|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[1]
So you are nerfing capitals AGAIN making yet another useless heavy SP ship. Now carriers will sit right by pos shields and deploy the fighters again rather then being on the front line.
Great direction all right. The only direction I have seen out of CCP is to nerf every ship that takes a lot of training to get into.
It's all a total number of players you can cram into a node game anymore. POS warfare sucks, blob warfare sucks so quit encouraging it.
It's funny, people used to complain about DEVS playing the game, now I wonder if DEVS play this game at all.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:41:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Cown
Originally by: Mr Filth Its just getting me warm and fuzzy inside to see all the "ill quit" and whiners.
There is this word that pirates always gets thrown into their faces.. ...what is it. Starts with an A ... right.. ADAPT !
/SIGNED
Most of this conversation revolves around 0.0 warfare, not pirates ganking people at the gates. Failure at reading comprehension 4TL for both of you.
Remove the ability to release fighters in low sec if its that much of a problem, or limit the fighters to 5 in low sec, but theres no need to nerf carriers in 0.0 if the problem is with low sec pirating.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 -
[3]
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.
I hope this translates to "perhaps we have not thought this all the way through and though there may be issues with a few uses of motherships in low sec, we need to address that problem rather then broad stroke nerf the entire class all together"
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Xeliya Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
Yup, I brought this up in the (pretty much dead where no devs read anyway) ideas forum. Its kind of ironic that CCP removes the remote DD function (which was a good thing) but want to reduce carriers to ONLY remotely assign all of their firepower (well, a good majority anyway).
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:14:00 -
[5]
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.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:55:00 -
[6]
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. You would rahter the game be changed to save you the same time and effort of having to do the same.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: LordVodka and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
I like the way you think!
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning.
VERY good points and one I had not thought about. I think CCP is forgetting the point of having the fear shoot through you when all the sudden you see a carrier or a mothership drop in on you.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:25:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
Agreed, it's not one "lone rogue CCP developer" that put up this dev blog. I am sure that this has been talked about and analyzed by several if not all of the CCP developers and content guys, and they collectively decided that this was a good enough idea to bring forth to the community to see how it was received.
The good news was that they brought it up as a possible idea. The bad news is that they are seemingly out of touch with the majority of the player base that they thought this was a good idea in the first place.
I think this goes back to the idea that I honestly don't think that CCP devs are playing this game enough.
Zulu was bringing forth an idea based upon pure stats. As with most things you cannot look at stats alone. And to Cadelas point, everything in this game does not need to be equal. It reminds me of the whole "redistribution of wealth" ideals tbh.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:01:00 -
[10]
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.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:39:00 -
[11]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:44:14
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!!!!
I remember being in low sec a few months old and seeing my first carrier cyno in (a shinra guy). I quickly looked up carriers and saw there potential, and then layed a gameplan together to get myself into one. I didn't start a whine fest that because I couldn't fly a carrier he shouldn't be able to either, or that my dominix I was flying at the time should be just as powerful as his carrier.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:19:00 -
[12]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 01:21:27
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
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.
Ummm, no. If I see a full bs fleet coming after my carrier Im screwed. If the above is truly your understanding of PVP in eve today, then you have a long way to go. Look at the killboards sometime, like this link which just occured.
http://killboard.net/details/201159/
Looks like a carrier was ganked by *gasp* non capital ships. Only 12 ships of different classes (Battleships, HACS, command ships) took down a multy billion dollar capital ship with ease.
I would suggest you do a bit more research from now on about the ability of carriers to pwn fleets by themselves.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:24:00 -
[13]
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.
The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively).
Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets.
They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
Umm yeah, listening to the majority of your customer base is a bad thing .
Lets go back to my original idea of only having ibis's to fly around in, make us all equal in SP (the 900k you get when you start the game), and then everything will be "balanced" so the newer players will be every bit as powerful as the older players.
Of course with this mentality the oldest players would be about 5 days old, because flying the same old ibis around for more then a couple of days would be pretty boring.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: James Duar Quoted from Game Development because I feel it much more accurately addresses the lag issues related to fighter/drone amounts.
Originally by: James Duar The most straight forward answer to lag from drones in a "drone number" sense is to change drones into "drone squadrons" and cap every ship at 5 squadrons maximum.
On small ships, nothing changes - you have 1 drone per squadron.
On carriers however you might have anywhere from 1 to 5 fighters per squadron. Motherships would be defined as fielding squadrons with more fighters in them then motherships.
This neatly ensures that every ship is only launching a maximum of 5 additional entities, while retaining the versatility and DPS of carriers and motherships as the currently stand.
That sounds like a pretty sensible and solid solution tbh. Less processing overhead for the servers while not nerfing carriers or motherships at all (unless you are REALLY into micro managing your drones). May still be some graphical lag due to the total number of drones / fighters, but hopefully trinity will solve that problem.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 21:45:50
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.
