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) |
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:01:00 -
[661]
Edited by: Han Horensii on 21/10/2007 20:04:42
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?
1-no 2-no 3-no 4-no
i have simple questions after those : 1-* the carrier is already itself a support ship. either used at pos delegating fighters or in the fleet combat using remote repairs. So there is seriously no need of more support oriented to this ship. It is possible in the actual game mechanic, people can delegate or they can not choose to. as simple as this. For experienced carriers players (everyone WILL AGREE WITH ME on this) delegating IS a problem in fleet battle, not only because some dont want to let their tows in the hand of inexperimemted players, BUT because it takes AWSOME time to get them delegated, and moreover REDELEGATED when the ship that has them is killed. Thus the direct use of fighters is significantly a boost to the CONTROL of those fighters.
if i delegate fighters i loose 10s before they are actually in space with the ship i delegate them, if the ships dies, that's 10more second before the fighters come back, then 10 more seconds to redelegate if not in grid.
If in grid, with admitedly LAG during fleet battle, assigning fighters is pointless IN THE HEAT of the battle, that is why ACTUALLY they are delegated before each session of fights, and when everyone warped out.
The system you propose will simply be one of the worse and not GAME INTERFACE FRIENDLY carrier pilots experience right now.
I would rather see some new option to drone control, without using the overview for that, like icons next to the F1-F8 that would reflect pre-made drone groups, and short cuts assigned to drone control.
2-* actually the systems is that when you deploy yourself a fighter your fighter bonus (thanks to skill) does apply to the damage done but not when delegated so what is plan in that dev blog? is the fighter skill extented to delegation also? or will it just be a loss of train to a lvl5 rank awsome skill?
3-* when you say : If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today? well it's simple its the number of fighters you can deploy, yes obviously, but the real difference is in the skill itself and of ONE man able to use correctly a lot of fighter at a time. The all thing will be in the future of the FIGHTER skill, will it give also damage bonus to delegated fighters? if no the actual difference between a mothership and a carrier IS
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:01:00 -
[662]
I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it! ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 -
[663]
LOL, Popular move. NOT.
Do as you please with fighters, it will not stop low sec Mothership pirates.
I have already worked out a solution to keep doing what i do in the mothership if this change goes through.
Always one step ahead
"Men are going to die..
and im going to kill them". |
Navigaytion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 -
[664]
Edited by: Navi***tion on 21/10/2007 20:02:56 What a waste of skillpoints and money , if u want a support ship make a new type of capital ships. Don't nerve a 800mil isk ship....Just a big waste of money....
|
ExcellciuM
Exair Industries United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[665]
This is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous ideas ever, even if it is just an idea. Not sure whether its a joke for cap ships or what but still pretty stupid. This will just mean that there will be more dreads floating around killing the super big ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower then what? nerf dreads for only 2 guns because they are too effective? Or better-than-battleships/carriers-at-killing-stuff to use your terms
Maybe quality assurance was meant to be your calling....
Epic Fail
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[666]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Re-read the blog, it does not reduce drones on the field. So it makes no change to lag, which is the real problem.
Regards Rusty |
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[667]
I can see what CCP are trying to do here, make the Carrier more of a capital support vessel rather than the Capital DPS machine it currently is. They want carriers/MS on the battlefield repping and assigning fighter rather than popping fighters and just doing the job themselves.
I think this change would feel a little less nerfish if it was coupled with a boost in another area. Personally I think the Triage module could do with having a look at: - Increase the range so that the ship can lock/rep up to 100km - Decrease Triage module duraion/fuel cost to 120 sec/100 stront - Capacitor reduction for regular/remote reps - Allow assigned fighters while in Triage (but none to be controlled by carrier)
I imagine a carrier warping into a fight and dropping into Triage, while in Triage it should be extremely difficult to kill while at the same time providing both logistic and fighter support to the entire battlefield for the duration of the battle. Right now the period of vulnerability is too long, carriers run out of cap within the first two minutes of being in Triage making them useless and extremely vulnerable for the remaining period, and it is VERY easy for allied pilots to get out or logistics range without realising it.
This leads to practically nobody using the Triage module... I think this fighter change would go down a lot better with a boost to Triage to make it more usefull and feasable on the battlefield.
|
Vherokan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:08:00 -
[668]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
This won't put less drones on the field, learn to read.
