR MOTHERSHIP* caught solo is going down
Fixed
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:10:00 -
[7]
The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:27:00 -
[8]
Q F T
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:59:00 -
[9]
Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Acacia Everto
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
That carrier stood no chance.
That Carrier stood no chance, especially being fit as horribly as it was. The guy didn't even have the capital tank skill or at the very least T2 hardeners and T2 reps.
But he had as many as 10 fighters ... and yet somehow he did not wreck absolute havoc in the minute before he was killed by 12 cruisers. If carriers + fighters are so overpowered how is that possible?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:49:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 04:50:26
Originally by: Knarfis
10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet. THEN DON'T FLY THEM WITH OUT THAT SAID SUPPORT FLEET!! Why is this so hard to understand? The carrier was not meant to be a stand alone unit like the battleship. None of the other capitals are stand alone units. Why do people think the carrier class can be a stand alone unit? Do you fly your freighter with its cargo full without support/escort in unsecured space?? If so do u think this is wise?? Knarfis
I don't get it. If carriers ALREADY cannot do anything without a support fleet and you are ADMITTING this, then what the hell is this nerf for?
If a carrier already needs the support ships on grid to live, then what does requiring that he assign fighters to them realistically accomplish?
The answer is NOTHING. This is a fix directed toward a non-existant problem.
CCP's apparent worry that fleets will become all capitals is mostly unfounded (Capitals cannot move around freely, Capitals are slow and easily outmaneuvered, Capitals cannot get into cyno jammed systems without the aid of a BS fleet by default), but to the extent that it is real it shouldn't be resolved by retroactively removing two classes of ships from the game after more than two years.
Instead of redoing two years of work, why don't you impliment NEW features to try to stem the perhaps-nonexistant tide? Why has there been no attempt at this?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:06:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 18:06:02
Originally by: Vily Zulupark you scumbag.
still listening my ******* ass.
three more accounts cancelled. and i hope you guys enjoy chatting with Visa because i fully intend to contest my last round of account renewals under a change in service.
This sounds like a plan to me.
I'll give lil old CC company a call today.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:09:00 -
[13]
Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:12:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Idara
Originally by: Baun Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
I'll probably check out WOW again.
Or just buy that Xbox 360 for some Forza 2 action.
How is the cooperative online Halo 3 on Legendary?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:43:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 18:44:07
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, this has to do with bandwidth and is not related to the delegation idea. The test server gets updated daily and as Trinity gets closer to release you will likely see a lot of things happening there. We are also working on an updated new dev blog to outline our concerns and plans for carriers. Please do not jump to conclusions and be patient. Thank you.
Why would we ever jump to conclusions?
Might it be because you suggested the deletion of two ship classes from the game to combat a non-existant problem and have not substantively responded to 2,500 negative posts made in 2 days and then implimented bandwidth on SiSi to reflect these changes.
Fix it with the next SiSi DT or you will see another several thouand accounts canceled.
Edit: I am still not officially reactivating until you officially abandon this idea. I imagine everyone else will act the same way.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Idara Well, from a quick glance through the las 4 pages or so....
56 accounts cancelled.
Thats $10,000 a year lost in a few minutes.
WTG CCP!
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:19:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
That is it.
Clarify what this means.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ZaKma [19:05:18] CCP Gangleri > Everyone that is crying about their Carrier, take a long deep breath and compare your carriers ability to kill small targets with a Dread. Which is bigger and more expensive.
Interesting.
I think my moros does like 2x the damage of my thanatos now to BSs.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:29:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
Read my text: NO COMPROMISE
QFT
I repeat: NO COMPROMISE
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
|