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) |
EveJoker
Minmatar Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:04:00 -
[841]
Glasses can be half full, or half empty depending on your point of view. I cant help feel zulupark is looking at the half empty solution.
A couple of other ideas spring to mind as "glass half full" type of solutions depending on what CCP want to actually achieve. Heres one:
New ship class - Anti capital, able to scramble or jump jam capitals, and EITHER prevent warp OR Jump with a new anti capital scrambler and jammer. Similar specifications to an AF, bonus to capital scrambler or jammer cpu usage (or similar).
Adding a ship like that to the game would enhance the tactics of fighting capitals without substantially adding to the "blob tactics".
Give carriers the ability to jump when scrammed.
If CCP continue to balance the game by nerfing everything in site eventually we will all be back to flying our noob ships I guess. I prefer the idea of adding content and moving forward, rather than moving back to the days of frigate fighter bombing, and the associated node crashes.
CCP Please dont continue down the nerf path, let eve evolve to its potential. The issue with motherships in low sec is the extreme difficulty in holding them down. Develop new technology to assist in this rather than a kneejerk nerf reaction. Eve promises to get stale very quickly if you continue nerfing.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:05:00 -
[842]
Cmon CCP, tell us WHY you want to nerf carriers/motherships, ffs. You said you have concerns, but you never addressed them. What is bugging you?
Only possible thing that could be nerfed (as far as carriers go) is to make it impossible to use carriers for fight with lots of fighters, and armor/cap/shield transfer - at the same time.
I wouldn't mind if carriers would need to choose what role they want to fulfill, before getting into 'action'.
So, make it by default that carrier can use 0 fighters (but max number of drones). If you want to use more fighters, you have to fit a high-slot module, that would allow control of 3 or 4 more fighters. Using 2 or 3 of these should make it impossible to fit remote capital repper (CPU/PG wise - whatever suits you), for example.
So it'll be either repping things on battlefield, or it will be shooting things left and right. But not both things at once.
And don't touch motherships, ffs. Motherships ARE supposed to be scary.
If you really want to fix low-sec mothership ganking, introduce mothership capable scrambling module (CONCORD endorsed ;) that works only in 0.1 to 0.4 space
At the end of the day, it's not fighterswarm that makes people mad. It's the lag...
P.S: As a sidenote - fighters are not the only cause of lag. Have 80-100 battleships warp to a POS. They can sit there fine, not much lag. When they all start shooting POS (w/ effects off, no damage messages, etc), lag goes up insanely - even up to 2-3 minutes for mod activation. Fix that as well, damnit, before nerfing anything else.
P.P.S: Please reply asap, as I have added carrier training to my queue - would like to know if I should cancel it |
Ben Murder
The Diplomats Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:09:00 -
[843]
Edited by: Ben Murder on 21/10/2007 22:10:44 This idea deserves a nerf bat to the head of you devs why don't you fix bigger problems like the remaining game bugs before even thinking of nerfing another ship class. I see now why it takes 3 years for you to get back to our petitions your wasting it coming up with ideas that in my honest opinion don't make sense. Balancing sounds nice and all but I'm not for this one bit. Join Our Alliance now and enjoy a great team Our site link |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:10:00 -
[844]
The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:11:00 -
[845]
Edited by: Kerfira on 21/10/2007 22:13:07 I advise Zulupark to actually play the game for a bit (in 0.0, not in carebear country), because he just displayed total ignorance to how things actually work.....
A change along these lines will simply make nobody fly carriers/mommas since they'll not be worth the ISK or training time.
Look at the battles actually going on. You'll NOT see capital fleets obliterating normal fleets. What you'll see at maximum is maybe 50-60 capitals, supported by 200-300 smaller ships (note: your game can't handle this of.c., but your other recent stupid POS changes mandates blobs), fighting fleets of the same caliber. The cap fleets ALREADY NEED the support fleet or they'll fail horribly, yet this is the objective you claim to pursue....
Ok, so your opinion might be that 50-60 is too much. Well, look at the cause for it! All the POS warfare changes you've done in the 2-3 last expansions have ALL seemed as they were DESIGNED to encourage blobbing, something your game quite frankly can't support!
Fix POS warfare! Fix blobbing! Fix lag!
THOSE are the problems that should warrant your attention. Not removal (yes, you are EFFECTIVELY suggesting that) of something that is already fairly well balanced (apart from mommies low-sec invulnerability).
If you want people to fly smaller ships, simply remove insurance in 0.0.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Muder Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:12:00 -
[846]
Originally by: Baun The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
Thinking hmm I see too much of that just about the wrong stuff.
|
Adamus TorK
Amarr HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[847]
I don't like this idea.
Beacuse: I sense no logic. ---------------------------------
|
Yorda
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[848]
Edited by: Yorda on 21/10/2007 22:13:39
Refresh thread for piping hot rageÖ
Ok, CCP should really just sit down and chat about why 95% of Eve thinks this is terrible and then make a new Developer Blog actually explaining what problem you're concerned about and trying to fix. Then look for feedback there.
I think the problem is low sec gankers. And fighter lag maybe? Maybe its a concern about the long term dynamics of the game and fleet warfare? Ship inflation? As it stands now no one is really sure what is on your (CCPs) mind but the N-word has been mentioned next to a half baked idea so we are all plenty scared you're going to do something stupid to the game we like enough to pay for...
I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how helpful people would be on this matter. Close this thread when you have a dev blog prepared that really tries to address the issue. Hopefully that will change the tone of the discourse.
:f5:
I am still a goon so this signature stays |
Callitari Mundani
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[849]
Originally by: Reticenti 1000th post btw
w007
|
Smith
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[850]
Why not just remove Carriers and Motherships from the game? Same effect tbh.
|
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[851]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better:
1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships
Please do reason your way out of that one.
Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back".
Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground.
IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down.
What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost ot build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period!
|
Ferocious FeAr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[852]
Well I'm glad I decided not to train for capital ships. Shame on you CCP for even thinking about doing this. Many skill points and the time spent training will be put to waste if this goes through, I feel bad for those pilots.
Don't hate me, learn to love me |
Athanasios Anastasiou
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:16:00 -
[853]
This is worse then then idea about closing the sell forums, and that says a lot.
|
Captain Plumbo
NorCorp Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 -
[854]
About capitals being overpowered in lowsec: just make it impossible to cyno out within a certain distance to a warpgate, like 50km. The warpgate jumpfield interferes with the cyno jump field or something... I think this will make it a lot less attractive to gatecamp with a smartbomb gank mom.
|
Ferina Severen
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 -
[855]
The most hilarious part about all this besides the fact that it is a stupid idea is that it will only lead to even more blobbing since people will have to bring even more people they can assign their fighters to.
Why do you love the blob so much? Why do you say you don't want blobbing and will try to make small scale warfare more important. Then you introduce cyno jammers that take a MASSIVE BS blob to take out.
Then you give us bombers as anti blob weapon. Has any of you devs flown a bomber lately? I give you a small hint: They are totally and utterly useless.
Now to the real funny part: A while ago you guys wanted to get the carriers out of POS right into the battlefield. Now you wanna change them so they can only sit at a POS assigning fighters to frigates. You guys are brilliant!
Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:20:00 -
[856]
Originally by: Ferina Severen Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game.
Possibly my post is missing content, but......
QFT QFT QFT!!!!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 -
[857]
Like I said earlier, I don't think it is a bad idea. And all you people screaming bloody murder, what did you think CCP would do after some alliances showed up with 50+ carriers and 10+ motherships? Any newer player looking at the game will say **** it, it takes at least a year or more to train for any of those ships, and without it I will be useless.
So I think a counter to the 'capital ships online' is a very good idea. Though it does not necessarily have to be a nerf of carriers/MS.
A few alternatives exist: - Capital smartbombs for dreads (to wipe out the fighterswarm in a few blasts) - A ship between BS and carrier to lessen the gap. Ideally something like a pocket dreadnaught, capable of using gates but with the firepower of 2-3 BS. - A few BS sized ships with bonuses to neutralizing range and amount, to be able to suck capitals dry. - Specific warpscramblers usable against Motherships. Just make one that only fits on a BS or bigger. That way you force the MS to actually bring support to clear enemy tackling BS. ------------------------------------------------
|
Torshin
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 -
[858]
I know that cost effectiveness is something over looked by devs and shouldn't be a major issue but from what I am reading if a Mothership is supporting its fleet and all of its support is destroyed and 10 enemy battleships remain and 2 interdictors you are going to make it so that mothership can only control 5 fighters?
A mothership should be able to defend ourselves, you already have the rorqual and the jump capable frieghter for hauling POS gear. -------------------------------------------
Backdoor Bandit - Unofficial leader of the new 'Post with your main or STFU' campaign. I'm Shinra and I'm the champion of Eve. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 -
[859]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning.
VERY good points and one I had not thought about. I think CCP is forgetting the point of having the fear shoot through you when all the sudden you see a carrier or a mothership drop in on you.
|
Lucifer66
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 -
[860]
It never ceases to amaze me how many bad ideas come from the devs in eve. Is there some kinda contest to see who can come up with the most stupid idea in the dev dept?
Carriers are CAPITAL ships. They require intense skill training. Therefore they should have awsome firepower to make all that skill training worth while. Nerfing them to being no better than a battleship is ********. Acually I think they should be given a boost not a nerf because as it is now once the fighters are blown up they are totally defensless because they have no other weapon. Whereas a battleship still has guns.
Honestly, have you ever seen an aircraft carrier that has no guns at all on it? Hell no cuz no military in the world would spend billions on a ship that is so easily dissabled. Aircraft carriers have loads of guns and missiles mounted on them. Including 3 or 4 of the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system which fires 20mm depleted uranium cannon rounds at 4500 rounds per minute to shootdown incoming missiles. (that spaces them about 1 inch behind the next depleted uranium round while they are flying through the air...ouch!) And BTW the current US Nimitz class carriers have 85 planes on board...not 5 :p Yeah sure some ppl will cry cuz this is a real life comparison, however do ppl get really stupid in the future in EVE? (maybe they find the devs stash of stupid pills in a time capsule or something)
Yes it is a capital ship... Yes it has alot of fighters and drones... No you cannot single handedly take it down with an ibis...(unless of course the pilot is afk mining in it having found said time capsule)
|
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:24:00 -
[861]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage...
You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
Considering any good pilot in a BS (if you suck at it don't freaking fly it) can tank fighters. Maybe not a MS full of fighters but hey... just GTFO. If you are tackled hey guess what! You deserve to die.
The carrier pilot is very unskilled SP wise if a battleship is tanking a full set of his fighters, but keep talking out of your ass, it doesn't make you look stupid at all. Only way a BS could tank a full set of carrier fighters is if the carrier only uses 1 damage type fighter and the BS it fully tanked vs that one type of damage.
strategos you really have no idea what your talking about. I both fly carriers and battleships, and i can EASILY tank 90% of the carriers fielded. You should realize with good skills most fighter loads do a mere 900 dps, this can easily be tanked in a drake even.
you need to understand that the fighters wont hit for max dps cause of tracking sig etc. So when a fighter load does a 900 dps on paper it's like 700 on the field and easily tankable by any bs pilot who has a clue.
|
GRIM REAPERjib
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:28:00 -
[862]
Edited by: GRIM REAPERjib on 21/10/2007 22:29:43 I actually fly a carrier and have done so in fleet and pos ops.
1. carriers are slow, have long lock times, can be bumped off a docking station (nano phoon) and killed (neut bs's), have crap defense (if this nerf comes)
2.have fitting issues (shield tanked niddy cant fit 2x dcu's and 2x remote shield reps, not even close eg, 157 cpu short and has a empty high slot !!! even with a armor tank its over on cpu or you have a empty high slot (no smart bomb) i think alot of other carries may have fitting issues but i havent flown them(the other 3) so i cant say
3. i don't see why this change is needed , can we have some insight as to why this needs to be done. and after this nerf why not fly a logistics cruiser, its more portable, ALOT cheaper and will do the same as 1 capital rep if not better, has hac level resists.
Heck with max skills a basilisk can push over 2k hp every 5seconds. (you can purchase 38 logistics ships for 1 carrier, 1 carrier can sustain about 1.55x the reping amount (2100 vs 3700 for max basilisk vs max niddy) however the carrier is more vulnerable and is more of an investment (isk, skills, time)
4. drones are fine unless you want to restrict all classes and drones to something like, PS this would be the more stupidest change ever if it were to take place frigs and destroyers 2 light drones cruisers 4 lights or 2 medium battle cruisers 5 lights or 4 mediums battleships 5 mediums or 2 heavy dread 5 medium or 5 heavy carriers 5 heavy or 5 fighter mother ship 10 heavy or 10 fighter.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:29:00 -
[863]
Originally by: LordVodka
strategos you really have no idea what your talking about. I both fly carriers and battleships, and i can EASILY tank 90% of the carriers fielded. You should realize with good skills most fighter loads do a mere 900 dps, this can easily be tanked in a drake even.
you need to understand that the fighters wont hit for max dps cause of tracking sig etc. So when a fighter load does a 900 dps on paper it's like 700 on the field and easily tankable by any bs pilot who has a clue.
QFT
I had a corp mate who decided to have a go against a carrier in a BS, he dicided to take the p*ss a bit and tanked the fighters untill he was out of disrupter range at which point he warped off.
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Silver Wizard
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:30:00 -
[864]
What about the people that ARENT in huge corps ? What about those of us that SINGLE handedly made ALL the money for a carrier by ourselves. Those of us that play solo 90% of the time. We put in the SAME time training, and work 10 times harder to afford a carrier. Now I wont be able to use it by myself?
|
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:32:00 -
[865]
Q: Will the proposed changes help reduce lag? A: In no way whatsoever.
Q: Are the proposed changes thus completely irrelevant? A: Yes. Fixing lag should be priority #1 at CCP. In fact you guys should likely drop everything else and fix the basic game mechanics behind (at least) fighters and drones, but likely between ship interactions in space altogether (collisions etc.) The current model very obviously doesn't scale to the current number of players. Adding more hardware does not solve this (and never will).
Addressing this #1 issue will resolve both the current Jita debacle (*waves to the ca. 1000 players stuck in Jita right now* ), as well as a lot of the lag issues in 0.0 combat.
-- All I'll say with regard to the "war" is this - BoB never should have attacked ASCN. - Seleene |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:34:00 -
[866]
yawn, its pretty clear that this is a dead issue. CCP will clearly NOT put this into effect because it would be like saying slavery is legal again, lets send some boats over to Nigeria (well maybe not quite that bad but u get the picture ) ------------------------
|
Roccia19
Caldari Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:41:00 -
[867]
This seems to take away the incentive for pilots to train for carriers. More importantly why would someone who has invested lots of time and isk into this want to hand off the fighting capabilities of the ship to someone else that you may hardly know.
It seems to me that this ultimatley is failing to convert the capitals into a support role anyways. There is nothing to say that you can't still put 15-20 drones on a target and by no means is this enhancing other support capabilities.
The principle idea of shifting the role of capitals is sound, but this drone/fighter control idea seems to be missing that exact point.
|
Armoured C
Gallente Deviance Inc DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:41:00 -
[868]
aye the single player will have to suck it up if this happens this is appauling
i would like to know how this even came up at the office as it ludercruis
if a battleship can already tank a CAPITAL ship then nerfing it will make it useless yeah wow it has logisitcal and even worst for agallente as it a drone race it relys on it hoards of drones fighters so that even worst that just nerfing carriers that you actually nerfing a drone race carrier
disgusting
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:44:00 -
[869]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
- Capital smartbombs for dreads (to wipe out the fighterswarm in a few blasts) - A ship between BS and carrier to lessen the gap. Ideally something like a pocket dreadnaught, capable of using gates but with the firepower of 2-3 BS. - A few BS sized ships with bonuses to neutralizing range and amount, to be able to suck capitals dry. - Specific warpscramblers usable against Motherships. Just make one that only fits on a BS or bigger. That way you force the MS to actually bring support to clear enemy tackling BS.
This man has a point.
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
DarkBlackNight
Cola Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:44:00 -
[870]
Late Aprils fools joke?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |