Originally by: CCP Zulupark

---

Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.

---

Originally by: Brungar

---

Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?

Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.

Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?

Best regards,

Brungar

---

Originally by: RazorCRO

---

Ok, now when i got it off my chest, i can write something that might help...

Ok...motherships/carriers are too powerfull while solo. They are suppose to have some ships around em...cool...i agree!

Change you proposed would uttery destroy Carrier/mothership class, which is really not what you wanna do i guess.

If you cant get anything better than this, PLEASE look into the realy world warfare.
We created carriers that can WTFPWN alot of things in REAL WORLD.
But we allso created things that can WTFPWN carriers if they dont have some kind of support (for example well armed submarine or stealth bomber with guided missile).

So if you really wanna deal with carriers and moms, create something that can pwn em if they dont have support around em.
Maybe Cruiser or Battleship class stealth bomber with darn big anty carrier torps which would pwn carriers/moms, but would be too slow to kill anything else.

Solution that you propose is worst anyone could ever think of and it would not only kill carriers and moms, but it would destroy players thats pend months and months on training and getting isk. Pls....dont destroy only good SF MMORPG out there...

---

Originally by: Bein Glorious

---

So, uh, I kind of came up with this idea a few months ago (unless somebody else came up with the same idea and beat me to it), so I feel that I should weigh in on this.

At the time I came up with the idea partially to decrease fighter lag in a more elegant way than a fighter deflation (i.e. reducing the 15 fighters a carrier can use down to 5 fighters with more HP and damage as well) as change a couple other things, but I actually scrapped the idea after thinking about it for a while because I figured that a) too many people would hate it, b) it doesn't really do much to decrease lag all by itself, and c) if they fixed the lag in some other way, the carrier spam problem could work itself out anyway.

That said, it does do a couple things that you can't really deny:

1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.

2. It hurts motherships in lowsec quite a bit, though if you could just scramble them, that would be just as good.

3. It does more-or-less force the need for support ships, which some would argue isn't an important enough deal for carriers/motherships right now.

But this change isn't just about nerfing carriers in combat or whatever, it's also about stopping MUDflation. At some point, CCP and some other people reached the conclusion that there are just too many carriers/motherships around to be good for the game. The only solution to that is, well, yeah, you kinda have to nerf something, because if you don't, people will just get more and more of them. But if you want to nerf something, look at what there is to work with here:

1. Remote reps - you can't really nerf this, since that's a major part of what carriers are supposed to do. They should be able to assist other ships.

2. Personal tank or capital hitpoints - you can't really nerf this, since that was kind of the point of the Rev 1.0 hitpoint buff. That, and if you really want to decrease the number of carriers in a fleet, this would kind of do the opposite, since you would need to have MORE carriers available for remote repping.

3. Fighters - They do a significant amount of damage but are pretty expensive, and they're the most directly involved with killing people. And they make lag.

Fighters are the choice that is the least likely to break the game or totally gimp carriers, given the alternatives.

---

Originally by: Strategos

---

I love all the crying in this thread.

Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.

Either way, I like it!

---

Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki

---

hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.

You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.

And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^

---

Originally by: Strategos

---

Originally by: XoPhyte

---

Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58

Originally by: Strategos

---

Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.

---

Translation:

I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.

---

Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be.

---

Originally by: Strategos

---

Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29

Originally by: Gyle

---

your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.

---

Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.


"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"

QQ more, the tears taste sweet.

Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.

---

Originally by: XoPhyte

---

Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 21:03:00

Originally by: Strategos

---

Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29

Originally by: Gyle

---

your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.

---

Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.


"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"

QQ more, the tears taste sweet.

Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.

---

You seem to have our philosophy in Bob incorrect. We adapt to current game mechanics and there are plenty of ways to kill carriers (take a look at our killboards sometime, we have killed plenty of yours). However game mechanics don't need to be changed as a broad stroke when it doesnt address any of the root causes of problems in eve (IE, motherships terrorizing low sec, which one WAS killed in low sec recently).

So don't feed me the "adapt" line. A lot of players in Eve did adapt by training and taking a lot of time to earn the isk for a carrier. Rather then you adapting to the game and having to invest the same type of effort, time and isk to be able to do the same, you would prefer that the game be adapted to you.

---

Originally by: Sooshie

---

This dev is ****ing stupid. Carriers do about the damage of a well fitted blasterthon and cost so much more and they want to nerf that? If anything they need to be rebalanced to give fighters more damage capability.

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Draconis Vidi

---

You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.

---

on a small scale warfare that is easy to balance. But how do you make balance when there are 30 Carriers at a gate and when your fleet warps there its all dead before loadign grid because the fighters did almost all the work alone withut almost any needing of human help?

Not easy to reach a balance that work on both situations.

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: XoPhyte

---

Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:40:11

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: XoPhyte

---

Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?

That is the issue.

This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.

---

I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.

I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.

Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.

---

the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.

---

And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.

I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.

Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!

---

You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"

A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.

---

Originally by: White Aero

---

I HAVE FIGURED this WHOLE THING OUT......

THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

Originally by: Icome4u

---

So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.

So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.

---

Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.

---

Originally by: Tiberius Xavier

---

Not only will this sharply drop the demand for motherships and carriers, but this adversly affect the entire economics of the game.

Why establish capital ship yards? Why invest in expensive capital ship blueprints or books? Why bother fighting in lagfests of 500+ battleships?

I suspect that the mineral prices will drop (lower demand), ice derivatives prices will drop (lower demand for fuel), mining will be even less profitable. Consequently, this will provide a disincentive to colonizing 0.0.

---

Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne

---

Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 23/10/2007 15:09:27
u wanna stop MS low sec campin ? replace the uber usefull billboard ( ) by a special scrambler for MS , with a range of 100 km ( at 100 km if u get locked killed when u are at the gate , u deserve to die )), so people with a brain can kill it , and MS / carriers can still be used at logistics to go through low sec and able to defend at a station if they are bumped .....is that so hard ?
this way u don t touch drones / fighters , just removing the low sec gate camping which seems the big prob

---

Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne

---

MS in lowx sec seems to be a prob because noobs can t find a way to kill it easly ....so just scramble it for them ...

and nerfing fighters / drones won t prevent those MS to just Smartbombs gates ....

---

Originally by: Khamal Jolstien

---

Good changes. Keep up the good work CCP. Ships fill a role. ISK does not give you a free pass to uber.

---