| 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) |
Sidus Sarmiang
Viper Squad
   |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[601]
Wow, I guess I can get rid of my carrier account now. Come to think of it, I have another account I was using to raise money to buy a mothership, so I guess I can get rid of that one now too.
I spent over a year and a half and billions of isk getting my carrier character to where he is. He has ADI 4, Carriers 5, and fighters 5, as well as all other supporting skills. I do about as much DPS as a gank fitted BS, my only advantage is I'm not limited by range, can jump (with support), and tank a lot better. The disadvantage is I have a huge bullseye painted on me and move like a dead whale. Tell me how that's overpowered and I'll tell you I'm finding a new game.
|
Ztrain
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[602]
 Originally by: Icome4u
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.
Yes there are a lot of people that will not even try a game just based on who the publisher or developer is. CCP is getting to that point. If this goes through it doesn't matter how good their game will look with the new engine. They will have crossed the time/investment vs. reward line. At that point it will be more rewarding to just not play a CCP game to not have to deal with their constant nurfs.
Ohh and good luck with Vampires. 
Z
CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:12:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Saituri
]
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 :)
That thread was about lag and no one in that thread suggested this idea, which I might add doesn't fix lag.
You just came here to troll and prove my point, well done. 
Regards
Rusty |
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 -
[604]
Glad I have not bothered training for a capital.
Love to the Assault Frigate! |
croakroach
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:17:00 -
[605]
oh my god
its a carrier not a regular ship carriers are massive and carry tons of fighters that thing should be able to launch all drones and use them
I see no real purpose except for nerfing a ship that otherwise is defenseless against other ships , in my opinion will make this ship totally uselss in actual defensive combat (after all you cant have a armada of BS all the time wiht it )
and anyways there are not millions of these things flying around ganking BS in 0.2 seconds as claimed , they are supposed to strike fear and not laughs , it should take good planing and power to take them down , but oh well I guess training for something else is a better idea now and feel sorry for those poor chaps that trained so hard to get one just in time for nerfing
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:18:00 -
[606]
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.
Maybe it's time to cut the crap?
Theres nothing to reflect upon, this change is bull****. Can it.
|
Trass
Caldari
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:19:00 -
[607]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
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!
Wrangler, for us (players) and zulu it will be better if you transfer him back to Quality Assurance department.
His proposition will kill this game, and you lose job. Players are tired and wont sustain such horrible stupid idea like capital nerf. Its only one man for god, you want risk future of this game for one man? Seriously man watch how many of us are against.
|
StratComm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:19:00 -
[608]
I'll add my name to the long list of people who think this is a colossally bad idea. I'd offer constructive criticism but this idea is so bad that I can't find anything constructive to say about it. It renders carriers all but completely useless in nearly all of their current capacities without providing any capabilities in return. The only thing (and I stress the only thing) that they would still be able to do effectively after the proposed change is assign from a safespot (high-risk) or POS (low-risk), both of which are done already for fleet-to-fleet combat. In return, we lose the ability to use normal drones completely as they'd be less effective than a t1 BS at that, we lose the ability to field firepower even remotely proportional to our ship's value in our own defense, and we lose any reason or ability to use a carrier in any role other than blob support. Combined, this makes it completely ineffective for smaller corps and alliances to even field carriers. I have not participated in lag warfare in a while, and even with the gang ops I deal with on a regular basis I find the prospect of having to assign my fighters intolerable. The genie is out of the bottle with capitals, and particularly carriers; they've already established plenty of roles outside of logistics and support and taking that away from players who have devoted a year or more of their game time to fielding one should be criminal.
The only way this could be redeemed is if the fighters under the carrier's direct control were equivalent in power to the 13-15 they field now (so 3x damage for carriers, 5x for motherships on top of current skills) while delegated fighters get no such bonus. That would offer incentive to delegate beyond what's there now, without mandating that it gets done. It still nerfs the droneswarm, which is a loss but it's not the deathblow of a fighternerf that the proposed changes are.
|
Vollaryn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 -
[609]
Edited by: Vollaryn on 21/10/2007 19:25:16
This is the single worst idea I've EVER seen from CCP.
What about those of us that like to play solo? With only 5 fighters, you might as well just be using a battleship instead and save yourself about 1.5 billion ISK in the process.
Or how about people like myself that use web drones in concert with fighters in order to make them properly effective? Will we be able to launch and control 5 normal drones along with those 5 fighters we'd be able to use? (I highly doubt it.)
