| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
James Duar
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:27:00 -
[271]
I'm going to say it again because this needs to be unbelievably clear: if you want to reduce the number of fighters on grid then damage buff the fighters.
Change the fighter model if you want to show 5 ships, but treat them as one. Just don't nerf carriers this stupidly.
|
CobraBytez
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:28:00 -
[272]
Edited by: CobraBytez on 21/10/2007 14:29:54
I think a more important change to carrier blobs (beyond fixing lag which will never happen) is to severely nerf remote repping. Why?
Suppose you deploy 50 carriers on a gate. That gives you the ability to deploy 500 fighters, or basically the ability to evaporate any battleship that jumps through even without lag, *and* each carrier has the tanking ability of one carrier + 49 capital remote reps on it! And the more carriers you add, the more impossible it becomes to break even a single carrier's tank.
I suggest a change like, say, capping the amount of remote repping a ship can take. i.e. you can only be repped 5,000 hp a second by outside forces. Or something like that.
|
Serena Ku
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:28:00 -
[273]
All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
|
Gleaker
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:29:00 -
[274]
Nice.....
I'm taking this as an advanced notice to change my skill plans before I get to far along, basically this is going to be more than... never mind whats my 2 cents worth anyways.
Thanks for the heads up.
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:29:00 -
[275]
Oh dear. Certainly good move to increase blobbing. 
|
Merrick Solipsus
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[276]
If you want to balance Motherships in lowsec just make them scramable like any other ship while theyre in lowsec. Problem solved. With the proposed change you are crippling carriers and motherships, sending them right back to the POS.
At this time last year CCP was trying to figure out how to get carriers to fight at the front lines instead of POS hugging and delegating fighters. One year later you want to send them right back!?
Its said that this is done for balance because "This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds."
Have you even bothered looking at what it takes to fly a carrier/mothership compared to a BS? If this is the way its going to be I suggest nerfing Battelships, HACs and Commandships because theyre able to kill frigs and cruisers in a second. Ah wait a sec, if you nerf BSs because they kill frigs too easily you need to nerf carriers again because it will all be out of whack.
Why do you think everything needs to be balanced around BSs? So something can kill BSs... whoopdee-freakin-do!
There is a reason some ships take much, much longer to fly well compared to other ships! BECAUSE THEYRE BETTER!
Im not sure who Im more upset with over this idea. Zulupark for coming up with it, or whoever hired him into a Dev position when he obviously doesnt grasp the basic concepts of this game, balance, and the difference in ships vs. training time.
|
Popychacz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[277]
 Originally by: Jin Entres
If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters
ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks
ò Area shield
ò Effective super defender missiles
ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS
ò Capital neuts
ò Ship tractor beams (!)
ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.
Quoted for quality.
Also, fire Zulusomething idiot and hire the guy I quoted. It's that simple.
|
olddone
Confederation of Red Moon
Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[278]
Basically a dumb idea. What you are really saying is we did not think there would be so many super capitals in the game.............And another thing, once again blob over might wins again. Fix balancing of number of players that can fight in a stable server for once. I just do not understand how you guys do not get it.
The will to fight is all you need to kill them, and a few friends. |
DrWorm
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:31:00 -
[279]
I can only shake my head.
I think the balance team should not be spending time balancing carriers and motherships against battle ships, it's silly honestly. If this line of thinking holds then soon we will have to worry if a cruiser can last long enough against battle ships.
The best way i think to approach balancing as a whole is to balance the ship class within it's ship class. Of course the real challenge is to keep them different enough and still interesting.
Please CCP, Balance team, QA, whoever looks at these things and must give a thumbs up; is balancing carriers against BS's what this game needs, I do not believe so.
Wake guys, it's not about leaving a mark on the game it's making it enjoyable and risk is a big part of that.
I obviously emplore you, No.
|
busta nut
Exanimo Inc
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:31:00 -
[280]
dumbest. idea. ever.
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.... well done :golfclap:
|
Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:32:00 -
[281]
I don't mind the changes. But:
1. Why i trained fighters 5, will it only affect my five fighters?
2. If you do it, you need a great improvement in drone GUI and control. I want to see if they are being damaged so i can pull them back, even the assigned ones. And i want them to respond, not 30 min later or never.
3. How will this help lag? There will still be 20 fighters out there. Take 50 carriers, still 600 fighters, assigned or not.
4. "...capital ships more reliant on their support fleet..." So what will they be good for? This feels like the joke, where you take a log into the woods, which you dump to run faster when a bear chases you around. Triage is a joke, why should carriers go to frontlines if we need support to control our drones? Remote repping? Not needed at friendly POS and the dmg is still being done.
Actually, on second thought i do mind the changes.
Just make the bandwidth for carrier so they can launch only 5, with increased stats, maybe 30 or 40% damage, hitpoints per fighters 5 skill level. And additional dmg bonus for motherships.
No idea where CCP got the idea big ships must be boring and useless. I thought I earned the advantage with the 3+ years of playing this game. Instead of nerfing caps and supercaps, go nerf the sov wars. or something else.
I miss TomB handlind the nerfbat.
|
RahSun
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[282]
With a change like this:
A battleruiser can permanently tank all the damage you deal with just 5 drones and keep you tackled; provided the carriers don't get a moros style damage bonus for drones under your direct control. Although a carrier isn't meant to be a solo pwn mobile, being locked down permanently by a battle cruiser is a little too much of a nerf to a ship that I spent over a billion and a half isk fitting and getting skills for.
|
Empire marketslave
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Serena Ku
All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
how would you like it if you spend about 2 bilion or 20 bil on a ship that you enjoyed using and ccp said sorry we are gonna change it so that your weapons only work when you are in a gang. oh and a 200k ship can pin you down so you cant do anything but wait for the boom
|
Zanarkand
Gallente
Enterprise Estonia
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[284]
I support this. And my alt does own and fly a carrier.
