Originally by: Coolgamer

---

Originally by: Mirauder

---

Originally by: busta nut

---

you might aswell remove carriers from the game for all the use they will be after. 6 months of training and multiple billions of isk and i end up in a domi with a jumpdrive....

---

Signed signed signed signed.

---

and resigned

---

Originally by: oDDiTy V2

---

Originally by: CCP Abathur

---

Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.

---

Here, let me help you out CCP Abathur.

The following is a list of ways you can address this issue:
-Scrap the idea completely.
-Fire the people who came up with the idea
-Toss the idea out the window
-Forget about the idea
-Apologize to the community for proposing something so utterly stupid
-Start playing the damn game so you guys have a clue as to what needs to be changed and what doesn't
-Scrap this utterly preposterous idea

---

Originally by: Druadan

---

Edited by: Druadan on 21/10/2007 15:59:03

Originally by: Ztrain

---

Originally by: CCP Abathur

---

Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.

---

When are you going to hire some talent?

Z

---

No kidding.

Seriously, CCP, some of us would work for you for pittence, and have much better heads in the game than the people coming up with these ideas. The Rorqual, the carrier ship bay nerf, and this piece of rubbish.

This idea shouldn't even have made it to a devblog. How the rest of the game design team didn't shoot it down before the idea arrived to slap us all in the face is very worrying for those of us who plan on playing this game for a long time.

So, yeah, give me a job

[edit: zomg I used a yank word, replaced it with a more suitably british word]

---

Originally by: ArmyOfMe

---

---

Originally by: Snakebloke

---

i promise this is my last post :P

---

Originally by: Cadela Fria

---

Originally by: Snakebloke

---

Stuff

---

For the love of God fix your signature, it's too big !
-_-;;

Sorry just had to let that out.

---

Originally by: The Economist

---

I'm using the length of time it takes for snakebloke's sig to get nerfed as a measure of how much attention CCP's paying to this thread

---

Originally by: DarQ Knight

---

With all the people opposed to this, CCP also needs to remember, most capital pilots have 2 if not 3 accounts.

Also, every capital pilot might not be a forum-typed person and may not even post.

So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. Thats potentially 50% of the population of the thread now due to multipal accounts.

Take into account the guys that just arent post'ers. Theres another 5% , multiply that thats 10% more.

So your are "potentially" gonna lose 60% of characters over 2 years old.

Now if you want to go even deeper... Think about some people that are logging in, dreaming of the day they can have a carrier, read this thread and think....What the hell am I working toward now? Is there any ship I really want to fly once I get my skills up.

If CCP wants to stay in business they need to back off capital ships for a while and come up with some more Constructive ways to make them BETTER not worse.

-DarQ

---

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: Gyle

---

Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38

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!

---

noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.


Sickening

---

Originally by: Patch86

---

The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move


Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.

The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.


And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.

The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion.

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

First off, Im not a carrier or mom pilot, Ive fought them -never flown them (except on 'geddon day ).

Id suggest a moment of pause. Let's see what impact (if any) the T2 Cov Op BS and Heavy Dictors have to Fleet Warfare.

My feeling is, the best way for a Carrier to provide support is to make it act more like a true Carrier; allow it to act as a "Jump in point" for smaller ship classes like Frigates, Intys, and AFs. A mobile cyno geny if you like. An FC could then call in a frigate swarm from several jumps away, rather than rely on the current 'fighter blob'.

Moms would act in a similiar fashion, but for larger classes of vessel - namely Destroyer, Dictor, Cruiser and HAC/Hdict.

But like I said, Id suggest a moments pause.

C.

---

Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia

---

Originally by: Sin mez

---

Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful.
What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game?
If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.

---

with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.

I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.

---

Originally by: Sonisha

---

I Enjoy In Eve The Ability To Be A Solo Player, After 4 Years, And Now Being Able To Fly A Carrier, Its Time To Nerf It. Personally I Think This Would Be A Bad Idea. The Carriers Design IS To Be A Drone Carrier, Fine.
If You Happen To Like Being In A Large Corp, This Steps On The Little Guy That Has Worked To Get This Far Then Go Waste 4 months of training the skills to level 5, Then Thats A Big Black Mark, And Once Again, Makes Me Wonder Why It Was Worth It, And If Indeed Its Worth Carrying On.

Long Live 'Eve, Be What You Want To Be' Type Game Play Instead OF Be Nerfed Because You Like Solo.

A Carrier Is Big, Armoured, No Guns. Take Away Drones Control, Solo Carrier Pilot With Only A Guiding Weak Cruiser = Why Bother.

There Are Plenty Of Carrier Destroying Dreadnoughts And Other Carriers Around To Deal With Them, Why Change? Not An Improvement In My Opinion.

Also Then Limiting Level 5 Missions To Non-Solo Players = Boring, No Point In A Carrier At All.

---