Will fighters still have an (approximate) 15m pricetag that we have to entrust to others?
Bottom line is that it took me approximately eight months of dedicated training time to get properly trained for my carrier, and these changes will make me never fly it again. If these changes go through, there had better be some sort of skillpoint refund for all the people who would no longer want to fly carriers.
|
Wesley Baird
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 -
[610]
What motivated this idea?? Did a CCP player get BBQ'd by a MOM in low-sec, and decide to do a carebear rant??? OMFG we need to change this game!!?!?
Every faction in the game agrees this is a terrible idea...so where on earth did the idea come from???
|
Doc Lithius
Minmatar
Fabulous Soulcatchers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[611]
Edited by: Doc Lithius on 21/10/2007 19:22:38
*cough* guardian-vexor *cough*
But yes, please try and find a way to limit the number of drones controlled by each person that doesn't produce bigger issues to the carrier ideals itself. But HEY! Make that drone bay bigger then since we want our friends to be our power wielders. If I'm trusting the guy on the other end not to lose my drone, that trust is out the window if I can't recall and reassign right quick...
The weak run...
The strong run fast...
The smart stop & think: "Is this gonna kill me?"
You want God mode? Stop playing and be the game. |
Lanjar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[612]
guys at ccp please enploy people that have played the game of a bit and have worked for these ships,there is a lot of investment in building flying these ships skilling up and the time involved. to nerf this is not on at all. carriers are all to easy to kill atm as it is.
please dont for get the poor souls that have spend x bil isk to make these ships in the first place
dont do it 
|
Virsalura
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[613]
Why does it seem over the past year every single nerf to capitals has been the result of successful tactics deployed by BoB and the incessant whining of a player entity thereafter?!?
|
mechtech
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[614]
First of all, this really messes up alot of people's skill training. CCP should be very restrictive with nerfs, because many people have been training for months for something that is about to get seriously nerfed.
On to the actual changes though. I think this is an ok change for carriers (although only fielding 5 drones is way too harsh). Motherships on the other hand shouldn't be toughed. They cost 20x more than a carrier, and the amount of fighters it can field is the main attraction to it. Limiting it to delegating 4x groups of 5x drones will simply not make it worth the cost, and really **** off the people who have trained for them, as well as the alliances that have put in 1000s if man hours to get them.
|
tropic112
Gallente
The Circle
STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:23:00 -
[615]
NO NO NO
NOOOOOOO
|
Clerence Thomas
Gallente
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:23:00 -
[616]
Unfortunately this is a broken idea. I can see where it comes from, and it's reasonable logic but it doesn't fit in with the way the player base operates. It will result in carriers being removed from combat service because they will have been nerfed to the point where they are simply jump haulers.
--
"There are over 500 million fire arms in worldwide circulation. That is one fire arm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is... How do we arm the other eleven?"
|
Gyle
Caldari
Knights of Chaos
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:24:00 -
[617]
Originally by: RazorCRO
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...
The problem with motherships is massivly overstated. in actual truth... there is no problem. CCP is fearful that they are becoming too common and as peeps move up the cap ladder its no one is gonna be flying BS any more. well guess what
Wrong.
its about what you come setup in. The other day KIA held two of our nyx at bay with a 30 man remote repping smart bombing BS gang. The fight went on for like 8-10 min and in that time only lost one abbadon and destryed 10 fighters. Please tell me How that makes them unbalanced with them being worth maybe tripple what the Bs fleet was worth. End of the line is peeps get upset when they dont know how to fly against moms. Had that incident been in 0.0 and not by an onlining pos and had they had a few dictors and some caps to lay on us. we could have lost two nyx.
So they arent the solopwnmobile everyone (who doesnt know how to fight against em) claims em to be. On top of this they are dropping like flies all over the galaxy. But ccp are worried about too many peeps getting in them. what can we do about that.
I know. lets make it so no one wants to fly em. that will solve everything!!!!!!
|
sinqlaison
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:25:00 -
[618]
Edited by: sinqlaison on 21/10/2007 19:25:51
Should God get help ?
Why do people play this game? Because they set themselves a goal to achieve, work hard to achieve it and fun in the mean time. Having a god-like power interfere with these plans can be quite frustrating.
It makes me wonder whether wonder whether God should consider alternative ways to consider making sweeping changes to the game?
Your attempt to elicit player input via these threads is already helpful. But if you want to optimize player game experience - which is in the financial interest of God - you might want to think how to think through changes, weigh their cons and pros and come to a decision.
In normal life we created two institutions for that:
- a constitution that prevents infringement on basic rights of 'players', in this case, a set of laws that prevents rules changes that infringe these laws
- a council elected by 'players' that - through open debate - choses the route of that the majority thinks is right
Eve is not a commercial game, its a universe woth real people. We get exasparated if we feel being ruled by bureaucrats. Let us reign!
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:25:00 -
[619]
So, uh, I kind of came up with this idea a few months ago (unless somebody else came up with the same idea and beat me to it), so I feel that I should weigh in on this.
At the time I came up with the idea partially to decrease fighter lag in a more elegant way than a fighter deflation (i.e. reducing the 15 fighters a carrier can use down to 5 fighters with more HP and damage as well) as change a couple other things, but I actually scrapped the idea after thinking about it for a while because I figured that a) too many people would hate it, b) it doesn't really do much to decrease lag all by itself, and c) if they fixed the lag in some other way, the carrier spam problem could work itself out anyway.
That said, it does do a couple things that you can't really deny:
1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.
2. It hurts motherships in lowsec quite a bit, though if you could just scramble them, that would be just as good.
3. It does more-or-less force the need for support ships, which some would argue isn't an important enough deal for carriers/motherships right now.
But this change isn't just about nerfing carriers in combat or whatever, it's also about stopping MUDflation. At some point, CCP and some other people reached the conclusion that there are just too many carriers/motherships around to be good for the game. The only solution to that is, well, yeah, you kinda have to nerf something, because if you don't, people will just get more and more of them. But if you want to nerf something, look at what there is to work with here:
1. Remote reps - you can't really nerf this, since that's a major part of what carriers are supposed to do. They should be able to assist other ships.
2. Personal tank or capital hitpoints - you can't really nerf this, since that was kind of the point of the Rev 1.0 hitpoint buff. That, and if you really want to decrease the number of carriers in a fleet, this would kind of do the opposite, since you would need to have MORE carriers available for remote repping.
3. Fighters - They do a significant amount of damage but are pretty expensive, and they're the most directly involved with killing people. And they make lag.
Fighters are the choice that is the least likely to break the game or totally gimp carriers, given the alternatives.
After thinking about it for a while, I basically came to the conclusion that while something like the dev blog's idea could work, if they just fixed lag (which admittedly can't be that easy), the carrier spam problem should take care of itself. Yes, people will be able to bring out forty carriers and hardly any support and do fine at least for the first couple fights, but if their enemies continually kill tons and tons of fighters in each battle, it should produce an upkeep cost that the carrier-spammers won't want to commit to. No, money alone shouldn't be the limiting factor for balance, but judging by what I've seen, even the most unfathomably wealthy won't want to spend more and more money and take more time to produce and transport fighters. Carrier spamming should decrease given this model.
So to sum up, yes, I think this change - even if it's still just an idea right now, nothing final - could do some good. But on the other hand, I think that it is possible to get the same result if the lag gets fixed or at least reduced to the greatest capacity. Overall, I have mixed feelings about the idea, and I'm not totally sure that it's necessary.
That said, please don't forget to make fighters less laggy for Trinity, the lag is really pretty unbearable and honestly, a fix for that can't come soon enough. Also, it would be nice if some capital skills had their pre-reqs lowered. |
citizen amarr33sd3g4
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:26:00 -
[620]
Correct me if I'm wrong but as long as you have buddies that want the fighters assigned to them, nothing has changed.
Quote:
We plan on changing the way fighters work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighters you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a carrier/mothership can launch 5 fighters, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:27:00 -
[621]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
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.
yes CCP replied here for those lazzy to find it ^^ :
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=24#705
|
Kaaii
Caldari
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:28:00 -
[622]
I didn't want last year anyway..... 
According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there.
kieron
Director of Community Relations,
|
SpaceTrucker 3000
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:28:00 -
[623]
I love the change and it's a step in the right direction to steer Eve into something other than Capitals Online. To the crybabies in this thread, just saying that you will quit if this change goes through will impact CCP about 0.001%. So just accept it or propose alternatives, carriers need to be fixed. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:29:00 -
[624]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 19:30:09
Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang
Wow, I guess I can get rid of my carrier account now. Come to think of it, I have another account I was using to raise money to buy a mothership, so I guess I can get rid of that one now too.
Your argument hold no water.
I spent over a year and a half and billions of isk getting my carrier character to where he is.
I (and others) spent billions of isk and months of work to get the Privateer alliance up and running and changing the face of the game.
We got nerfed specifically,arbitrarily and nigh on utterly. Not told to use a few less drones.
And do i moan about it? Do i continue to bring it up on the forums like an old bore? DO I!!!!!
If, when carriers were brought out, you were told they were goging to be able to carry multiple types of drones, have massive HP, be jump drive capable, be able to carry ships and good past gate camps, be able to sustain massive amounts of damage on a BS by repping it with capital sized reppers, and to use a new type of drone called a fighter that does 10 time drones damage, can be assigned to gang mates, follows people into warp, all for the isk cost of 10 BS would you have gone
IM LEAVING THE GAME.
No
So all you whiners should go eat cheese and lump it.
SKUNK
|
Kukki
Gallente
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:31:00 -
[625]
Ich realy like this one the most!
"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."
Keep other Ships alive with crappy 1500 hp repaired every 5 seconds?
3000 hp repaired with the Triage mod every 2.5 sec?
For cap fights?
Sry but I simply have to lol about that.
Add a 0 so that the Capital Armor Repairer I repairs 15000 HP every 5 sec an they are realy usefull so called " the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive"
And make sure that the Cap Ships dont move when they are in Triage or Siege mode. When u reduce the max velocity of 100%, then be sure that no one can move a ship through bumping or whatever.
|
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari
Paisti
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:32:00 -
[626]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.
I don't think this is a very valid point. Any roaming gang with a good fc can withdraw and escape such "drop" losing 1-2 bs at max and move on to another potential victims.  Yeah it's lame but why shouldn't it be possible? Nothing prevents the US from "dropping" few carriers to the Persian Gulf. (Radical example, but as far as I know it's a valid one)
_________________________________________________________
|
Aleria Angelis
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:32:00 -
[627]
I have to ask: how are carriers solo pwnmobiles? Their fighters cant catch fast nano gangs which is really where PvP is headed at the moment despite the nano nerf, they can easily be jammed in which case assigning them to gang mates in fast frigates is already the best option. Their slow and vulnerable without support. I canĘt help thinking this change has motherships more in mind, if so the most oblivious and simple way to make them more vulnerable is to get rid of their EW immunity.
What the real problem here is super capitals in low sec, which are indeed far too overpowered, as many people have suggested before me just limit their use to 0.0, where these monstrosities belong.
I can totally understand peoples reaction to this, the Carrier takes over 1 year in skills to train for, even longer to fly effectively, its what almost every pilot aims for, and every time he flys it he risks 1.5 billion isk. This is a severe and futile nerf that isnĘt the answer to EVEs current capital problems, it also seems highly unrealistic from a RP point of view and reminds me a lot of the restricting type of game WOW subjects its players to.
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[628]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things:
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot?
No, but thanks for posting constructively
Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight?
Yes
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself????
For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? Bad analogy, my mistake, move along, nothing to see.
For you others: It can still defend itself, but let's be real, why would you ever get yourself into a situation where the last line of defense between you and an attacking fleet are you fighters?
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?
I'd like to address your analogy since it's ridiculously horribly not in your favor. No carriers in RL never move without a blob, but could they? Yes, and they could kick the tar out of smaller conventional fleets. But eventually they would meet someone with tactics and would die. That's how EvE is right now. Horrible analogy.
The main thing to see here is you said in the OP you don't want caps to be uber BS killers...... Ummmmmmm, they're capitals, and a carrier only has 2x the firepower of a normal BS, I'm not seeing the problem here. The only thing they really have going for them is the tank, nerf that if you want more carriers to die.
-----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
JcJet
Caldari
RusAviaSpace
Stella Polar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[629]
I not like it at all...
This makes a carrier completely depend on fleet. That way if his corp mates is not around, is better sit on station, pos, ss or just get a BS... And what about PvE, lvl V missions?
|
Ztrain
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[630]
Originally by: Trass
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
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!
Wrangler, for us (players) and zulu it will be better if you transfer him back to Quality Assurance department.
His proposition will kill this game, and you lose job. Players are tired and wont sustain such horrible stupid idea like capital nerf. Its only one man for god, you want risk future of this game for one man? Seriously man watch how many of us are against.
Well this one was caught because they made a blog about it. Who knows what other garbage this guy is thinking up that they'll just try and sneak in. Basically lost all faith in CCPs development staff. At that point the question needs to be asked why continue. The next question after that is what game to go too.
Z
CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
| |
|
| 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 |