EVE Search - Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:43:00 - [1] Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage... You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:44:00 - [2] Originally by: Vandalias Originally by: Seiver D'amross i agree with this compleatly, the ammount of drones were nerfted once in Shiva we dont need it again. Caps are designed to be a anti-most-everything-ship they are CAPTIAL SHIPS. if you cut off there b@lls then all you have is a oversized domi and you should not call them caps anymore. Considering the cap ship designers are looking to change them away from that role would lead me to believe that they weren't designed for that at all. But then again they're just the designers, what the hell do they know about what the ships were designed for. Here's the problem with that thinking. All signs point to 'reactionary supernerf to appease whiners'. You could say the triage module was an indication of where CCP wanted to go, but that's weak. Nobody bothers. Nobody wants to fly a ship like that. The No-Delegation-In-POS thing is ponderous, too. Triage turns it into a sitting duck. Instead of listening to the players and seeing how we adapt to the equipment we're given (y'know, like in the oft-mentioned sandbox), they come down with the hand of God and tell us how bad we are and destroy a method of playing the game that is arguably working acceptably. Albeit with a few hiccups. What happened the last time drones were reduced in number? They were given a damage bonus. If you go forward with this and don't increase fighter/drone damage/yield/rep amount/etc per level or as a role bonus, you will kill carriers. Only people waiting to skill up for jump freighters will bother. Or perhaps this is a response to the mineral compression nerf! Build one of these worthless vessels, jump it to where you need minerals, and reproc it.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:51:00 - [3] Also, something I just considered. Perhaps this all has to do with that 'drone bandwidth' business, and CCP is going to lay the blame of lag on drones. Which would simultaneously be hilariously lame, and nerf Gallente to around where Amarr is.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:53:00 - [4] Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 03:53:17 Originally by: Knarfis Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 Stufff Ok... thanks for stating the oblivious. Still doesn't change the fact that CCP's idea is stupid/idiotic. That is a personal opinion with no rash relevance behind it. God i hate these forums because of that kind of thinking. I hate these forums because CCP will cherrypick the 5 uninformed, nearly pointless posts like this and use them to say 'See! You guys DID want Carriers nerfed into oblivion! Can't complain now, not being un-broken!'.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:31:00 - [5] Originally by: shuckstar Waiting till i find out what happens before carrying on training for carrier now, as for feedbck your idea sucks Yeah, I dislike this uncertainty immensely. Either *come out and tell us that you're doing it or wash your hands of this remarkably absurd* idea**. I don't want to waste my time on Advanced Spaceship Command if you're going to do this garbage.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:50:00 - [6] Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 04:51:36 I find the developer response in this thread highly disturbing. 74 pages. Like, what, four responses? And they were sarcastic, insulting ones at that. You're talking about neutering an entire ship class. One that takes a very long time to train for, at that. Capital pilots are your core subscriber base, CCP. How about responding with details? Responding with real answers to our concerns? Maybe then we wouldn't be ready to revolt. You're just going to do this no matter what. I have to congratulate you on one thing though, CCP. Now many of us wouldn't answer 't20' if someone asked who the least popular dev ever was.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Knarfis If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do. Problem: the Thorax isn't a capital ship with the main purpose of carrying an exceptionally large amount of drones into a fight.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 06:39:00 - [8] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS AHH NERF AHH NEERRRFFF! OOOOOO, IT'S A NEERRFFFFF! Long story short, please quit with the ANNOYING REPETITIVE SWG references. Even if we all didn't get it at first we get it now. Don't argue based on anecdote. Argue based on reason. This sucks. It's pointless. It's not needed. Reason.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:38:00 - [9] Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 08:39:09 You could also have a few pockets of Empire-Sov 0.0 in tactically arranged areas that would allow supercapitals to travel through empire without being allowed into lowsec. It would also be like 0.0-Lite and let newer players look around without having to go 50 jumps.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:58:00 - [10] This sets a really, really disturbing precedent. CCP puts a ship/module into the game, presumably after testing it to find out if it isn't amazingly broken. A few months go by, and small tweaks here or there are done to make it relatively well-implemented. <1 month/3 Months/6 Months/1 Year/2 Years> down the road, CCP decides that the playerbase isn't using the ship 100% as they intended. Instead of observing our actions and asking for suggestions and trying to use small tweaks to ease things into a better state, they do a massive 180 and force a modification that nobody wants. Now, after this has happened, why would anyone want to spend RL time, a long amount of time in some situations, to train for a ship, when CCP might obliterate it at any time without cause or reason or sense? Masochism? Wasting a small amount of SP on something is different than wasting many millions of SP on a ship. There must be a barrier where you can't make massive changes. Otherwise you've lost all trust from us. You're getting real close with me. Maybe make it 2M SP. Or 2.5M. Or 3. But there MUST be an amount of SP dedicated where you say 'We affirm absolutely that we will not drastically change this.' If you're going to say this is a sandbox game, let it be a sandbox. If you're going to say the real-time skill system is better than grinding, don't subvert it through massive nerfs. I tell you what, I am certainly in no way going to train for the T2 battleships/new cruisers/frigs now. What assurance do I have that you won't pull this **** on us again? Withdraw this, immediately. Apologize to your playerbase, right now. And show some good will by fixing something, instead of destroying things. Or watch half your subscribers disappear.
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 16:50:00 - [11] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? How did I know you would say this?
Das Lol Gallente Internet Space Fighters	Posted - 2007.10.23 17:08:00 - [12] Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 17:09:47 Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Originally by: Das Lol Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? How did I know you would say this? I'm not sure, possibly because it's true? I'm not arguing for a carrier nerf because omg a carrier killed me once, that statement was proving the point that carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower. Is taking quotes out of context the best you can do? Thanatos with Carrier 4/ADI 4/Fighters 4 and four DCUs with a spread of 13 types of fighters is around 1400 DPS. You can get over 1000 DPS in a Deimos or other blasterboats. A sieged Revelation can do more than 3500 DPS. The damage output of a carrier is in line with its role as a capital combat vessel. That same Thanatos will tank around 2500 DPS. That is not as much as it sounds. I have personally seen a carrier annihilated in a little over a minute. And it wasn't untanked, either. What you're saying is false. You come off as a bitter whiner, to me.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.