|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[1]
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?
Ever occur to anyone that maybe a ship that costs 20bill should be able to instapop a ship that costs 60mill? Maybe it's a good thing that a 5man battleship gang can't roast a mothership. At least now it takes a gang of 10 bs/bc's(which personally I think is ******** as well) And as far as carriers go, well isn't it enough that a 1mill sp player flying a 20k isk maulus can render a 60mill skillpoint carrier pilot completely useless with one sensor dampener?
I have to seriously question the wisdom of nerfing any cap more than it already is. Requiring carrier/ms pilots to bring in even more support with them to use their ships might not be the best of ideas. Lag is bad enough already. Reassigning a fighter in a situation in the middle of a fight where you are facing a 200man blob will be impossible. And it will require a 200man support fleet to field a capital fleet with these changes. IMO it is already absolutely absurd that a mothership/titan can't tank more damage over time than a carrier, but to weaken their damage output too? really?
I'm shocked/disappointed that someone at CCP thought that this is a good enough idea to right a blog about and someone else agreed.
CCP - If you do this can I have my skillpoints back to allocate elsewhere since you are essentially making carriers a completely different ship than the one I spent months training for? ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[2]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
Not taking sole credit for this gem eh?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
**** no. Ask your self this. Would you like the idea of buying a Ferrari and have it turn into a minivan after a couple months?
People didn't train for carriers so they could idle at a pos and assign fighters. Balancing ships is one thing, completely changing the role of a ship after people trained for months and spent serious amounts of isk to get in one is just plain wrong. I'd say atleast 95% of pilots who bought/trained for carriers would not have done so if this is what would happen.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Yes. But you're going about it the wrong way. In America we have an expression "Keep It Simple Stupid". Just change the "Can deploy x additional Drones per level" bonus into a "xx% drone dmg/hitpoint per lvl bonus" and everyone is happy. No hairbrained schemes about assigning fighters plz.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? For you others: It can still defend itself, but let's be real, why would you ever get yourself into a situation where the last line of defense between you and an attacking fleet are you fighters?
To answer your question with a question:
Have you ever seen 5 rowboats take out a solo aircraft carrier?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it. ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:12:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
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?
Ever try delegating fighters in a large fleet battle? I have. It's doesn't work.
From what your getting at the problem you're trying to fix here is solo motherships/carriers running around wtfpwning everything. Ok. I get that. I agree that is a problem in empire. But that's not the case in 0.0. You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away.
However in 0.0 small scale pvp is not broken. No need to fix it. I assure you, there aren't gangs of motherships roaming 0.0 with no support right now. Large scale pvp is broken. If you want to fix something, fix that. Less fighters that do more damage does help fix that.
You are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. How does that normally work out for you? ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:26:00 -
[4]
Originally by: duckmonster Theres a magnificent amount of nerd rage in here from people who think its unfair they'll have to fight instead of fighterblob lagging the system into victories by default. If you could bottle these tears it'd be amazing.
It doesn't go far enough however. CCP needs to get rid of fighter delegation all together and just have 5 fighters per carrier and 10 per mothership. This evens it out much more.
Why stop there? Why not make carriers/motherships only able to use mining drones? Hmmmm. That doesn't seem to go far enough either. Since the changes make carriers/motherships a completely different ship anyways why not ditch the drone bays all together to prevent "fighterblobbing". Maybe ccp should just change every carrier/mothership in eve into a rorquel. ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
I can see how you might think that since everyone is talking about reducing lag and keeping motherships out of lowsec. But we all get understand. The truth is that this idea is about as popular as Michael Vick at a PITA rally and since you're new at this people are trying to give you new ideas similar to you're own that fix problems with the game that actually exist rather than inventing new problems that don't exist.
By bringing up ways to change carriers to help reduce lag and keep motherships out of low sec we are trying to give you the opertunity to say "errrr. yeah! That's what I meant to say!" so then we can all <3 you. If you make an effort to reduce lag in fleet battles by reducing the number of fighters and making them more powerful or banning motherships from lowsec then we will all be happy little customers and will think you're the best GM ever.
No one wants the dev team spending time fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you want a capital logistics class of ships, then develop a new one. Do not change an existing class into something other than what people trained for and purchased. It's just not right.
There are real existing problems with the game that need to be addressed. I don't think you would here one person complaining if you said you were adjusting how carriers work to fix an existing problem with the game. However the changes you are proposing fixes something that isn't broken. When you get into that territory I guarantee that you'll cause more problems than you solve every single time.
------>PҼſϚի<------
|
|
|
|