And no, upping drone damage and hp wouldn't make it all ok, it would turn them into an expensive Dominix. The ability to field 10-12 drones is key here. We don't want less ******* drones that do more damage.
|
ViolenTUK
Gallente Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:09:00 -
[669]
This is a pointless and very stupid nerf. We dont need this nerf at all. Carriers work as they are and dont need changing. They arent overly powerfull solo machines. I have seen a megathron wear down a carrier successfully by itself.
www.eve-players.com |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:09:00 -
[670]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Im sorry but dude, how can you support this? i agree that mass carrier/motehrship blobs are wrong but this isnt the way to go about it. Other ideas must be explored.
------------------------
|
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:11:00 -
[671]
Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:11:43
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Re-read the blog, it does not reduce drones on the field. So it makes no change to lag, which is the real problem.
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Kichigai
Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[672]
Good thing I trained for Dread first.
|
Jogvan
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[673]
Worst.Idea.Ever!
|
Crimsonjade
Stupid People Always Need Killing Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[674]
might possibly the worst idea ever ccp.
you: What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
me: not sure what game your playing but fly a carrier in pvp once pls before you tell me its a uber deathbringer
you :Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it
me : heard ford and GM are going to make conbustable cars that double as bbq's, but they at least don't advertise the fact
you: Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time
me: im speechless i mean truly WTF do want the carrier to be now? a logistics ship?
after 4 years in eve i really truly dislike this idea INTENSLY enough to question my staying here if we have to nerf a ship class so badly its completly non useful unless we get a gang to support it. and its not excatly a titan ya know. it cant DD and take out its close in enemys.
seriously i think your headed in the wrong direction here. completely wrong direction
i more for you guys figuring out a way to lessen the bandwith the drones use, or something else.whatever your trying to do,this isnt the way.
this is way to drastic to even be looked at seriously imo
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:14:00 -
[675]
Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:14:00 -
[676]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.
Translation:
I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.
|
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:15:00 -
[677]
Quote: post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe
With all respect to the game called Eve, all the past, all the wars i've been fighting, and every fallen comrade, THIS devblog does not deserve ANY constructive posts. It should be flamed out of your minds. If this is what you label as : improvement then you shouldn't even write programs in c++ ... This is like raping a 6year old girl and saying that it's her fault, cause she smiled at you ! Or like ... if you had a parrot and you'd be scared for her to escape ... would you cut her wings or make protection with windows, some bars etc ? If this change is implemented Eve will just continue to collapse. The problem of cap ships shoudl be resolved differently and not while nerfing normal carriers too ! You're disgusting.
|
Lord Starwolf
Caldari Kodan Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:17:00 -
[678]
If you want carrier pilots to use their ships as " the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" Give them incentive to do so. As it stands currently, triage generally sucks, and assigning fighters doesn't leave your skills applied to them. Not to mention fighter costs...
Other than reducing lag (somewhat) which you've allready stated is not the reason for the nerf... why the hell would you consider this? What purpose does it serve? A carrier doesn't do a hell of a lot better dps than a battleship... and noone seems to take issue with them outside of lag.
So thanks for bringing forth the idea... it isn't a great one.
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:17:00 -
[679]
Edited by: Atius Tirawa on 21/10/2007 20:19:17 If this is an attempt to satisfy those AFK traders in low-sec, then simply ban Supercaps from low sec. It will make lowsec even more of a wasteland then it is now - but at least you get to keep those wow-heads happy (they will eventually cry when they finally get to fly one).
However, changing the way drones work is not the solution to any of the problems carriers may have in their use in combat - quite simply - the blog's explination of why the carriers are being nurfed is insufficiant to warrent their change.
As mentioned earlier, small scale pvp in eve is dying just as solo pvp is al but dead. You folks at CCP should be working out ways to make pvp more accessable both in low-sec and on the small scale levels. Not limiting and defining the roles of ships that are not broken at the tactical level.
Edited for clarity.
|
Miyamoto Uroki
Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:18:00 -
[680]
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 21/10/2007 20:23:02 hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ratio would be damn high. ^^ It seems like lots of people didn't realize that this change doesn't limit the total possible dps of your carrier at all. You just need a small gang to get all the dps now.
BUT like several posters before me mentioned: If you want carrier the ubar support ships, iron out the faults on them. Like making capital remote modules use less cap, add the bonuses to assigned fighters... oh, and plz allow assigning fighters in 0.4 systems..
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
|
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Gyle Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Way to make baseless accusations! I have been in 0.0 for over 2 years now, thank you very much! This is the main of my second account. This character is training Gall, my main on my first account is Caldari. Im sure the spies in BoB/MC w/e can tell you this as I freely admit both characters are mine when they are both in the same gang.
