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) |
Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[571]
Once again CCP your sh1ting on you older dedicated players...
your taking players that have spen years training up multiple accounts then only using 1/2 the SP and signing that char off to a mothership at the cost off BILLOINS in game time and isk only for them then to sit at a POS while jo - one character - blogs fights and has all the fun..
i think this will cost you in alot of long time players all with more than 4 characters..
For what the ability for some newb to be able to stand up to a mothership... They should be able to kill hundereds of BS's they are worth 100's of bs's... What is wrong with you guys???
Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
|
Seriya
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[572]
Generally I like this. However:
- Make fighters considerably cheaper. and - Boost carrier / MS scan resolution. or - Allow carriers to assign Fighters, but not attack with them, in Triage mode.
Also I'm not sure whether it's necessary to stop them fielding 10 regular drones.
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[573]
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.
yeah guys, play with your Motherships and carriers while they are still useful.
|
Quixess
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:38:00 -
[574]
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.
Then try fixing things that are broken and leave things that work fine.
The only real issue in this thread is lowsec MS ganking.
|
Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[575]
Originally by: John MacCoy 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.
Give john a job and quit!! Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
|
Sean Drake
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[576]
Ok before I say anything I need to get this out of the way
Hi, Iĉm Zulupark and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team.
CCP have a QA dept What are they going to do with the other guy from QA
I could go on but putting ccp and QA in same post is allways going to get a chuckle and it's to easy
Anyway to the blog 1st things 1st I do not fly cap ships never have never will I saw this coming along time ago and decided not to bother training them I have however flown with and against them many times and do not beleive them to be that much in need of a nerf.
If this is yet another backhand way of trying to reduce lag then I can think of a number of other ways which would be much more practical and deserving of change.
The logistics ships you speak of in the blog are all ready in game ironicly enough called Logistics ships they do everything you mention and are much cheaper.
Hmmm so a well setup Cap/super cap can BBQ a solo Battleship err the problem with that is? If some nub came on the forums complaing that his Moa got wtfbbq by a Domi 1v1 what would he get told?
Seriously I think it maybe time to move on CCP have reached the point where they start to kill there own game in the name of getting new customers and appeasing the masses
|
Super Biatch
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[577]
Originally by: Angry video game nerd I think it's a ****load of ****! Quote:
|
Xeliya
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:42:00 -
[578]
Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
Adding a quick 2 cents here don't have much time but this is such a bad idea. Carriers and Mom's are fine, it is blobs of anything that are not.
If this happens I might as well sell my Carrier and Carrier pilot. Right now everything is fine because without a support fleet you are useless as each target will run away. I don't see where you get the Carriers can fly around without support theory from. Even the famous MC Mom/Carrier Bomb has support in there to tackle stuff.
Next forcing us to assign fighters will make us sit at POS's again. That is **** game play. If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:42:00 -
[579]
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.
Dude You have to let us have our whine. There is a reason why everyone in this thread is saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dont do it!!!!!
Personaly you do this and i quit and take 300 people with me. its a terrible idea. lets religate all carrier and mom pilots to the pos and let the noobs in frigs do all the fighting. great idea.
|
Mark Starkiller
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:44:00 -
[580]
*mark Starkiller like his carrier how it is. And he trained so long for it.
*Mark Starkiller looks at his carrier and start to cry
|
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 -
[581]
Edited by: Ztrain on 21/10/2007 18:46:12 Well the only saving grace here is that in about a year or just overs time it won't really matter what CCP does. In that time there will be at least 4 space MMOs of slightly different flavors ether in release or in late beta. One of which I know the dev's working on and it will be a very well thought out product. In fact devs from other companies do play EVE and are actively watching the Revelations expansions to see exactly what not to do.
The only reason why CCP is able to get away with this lack of ability is because of the current MMOs lack of sci-fi options in MMOs. Don't worry though rest assured soon if you don't like what these twits think up a superior game will be just a double click away.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Brungar
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 -
[582]
Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?
Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.
Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?