Heres a thought, finish your training for a carrier, then fly one, THEN post about the "I win" button. Because as it stands right now it sounds like you don't have any idea what you are talking about if you think a carrier is an "I win" button. It's further disgraceful that you would accuse the mass amounts of of people in these forums that would reject that all of their training, time and effort would be wiped away because of your misconceptons of how carriers are an "I win" ships.
As for constructive criticism what do you expect? All that was announced was that you ôdidnÆt like the direction things were goingö and your plan was to nerf carriers and motherships. No explanation as to why the nerf to begin with, of what you hoped to accomplish. Now reading your statements further I see that you think that carriers are an instant ôI winö button yet you have never flown a carrier yourself. So pretty much our assessment that CCP is out of touch with the player base is spot on, thank you for confirming it.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Bon Hedus It keeps sounding like the underlying problem is people camping low sec with MS, or dropping MS into low sec. So ban MS from low sec.
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, only so as to let smaller corporations get their feet wet before coming to 0.0.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:38:00 -
[17]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 22:39:01
Originally by: Jenna Trueman "What's being considered?" Lets just hope it stays there.
Hopefully it goes beyond this. Hopefully CCP realizes that perhaps they are losing touch with the playerbase and take action to rectify the problem. Or perhaps they will communicate more effectively next time and let us know the root problem they are trying to address rather then giving us bits and pieces of information.
Get more developers back to playing Eve tbh.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
In fleet battles, it is the skill of the commanders that makes the key difference, not the skill with which the fleet pilot targets and shoots the primary target.
Ships present in smaller numbers, such as capital ships, can often work as an organic group, but even then numbers is always an issue, and you can't ignore that no matter how tightly you clamp your hands over ears and shout SKILL IS BETTER THAN NUMBERS!
Not exactly. The fact is that skill used to be greater then numbers. The problem is with the nerfs like this which "puts all ships on a level playing field" then the only way to win a fleet battle is to bring more numbers, not bigger ships requiring more skill to fly. This in turn just encourages or even demands the blob as it becomes a simple numbers game. If he has 5 ships and I have 6 I win.
The second problem with this whole idea is you have two developers who have openely stated that they believe carriers are an "I Win" button yet have never flown them themselves, and somehow fail to realize that a carrier has the same DPS as a battleship, and as it has been proven hundreds or possibly thousands of times over, carriers & even motherships are very easily destroyed by a small group of ships. It's very concerning that developers that decide the fate and direction of the game have such incorrect perceptions and have obviously never sat down with a spreadsheet to analyze the true capabilities of a carrier, but rather work on inccorect assumptions.
It's a disturbing trend in which CCP continues to follow.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:29:00 -
[20]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 16:32:58
Originally by: Cemial Instead of nerfing fighters, carriers and MSs add something to the game that could potentially have the same effect.
For instance, if a small ship (destroyer size?) could steal the control of a drone/fighter by hacking the communications between the owner ship and the said drone, that would force fighters and drones to be fielded together with other ships. The support fleet would be able to kill the drone hacker and ensure/recover control over them. That indeed would make "capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct uber deathbringer"
For the sake of balance, the hacker pilot should have the skills to control those drones, both in number and types, plus the skills for the hacking modules. You should need a high energy module per drone, and you would have control over the drone for as long as the module was on, thus making it cap dependent.
Based on a destroyer hull with 8 high slots this could mean that a single ship would be able to gain control over up to eight drones. Also, destroyers are easy to pop, so any mixed fleet would be almost immune to them whereas a fighter blob would be vulnerable against a gang of these hacker ships.
A destroyer can already kill a fighter within a few seconds. Fighters are ridiculously weak considering their price. The fighter, on the other hand, has no way to kill the destroyer as it cannot track or hit it effectively.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:36:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dark Chasm ur just telling us how to play the game (or you're starting to) rather then the "figure it out for yaself" attitude which is the most attractive feature in eve. all other games hold ya hand. please don't make eve like that.
Good point. The sandbox attitude HAS kind of disappeared lately.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:07:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
I realize that, but it is one of the issues.
Without turning this into a COAD discussion, BoB has been one of the parties sometimes bringing tons of carriers/MS to the field. So let me ask you, what would in your opinion be an effective way to stop the '50 carrier fleet'?
I agree in regards to the CAOD discussion, as I rarely post there anyway. So lets talk casually.
The reason that we started to bring 50 carriers to an engagement, it was because you started bringing hundreds of frigates, cruisers and battleships to the battles, essentially forming a massive blob during every engagement. There has to be a solution to that many ships, and you do that by bringing "force multipliers". The carrier is that force multiplier today.
The downside of the force multiplier from our perspective is the tremendous amount of risk that is presented to ourselves everytime we field our carriers, as every loss for us is 2 billion easily, while every loss for the other fleet is only between 1-35 million after insurance (most people DO NOT insure their capital ships). Also it took our players over 1 year to be able to fly these ships effectively while it only takes a cruiser pilot 1-2 weeks to fly it effectively?
I have stated several times previously that a blob at ANY level is a bad thing. But you don't get rid of the blob by making every ship the same, in which the person with the more ships wins, rather then the side with better organization, better skills, better logistics etc.
