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)
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:51:00 - [1] After the incredible outcry against this remarkably bad idea, I sincerely hope that CCP is no longer considering it.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:20:00 - [2] Edited by: Haakelen on 22/10/2007 18:20:08 Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism. My god, you're actually going to do this, aren't you?
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:15:00 - [3] Originally by: Ridjeck Thome I'd like to point CCP in the direction of a Mr Smedley from SOE. He admitted that they made a mistake with SWG, lost touch with what the players wanted and made assumptions that proved to be less than accurate. Result = the game died. Dont start down this road CCP - you are better than that. Read what this man says.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:34:00 - [4] Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it. That kind of logical, sane reasoning is not needed in a thread like this.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:38:37 Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it. That kind of logical, sane reasoning is not needed in a thread like this. Contrary to popular belief (I've been flamed a lot)... while I'm in support of this 5 fighter limit and the delegation, I'm NOT for the loss of the carrier's primary defense if it IS caught by one battleship and a few frigs. And JokerB, you have a good point... I mean, it IS already being called 'Capitals Online'. It's just a fine line to try to fix.... I've already been cataloging the arguments on both sides, and it's up to 4 notebook pages front and back on pros, cons, adjustments, etc. Though no one seems to notice that :( You're being reasonable. The problem is, CCP isn't.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:52:00 - [6] Originally by: Crovan Damn fine words here Thank you immensely. Now, CCP, listen to him!
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:57:00 - [7] Cyan, if your goal here is to go against the status quo of more ships = victory, you'll have to fundamentally change how Eve works, because that's how it is. How do you suppose that you counter this? Make good ships bad? People will just replace the nerfed ships with the nearest analog. And then people will whine again in 6 months because they either can't keep up or don't want to work at it. Numbers wins fights. It's the truth, even if you (or I) don't like it. You can't remove this dynamic from our internet spaceship combat. What, are people supposed to see 100 enemy ships, think 'Oh, drat. They've already assembled a large fleet. If I make my own to counter it, it might cause the paperthin sever to have issues. Well, they were there first.'? More ships cause lag. Nobody wants lag. There's no fair way to solve that 'problem'. CCP needs to make the server work better. It's their problem, not ours. To corrupt a saying, When they nerfed Nanoships, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. When they nerfed Privateers, I didn't care, because I wasn't one. (And evil greifers are ruining eve ) When they nerfed the Titans, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And BoB/ASCN/D2/RA/GS/AAA/LV sucks) When they nerfed the Motherships, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And Ginger sucks) When they nerfed the Curse, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. When they nerfed the Carriers, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And drones are the root of all evil and lag, ban Gallente!) When they nerfed the magical, perfectly balanced and not at all overpowered or exploited ship I fly, there was no one left to speak out. Nerfing isn't the answer. It just hurts the game.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:09:00 - [8] Also, Originally by: Cyan Nuevo But all this is all so utilitarian. Should we really operate on the maxim that carriers should be crazy-tanking damage-machines? They're not. Fly one some time.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:24:00 - [9] Originally by: Clamn8er The Awful truth Getting that vibe here myself. I think CCP will do this no matter how obvious it is that the intelligent playerbase of this game doesn't want it to happen.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:01:00 - [10] 3 accounts gone. You brought this on yourself. I'll come back when you remove your heads from your asses.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:59:00 - [11] Edited by: Haakelen on 23/10/2007 19:00:38 Originally by: Mersault > but keep the carrier at a decent level of damage. I think the whole point is to dramatically reduce the damage a Carrier pilot can do without assigning Fighters. How far that reduction goes remains to be seen. Maybe we will be able to control large numbers of small drones, less med, less heavy. Less Fighters. Reread the blog. Originally by: CCP Zulupark Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time. The goal is apparently to make carriers suck so horribly nobody wants to fly them, and to lose their playerbase. Originally by: SirMolly Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Not since the t20-anger has the EVE community been so united over one topic, and seeing how CCP dealt with that one properly, we can all relax and trust CCP to do the right thing. Wait a minute... So, now the community consists of Carrier/MS pilots only ? You don't seem to realize that if they'll do this to carriers they'll do it to any other ship type. Maybe eventually destroying one you actually like.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:21:00 - [12] Edited by: Haakelen on 23/10/2007 19:22:59 Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 23/10/2007 18:40:56 Ladies and Gentlemen, this has to do with the upcoming drone and fighter 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. Then may I politely suggest you increase the bandwidth of carriers. Quickly. Its a very, very unfortunate co-incidence. That is it. Bear in mind that the test server is just that - a test server. We have a lot of things that we are testing internally for Trinity that get updated to the test server periodically. The delegation idea is just one of them. I also want to reassure you all that while our replies have been few, there has been a lot of internal discussion about the subject matter of this thread and your responses to it. I'd like to thank everyone here who has taken the time to give constructive criticism and post your ideas. The sigs are a nice touch as well. This is significantly better. Thank you immensely for not just scoffing at us and completely ignoring our concerns as Eris did in a previous response. But if this second devblog is just a more eloquent way of blowing your carrier nerf smoke up our ass, we're going to be MORE angry at you for it. And unless you want still more ill will, you had also better give us a definitive answer as to whether or not you're going forward with it or not. Don't forget who pays who here.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Evangeline Dol'Amazi Ok, having slogged through all of this... 1. It hasn't been implemented, it's an idea, and, quite frankly, having watched a lot of "ideas" turn into realities that everyone said would "make the game unplayable," and that game remaining playable, I am inclined to give the developers a bit of slack here. It's live on Sisi right now.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:14:00 - [14] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: CCP Abathur Update - We've been working hard to address your concerns. There will be a new dev blog up very soon which should hopefully clarify things a bit. Hang in there, guys and gals. Translation: "We're still going ahead with this. We just need time to sugarcoat it...." How hard is it to write "We're not going to do this!" as a reply instead of writing posts without content as this one? *THIS,* goddamnit.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:23:00 - [15] Anything except 'It's not being done', and you're going to see even more outrage than what you're seeing now. I kinda doubt it's a really verbose apology.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Baun 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 Solidarity. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH CARRIERS.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Ztrain Originally by: JonVe Edited by: JonVe on 23/10/2007 22:42:23 Originally by: Ztrain Originally by: Kwint Sommer The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game. I like I like! It shall be done. Z I'm sorry, but that is taken by Pulling a Smedley. Point. Raise one: Being EVE'd is Pulling a Smedley 2.0 Z Your sig has so much relevance this weekend, it's not even funny.
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Grimster Finding the all but total lack of a real response to this outstanding. Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be? Don't you have to have... fans to have a fanfest?
Haakelen Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:28:00 - [19] Originally by: JonVe So where's that Dev Blog? And why do we need to wait for one for an answer? It takes time to put lipstick on a pig.

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.