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) |
R0ger Wilco
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:51:00 -
[541]
this is with out a doubt the stupidist change in the history of stupid changes.
and yeah I fully agree CCP just did a Ratner
|
The Ventrue
Ventrue Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:52:00 -
[542]
Did you hire people from Sony who were responsible for SWG's failure? |
Pyro NL
Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:53:00 -
[543]
omg dont do that crap
______________________________________________
Pyro is the Name Burning is my Game |
Scorched Evil
The Silent Rage M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:53:00 -
[544]
wow, great first post. rather than actually fixing any problems in the game that might actually have a positive effect on 0.0 pvp, you go and try to fix something that isnt broken.
I guess this really isnĘt anything new though, the CCP road construction crew has been at this for years. Rather than actually implement changes that provide a positive result in the pvp sector, they see fit to introduce more and more complexity to a game that already has a steep enough learning curve. Rather than fix real world problems such as lag, cheating, isk sellers or the like, they would much rather offer us more time sinks and effectively screw over their long time customers.
You guys need to take a serious look at your business ideas here. Whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with eve from a design standpoint is beyond me.
Our ships are getting slower, less agile, less powerfull. I still donĘt understand how the eve world, being a space and technology based game, is degenerating in its advancement. You would assume we'd be getting smarter, that all races would be inventing new ways to overcome the enemy.
In the real world when a country creates a new weapon that overpowers the enemy 10 fold, they will obviously nerf it to keep balance. They wouldnt actually get to the drawing boards and create their own that can compete. I can see where you guys are going though. Really.
CYVOK > All you station jockies better get out their and start killing these idiots
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:54:00 -
[545]
this thread is soon gonna burn to hell ^^
hopefully it is just a dev blog yet and not posted on the forums
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:54:00 -
[546]
Is this blog real ? Did it actually go thru proper channels before it ended posted here ?
To be more constructive on assumption that this devblog is real I would like to point out that this is not very good idea. It will change the way entire shipclass operates in a very serious way.
It is true that there might be some balance issues with carriers and motherships. I can't comment on that myself as I don't fly the capital ships myself. However, solutions that need excsessive micromanagement to be as effective as before change are not too shiny for pilots involved in it.
There has been many solutions that seem a lot better on previous pages (I have reached page 10 when I'm typing this). Now I do not have acsess to your long term plans, but ideas posted in devblog itself seem to be somewhat ... hasty. I'm sure it's possible to do better than that by taking some more time to think about those things. As solutions I would have pointed out are already covered on previous pages by earlier posters then I'll skip the ideas part and just ask you politely to reconsider your options in this 'balance' issue.
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:55:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Martin Law If this comes through im selling my carrier.
good luck finding someone stupid enough to buy it ..........
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:55:00 -
[548]
Quote:
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
Zulu, this is, at best, a laughable stated motivation for the change.
No one in the entire game will spend 15billion isk + years of training + officer fitting + pirate implants on a logistics ship. It makes much more sense to buy yourself an infinite supply of battleships and heavy armor repair drones.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a mothership fight in grid again because of its enormous cost, ease of death, low firepower and the fact that its logistics capabilities are most the same as a carrier.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a carrier fight in grid unless its in triage in the attempt to save a titan. No one will spend 1 billion isk on an armor repair ship because less than that money would be required to pay for the number of ships the carrier is likely to save in fleet battle over its entire life.
You have just eliminated two ship classes from the game and completely slapped an enormous part of your user-base in the face. If this was your intent, then great job. If this was not your intent, then you should be reconsidering this.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Cur
Dawn of a new Empire Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:56:00 -
[549]
Capitals+nanoships online would be more accurate. I believe that carriers and motherships kill non-capitals too easily and this aspect of those ships should be nerfed. However, I don't like the idea of requiring other pilots just to use the full abilities of a ship.
Perhaps limiting these ships to fighter drones only and decreasing fighter speed/tracking would be enough to prevent fleets of drone capitals becoming the norm.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:11:00 -
[550]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:14:23 Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:13:27
Originally by: Larole Low sec mother ships have and will continued to be killed with nos nutrulizing battle ships. same as in 0.0.
If
MOM pilot is prepared to sit on a gate for several weeks smartbmobing without an emergancy cyno and ignore attempts to catch him
and
MOM pilot is not running scouts
and
A corp with a lot of players spend several weeks planning and organising a gank.
and
Said Corp brings in a bunch of their own nigh on invincible low sec MOMS to help kill it
Then yes - once in a blue moon a MOM will die.
The proposed drone nerf is a little bit ridiculous granted, but MOMs in lowsec are monstrously overpowered and the DEVS are right to look at them. Banning them from lowsec is the OBVIOUS and much cried out for option. Its simple and efficent.
