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

Check My IP Information

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)
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:41:00 - [1] Ok, you wanted a constructive response - you're getting one. WHAT THE ARE YOU THINKING?! ARE YOU ON *?! THIS IS WORSE THAN THE SODDING MINERAL COMPRESSION NERF!!!! Fighter delegation is all well and good in theory, and is actually something i quite like as it nerfs lowsec solo moms. However, in a real fleet situation, this is impossible. Lag is the prime factor in this. Navigating gang menus and spamming up gang communication channels for fighter requests contribute too. It just isn't viable. As for the drone limitations? I refer you to my above bolded comments. This makes carriers utterly USELESS. Like, why the ** would you bring a carrier to a frontline situation? Carriers and motherships are now dominixes. Nothing more. In fact, here's a snipped from a carrier and a mothership pilot upon hearing about the change: Quote: (@El-Diablito) I've wasted months of training @El-Diablito) for a ship I now have NO desire to fly (@El-Diablito) mother*** ***s (@El-Diablito) five drones (@El-Diablito) i'll have less dps than a megathron Quote: (13:32:19) (@Rodent) El-Diablito cry more **, I have 60b invested in a *** dominix :\| Your entire logic in this is flawed; you spend MONTHS moving carriers away from POS-hugging fighter spammers, trying to edge them more towards frontline logistical support and now you nerf EVERYTHING about them. They're now ridiculously vulnerable to interdictors, and have absolutely no effective offensive capability. Now: Here's the key thing. You have just made the only statement that has EVER united both sides of this war. Everyone is **ed, and everyone WILL despise whichever asshat came up with this change if it comes onto TQ. Have a tip, free from me, abandon it now. Say you had technical difficulties or something, like you did with the cloaking change (which is coming when, btw?). Or better yet, just remove the eejit of a dev who came up with this back to whichever cupboard he came from. Lord knows what he'd try next.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 - [2] Originally by: CCP Zulupark If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers? Oh dear lord, you're actually serious... How can you NOT see the ridiculously huge problems with forcing everything to use fighter assignment?! Have you ever actually played eve? A mothership or carrier with its fighters assigned out loses all defensive capability. In a laggy environment such as a fleet fight, co ordination of assignment and defense of the assinger by the assignee is IMPOSSIBLE. Let's not forget the fact that fighters CANNOT HIT SMALL SHIPS. How is a mothership meant to defend itself against interdictors with all of 5 warrior iis?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 - [3] Originally by: pershphanie You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away. Very much this.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [4] Edited by: Elmicker on 21/10/2007 13:32:23 Originally by: The Economist ...a max skilled rorqual with ogre II's... A max skilled moros with ogre iis does 1109 DPS. Same thing on a maxed nyx with 5 fighters does 625 DPS. . (Though actually, that's an issue that should be looked at. A moros shouldn't really get its drone damage bonus unless its in siege mode)
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:01:00 - [5] Edited by: Elmicker on 22/10/2007 22:02:22 Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia you need look further then your own win button WTB: Carrier that is a "win button". Have you ever flown one, Eris? Quote: ...explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. Well, we could, if you told us what your goals are. So far all i've heard is "carriers are imbalanced". This is not a goal, this is a reason. However, that's not to say that this reason's right. Carriers are balanced, as you might be able to tell from the 70 pages of 99% negativity with added verone.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:04:00 - [6] Originally by: XoPhyte You don't want to ban them from lowsec, there ARE reasons for carriers and motherships to go to low sec. However you may want to limit their firepower in those areas,... This. Carriers in lowsec are fine. They're ridiculously vulnerable and have to put their fighters at risk of sentry fire. Motherships, however, need their EW invulnerability tweaking. Perhaps changing it from an absolute invulnerability to a 10 or 20-point WCS while in lowsec. Same vulnerability to all other EWs as a carrier.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:29:00 - [7] Originally by: Xeseldddim excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue? 10/10.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:37:00 - [8] Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters.. A well setup BS or CS can tank 12 fighters, if necessary.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 - [9] Originally by: Vandalias Fight appears to be 11 vs 28 at a POS. Other side had a carrier of their own. Thats an example of what happens when you don't have even odds more than anything. Yes, but if you'd believe a dev blog, then a carrier without support can shred a battleship in "0.2 seconds". This just goes to show a carrier without the required support does nothing but die.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:35:00 - [10] Originally by: breadcat make some constructive suggestions instead. 85 pages of constructive "OH JESUS ** NO" wasn't enough, you mean? Aside from the fact the nerf is bull, we've been outright LIED TO. Utter barefaced LIES**. You do not go from a drawing-board ballpark idea to a fully coded, working, implemented change to 2 entire ship classes in 2 sodding days.

Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 - [11] Originally by: CCP Abathur ...and is not related to the delegation idea.... so it just happens to work exactly as described in the dev blog?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 00:42:00 - [12] When i enquired as the aim of the nerf to sisi, i was told by a QA member it was aimed mainly at lowsec motherships. The devs i was chatting to seemed totally oblivious to the problems with forcing a 2-3:1 support:carrier ratio has and the problems inherent in drone assignment, so i asked them if they'd ever used carriers in a TQ fleet engagement (only fair, they'd asked me if i'd ever used the drone ui or the fleet ui ), and was told i'd "crossed the line into nonsense" and that they "weren't talking to me anymore". I was gutted. Honestly.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 00:47:00 - [13] Originally by: Reptzo post the chat logs Awwh, now, that wouldn't be very fair on the poor devs now, would it?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 16:08:00 - [14] Originally by: Fred 104 Is this a real dev quote? Or just some inflammatory garbage ya made up? It's a real dev quote. He said the same thing to me, then promptly shut up when i reminded him that dreads can quite easily destroy smaller targets, when supported by the required ships. exactly the same situation as with carriers.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.24 23:10:00 - [15] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Secondly the reason there are so many Thanatos being flown is that people are generally idiots who can't see past their DPS (or they just like the look of them / only fly Gallente). Or because capital armour tanks were superior at the time they trained it, but they still wanted the ability to rep shields for poses? Or because it's more likely for a gallente pilot to have drone interfacing 5? Or because it's the most versatile, with the biggest drone bay? you fail as hard as CCP at looking beyond the obvious.

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.