EVE Search - Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Gregster	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 - [61] I suggest u, CCP Wrangler, to get in a carrier, and try to assign anything in system with 500+ pilots. GL trying And when u finaly understand its impossible, rethink your ideas
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 - [62] This change makes sense when applied on fighters and heavy/sentry drones, but I think a carrier should be able to have higher-than-average anti-frig defenses. They should still be able to launch 10 light or medium drones, imho. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Miriyana Gallente Legions of Derek	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 - [63] Originally by: clone 1 So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming? Dude it's a nerf coming to any capitals anywhere! You do realise 5 fighters is not enough to kill a BS right... -_- - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
Sprzedawczyk	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 - [64] This idea is so ****** it's not even funny. Do you even have a brain somewhere, because we are sure you weren't using it thinking up that ****iness? I'M OFF TO CREATE 5 "NEWBIE" TRIAL ACCOUNTS. THEY WILL LOVE ME AND WILL COME IN THEIR SHUTTLES/VELATORS/BANTAMS/VEXORS WITH ME TO EVERY BATTLE. ACTUALLY, 5 HOURS BEFORE EVERY BATTLE JUST TO LAG THE HELL OUT OF ENEMY TRYING TO GET IN. Ps. Will you lower mothership production cost to 500M and reimburse everyone who has one for making them equal to 600M carrier?
0mega GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 - [65] I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships. What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters. Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:50:00 - [66] Edited by: Feng Schui on 21/10/2007 11:51:15 Well, I did manage to tank 3 dreads, 2 battleships, and a carrier w/ fighters on the SiSi Armageddon day <---- i was in a thanatos, with a set of slaves + uberomgwtf tank. But, then again, I'm a veteran arbitrator / pilgrim pilot, with a year+ of game experience, and was fighting week old or so newb pilots other than that, I will add nothing to this thread.
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:51:00 - [67] Sorry zulu but I have to say this, I think you are screwing up the game .... EVE has gone borring a lot since the POS warfare, developers try to give the game more action, but then you come along and start nerfing some cap to make them completly worthless in the fight. Carriers should fight in battles, they are slow easy to hold at one place but hard to take down. With new changes people won't use there carriers anymore. Who wants to sit at the pos all day deligating fighters, would you like to sit at a pos all day Zulupark? the other thing is dat people will start using the Moros, because the Moros would be a better drone boat then the carrier. Comon Zulupark you should thoughed about this better, the game needs more action, not more sitting at a pos.
Darko1107 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:52:00 - [68] Sounds like a really bad idea to be honest. Can you imagine trying to asign fighters for 30 carriers to other members of the fleet. Then tracking to see if those members are still alive, then resigning them when they die, and letting that gangmember know he has fighters before he dies himself? Carriers really dont help with logistics in fleets anyway apart from repping capital ships. Your vision of them helping smaller ships is ludicris, those ships just pop far to quickly for a carrer to even get a lock and rep it. Some else has also mensioned this, but motherships, they cost what, 20 billion? Why shouldnt they be able to use like 20 fighters at once? They are the mother of all ships, but they can only use the same amount of fighters as a carrier? Basically this will just mean theres no point in motherships, and carriers will only ever use 5 fighters. ------------------ Sig removed, please keep it under the 24,000 byte limit, if you have any questions please email [email protected] - Xorus
Dupree Caldari Excell Industries	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:53:00 - [69] Just my opinion, but I really think this will kill the carrier/mother ship use. As for the statement "the better than battleship, ship"......thats what a capitol ship is. I agree with being able to launch and assign 5 at a time. But, in light of the isk value, and prestige, a carrier piolt should be able to defend them self with the full ability, and firepower of thier ship. Limiting the fighters would be bareable, but not the standard drones. Just my opinion, but I will duck, cause I think they shown you the nerf bat with a post like this. The things we do in life echo in eternity. "Maximus Decimus Murideus"
Kappas. Galaxy Punks O X I D E	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:53:00 - [70] I notice a distinct lack of CCP in this thread. More of a "drop the dev blog and run for it!" kind of thing... Originally by: clone 1 This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming? Ever had sentry guns shoot fighters? They don't last long. - If you're doing this to reduce lag - what's the point? You've now made sure that there are an extra 2-3 ships per capital on the field in addition to its full compliment of fighters - congratulations you've made more lag! Plans to get carriers on to the front lines? Not worth the risk now is it? If we have to start delegating fighters to people as a mandatory thing, for the love of god reduce the price of them a little eh?
Pallidum Treponema Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:55:00 - [71] Originally by: ZaKma So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
Miriyana Gallente Legions of Derek	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:55:00 - [72] regarding the lag reduction : doesnt the new client take care of most of the rendering/client-side lag anyway? - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
Yorda Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:57:00 - [73] Originally by: Miriyana regarding the lag reduction : doesnt the new client take care of most of the rendering/client-side lag anyway? AHahahahah ooohhhh god you poor little lamb. About this idea? It will make more lag and therefore its TERRIBLE. I am still a goon so this signature stays
Hazel Starr	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:57:00 - [74] There is an implicit contract between CCP and players that games systems which require months of training or hundreds of millions of ISK of investment to use effectively should be long-term stable in their behavior. Rapidly implemented major changes in game behavior such as this suggestion for carriers and the proposed range reduction change for torpedoes break this contract. Try making changes in a slower, more studied and incremental fashion. Publish longer term policy as to the ways you are planning to move the game so that people can anticipate effectively. -- Haze
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:58:00 - [75] Hmm. Certainly helps to fix the low-sec mothership gatecamp issue I guess, although I suspect that it will simply result in a Mothership bringing along a few alts/corpmates to assign the fighters to. However this doesn't really do anything to resolve the main issue with fighter/drone swarms, which is the way that the entire grid grinds to a halt when a large number of them are deployed combined with their ability to auto-aggress on opponents who are too lagged out to warp away or activate tanks. If this is CCPs answer to that issue, then I'm not impressed.
Pattern Clarc Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:59:00 - [76] Originally by: jeffb Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40 Looks like goons are gunna get there way again.... Maybe you should have put some ideas forward instead of trying to drown the subject out in a sea of **? See my second post **** Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus
Stavros Amarr Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:59:00 - [77] Edited by: Stavros on 21/10/2007 12:01:09 This is something of a humorous insult given in the guise of 'game balance'. As previously stated carriers/motherships die alot, to gangs of much smaller ships, they are hardly uber SOLOPWNMOBILES. This alleged 'game balance' has precisely sod all to do with balance and everything to do with reducing lag. Now if the OP just came out and admitted that then thats peachy, but don't try to feed us stale bread and tell us its caviar. Eve cannot handle carriers/moms in the current incarnation, they just fighter spam entire systems to a laggy death. Just come out, admit it, then look at ways to fix it. Ta XXX Stavros -- "DANCE DANCE"
thormadragon	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:00:00 - [78] Basically what you are trying to do is to make life for smaller corps/alliances like mine a lot harder... this works in favor of the big alliances who didn¦t stop whining in here for months. The small groups now pay the prize as always. C¦mon these ship classes are called Carrier/Mothership! Every pilot training skills for months, every miner working for the minerals to build them is ****ed now as you plan to remove the real fun about those ships... they are expensive, they are huge, they should be able to launch a lot of fighters to kill a battleship in a short time by themselves. Having the choice to assign fighters to gang members or not is fine, but being forced to do it is the wrong way. Fighters are expensive and the chance for them getting popped when gang members loose connection or blow up is increased that way, and their effectiveness reduced because you loose a lot of time reassigning them. All in all this idea is a killer for smaller alliances, please reconsider this and don¦t kill all the fun in the game by nerfing ships which were doing just fine in all those past years.
Dalekplunger Slick Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:01:00 - [79] Originally by: maria stallion Comon Zulupark you should thoughed about this better, the game needs more action, not more sitting at a pos. With 50 carriers and 600 fighters orbiting your capital fleet, you don't get "more action" you get "more lag". Not just any lag - crippling, game breaking lag where no productive "action" can occur. Killing a 120-man support fleet under those conditions is a lot more feasible than killing 50 spider-tanking capitals.
Buxaroo Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:02:00 - [80] I usually don't whine about changes on the forums, but this is the worse idea ever. All of this because some mentally **** monkey in a nuub ship gets ganked in low sec buy ANOTHER mentally **** monkey in a MS setting at a gate? Sure, fighters contribute to lag, but so does 500 peope in a system even without fighters deployed. And whats the point of a Mothership? The only thing that they get is no dampening/ECM effects on them. And lets not get into carriers, which you want to have them support their support fleet, but the carrier is rendered useless if its dampened by some cheap ass 200k isk frigate so they can't "support their own fleet with repping" because of this? Yeah, nice ***** balancing going on there And NO ONE USES TRIAGE module. No one. It would be suicidal. The only Mothership nerf that is needed is something to hurt all the jackasses in low sec. That's the only nerf needed. Nerf MS in low sec where it's needed, not in 0.0 "No matter where you go, there you are" - B
clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 - [81] Originally by: Miriyana Originally by: clone 1 So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming? Dude it's a nerf coming to any capitals anywhere! You do realise 5 fighters is not enough to kill a BS right... -_- Oh I realize that, but in low-sec moms will have a firepower of 5 fighters, in 0.0 moms will have max damage if he has 3 friends. I am as ****ed off as the next guy with they way these changes are taking shape. The drone interface sucks beyond belief, and now capital pilots will have to micro manage their fighters in the heat of battle. Coms traffic will be full of 'who hasnt fighters already'. Primarily this is a processing power limitation being touted as a balance, currently 3 ships + Mothership = 35 Fighters/drones, new way 3 ships + mothership = 20 Fighters/drones. Always Moaning About Race Retardations
mallina Caldari Core Contingency	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 - [82] Edited by: mallina on 21/10/2007 12:04:32 Does nothing but make it everso-more frustrating to keep track of Fighters. Also, what about normal Drones? Why shouldn't a carrier be able to field, for instance, 13 heavy Logistics drones? IMO a bad change that will do nothing to fix the issue mentioned but make Fighter control ten times as much of an Irritation as it should be (and severely limits their versatility) ---
ZaKma Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 - [83] Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Originally by: ZaKma So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters. Well, that would depend who's using them. We can do this already, if we wanted to. We can take 5 fighters and assign them to anyone in the fleet and then sit at the pos and do **** all. But that's not how capitals should be used imo. Plus the carrier is harder to kill than a normal support ship, thus it's still a asset on the battlefield. Although with questionable risk/reward. And I'm sure many many alliances would stop fielding them in the way they currently are. After all, if a carrier is only going to be useful to give someone the firepower of a BC.. you might as well just bring a sniper BS.
Kali Ma Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 - [84] What is the point of getting a mothership now, If you spend 30bill + the fittings you should expect it to be a death bringer and uber, If CCP keeps up with this policy a lot of people will have nothing to strive for in this game. Its well seen CCP caters for the forum whiners and not the long term players who wish to keep on developing there toons. Kali
Seleene Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 - [85] Originally by: Pallidum Treponema No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters. Yep. This kind of change will mean that front line carrier combat will become a thing of the past. Originally by: Juno II ITS A CARRIER _with_ repair abilities. Not a repair ship with _some_ drone stuff. ^^ THIS In addition, the current interface to delegate fighters is woefully difficult to navigate even under the best conditions. Are there any changes planned for this? So we have lag, ships exploding and everything else a carrier pilot has to contend with and now you wanna add more? In a big fight, a carrier pilot has to monitor the following things: Look for targets per the Capital FCÆs instructions Keep an eye on your fighters damage to make sure they are not being smartbombed / shot Ensure that you deploy more fighters when you start to lose them Monitor your distance to other carriers so you can stay within remote rep range Watch for other carriers needing remote rep Relay any tackling frigates / interdictor names to the support fleet Now letÆs add in this new æforcedÆ delegation of fighters: Find someone at the beginning of the battle to delegate your fighters to (not every support pilot wants to deal with this!) Somehow monitor if the person you delegated your fighters to is still flying a ship (canÆt assign to a pod) If the person has died, search through the gang to try find someone else in a support ship Find another support ship that does not already have fighters assigned Find another support ship that can actually use the fighters properly (a sniping BS at 200k out isnÆt much use here) Let the carriers keep control of their weaponry. Their fighters are their guns and the only long range damage tool they have. All this adds a needless layer of complexity to an already complex element of combat. It also requires even more ships to be on grid than before. Originally by: 0mega Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier. ^^ Something like this. Most complaints you see on the forums seem to be about the number of fighters causing lag. LAG! Why not just reduce the number of controlable fighters and let some skills apply to them like drones so they get a small boost? I'd trade down from 20 fighters in my mom to 10 if some of the 12 million or so skill points I had in drones was allowed to apply to them. - THIS FLEET FOR RENT!
Darekish Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 - [86] For the love of god no. This makes the isk invested in carriers / MS so vulnerable (especially the drone bit)!
Emsigma Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 - [87] Edited by: Emsigma on 21/10/2007 12:10:02 First of all, I think that 0mega touched a very sensible point together with another goon guy (omg, i gonna get shot for this on the MC boards :D). Reasonable suggestion to START to fix moms and carriers would be: 1) Make motherships unable to enter low sec 2) Make fighters more stupid than a puppy, ie. you have to manually chose "Attack" for them to do anything and when target is destroyed they go back and idle. All in order to make carriers/moms have the same drawback to lag as everyone else. Normal drones should work in the same way though, 3) Make a drone overhaul again as last time. Make it so that you always launch 5 fighters and then you get bonus to them instead. Ie, Nyx would at lvl5 have +400% struct,armor and shield HP and +500% damage on fighters. DCU would give +20% HP and +20% damage to each fighter(absolute ofc and not cumulative). This makes fighters alot easier to get rid of and also reduces strain on the clients. ---
The Medusa Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 - [88] I like this. * It will allow for any gang attacking / defending to keep they're firepower. * It will limit the small gank-gangs in low-sec.. And we all know they shouldn't be there. * For assaults on POS's, equal numbers of none-gallente dreads and carriers will allow for the same number of fighters hitting the POS modules. It will somewhat limit the repair-ammounts when repping POS modules / station services, but, mehh.. still this sounds like a decent fix. In my eyes, every last one of the patches made to 'game mechanics' have been successfull ..
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 - [89] Originally by: Stellar Vix Second! Wow chibbera beat me by a few seconds :( First! cough Anyway, the core problem with this change is that you'll change carrier instead to "the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" to "the-ships-that-hug-a-POS-and-delegate-fighters". Their remote rep abilities are just not enough to justify using them on the frontlines. especially since that can be disabled too easily with damps. The triage mode is no solution there since it also removes all their firepower. Maybe if triage would be changed to allow fighters now or if a new triage variation would be introduced, one without the rep amount bonuses and the fighter control reduction, but with the EW immunity and sig res bonuses. In either case, this change - doesn't matter if it is good or bad - is a massive de-promotion to put carriers on the frontlines. They need some carrot to justify their frontline use.
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [90] Honestly, if you dont want capital ships in the game then just come out and say it... And for gods sake just give us back the isk invested in the skills and ships and give us back our sp and we will be on our merry way once again. But unless you do that this will be the worst ******* change ever for every carrier/mom pilot out there. If i had even had the slightes idea that you would even consider nerfing the ships this much i would never have trained for them in the first place

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.