Leave carriers alone though. As much as I hate the idiots who jump them in to gank a frigate - They can and dodie in low sec.
Also to all you dummy spitting community member threatening to quit now something effecting you. I remind you of all the previous ludicrous Nerfs you sat silent on and say HA!
SKUNK
|
|
Sephron Kintaka
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:12:00 -
[551]
I'm afraid I have to side against this as well. Capital and Supercapital pilots, as well as their alliances, spend A LOT of money on their ships. And what they get in return is the ability to use as many fighters and drones as they've trained so hard to use. If that is taken away, these capitals will be turned into little more than Domis with way too many hitpoints. If you look at the statistics, people have been coming up with more and more creative ways of killing capitals and supercapitals (e.g. MS killed in lowsec). Motherships are not the uber deathbringer, but they are the uber logisticsbringer. They still rely very much on their support so long as their in 0.0. Now, low sec is a whole 'nother story. The only imbalance I see is when a MS sits on a gate in low sec with smartbombs running.
That's my two cents. Hope it was constructive. :) |
Happy Trader
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[552]
I can see a tendence of stupid changes lately. The anti blob changes with cyno jammers were a big wtf experience. The bombers as anti blob warfare tool get 8 out of 10 at the funny scale too. But this is definatly the best so far. you devs got my respect. If you go crazy and ruin something then ruin it for good!
|
Wikka
Sub-Genius inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[553]
Edited by: Wikka on 21/10/2007 18:15:01 heres one hopefuly not a nerf too far
Give all drones a launch rate !
Thus an established carrier can use all its drones but a newly arriving carrier would have to build its swarm up. Thus stopping the insta(ish) gank people complain of.
Alongside the differing drone launch speeds; Differing drone boats would have differing launch rates providing a little more variance to the system and give the pilot launching a tactical decision of 'do I launch a quick wave of light drones or can i launch fighters in time to be effective.
Additionaly this would help to prevent lag spikes caused by mass fighter deployment. Provide another skill for the drone boat pilots to accomplish and oppertunity for some extra useful rigs or modules to be added.
Thus the issue is solved without a major nerf making carriers useless.....
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[554]
The most stupid change ever. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Shufo ([email protected]) |
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:15:00 -
[555]
Carriers are fine, if you think carriers are solo pwnmobiles please cyno your carrier into space uncloaked and away from a station or pos and Fraps for one hour.
Motherships are overnerfed already though they should be able to be scrambled in low sec, wrong nerf for the wrong problem.
5 fighters with skills/DCU's affecting damage instead of number controlled would be fine.
Perhaps you made an oversight when looking at these ships as they currently do the DPS of two battleships (im being generous here) they also die in less than 2m of exchanged fire when found.
No nerfbat but please return the ***** pipe.
|
Blitter
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:18:00 -
[556]
That's the worst idea I think I've heard coming from CCP in a while.
It does nothing to fix lag, while it:
1) makes a carrier/ms pilot's job assigning drones an absolute pain in the ass. 2) makes repair drones and other logistics drones useless 3) leaves these expensive ships virtually defenseless.
Please go back to the drawing board on this one.
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:19:00 -
[557]
I never really post things around here. But this one i just cant pass. It's not that i think anyone will really care what i think about this topci, it just to take it off my chest..
Yes....carriers and Motherships do need to be changed. Is this good way? No. This is worst change CCP every proposed.
If i spend 6 months training for a ship, and than spend few bils on ship and equipment, i DO WANNA WTFPWN battleship! It's friggin CARRIER!!! Do you even know how real carrier looks like and what does it do?
I'm so happy i never really started training carriers, and if this change comes trough, i never will. No big deal for me. But tose guys that spend months and months for training and than ****load of ISK for carriers/equipment/motherships....wtf will they do? I guess just close accounts and start plain wow or something...
Oh yeah. If you go trough with this changes, i guess it's fair that you remove name Carrier (couse they wont be carriers anymore) and rename em to drone logistic ship or sonmething like that. Low down skill requirements, and ISK price and everyone will be happy...
With this changes Carrier couldt kill anything solo...it's just stupid and without of any logic.
And CCP, pls....give back old job to Zulupark and hire someone else to work on this kind of stuff.
|
MastaRob
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:21:00 -
[558]
/signed on getting MS out of low sec
But re-iterate whats been said a thousand times now, worst nerf I have heard aired since I started playing
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[559]
Sorry, someone actually paid you to come up with this idea? This is atrocious. "hey guys i figured it out!!!! lets send a 40b isk ship out with absolutely no defenses so that a single dictor can pin it down and slowly kill off its light drones 5 at a time while waiting for backup to arrive to pop said 40b isk sink!!!" I really hope u got a promotion for that.
This is completely impractical and incredibly lame. Carriers and Moms sole purpose in game is front line logistics and fighter support. Sure, a mom can drop a single BS pretty fast once its locked and pinned down but tell me how making a single bs able to tank a mom is going to help at all, because effectively You've left moms hanging, like u did with titans. What are the advantages to being vet players again? So people can sit at a POS and look at really pretty scenery? thanks for nothing....
|
Cosmo Raata
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[560]
If its lag you are worried about CCP then reduce the amount of drones & inversely increase damage & hitpoints to compensate it.
e.g. Motherships can control 10 max, carriers 5 but the damage/hit points is equivalent to 20 & 10. Easy fix.
If this is about difficulty to kill in fleets, then nerf remote repping to ensure easier deaths.
e.g. Motherships retain ability to use Capital Reps, Carriers do not.
There are also tons of other things to do to make Motherships more attractive/better, which is what people have been asking for all along.
e.g. Capital Neuts, Capital Smartbombs, etc... We need more Cowbell Baby!!
So, boost the motherships, nerf the carriers, but dont take away the damage.
Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr! |
|
Snaut
Minmatar Beach Boys YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[561]
Edited by: Snaut on 21/10/2007 18:25:28 CCP this time you've gone to far.
The sickest nerf idea I've ever seen in my 4 years of playing eve
Its not a nerf its a ROLLBACK
If I wished to have a support ship I would have skilled one in 4-5 weeks ... IMHO most people wanted a carrier because of its solo combat and tanking abilities.
If you think its a good idea to completely change the abilities if a ship class which needs 6-12 months skilltime you are wrong.
IT IS TOO LATE FOR SUCH CHANGES
Just listen to the comunity.
Your turn CCP
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:25:00 -
[562]
WHAT THE ****?!
|
John MacCoy
Amarr Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:26:00 -
[563]
Edited by: John MacCoy on 21/10/2007 18:27:58 No. Just... no.
Instead of coming up with a MAJOR nerf to the carrier why not bring out something to counter it with.
Cap ships are becoming the new battleships these days so why no just bring out the capital version of a battleship.
Juggernaughts: A large capital ship with 6-8 Capital turret/missile slots. Instead of giving it a siege mode give it a damage bonus per level. Nothing like dreadnaught of course but enough so a few of them together can take out a carrier.
See. You spent alot of time and money coming up with a comepletely terrible idea than absolutely no one like and it took me 5 seconds to come up with something better.
Your move CCP.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:28:00 -
[564]
Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
|
|
lust slave
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:28:00 -
[565]
This is typical. You spend months if not years training for a ship and the correct skills that are needed because you like the way it fights and then it gets changed. How many more ships are going to be nerfed? Is a carrier an all mighty doomstick? A BC can tank 10 fighters for several minutes at a time. What is a cap ship that can't use it full potential? And a mothership pilot that can only use 5 of his fighters at a time? Dear god what's next? Should we limit the amount of missles a raven can have in flight at one time? If anything the carrier is underpowered for the cost and time invested.
But what they hey lets nerf some more.
|
John MacCoy
Amarr Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 -
[566]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I hope you do. I think alot of people wil be very annoyed it you just go "Screw them, we're doing it anyways."
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 -
[567]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I hope this translates to "perhaps we have not thought this all the way through and though there may be issues with a few uses of motherships in low sec, we need to address that problem rather then broad stroke nerf the entire class all together"
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 -
[568]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
Yay , we might be able to use 6 drones instead of 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
CarboniC
Gallente lOGISTICS INC
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 -
[569]
Hi Dont do this! A Mothership should be a powerful ship and it should be able to deliver lots of damage. Cutting down its controlable fighters is not the way forward. It a super capital and should remain so, players work very hard to obtain this type of ship, it must remain special!!
If you were to use this balance solution it will render this ship weak, market prices will fall rapidly and takes away the special element about owning a super capital.
If need be ban them from low sec or prevent them from using drones / fighters in low sec. Oh BTW how can the mass of a few battleships be able to knock an MS from its warp direction? The mass of a Mothership in relation to a battleship is massive, it does not make sense that a few BS can be able to do this - this needs sorting out.
CarboniC
Trader and hauler. Jack of all trades, master of many.
|
Pesadel0
Ordem dos Templarios Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:36:00 -
[570]
Edited by: Pesadel0 on 21/10/2007 18:35:43
Originally by: Vuk Lau The most stupid change ever.
This .
|
|
|
|
|
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 |