I understand fully why Goonswarm bring massive amounts of ships to a battle, why wouldn't they? We have to do the same, but without having the same overall numbers we need force multipliers. Get rid of the overall concept that you risk more, you work harder and you can win, and change it to a game like counterstrike where everyone is basically at the same level and you get a pretty boring game imo.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:34:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Bon Hedus
Originally by: Robet Katrix i cant believe you ************ suckers put this **** on the test server
You have got to be kidding me... when did this happen?
im being told about it from alliance chat as of now.
If its true, whats the next MMO space game coming out? I would like to get in on the beta.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:40:00 -
[24]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 17:40:52
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 17:38:19 On SiSi After launching 5 fighters from their NYX (mothership), with 5 drone control units fitted, they were presented with:
17:14:18 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
Speaks for itself.
When several people said that CCP would ignore us anyway, I thought they were crazy. Seems they were right. I've never seen a company be successful by ignoring the majority of its customer base.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:44:00 -
[25]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 17:43:59
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
Guess Kerfira was more clever then I thought, cause he hit it right on the nose.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[26]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 19:24:13
Originally by: ZaKma [19:05:18] CCP Gangleri > Everyone that is crying about their Carrier, take a long deep breath and compare your carriers ability to kill small targets with a Dread. Which is bigger and more expensive.
Hes right, carriers AND dreads should be able to kill smaller ships. Buff the dread, allow it to lock more then two targets at the same time and have faster tracking while sieged!
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Spare me Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
It's already been proven hundreds of times (just look at the killboards) that carriers are VERY easily killed. So those ships exist today, they are called battleships or commandships or hacs.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:19:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Arnoud Langen hmm im sure they can think of something... carriers that have better bonusses for remote repping is a start... Carriers that have more health... so kind of like WoW (ahhh I said the W word) you have a warrior... but it can do several things... but not all at the same time. So you could just splice the carrier up in several types of carriers.
We do get "spliced up" for different duties. When I am in combat I have a completly different setup then when I am repairing a pos or station. It's no different then every other ship in game.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:57:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne Why not just make it so that carriers with extreme drone controlling signals, interfere with each other, setting a max number of carriers a corp or alliance can have in a system at a time. This would make carrier use more tactical, as well as even out the battlefield some. To add to the effect, mods could be made to allow ships to hack a carrier's signal and disable or even take over drones.
I agree that there is no reason to have 50 carriers in one system, just make it suck if you do... or lag the drones! Yeah, too many carriers in the same alliance == drone lag. 5 carriers == 5 minute delay on drone responses.
Yep, but leave the 400-500 frigates and cruisers that jump into systems and cause the REAL lag alone, go after the 50 players who have dedicated a lot of time and effort into this game.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:01:00 -
[30]
It's funny how this topic labled "Will CCP be Blackmailed .... Again?" comes out in CAOD 1 month ago and talks about how newer players are complaining about fighters and then this "change" gets put into effect 30 days later.
Heres the topic... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=595962
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:06:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Khes My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Are you in the fleet battles on the side that brings hundreds of frigates and cruisers jumping through the gates? But thats alright right? I find it very amusing that the people that blob the most complain about a gang of 50.
Remove the frigate and cruiser blob, and the carrier "blob" would not be needed.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:18:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Khes
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Khes My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Are you in the fleet battles on the side that brings hundreds of frigates and cruisers jumping through the gates? But thats alright right? I find it very amusing that the people that blob the most complain about a gang of 50.
Remove the frigate and cruiser blob, and the carrier "blob" would not be needed.
All Im saying is that in a gang of 50 there should be more like 5 capitals and rest BS and smaller, and not 20 capitals. If capitals would make blobs go away, fine, but unfortunately they do not.
So can we then say in a gang of 50 there should only be 5 battleships as well? Because if not then they will overpower the cruisers, and so forth and so on.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:39:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Hyuuga Veralis
Originally by: Haakelen Advanced Spaceship Command 5. Capital Ships.
And don't say 'get a dread'. Dreads are different animals entirely.
Yes, dreads are the capital ships that are made for offense.
Carriers are not.
If anything CCP screwed up by letting carriers be more offense than logistics for too long and people got used to it.
Sigh, please fly or be involved in capital warefare in ANY way before replying.
Dreads cannot hit battleships when they are sieged, their tracking is to slow.
Dreads can only lock 2 targets after the latest nerf to dreads about 3 months ago.
Some Dreads like Pheonixes will not do any damage to smaller ships due to sig radius penalties against citadel torps.
So yeah, offensive, a ship that can sit there but can't shoot anything.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:34:00 -
[34]
Dev blog translation: In 3 months we will stealth nerf the carriers anyway.
"We donæt want Carriers and Motherships to be as effective against smaller ships (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battlecruisers) while being just as effective against the larger ships (Battleships and up) at the same time. "
This is total crap. So my 2 billion dollar carrier cant kill a 30k frigate.
|
|
|
|