Best regards,
Brungar
"War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Galldar
The Dragon Consortium Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:47:00 -
[583]
Nice...train up for a carrier/mom and CCP nerfs the entire offensive capability it has. Carriers die to fast as it is. Remember why you call it a "Carrier" Yes there are support ships involved. But the current servers can't handle the load for them anyways. CCP wants hugh capital fleet fights but nerfs nerfs them beyond use. I guess I'll stick with my inty. Why spend the money on a account for a carrier that can't even defend itself.2 years and 30mill skill points later....guess I'll sell off my useless carrier toon.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 -
[584]
Originally by: Brungar Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?
Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.
Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?
Best regards,
Brungar
You wanna refund? in that case can ccp refund my 60 billion isk investment on my mother ship. In fact just take em out of the game and gice all mothership pilots60 bill and carrier pilots a bill. oh yeah and i have carrier five so can i have 3 months training on the skills of my choice also please
|
Reaver Con
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 -
[585]
I cannot agree with Drdnought more. IRL a carrier does not "assign" its very valuable fighters to other ships in its "support" fleet. A carrier controls the battle field, coordinates attacks, and most importantly, maintains complete control of ALL its fighters.
Perhaps its time for Eve to look at the real world to help solve some of its "balance" issues. For example, IRL to counter a fighter, a fleet implements a tighter anti-air warfare strategy.
Because in real life, 20 fighters can and will take out an unsupported Battleship in 0.2 sec.
|
Teufelhunden
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:53:00 -
[586]
Hey guys. after reading this topic carefully and considering these changes. i would have to say this is one of the worst ideas CCP has ever come up with. First i think the last nerf of Titans and MS has greatly change their ability to function in 0.0 space and we have see this with much many more MS/ Titan KMs. To nerf them this greatly would descourage any1 from wanting/ needing to fly one. the titan may still be usefull but the mother ship would pretty much become a 30bil POS. As a mother ship pilot myself, i could only say if i did see these changes come about i would sell it and use the isk for something much more useful, ie any other cap ship in the game. last i think this idea is more for the new players and not for the veterans who have been training for years for ships like these. i'm sure this idea sounds great for the pilots not in MS/carriers atm. but remember eventually u'll have the SP and the isk and want to get in one. what nerfs would u want on the ship if u were flying it?
|
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:54:00 -
[587]
I think this is a brilliant change that will guide us back to balanced fleets rather than carriers being the new battleships.
Back when carriers were first released they were frequently at POS and assigning fighters. Over time they were used more on the frontlines. Did a change in firepower cause them to be used on the frontlines more? NO.
Then why would a decrease in their solo firepower suddenly send them back to hugging the POS shields? I would argue that the main contributor to carriers being on the frontlines were defense(HP)combined with more carriers in use at the same time which allowed them to make good use of spider tanking.
In the current mechanics your are better off with carriers as the backbone of your fleet, with some misc support to kill off tacklers and provide warpins/tackle.
As for what the benefit of a MS is over a carrier, its the same as it always was.. EW immunity. No worries about getting damped and jammed, you can support your gang with impunity. MS are much better suited to small gangs since they can't be shut down by enemy EW ships. In a megablob yes, MS are only marginaly more useful.
The big balance issue with carriers/MS is not lag, nor is it low sec MS, nor carriers/MS being pwnmobiles. The big issue is their design encourages them to become the eventual backbone of fleets rather than playing a supporting role. One or two MS/Carrier are no big deal. 40 carriers with minimal other offensive support is the issue. An issue that will only get worse with time. The kind of folks who should be flying Carriers are the same sort of folks who like to fly logistics ships, not the types who like to fly BS.
If these changes do go through, the nyx/thanatos bonus will need to be fixed so it applies to assigned fighters though.
|
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:55:00 -
[588]
Originally by: Le Skunk 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
DUDE WTF you talking about? Then didnt need MS to kill MS actualy MS cant harm ms It sad ppl like you (who dont have any clue) are talking about MS, thats why CCP want to nerf them, and not only them but also carriers.
|
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari Paisti
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:57:00 -
[589]
Edited by: Akira Miyamoto on 21/10/2007 18:58:39 While this change has a well-found base logic, this is not the way to apply a fix.
With this change, a carrier has no way in hell to even minimally defend itself. And no, I'm not saying that a carrier (or mom) for that matter should be a solo pwnmobile. I don't really know that much about mom being one but I do know one thing about carriers. If you face a carrier and put few dampeners (or ecm it to hell) you WILL render it practically inert therefore forcing it to assign fighters to gang members that are not ecm'd to hell. Due to the existence of damps and ecm, I don't think carriers with more than 5 drones/fighters are really a problem as you can force the carrier to assign fighters to someone else.
