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) |
queen1121
Empire Dreams
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:11:00 -
[421]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe [link]http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg[/link]
Win
|
viojs
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:11:00 -
[422]
Edited by: viojs on 21/10/2007 16:12:14 nm
|
DrWorm
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:13:00 -
[423]
Ok, you've shared your idea now I'll share mine.
How about when the Dev's need ideas to sort out balance and performance issues how about you come to us. The ammount of knowledge of game mechanics and balance issues the community has is amazing. And some of the responces community members have put forward in threads like these are what we need to fix things.
So if there is a problem with Carriers eatting BS's too quick, ask the community how to fix it. The answers will point you to the way.
This game lives through its community and the community should most definatly be a part of the solution.
So Try it. Open the thread; pose the question to the community. How would you balance the amount of damage that carriers do to BS's?
Myself, I would look at the fighters not the carriers. After they all they only carry the fighters the fighters are the ones laying down the hurt.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[424]
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
lol what can i say i like attention...is it better now ? :P ------------------------
|
Popperr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[425]
It sure is harsh on carrier pilots that they will now need two other players in their gang who aren't in capitals to get to their full firepower.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
Minmatar Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[426]
This idea would seem to be pushing carriers back to sitting at pos delegating 14-15 fighters and being bored stiff instead of fitting for combat and getting in there, remote repping/boosting where possible. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:15:00 -
[427]
To be honest, this idea sounds more like a crutch to me.
Wasn't it fully expected that people would for example use the Thanatos over a battleship anytime? First you create two ship classes with immense firepower against pretty much every opponent, then you're surprised about people using those to gank.
How about making fighters really inefficient against frigates? Why is a fighter tougher and more dangerous than a frigate? Given the fact that a frigate is bigger and more sophisticated. How about making fighters a lot cheaper and expendable, but also a lot cheaper. More like a swarm than single cruiser-battlecruiser like entities.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the limited control idea might help the current EVE gameplay, but it's a crutch, because the problem lies deep inside the design concept.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:15:00 -
[428]
The idea? As Mr. Horse would say, "No sir...I don't like it."
How about, rather than gimping things that don't need gimped, you give carrier/mothership/drone ship pilots a better UI and a more variety in fighters (in terms of what they can be used for).
In a world of lag which allows for way less than perfect coordination of how your fighters are used, I can't see any point in further complicating (and thus decreasing) the firepower of carriers by forcing carrier pilots to assign fighters to other pilots, who themselves have trouble employing them in the situations that exist now, let alone any new situations that will arise because of this nerf.
Both of these ships are dependent upon support fleets, as it is...well, unless we're talking about motherships in low-sec.
Seriously, guys. This is just another case of CCP spending time on something that isn't needed and ignoring (or not completing) enhancements/changes that are sorely needed.
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[429]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:24:17 Hey if you want to work on some change for carriers user here are some very good ideas
i'll link them to you since seem most of them just go to oblivion, instead of those stupid "omg i got an idea i'll nerf the game and ruin your fun"
example 1 : give ability to make shortcuts better : shortcuts for drones like using shortcuts for controlling DRONES, omg this is an idea interesting !
example 2 : have some DECENT drone menu, and not the one in overview thta is damn laggy thanks to database when you carrer carries over 500 drones in multiple folders.
like : i simply love the following one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=422990
one of my favorite oldest (the stacking thing) : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=9431 yes 4 years we wait for a BETTER DRONE MANAGEMENT system
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=440979 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=279072 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=497025
Some goods ideas from Aeon also : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=494448
example 3 : About bumping (yes bumping super cap and cap is silly and even though last patch, game mechanics dont reflect what would be reality) : funny one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=490326 realistic one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=479182 (in a space opera when a small ship rush and crash on a large one, expect the small ship to die, the large one unharmed) Basically a bumped ship should not be stopped if it's size larger than the ship bumping him
example 4 : well your try now, use your brain, but NOT A DAMN NERF !!
you have many ideas there, all without any devs reply, take a coffee and read them instead thinking or nerfing the game that cost your brain nothing to do.
