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) |
Morning Mist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:32:00 -
[361]
Goonswarm is very quickly closing the capital gap, why the hell would we like this change? We want lag to be fixed not making motherships worthless. And anyone thinking the Titan nerf actually did anything to promote blob warfare you have never flown in a fight with/against a Titan before.
|
Etien Aldragoran
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:33:00 -
[362]
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?
You do realize this is the same logic as saying a 4 man gang has more firepower than a 3 man gang, right? I.E. the only reason you have more firepower is because you have more people, not because your ship is better.
Under your proposal (simplified for numbers only) if you have 2 3 man gangs 1 a MS and 2 BS, and 1 a carrier and 2 BS, the carrier is providing everything the MS is, for 1/20th the price. So you're basically saying that to field a mothership effectively you need to have more friends, whats the logic behind that exactly? In the end, you get a lot more mileage out of always bringing another carrier to a fight than fielding a mothership. And I'm pretty sure you can get a few years worth of GTC's to produce and manage another carrier alt for the price you paid for said shiny mothership. ------------------------------------------------------ I am not a nice person, never have, never will be, its my burden to deal with the consequences of my actions. |
Cyana Fox
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[363]
This is a horrible idea =/
Why take their direct fighter control? You REALIZE (I hope) that makes them completely defenseless right? You realize not all cap ships can have support beckoning at their will right? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THIS???? They are useless as it is when they get damped, webbed, nos'd anyways.
And who's idea was carriers controlling 5 drones anyways???? For being a super cap, I'm less effective than a Myrmidon??? Ishtar??? Dominix???? I fly a Thanatos, why the hell would i want to fly a billion isk lesser ship when one that is 30million is more effective dps wise when using drones????
You are NEW to this 'balancing' team right? Stay away from CAPS! You sire are limited to Tech 1 Frigate nerfing ONLY. I'm talking punishers, condors, and rifters!!!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!!!!!
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[364]
Dear CCP ZULU, I tried to find the good things with your idea and what I come up with is that I can now cancel my plans of training for a carrier.
It will save me a lot of Isk and time I was gonna use for skills and carrier and setup and instead I can go train for a Dominix. It will perform just like a carrier after your nerf, but better, and I can afford to buy and lose a dozen of them.
In fact this character will not be needed any longer with this change so I go cancel the subscription now and next go right to the character sell forum.
So CCP Zulu I tank you very much for letting me know before it happened so I didn't do it all for nothing. And before I leave a big 'lol' to all you s*ckers who now sit there with soon (almost)useless ships and skill points.
//Erem
|
FalconHawk
Amarr Shadow Rebellion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[365]
why you realy want to change these ships? they have alot of firepower, but they cost 10-30 times more than a normal battleship, so whatŠs wrong with them?
will this change stop low sec pirate motherships? no why they should care about uber damage? fit 5 neuts and 5 fighters will do the job too and they are still immune to EW and move where they want.
so i donŠt see a balancing need and low sec moms wonŠt be stopped by this, this is no balancing, this is a simple NERF! sure 20 fighters controlled by a mom are a bit much, but i donŠt see a need to screw the gameplay for most carrier pilots in eve.
|
Lady Azra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[366]
OK...
Someone please take away this persons nerf bat!!!!! or make sure he never gets it!!!!
Carriers are already nerfed, they are not the super uber ships, a carrier can not take on but maybe 3 or 4 ships at a time, and even if those 3 or 4 ships know what they are doing and deppending on the types they could take down the carrier..
Carriers already can not fly through space alone, unless they are looking to collect some insurance money..
I have other characters, and one of these characters flys carriers and is in an alliance and standing orders are not to mine or rat in them and DO NOT EVER FLY OUT SOLO SOMEWHERE..
We have ourselves taken down carriers with 8 man gangs, and motherships with 10 man gangs... THEY ARE ALREDY NERFED
Move along nothing to see here.
|
Dah' Khanid
Conisor Excavations Syndicate Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Dah'' Khanid on 21/10/2007 15:35:33 I'll support almost every other poster in this thread when saying that this is a bad idea. This change suggestion has clearly been made by someone who does not understand what carriers and motherships are used for in the endgame, in 0.0 warfare.
This is not the way to go, you've always said that you want to see capitals and super capitals more on the frontline, hence the titan change for instance. Why bother making a ship change that will only render it useful when sitting at a POS? And 1,5-30bil ships in this case...
We all know that lag is the REAL concern here, not carriers being "super weapons" - every single poster in this thread knows that carriers can't be used effectively for solo work and that even the dumbest squad of 5 people can take down a well fitted carrier.