By forcing a carrier/mothership pilot to micromanage fighters in the beginning of fight and during it you will make things utterly complex. Let's say if pilot A crashes, your fighters will not be doing anything for a few minutes as you might not know about the crash. After becoming aware of the situation you can assign the fighters to pilot B after finding 'pilot B', who is not using his own 5 drones already.
I'm most against at the idea of normal drone launch limitation. Why? Well you can't assign them and even if you could, the required micromanagement for normal drone assignments required would be huge. And there are many situations where a carrier can contribute to a fight with normal drones. Let's not forget that this is something that you can also counter by dampening the carrier thus making the carrier inert again.
Also, I think the current tools allow sufficient tools to repel "carrier tactics" in small gangs. In large fleets it will not matter with or without the change. I think carriers are very well balanced as they currently are because "solo carrier tactic" can be so easily destroyed. (Damps/ECM)
Concluding this (rant) I think this change (nerf) is the same as you presume a carrier to be damped and ecmed 24/7 (excluding logistics). Therefore, should this change go through, make all carriers immune to all kinds of electronic warfare (excluding warp disruption). Mkay?
edit: as I haven't had any real experience with motherships so I couldn't really comment about the changes concerning them.. _________________________________________________________
|
Corrillian
Caldari Ominous Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:58:00 -
[590]
From a Risk Verses Reward point of view;
The Skills, training time, cost of the ship, Mods and fighters verses what can take down these ships does not make sense. Carrier - say 1.5 Bil with mods, fighters to what could kill it - say 500 mil in ships MS 30 Bil complete Verses what 1 Billion to kill it?
Will we get a refund for all the time in skills, Mods, Ship and fighter costs ?
If you are not prepared to do this, then do not change how it works after being out for so long.
The changes will increase lag, not help it.
|
|
Ronald Speirs
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:59:00 -
[591]
ok..well being a rather dedicated capital pilot i can see why you want to do this....ok that might just be a lie, no i really cant. not a good idea ccp. when someone says carrier to me it means just that as in rl carriers deploy fighters/bombers ect...they dont have huge guns or missiles they rely on aircraft to defend itself and for offensive action too. taking that away makes the ship more useless. people invested a lot of time into making a character that can fly a capital now it seems that is getting taken away. boooo
if this is a must due to lag much like drones were a few years back then make the drone skills count for fighters and add a serious damage bonus(like 50% per level of carrier skill) to the fighters that are controlled by the carrier /mom. this might have been suggested before but, i cant be arsed to read 25 pages of thread.
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:01:00 -
[592]
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 have no doubt the community will wait for your new proposals (maybe withdrawal of those ideas?) as it will hugely change the face of the game. starting from the business of caps and supercaps to its simple use.
(and i'm against it here)
|
Saituri
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:02:00 -
[593]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Saituri Welcome to Eve-online Sry BoB-online Ah sry here is the latest, Goon-online..
Where everything gets nerfed like goons want it, have a nice day
If you had half a brain cell, you would see they don't want this either.
It's not about a BoB/Goon thing, no one wants this change.
I seem to recall certain goonswarm petition about carriers, drones and lag, feel free to correct me if you can get your half brain cell from where the sun does not shine and search for it.
Eve was BoB-online when titans killed everything without risk, now its just goon-online since everything they whine about seem to get nerfed :)
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 -
[594]
Ok, now when i got it off my chest, i can write something that might help...
Ok...motherships/carriers are too powerfull while solo. They are suppose to have some ships around em...cool...i agree!
Change you proposed would uttery destroy Carrier/mothership class, which is really not what you wanna do i guess.
If you cant get anything better than this, PLEASE look into the realy world warfare. We created carriers that can WTFPWN alot of things in REAL WORLD. But we allso created things that can WTFPWN carriers if they dont have some kind of support (for example well armed submarine or stealth bomber with guided missile).
So if you really wanna deal with carriers and moms, create something that can pwn em if they dont have support around em. Maybe Cruiser or Battleship class stealth bomber with darn big anty carrier torps which would pwn carriers/moms, but would be too slow to kill anything else.