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek To be honest, this idea sounds more like a crutch to me.
Wasn't it fully expected that people would for example use the Thanatos over a battleship anytime? First you create two ship classes with immense firepower against pretty much every opponent, then you're surprised about people using those to gank.
How about making fighters really inefficient against frigates? Why is a fighter tougher and more dangerous than a frigate? Given the fact that a frigate is bigger and more sophisticated. How about making fighters a lot cheaper and expendable, but also a lot cheaper. More like a swarm than single cruiser-battlecruiser like entities.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the limited control idea might help the current EVE gameplay, but it's a crutch, because the problem lies deep inside the design concept.
To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate. and their also protecting something that costs 1000 times more than your frigate.
Refer to my earlier post about not caring about noob whiners in their first t1 fitted bs getting blown up when they decide to Solo into 0.0 cause they think their ready.
|
|
Sprzedawczyk
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[431]
Snakebloke: Your sig is full of awesome. Evemail me a link to it's full resolution version, I want to look at it for ages without end.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[432]
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.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:19:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Vegeta
Insurance Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.
Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.
Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.
This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important! -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[434]
Why not just say that you cant make corp bellow 50members.
This nerf will render all small corps with cap abillities useless.
Im sick of hearing about nerfing this and adding that.
!!FIX THE THINGS THAT ARE BROKEN FIRST!!
Still we have problems with desync with moms and big gangs.
Gordon Cain
"Allways remember. Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 16:21:49
Originally by: Snakebloke
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.
lol ok sorry :)
Dude it's still too big, direct quote from the forum rules:
Originally by: Forum Rules
The size limits for signature graphics are as follows: Maximum height: 120 pixels Maximum width: 400 pixels Maximum file size: 24,000 bytes (not kbytes)
I'm betting you that your signature exceeds 120 pixels in height
|
picchiatello
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[436]
limiting to only 5 drone yu can control isn't good...
|
Kalda Centauri
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 -
[437]
Hey I lost my shuttle to a low sec gatecamp of BS's! That was sooo unfair11`111111!!!111 I demapnd you require BS's to have to use firgate buddies to target other ships so they can use more than one gun/drone on me! For fairness!!!\
What, it's the same thing as this proposed capital ship idea.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 -
[438]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 16:23:35 U know what my original vision of a carrier was, long before titans, long before jump bridges.
Carriers were well arm (ie, 10 fighter, not 20... also some sort of AA type gunnery) bases of operation in systems where there was nothing. Carriers could be docked in, like a station... if the carrier died, all ships/pilots were in pods in space. You could refit while docked, not outside. You could change ships while docked, not outside. You could be jumped while docked, not outside. Remote repping was non existent, because honestly, it wasn't needed, so why should it be allowed. The only way it could have worked would be to use resources while docked in a carrier which resulted in limited repairing for fleet ships... not capitals and beyond.
Carriers would have had basically a mothership like tank, and probably a mothership like cost... maybe more like 7 bil ish. Ship bays would determine how many people could dock. Say maybe 5 Mil ship bay space... this would be for docked people, back up ships, etc. The corp hanger would house ship gear for ships docked (not predominately excessive jump fuel like now).
People who were taking heavy damage in fights could dock at the carrier for some protection while trying to recoup... though this would have it's limitations... certainly not docking/undocking bull****. Carriers would be the means of jumping fleets across space... everyone dock up, carrier jumps... everyone undocks and works off the carriers from within enemy lines. Maybe carriers would have to anchor for docking/fighters.... 10 min anchoring/unanchoring sounds good... also prevents cloaking.
This was what i hoped.... The devs let me down from day one, it just became another drone boat.
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:22:00 -
[439]
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.
