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) |
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 -
[451]
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.
My chief concern is your use of the present tense when describing this idea; please address my concerns by changing that to "this was an idea".
|
Elementatia
Caldari Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 -
[452]
Why do think you need to change the fightingpower of the carrier ? A Carrier is a powerfull weapon. It is big, it is tough and it is very expensive.
You should not change the fighting abilities of a carrier per se, but you may change signatur size for his drones (only efficent against other capital ships). Or go another way. Look at those normal "earth" Carriers at the sea. They do need support, because they are slow (they canŠt follow a fleeing enemy), they do need much fuel and are expensive to run (Need for support fleet for fuel purposes). And after all. If a carrier is camping alone, then why donŠt you give some bombers a bonus for hitting the carrier harder with EW-Weapons (of yourse with longer targeting to calibrate his bombs (That would mean the bomber would need support by a remote repairing unit but the bomber would be a threat for the carrier. Not to destroy, but to disable some of his abilities for a while)) ?
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[454]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek 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.
Why nerf all Carriers and MS, just because MS gank nubs in low sec. Just nerf their use there.
afaik most lowsec MS gankers use smartbombs anyway.
Regards Rusty |
DJTheBaron
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[455]
I could understand limiting drones to reduce lagg, if they recieved a damage bonus like domi/ishtar.
However i dont know where your getting the math that fighters wtf pwn bs. My carrier with 9 drones cant kill a bs in less than 2 minuites, and if they tank or plate then i cant kill them.
You have also completley taken motherships out of the equasion. Thay do twice the damage of a carrier, and barley tank twice as hard, and are invul to ewar. Now they will only be ewar invul carriers.
It is completley irresponsable to make the change as proposed. People have trained for years, the ships are almost 2 years old. For a player playing eve for 4 years, and comiting 2 years of their skil tree to fly capital ships to the best of their ability, are are effectivley removing 12-18months of their hard work and gimping their isk investment. If someone has taken the time to level 5 their drone skills in every field, level 5 their ship and perhaps another race. because they can only deploy 25%-50% worth of the drones they could in the past, and any fighters deployed to a gang made DO NOT carry the capital ships skills over. You have effectivley shafted anyone who put the time in.
We are not talking neft an overpowered easily accessable ship worth <200mil fitted and 3-6 months training time. We are talking Over nerf a powerful ship to the tune of 2-5bil a fully drones and fitted carrier or 30-50 bil fitted mothership, each with 1-2 years of skill points invested.
Seriousily consider this when balancing the game, otherwise those extra weeks and months per extra 5% bonus in level 5 are a complete insult to every player you ask to train them. ___________ "The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing" DJTheBaron: Diplomacy 4TW |
Davlin Lotze
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:32:00 -
[456]
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 21/10/2007 16:33:03 The biggest problem here is that CCP INACCURATELY PERCEIVES a problem to exist where one in fact does not.
All this horsedung about "moms are overpowered solopwnmobiles" has went to their heads.
CCP chose poorly when they decided to listen to the pillow humping, mouth breathing, short bus crowd that really really just wants caps to "Go away" altogether in Eve. They don't think that they are listening to that group or that the "get rid of caps" is that group's ultimate goal. But rest assured it is. Perhaps not "get rid" in a literal sense, but "neuter beyond usefulness" is more appropriate.
No solution that CCP fashions will be acceptable as long as they grossly misperceive "the problem."
The real problem is that 20 mil isk ships can lock down billions in supercap. And, not only that, that 20mil isk ship along with large bubbles have introduced an "i-win" element to closing off entire sections of space to non-cap movement. Spend a few months rebalancing THAT if you need something to do to justify your jobs :)
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:39:00 -
[457]
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.
/o\ it's even worse!! ALL dev's are INSANE .. PLZ go back to school guys!!
|
iudex
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[458]
Can't believe you are thinking about nerfing motherships even more, wasn't the loss of tackle-immunity in 0.0 enough ? If you really insist on that, then please give something to motherships in exchange, that would justify the high price, better cap regain, nos immunity or something but don't take away almost all the offensive abilities without improving anything, this is wrong and very frustrating. My skills |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[459]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:40:57
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
again a cap ship is as weak as ANY OTHER ship to EW, so seriously no need to add more weakness compared to other ships
damp DO the job on a cap ship, yes it does, and if you fly recons you know for sure as webs DO the job on a cap ship
get 1 arazu + 1 rappier + 4-5 bs and you kill a carrier
|
Falryx
Caldari Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[460]
This seems shockingly ill-conceived.
First, carriers were used for hauling. Then along came the change with containers and ships in SMAs. As a result, the carrier-as-hauler is significantly reduced in efficiency. This change was made to paraphrase CCP "because we want carriers to be combat ships."
Now along comes a suggestion that instead of combat ships, you want carriers to sit back, never get used except just outside a POS shield. As it stands the carrier is not that fun to fly into combat -- this change will simply make it more so.
Bad choice.
|
|
Mr Mozzie
Evolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:41:00 -
[461]
Originally by: Vegeta 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.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema 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!
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:42:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
You missed the point of my reply. I think the fighter price is fair for what they do, and they need to do what they do to protect the billion isk carrier.
If you dont want to lose your ship you have the option of staying in High security space.
When you get the skills and exp to fly a larger ship and get accepted to a larger alliance, then you can come to low sec and 0.0.
But carriers are doing exactly what their designed for and are certainly not a solo ship anyhow.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:44:00 -
[463]
Originally by: Mr Mozzie
Originally by: Vegeta 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.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema 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!
yes, it's called moving all lvl 4/lvl 5 agents to low sec, no exceptions
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:44:00 -
[464]
Aaah the amazing unifying power of stupid dev suggestions.