So do you think we are fools? We all know how 0.0 warfare is and what the real change should be like, in my opinion you're only trying to make the fighter control, the carriers' only real defence, so damn hard to use in combat since assigning takes time and effort and won't work when you jump in a fleet on top of another capital fleet and start the battle right away. You're trying to make fighter control so difficult and boring and time consuming that the amount of fighters in space and in large battles will be reduced overall - therefore a reduction in lag. BUT this is not the way to go at all, you're making the game boring for the thousands of players that are using their carriers and motherships in combat and want to be on the front and be to USE, not just sitting ducks in a support ship that can't even support still because of the only real problem: lag.
So stop trying to fix problems that aren't there, carriers are fine as they are, find another way to reduce lag, make fighters little dots in space if you want to and remove their animation and all - just don't create an expensive POS hugging ship and make the game boring for people who play this game for fun and want to fly ships that they've trained hard for and earned much money to be able to buy and fly.
|
Buckeroo Bonzai
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:35:00 -
[368]
As a 0.0 carrier pilot I think this is just stupid. 5 drones to protect your self is just not going to hack it. Worst idea ever (no offence).
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:36:00 -
[369]
A lot of people have put the case for not implementing this, many of them much more eloquently and effectively than I can. A lot of the MC posts have been very interesting, and if you want want to hear from people with experience of frontlining capitals you won't do much better.
The only interesting thing this proposed change has going for it - is whether, in the face of almost universal derision, you'll continue to implement it.
I've seen many dev posts saying that they listen to what players are saying - I think we'll find out how true that is very soon.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:37:00 -
[370]
It seems that whenever I get close to flying/using something in eve it gets nerfed.
This is the worst change, that's ever hit a dev blog. Fix the problem..... the problem is lag. I've never heard anyone say Carriers or MS are overpowered, except MS in low sec.
Rather a daft idea tbh.
Regards Rusty |
|
Neo Triton
Amarr Unamed Mofos
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[371]
if it aint broke, dont try and fix it!
nt
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Druadan
We have those already: Drone Control Units. With three of them, Drones V, and Carrier IV, you can support 12 fighters.
They give +1 for number of controlling drones/fighter, no?
CCP could tweak it all using their math magic, to make you use most high slots to control full number of drones.
Aw, ffs, although I'd like to find a reason for CCP doing this, it's hard.
I have never had problems with many carriers/motherships shooting me or my buddies. I only had problems with not being able to move, warp, lock or shoot for 15-20 minutes because of the lag. If there was no lag, there would be no fighters to shoot me and my buddies, so... really hard to understand why CCP wants to make this change. |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[373]
I'm not sure if CCP play this game any more. This will just delegate carriers to 24/7 POS sitting duty.
|
Diablique
The Arrow Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:40:00 -
[374]
Edited by: Diablique on 21/10/2007 15:40:55 there is no way to reasign drones after the first 5 mins of comabt.....once the controlers die or warp out, totaly pointless
not to mention, the firepower of a carrier is already less than most battleships..... a better change would be to halve the number of drones deployed and double thier HP and damage....
you cannot assign fighters to a ship that already has drones out.... everyone puts thier own drones out in fleet combat.. improved drone interface or not.. once you spend an hour assigning drones, and battle engages, everyone without fighters deploys thier own drones... then when the controlers die, you cannot reasign even if there wasnt lag or a bad interface
its stupid, they wanna nerf the firpower of a billion isk ship that already has less firepower of a battleship, at its firepoer can be directly targeted and destroyed..... (shoot the damn fighters)
|
Scavok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:42:00 -
[375]
Edited by: Scavok on 21/10/2007 15:42:49
Originally by: FowlPlayChiken so, goonfleets constant complaining about carriers and fighters has finally done its work.
We have nearly as many motherships and I'd imagine quite a few more carriers than MC does at this point. The only difference is that as an alliance, we don't have all our eggs in one basket. That doesn't take away from the fact that a very large portion of our older members who invested large amounts of their own isk and went through the capital grind are getting ****** just as hard as your members.
Regardless, if you look at the thread where we voiced our complaints it was almost entirely about problems with lag and how unbalanced auto-aggression is under heavy lag conditions. Many even explicitly said that carriers don't need a nerf.
|
christianeh
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:43:00 -
[376]
hmm i see the nerf good, so a few more thinks to nerf also:
1) why we have 8 highslots 1 should be enought 2) the capital weapons on the dread are to powerfull, nerf it to tech I guns or better civilian guns 3) the skill time to a BS are to short, make a rank 20 skill for the BS 4) why the ships have 3 parts of items (imean shield, amorr and struk) nerf it struk whit 0% resi are enought
so what you think CCP to this nerfs?
and YES i fly a carrier, i skill 1 char over one year only for carrier, but i see it positive when the carrier nerf comes i save the money for 4 chars
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 -
[377]
I always thought you got the Triage Mode backwards. Or at least that it was worth considering changing it so that you need to be in Triage to deploy fighters (or maybe to deploy more than 5 fighters). That way, if you want to fighter blob, you have to commit your capitals.
----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..." |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Nahia Senne I'm not sure if CCP play this game any more. This will just delegate carriers to 24/7 POS sitting duty.