Thank you for making this explicit.
|
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:23:00 -
[440]
wow THANK YOU CCP for nerfing more ships ingame. Soon there wont be any fun ships to fly
|
|
hattifnatt
Gallente The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[441]
crap idea tbh.
Originally by: Nicholas Barker i tackled somebody in the middle of nowhere, and told them i wouldn't leave untill they stripped on web cam. Who wants the video?
|
Shar'Tuk TheHated
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[442]
This is a HORRIBLE idea! I was planning on training into Capital ships but now that I see your thinking of doing this I wont WASTE all those skillpoints! I feel bad for all the guys that already trained into them. They are capital ships.. let them earn the name capital yeah?
DRINK RUM It fights scurvy & boosts morale!
THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES! |
Anglo
Minmatar Astral Mexicans
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
buhu where was you killed ?
wake up...
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Vaedian GER
Originally by: Windsoord Maelstrom carrier 800m fittings 100-200m Fighters 9-20x15m Skills 600m Training Time 1 year
Firepower equal to a Dominix
Priceless
Now THIS is the problem Zulupark & others. Firepower is all that matters in most players' heads. Way to go creating the Thanatos and Nyx with their unique (regarding carriers) damage bonus. Which ships do low sec gankers fly again? If at all, each race's carrier could've received a 2-3% racial damage bonus, i.e. 2% per lvl thermal fighter dmg for gallente, 2% per lvl EM for Amarr, etc. But then again, why give a support ship a gank bonus in the first place? Why not making drone control units seriously seriously gimp a carrier's tanking and/or retreat abilities? In addition to huge CPU and Powergrid needs a mass/agility penalty might increase balance.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
rockerrikke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 -
[445]
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.
Most people should already have considered the possibility that this was the case - in many case in life, it often falls on a new/unpopular guy to do messy jobs - but he should still have had the balls to shrug off all the personal remarks and been on the professional about it. About the worst you can do is trying to argue or fight back when you upset people like this. People have good reason to want to serial pod him for this outrage of an idea. He should have had the sense to ignore it and let them get it of their chest. As it is he is now branded as being to dangerous for any pilot to entrust him with influence on game mechanics.
The proposed idea is a huge nerf to the offensive capabilites of a carrier/ms. Why? Well to sum up on previous arguments, keeping the same level offensive capability hinges entirely on delegation, something which I am told already means less damage per fighter/drone. And delegation is a logistical nightmare, compounded by the current latency issues in any sizeable engagement, controllers leaving or getting blow up, etc.
Additionally, the idea does not make carriers/ms better at support, which we can only hope is the real motive, it merely makes them much worse at reaching out and crushing. There has already been several suggestions for improving the support role (remote repping), but these mainly hinge on 2 problems that do not appear to have solutions forthcoming. Namely, lock time on friendlies and module activation latency in battles, both heavily contributing in making any repping come too late. You also hear capacitor problems (sustainablity) mentioned.
- yes, forum alt, no, not a capship pilot -
|
Anglo
Minmatar Astral Mexicans
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 -
[446]
infact BEEF up the fighters a carier and mom can mannage.. make the fighters clusters of 5 but u can launch 50.... mmmmmmm tasty...
|
Raoul Endymion
Gallente x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 -
[447]
this is one of the worst nerfs ever, and will have a profound effect on eve...to the worse in my opinion :/
x13 Website ~ x13 Killboard ~ x13 Recruitment |
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 -
[448]
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/welovefighters/
|
General StarScream
THE DECEPTIC0NS
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 -
[449]
Great work.
I think if you make them for support, the carriers should get a bouns to amount repped by armor and sheild maintaing drones.
like 5% to amount reped per lvl or even 10%.
now they could be able to send 5 heavy armor or sheild drones to help 4 gang mates. if they are ment for support they should work best as a suportrole, both with dam and healing.
|
busta nut
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:29:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
yes, completely ignore the 600 people opposed to this idea and listen to just this guy
silence pls
|
|
|
|
|
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 |