I've never felt so much love in the eve-o forums. I think CCP needs to decide what they actually want capitals to be, instead of saying, you know that 8-9 month training you just underwent, that ages of grinding isk, and bordom you had to endure to get this ship... well now a Navy Mega is more appealing.
Why would anyone want a carrier, or to continue to use theirs with this suggestion? Let alone mothers? http://www.myspace.com/cakeisalie
|
Faeryl Heaven
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[465]
Originally by: Mr Mozzie
Originally by: Vegeta 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.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema 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!
seriously who insure a carrier when fighting? being a 2* carrier pilot with a 1b fit on both i never insured them when i lost the 2 this is the kind of ship you do not need to insure because you play with it more cautious that a bs, making the ship last longer and thus no point in paying millions in insurance every 3 months.
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[466]
This is the most idiotic idea i could possibly imagine. Why would we even bother to train for carrier or mothership if they would be nothing more than oversized logistic ships with some drones in it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[467]
CCP is scared of solowtfpwnmobile Carriers and Motherships. Well their's a price for that, they die. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:48:00 -
[468]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
this --^
|
DarQ Knight
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[469]
With all the people opposed to this, CCP also needs to remember, most capital pilots have 2 if not 3 accounts.
Also, every capital pilot might not be a forum-typed person and may not even post.
So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. Thats potentially 50% of the population of the thread now due to multipal accounts.
Take into account the guys that just arent post'ers. Theres another 5% , multiply that thats 10% more.
So your are "potentially" gonna lose 60% of characters over 2 years old.
Now if you want to go even deeper... Think about some people that are logging in, dreaming of the day they can have a carrier, read this thread and think....What the hell am I working toward now? Is there any ship I really want to fly once I get my skills up.
If CCP wants to stay in business they need to back off capital ships for a while and come up with some more Constructive ways to make them BETTER not worse.
-DarQ
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[470]
Tbh, this is a very bad idea IMO. If this is the route that carriers and motherships are going down, I want a nerf on their ship cost as well. 500 million for the carriers please. --
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil ([email protected]) |
|
p0pup7arge7
Shooting Gallery
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[471]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Zulu, welcome and Wrangler I hope you ensured that he understood, that by posting that he was gonna get pwned in the face.
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:51:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
HOW ABOUT YOU FIRE THE DEV(S) RESPONSIBLE WITH THIS TROLL OF AN IDEA?
./signed.
I whant this dev fired!
|
Olli
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:52:00 -
[473]
When i want to fly a Logisticship i fly a Logisticship. I donŠt investing Months of skilltraining und Billions of Isk to fly a Mothership.
I donŠt like to sit for the rest of my Playtime at a Pos and delegate Fighters.
Whats Your next Idea? Need 5 People fly one Cruiser?
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:52:00 -
[474]
This move would go against every single attempt to get carriers on the front line. It's like taking a step backwards. Also, what would happen if two people controlling your fighters died at the same time? 5 fighters return and 5 become garbage? --
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil ([email protected]) |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
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!
I second this. Additionally, 'insurance' or rather compensation for loss might instead come in the form of salvage. 40% of the ship's worth in salvage material instead of pure ISK payout. This wouldn't worsen inflation. Of course you mustn't have salvage and insurance, which requires a bit of thinking, but a simple change like: no insurance for cap ships and a bit less insurance payout for normal ships, yet a bit more salvage might do the trick. So in 0.0 the one who controls the battlefield afterwards will be able to replace some of his losses by salvage. However, that system could develop into 'winners only', which of course would be bad, might increase blobbing even more and so on. So one has to be careful with it.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
DrWorm
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Tbh, this is a very bad idea IMO. If this is the route that carriers and motherships are going down, I want a nerf on their ship cost as well. 500 million for the carriers please.
I would think that the cost should be closer to 300 if the damage is trully brought down to Dommie level, then the carrier becomes a jumping tank with a ship and corp hanger that need help to move around.
oh and the prereq skills should drop in price too.
|
DiveBlaster
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[477]
Dont forget that it takes almost 1 year to train for this kind of ships. I dedicated 2007 for Carrier training and you just pulled away my hopes. This is not a nerf its just not justified. PLayers pay a lot and u train and train. Capitals takes years to master. Its not a interceptor that u nerf taking 2 months of training. Think twice or u will start loose players faster than Fighters. //Dive (130 euro down the drain)
|
Mr Filth
x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:54:00 -
[478]
This could be a nice idea although it think there should be a big difference between a carrier and a MS. On top of this, i really think that you should make all super-capitals 0.0 only. Maybe you shouldnt even nerf the MS, but move it to 0.0.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:55:00 -
[479]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
This sums everything up surprisingly succinctly . The right picture really is worth a thousand words.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:56:00 -
[480]
This is only going to send carriers back to the POS. I sure as hell wouldn't field one if I couldn't at least use my option of fielding drones myself. I shouldn't need support in order to defend myself...as it is now, it certainly isn't a solopwnmobile, and I would never use it without support anyways. You're just forcing us to shirk off our fighters onto others at all times in order to use our damage.
And how about the Thanatos? Fighter bonus doesn't get translated when assigned, so its bonus is nigh on useless if this change goes through.
In short, this doesn't fix ANYTHING. It'll more than likely be counterproductive and make Carriers more and more unused. Signature My signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums by 844 bytes, oh noes. |
|
|
|
|
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 |