They are just completely unable to fix the lag without game nerfs such as these. At least they could admit it openly, some of us have been in the game for 4+ years and feel like they could be treated with more respect.
CCP, there's just 1 "constructive" thing to say in this thread: focus on fixing the lag, change the gameplay later when the game is actually playable in typical combat situations.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:45:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Molly Neuro A lot of people have put the case for not implementing this, many of them much more eloquently and effectively than I can. A lot of the MC posts have been very interesting, and if you want want to hear from people with experience of frontlining capitals you won't do much better.
The only interesting thing this proposed change has going for it - is whether, in the face of almost universal derision, you'll continue to implement it.
I've seen many dev posts saying that they listen to what players are saying - I think we'll find out how true that is very soon.
lol yea we'll find out
/me ready to click on unscubscribe button * 3 accouts
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:45:00 -
[380]
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.
"Tux did it!" |
|
|
Super Twinkey69
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:46:00 -
[381]
lol make billions of isk more useless plz!
man poor aeon-now its ugly and worthless
hurray!!111!1! |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:48:00 -
[382]
im honestly trying not to be mean but its hair brained. i have spent 6 months training for a chimera and need a further 3 to get into one. after that i wanted to train further for a "bigger and better carrier" (wink wink ) and now you want to basically make all that obsolete training. i point blank refuse to pay 40,000,000,000 isk for a mom thats no better than 2 domis stuck together. or one for that matter.
Please just concentrate on getting t2 fritters/bs out, sort the new graphics engine and eliminate lag and exploits.
and for those who complain about gate camping in carriers...use your brain, get some nos ships and bs and go kill them. its not hard at all. carriers are massively powerful for a reason, but they have their weaknesses so stop spamming the forums with whining and go work out some tactics. also STOP COMING INTO 0.0 ON YOUR OWN! jees, come on! there are advanced, skille dalliances controlling basically all 0.0 space so DONT go in there by yourself. same goes for low sec.
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:48:00 -
[383]
Edited by: Armus Jenson on 21/10/2007 15:52:25 Anyone that believes you can solo in a carrier is sorely mistaken.
Anyone that thinks Carriers dont suffer the SAME lag that smaller ships is , sorely mistaken.
I lost a carrier before to severe lag and getting 1 frame of movement every 10 seconds and being able to activate 1 mod every 20-30.
And I asure you with only 5 fighters available to me , it would be completely defenseless.
So if LAG is the real problem, so be it, we all suffer from its effects.
But as the 16 pages of this thread already show, you have a large percentage of people that will not tollerate this change, and I know alot of people that are saying they will drop their accounts if it goes through.
I hope that CCP Wrangler actually reads these replies or at least skims them before making one of the worst marketing mistakes ever.
And on a final note, I refuse to let a 1.5billion isk shipbecome defensless and all the months of skill training to become worthless, to Satisfy some noob whining in his first t1 fitted battleship worth 150million isk.
|
Sacrosanctus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Alias11 I think this is a pretty bad change but that doesn't make the MC whining any less hilarious
|
Windsoord Maelstrom
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[385]
carrier 800m fittings 100-200m Fighters 9-20x15m Skills 600m Training Time 1 year
Firepower equal to a Dominix
Priceless
|
Karbowiak
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[386]
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.
Adress what? we have gotten 3 responces sofar from you people (OH NO HE DIDNT!!!)
|
Lucre
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[387]
It seems to me that ships that "keep other ships alive and help them" shouldn't cost 250 times as much as the ships they're helping... |
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[388]
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
|
AeonOfTime
Minmatar Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Law Enforcer just increase the cost of a carrier/mom if you want less people to be flying around in them. nerfing them to five fighters is just a bad idea. what happens if the support fleet gets wiped out and you have four/six battleships on you and you KNOW you could have killed them. but you magically cannot control more then five fighters even though a carrier should have the logistic capabilities to run an entire city because ccp says so. it defeats the role of a carrier. a carrier is a platform to launch and control all of its fighters and if it can't do that you better rename them to something else.
I could not agree more. 5 fighters for a "mothership" sounds ridiculous. Once it is alone, bye bye for sure. Some ships *should* be hard to kill, making all capital ships less powerful so that smaller gangs can take them down is the wrong direction to take IMO, and I am not a capital ship pilot!
If they are overpowered, which I do not believe they are, one way would be to make them less accessible - more difficult to buold and deploy, but not less powerful.
-- Read the captain's log at eve.aeonoftime.com
|
Darth Nerf
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Law Enforcer Edited by: Law Enforcer on 21/10/2007 11:32:53 ... allow them to launch all their fighters if they're GANGED with two or more battleships and just say it needs the extra logistics the battleships provide. Forcing them to assign fighters to other ships to use them though is absolutely absurd. ...
This line of thought is a good starting point.
Now off to train Adv Nerf Resistance
|
|
|
|
|
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 |