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
i ahve a nid and i'm happy that i have her. would you not react like us if your precious raven got only 3 missile hardpoints instead of 6 ?
|
Animo06
Minmatar The New Era
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[683]
worst idea ever.
|
emepror
Gallente The Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch Dogs of War.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[684]
this is like saying an american aircraft carrier can only launch 2-4 of its 80-95 fighter contingent, its ******* rediculous, i hate this idea completely and this has just about killed my ambition for a carrier, CCP you should think about what a ship is supposed to do not just nerf everything 6 months after it comes out, yes it may need balancing but then just reduce damage or lower ROF on the fighters, make carriers more expensive or (dear god no) harder to train for.
this is the most stupid idea i have ever seen from CCP, stop listening to the stupid noobs that whine about everything that scratches their shields and listen to the people who actually play and not just whine.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[685]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
WOW fantasic philiosfy... lets aim to upset as many people as possibly. Funny i thought the object was to make a game that people want to play instead of torturing the player bass and forcing the game to a close when 50% of the people (with multiple accounts) leave the game
|
Poister
Amarr THEM. Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:22:00 -
[686]
Edited by: Poister on 21/10/2007 20:22:12 This Idea not only Sux, it blows at the same time!
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:22:00 -
[687]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
your logic is off. Many of the people posing here have been playing since beta, I have been playing for 4 years myself (beta sucked so I didn't stick around). We are all concerned about what this will do to the nature of pvp and to be honest I think the issues brought up are fair and balanced for the most part.
The off logic is: More people complain the better. This is no way to manage a community - and as ccp has shown - this is not how they manage the game. . .the holds on PvP will show that EvE is slowly becoming a strange sort of economic-pve game.
|
Orimuar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:23:00 -
[688]
Worst idea to nerf carriers. What do you want to fix? You just kill carriers at all. It is stupid to train carrier for sit on POS in fleet operation. IMHO in this situation best to train sniper BS and forget carriers forever.
|
Prolapse
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:24:00 -
[689]
If this post was started by anyone other than a dev it would be locked and the person warned for trolling with flaim bait.
If it hasn't sunk in by now that its an ill thought out idea then god help us.. Its as bad as voting an inept president in to a second term.
There were some good constructive ideas in there having read through but sadly they will be lost amongst the defaning whine.
Please don't just whine try to think of somthing constructive.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 -
[690]
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 21/10/2007 20:27:18 CCP Zulupark, I apologize on behalf of the playerbase at our strong reaction to your idea and our subsequent taking out of our frustration on you. You aren't an idiot, it's just we don't think your idea is going the right way.
1) It would make Carriers even LESS frontline. 2) POS hugging. This would be even more of a feature of Carriers that "just" delegate. 3) In my capital, I want to be able to jump in on a fight and make a difference. Not jump in, spend forever delegating my now damage-nerfed (delegation kills our skill/ship bonii) fighters, and then shoot spitwads at them with my remaining fighters while Dreads lob XL charges at my hull.
As they are now, Carriers and Motherships are fine when it comes to drones. They die every day in battle, and heaven forbid a Carrier is caught alone, it'll be dead in minutes. The real problem lies with Motherships.
Motherships need to be restricted to 0.0, or lose their EWAR immunity in empire. Perhaps CONCORD requiring that all electronic warfare disruption systems be disabled for all ships entering empire territory. This would make MoMs not solopwnmobiles and make it a genuine risk to field one in lowsec. That's why they are such a problem. Carriers can be tackled and destroyed by small gangs and aren't really a problem at all. Whenever I see a Thanatos around, I don't worry about it, I can avoid it or damp it to hell and leave, or get together a gang to kill it. It's a Nyx that worries me.
My corp (the one StratComm is from, who also posted in this thread) uses Carriers for all sorts of operations, and they really have to be ready to help defend themselves and take on some of the load, as our corp really isn't that big. I'd fly my battleships and die first, but if I'm flying my Dominix, it's to our advantage that I can use my Ogre IIs and Strat his fighters. That's an example anyways. As a Carrier pilot, I likely would delegate fighters some of the time if the damage bonus given by Fighters/Gallente Carrier was kept. But I want the option to control my own during battle.
Also, in the future, instead of presenting it as a change. Say in big bold letters "THIS IS AN IDEA, NOT A NERF. Please give feedback and ideas on how to improve. Until we get a better idea of the situation, there will be no changes to Carriers." and maybe you won't get such a ****ed off response, and instead more level-headed thoughtful remarks. 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 |