Solution that you propose is worst anyone could ever think of and it would not only kill carriers and moms, but it would destroy players thats pend months and months on training and getting isk. Pls....dont destroy only good SF MMORPG out there...
|
Ziriam
Stupid People Always Need Killing Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 -
[595]
IMO this is retarted!!! you guys remember when u coiuld have a moros and have max skillz and fly 30 drones!!! I dont care what you say or how you say it 30 drones do more damage than 5. NOT to metion the fact of the visual sight of 30 drones coming at you vers 5... SOO to cut the carriers in half on fighter and drone control is just plan stupid.!! WHY? well one takes forever to lock anyone, and in combate iam not gonna let some cetpor NUB kill my 5 (100m) fighters on some SB bs. Carriers are not (super ships) they can die very easly!! Support ships can kill a carrier really quick. NOW a mother ship is a different story, maby they should have a low cap outpout or somehting?? BUT in all cases you keep killing the mainstay of carrers and gallente alltoghter!! DRONES(gallente) are like missiles(caldari) Might as well make the amarr ships have less cap and see what happens! you already jacked the carriers ability to move items (logistics) NOW u want to kill how they fight and defend them selfs.... omg ccp what you doing to this game!! You want to improve this game *****FIX the bugs and lagg first!!***** Then put in more ships and items. I have been in game since beta and every time you have something good or steady you go and **** it up. or bypass the reall problems, such as bugs exploiters and Lagg and GM's or other ccp employees messing up this great game for there profit. I can rememebr when we had GNW fleet fights and NO lagg few buggs and no exploiters. BUT that is just my opinon. (stop messing with something that is not broke) |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:05:00 -
[596]
Originally by: Xeliya Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
Yup, I brought this up in the (pretty much dead where no devs read anyway) ideas forum. Its kind of ironic that CCP removes the remote DD function (which was a good thing) but want to reduce carriers to ONLY remotely assign all of their firepower (well, a good majority anyway).
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:06:00 -
[597]
CCP if you keep this nerfing bullsh*t EVE will end up like SWG. Almost no players and dead in the water.
Thats a word of warning for you CCP.
I say NO to this nerf/change and so does most of the player base.
So keep this up and you won't have anyone left in this game. Don't think it can happen? Look around at big impressive games that got to many big nerfs and now they are dead. Players can only take a certain amount of crap from Dev's, and you are just about to cross that line. ______
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?
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 -
[598]
Just to add my two bits (like there hasn't been enough 'feedback' already):
The dev team seems to have the perception that players think that Carriers need to be more of a logistics ship than a front line combat unit. This is incorrect, as 25 pages of spam has proven out.
We (I) don't have a problem with the firepower of a Carrier, or a MS for that matter. There is only one issue: lag due to the number of ships/drones on grid. All of CCPs efforts have been focused on the wrong thing here: players don't want the role/use of Carriers/MSs changed, we just don't like the lag associated with the fighter/drone clouds.
Additionally, we (I) don't like invulnerable MSs in low sec. Besides these two issues, no one really had/has a problem with the way MS/Carriers are used/operated. Why is this so difficult?
As for ideas, there are tons of them around the forums, and many players have already linked many threads as an example of what players want, and what we think are good/valid improvements.
That's pretty much it. I fly a carrier on one of my characters. If this change happens, it will be nothing more than a poor example of a jump freighter. No thanks. Bellum Eternus [Vid] Blood Corsairs - Day One [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y |
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 -
[599]
any word on this from ccp yet? 25 pages and counting and i'm reluctant to go through it all to find it if it is there
ccp, read this thread, sofar as i can tell from the 25 pages only a handfull thinks the idea could work the rest just gave u a blatant no, i think this should clear up the matter don't u? remove this silly person and remove his devblog like it never happened and we can all go back to business at hand. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[600]
I think the change is a good one, but I would also agree that it hurts MS particularly bad. I would suggest 2 other changes that doesn't give them anymore ganking power, but solidifies their role as flagships.
1. Increase the ship maintance bay of a MS to 10m m3 (titan should probably be 25-50m m3 btw in that case) 2. Give each MS the bonuses of the fleet command ship of their race in terms of warfare links. Or even double them.
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
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 |