However... I personally think that it doesn't tackle one of the important things about capitals - capital hauling.
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[285]
On the bright side, a lot of people (like me) won't see the need for a second account anymore, so hopefully this change will nerf CCP's income as well..
|
Ashimar Lanora
Amarr
The Ankou
The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[286]
Explain to me how this change will:
1. Encourage Motherships to be on the front lines at all.
2. Encourage anyone to Make/Buy a Mothership when 3 carriers with Carrier 5 and 2 DCU are equivalent to one Mothership with Carrier 4? (give or take one fighter).
Think about it. 30 billion ISK vs. 3 Billion ISK. If you do this, Motherships (and carriers to a lesser degree) need HUGE defensive buffs. Since we can't assign fighters from INSIDE a shield, sitting in front of a POS has never been safe, we can't dock, we have to do everything in space. Motherships will just become a huge freighter.
Nice job, CCP. This is bad. Mmkay? |
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[287]
If you're going to put this mess of a "fix" in you better start lowering the costs of carriers and motherships. If a carrier can only do 5 fighters worth of damage then its going to be a damn near useless isk sink. You'd be better off in a battleship.
In a lag filled environment (your problem NOT ours btw so don't push your crap down our necks because your hardware\software can't handle it) it'll be damn near impossible to get these damn things assigned and functioning. Drones already have issues behaving ai wise in a laggy environment and your solution is to fix it with a sledge hammer?
The original drone nerf I can understand. Hell it wasn't even a nerf. All it did was take less drones and give them more damage each. Fewer drones = less lag plus you gave us some extra goodies for the trouble. Good on you. What's the incentive to use a carrier if you're nothing but a glorified drone dispenser that can't even use his own drones?
Carriers are already reliant enough on the support fleet for everything as it is. Cyno generators, small\medium support to clear tacklers, medium\heavy support to go after enemy battleships and fighters. Carriers are very, very much a fleet ship already but apparently thats not enough for the likes of you. Considering the skills and costs to get into a carrier its fairly sickening to see something like this even be suggested.
I was going to start my carrier training fairly shortly but if anything resembling this goes in I won't be touching the f'ing things.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Mr ZER0
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[288]
Another fantastic idea!!!! not whats the use of spending a year training carriers skills drone skills nav skills etc to fly a carrier then have it only use 5 freaking drones???? and you want carriers to be fleet orieanted ships which is great but any fleet battle thats bigger then 2 v 2 laggs to hell so yes i think its a wonderful idea 
|
prsr
Gallente
JuBa Corp
RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Serena Ku
This change ... is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
--
.sig apathy ftw |
Mirauder
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[290]
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.
|
Stephen HB
Mystical Knights
Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[291]
And this, children, is why your parents say "Don't kick hornets' nests."
Now Zulu, would you like some cream for that new orifice you're sporting?
----------
Signature core stabiliser II activated. This sig is immune to mod tampering! Rawr!
EVE Tracking Guide |
Abyss Jack
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[292]
this is a joke right? i bet ccp is doin that kind of nerf for a free performance upgrade nothin more...
---------------------------
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[293]
This is the most ******* ******** idea I have ever seen.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[294]
5 (fighter5) fighters = about 600 dps i think.
5 Dominix heavy drones = about 600 dps.
Carrier + Fighters = 1.5BIL
Carrier + fighter 5 training time. = 1 year
Dominix + drones. = 75mil
Dominix training time(BS 5 DI 5) = 2.5 months.
|
p0pup7arge7
Shooting Gallery
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Serena Ku
All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
That against another ship of the same class is fairly easy to tank.
|
Mag's
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Mag''s on 21/10/2007 14:39:43
So you're telling me now, i've wasted nearly two years on skills for a ship, that I will no longer be able to use.
Because lets face it, why would I field an MS when the cheapest cousin the Carrier can do it just as badly.
And what about the time wasted on the skills, are you going to re-asign them to other areas for me?
If you had ever flown an MS, you would know that the use of smaller drones, can be the difference between getting out alive or dead.
This will in no way help anyone, not even the server,.
I'm sat here gob smacked. 
Mag's
|
Crohok
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Empire marketslave
Originally by: Crohok
can someone please explain me why flying a MS with this nerf ?
carriers are way less expansive if it's for doing remote rep and delegate fighters near a POS ... and no way to bring them in the middle of a laggy fleet fight if you can not control more than 5 fighter to defend a ship that costs billions...
you can assign A LOT of fighters 
woaw it's gonna be soooo cool to assign fighters to fleet members ! i'm so impatient ! what a funny game sitting and assign fighters and keep 5 for you !
/quit |
captain dak
Gallente
Miners And Designers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[298]
well, ignoring what everyone else is saying, i think this is an excellent change and will greatly balance carriers and motherships. the one thing i didn't see anyone else thinking about is the fact that in rev3 theres a whole new line of t2 ships coming out which, with the changed carriers and mothers, working together i think they will become "the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" that you are going for.
|
Dufas
Amarr
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:41:00 -
[299]
Edited by: Dufas on 21/10/2007 14:42:48
Quote:
The truth is that this idea is about as popular as Michael Vick at a PITA rally
i think thats PETA
WTS: fully fitted archon
----------------------------------------
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:41:00 -
[300]
not exactlly sure what type direction there trying 2 steer away from but if its about moms camping low sec then y not make supercaps banned from low sec??
leave drones as they r now.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |