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)
Nomispanco Minmatar	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:39:00 - [991] Bhoouu !!! Most Stupid idea of the years /me wasted time to train Carrier // Fighter -- Nomispanco --
Blackmyst Caldari Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:42:00 - [992] Ups another one , as Nomi said , this on is the best ... And after this nerf ? DD reduce to 5km One Turrel on a dread , 1 Turrel on a Bs for reduce the lag :lawl: ! -- BlackMyst --
White Aero Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:44:00 - [993] Edited by: White Aero on 22/10/2007 01:45:09 I HAVE FIGURED THIS WHOLE THING OUT...... THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER Thanks Endo for the image
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:45:00 - [994] Originally by: White Aero I HAVE FIGURED this WHOLE THING OUT...... THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER ROFLOMGZA! BAZING! take that ccp
ShiVAs PArAdOXx Minmatar InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:49:00 - [995] I have better idea of nerfing... 1. Remove carriers, motherships, titans, dreads (well, dreads can stay as they have perfectly defined role) from game. 2. Reimburse all BPOs, and ships isk wise. Woot, we dont have imbanlance problem \o/ As of DEVs gaiming experience i could say only one thing... please play on tranquility, not ur own dev server where there is 100 people total (counting alts too), and u have experience playing 20 vs 20 FLEET battles :) There is ****loads of micromanagement with drones already. /me stoping carrier lvl5 training right now... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
LaraCrotte	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:49:00 - [996] Edited by: LaraCrotte on 22/10/2007 01:54:50 Edited by: LaraCrotte on 22/10/2007 01:52:47 au buchT ... !!!
Cadela Fria Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:00:00 - [997] The problem though, is that Devs ARE playing their own game, and that's whats frightening. Also..all the people who tell CCP to play their own game, please go slap anyone you know that complains about people having devs in their alliance/corp.
InnerDrive Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:01:00 - [998] Man like how badly ya wanna nerf motherships till ur satisfied with the result? First they became extremely easy to catch (and even easier to catch once there are cruiser sized dictor) And now u wanna limit their firepower to 5 fighters?? Try flying one the things urself and get caught somewhere by a hostile gang not abble to fit much of use on ur high slots and with 5 fighters as ur only firepower??? Carriers and motherships are fine as is , the only thing u guys care about is trying to reduce server lag imo
ScheenK Gallente StatiC Elite Brethren of The Sky	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:04:00 - [999] This has to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard, Carriers and Moms are capital ships there meant be big and powerful and bring out loads of dps, doing this is making a carrier like the dumbest ship to be in. CCP you do this and you will regret it everyday, maybe take this new employee and tell him to stop ******* up your game that you have made great until now, please dont follow through with this, this has to be the dumbest thing, i cant believe they even considered this, and take into consideration that all the major alliances are even saying this is the dumbest thing and they fly these ships everyday, im pretty sure they would know. Zulupark please dont screw this game up.
Sinner aint'no'Saint Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:06:00 - [1000] Originally by: White Aero Edited by: White Aero on 22/10/2007 01:45:09 I HAVE FIGURED THIS WHOLE THING OUT...... THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER Thanks Endo for the image hahhahahaha now it all makes sense!!!!
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:07:00 - [1001] Originally by: Cadela Fria The problem though, is that Devs ARE playing their own game, and that's whats frightening. Also..all the people who tell CCP to play their own game, please go slap anyone you know that complains about people having devs in their alliance/corp. Well SOME Dev's play EVE. The one with this idea clearly doesn't. It's not the first time ether we get a stupid 'idea' from a Dev. Scary thing is even tho 99% of the people say no to the idea they still do it. They DON'T care about us... :( You guys better watch it at Fanfest, if this idea goes through i'll fcking slap the *** out of every single one of you DEV guys. This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:11:00 - [1002] Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 02:13:54 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. Didn't see your noobiness :) Considering where Genco stands on the skill tree i shouldn't bother replying but heh. Fighters are not uberness wtfpwn drones, sorry to burst your bubble. Sur if you got a NYX or a Thanatos at level 5 you will be doing some damage, but with my Chimera at level 5, fighters at level 4 and a Dominix thats t2 fitted is tanking me for a very very long time, it clearly shows BS (heck a tier 1 BS) can tank a carrier. HECK! My drake can tank 2 thanatos (at level 3, so thats ~15 fighters +dmg bonus) and its only t2 fitted with 1 t2 rig and 2 t1 rigs! So again, only idiots and noobs die to carriers. Clearly you are one of them. Oh and the reason carriers and MS fly around with support: Because they aren't that great solo! Oh and you can simply stick 2-3 damps on a carrier and he becaumes useless. For a MS? Heh smartbomb his fighters and drones! Can anyone tell me what happen to the solo MS low sec gate campers? Yupp they died! This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:12:00 - [1003] Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes. So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO. Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums. The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively). Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets. They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
Yorda Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:15:00 - [1004] Originally by: Max Torps Zulupark - Hi guys, first day, what do you want me to do? Dev - Don't worry son, we won't send you out for tartan paint, there's an idea we've been tossing around that we think is cool. Announce it in your first blog. Zulupark - OK, cool! This will really make me popular with the community because it's about big ships and stuff! Thanks guys! Dev - Yeah go for it...no problem (chuckle) lol A small part of me wants this to be true. Then again that just makes him the messenger and then we're really in trouble! I am still a goon so this signature stays
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:19:00 - [1005] Originally by: Clavius XIV Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes. So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO. Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums. The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively). Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets. They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong. Well considering the masses say NO to this idea its pretty clear that carriers DON'T need this nerf. So far masses keep whining about X thing and CCP listens, we hopefully they listen to us and they DON'T nerf carriers and MS. Iv flown with CVA a couple times, even helped keep your space yours, im impress a stupid post like this comes from a CVA member. Maybe you should get in contact with your carrier pilots and have a talk with them. I'm sure they will enlighten you on the stupidity of CCP's idea. This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:21:00 - [1006] Originally by: Clavius XIV Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes. So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO. Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums. No dude youve missed the point. Everyone is whining becuase they arent unbalanced in the first place.
Cadela Fria Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:21:00 - [1007] Originally by: Yorda Originally by: Max Torps Zulupark - Hi guys, first day, what do you want me to do? Dev - Don't worry son, we won't send you out for tartan paint, there's an idea we've been tossing around that we think is cool. Announce it in your first blog. Zulupark - OK, cool! This will really make me popular with the community because it's about big ships and stuff! Thanks guys! Dev - Yeah go for it...no problem (chuckle) lol A small part of me wants this to be true. Then again that just makes him the messenger and then we're really in trouble! coughs Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Bon Hedus Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:22:00 - [1008] 40 pages of "stuff", a handful of pro-nerf pilots that really don't seem to understand the issues presented. Mr. Zulupark, I am embarrassed for you that you had to make your debut dev post in such a way. I can only hope you were drunk out of your skull when you posted this "idea." As a carrier pilot, I will have to cast a resounding "no" to the ideas behind this nerf, for all the previous reasons. Please let this idea lay dead and throw a little dirt on it, it stinks. -------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
XoPhyte Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:24:00 - [1009] Originally by: Clavius XIV Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes. So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO. Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums. The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively). Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets. They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong. Umm yeah, listening to the majority of your customer base is a bad thing . Lets go back to my original idea of only having ibis's to fly around in, make us all equal in SP (the 900k you get when you start the game), and then everything will be "balanced" so the newer players will be every bit as powerful as the older players. Of course with this mentality the oldest players would be about 5 days old, because flying the same old ibis around for more then a couple of days would be pretty boring.
Akov Stohs THE INQUISITI0N	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:25:00 - [1010] My don't you (the devs) develop new ships and features as if you where responding to current threats inside the game. Ships and races Evolve to respond to threats. Give ships new bigger abilities to counter the things that are wrong in the game. my sig is too big
Draconis Vidi	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:28:00 - [1011] Originally by: Clavius XIV Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes. So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO. Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums. The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively). Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets. They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong. HUH?? Carriers are lame enough ducks, any ship out there can tank 5 fighters, most 10 or more unles you are not able to fit your ship properly and that is a whole other issue. Already carriers can't killmuch smaller than a battleship. hell a small fleet of HAC's and a jammer or two can eat a carrier. Fighters cost too much and die to easy..... leave the poor cripple alone.
ZenTex Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:36:00 - [1012] Carriers are solopwnmobiles? well, the skills cost a fortune, the ship costs a fortune and the fighters cost a fortune. Ofcourse it should be a "better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships". Besides, even a small gang can easily kill a solo carrier. they're not solopwnmobiles at all. A lone carrier is a big fat juicy target and slow to boot. I'm not a carrier pilot, nor di I intend to be one. I got my BS incinerated by 2 carriers before though, but not in the .2 seconds mentioned, and hell, why not? They're 10 times as large as I am, 10 times as costly and require a truckload of SP's. Carriers are balanced the way they are. Alone they die easily and it's no small loss. There's little a sledgehammer can't fix. If you can't fix it, you need a bigger sledgehammer. If it's unfixable, blame CCP. :p
Kropotkin Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:38:00 - [1013] If you want to understand how fighters and their carriers should work, you have to read Fleet Tactics by Wayne P. Hughes, Jr. Especially Chapter 4.
Ganique	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:41:00 - [1014] Terrible Idea, Leave carriers alone they are fine they way they are. This idea would make Motherships useless. If this happens I doubt I will get the Thanatos that I am oh so close to getting.
Keithos Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:42:00 - [1015] I want to get something straight, this is a bad idea. CCP is just making things worse with lag and all the headache from assigning fighter as others have already said so I won't repeat them. I will say this though, I think that motherships need to be looked at. I think that motherships need to be more then just 'super carriers'; someone early suggested giving motherships huge drone bays but making thier max control dependent on the fleet or something else. I think motherships need something like that (I am not sure how balanced such an idea but it's a start). I also think that supercaps in low sec need to be looked at. I don't know exactly what should be done but it's almost impossible when supercap make an appearance in low sec to stop them. The biggest (and only) counter to super caps doesn't work in low sec. However if this is an attempt to do this it fails massively.
Regaul Kinath	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:43:00 - [1016] Edited by: Regaul Kinath on 22/10/2007 02:45:20 Edited by: Regaul Kinath on 22/10/2007 02:44:45 ---- Well there goes my 2 year training.... WORST IDEA EVER!!!!! ----
poiss'caille	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:44:00 - [1017] plz CCP, dont nerf capital ship... let them there firepower... or maybe ... ok 5 drone only, but add a bonus of +20% damage per level... for preserving firepower of capital ship, but with only 5 drones. but nerf like that is not cool... think about capital ship pilotes...!
Voltron Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:46:00 - [1018] Can i have my 450 mill for gallente carrier back? I'll give up the time I've spent training it. Unless this change is going to be balanced out by something? Or is the "mega logistics ships" statement all I need to read into? Volt It's great touching your own dink isn't it? Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
Bruno Bonner Gallente Lutin Group	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:49:00 - [1019] well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon. How about: -Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag. -Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage. The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around. Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area. With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage. Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw. a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno ------ aka BinderAJ
Lucifer66 Gallente DEATHFUNK Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:50:00 - [1020] Ok so you want to reduce lag and make everyone equal on the battlefield?...how about we just get rid of all ships except shuttles?...now everyone is equal...no guns, missiles, drones, EW, ECM, and you reduce your lag completely. Especially when your player base drops to 0. If this is where we are heading I'll get off here and save my money and time wasted training all these darn skills. How about buying more servers?...that never seems to come up. The player base has increased from 1700 players at most to 35,000+ just since I started playing 2 years ago but CCP hasn't been interested in keeping up. They said they bought a new server once but all I have seen is more lag and much less reliability. How about hiring some devs that aren't out to ruin the game with pink ships and nerfs every week? Are they trying to be politically correct? Are they members of the rainbow coalition? Maybe some random testing is needed for CCP employees cuz this sounds like it came from some kinda hallucination. I mean really, who wants to fly a pink combat ship? Or worse yet, who wants to have to admit they were killed by one? I can see the "Killed by BRUCE alliance with a Pink ship" killmails allready. Look, this is a video game. You got ships with guns so yeah ppl are gonna shoot eachother and they are gonna be looking for the best ship to get the job done. EVE is based on the premise of an interstelar war with groups of players looking to gain control of thier own terf. So any ship you can come up with will ultimatley be used in a way you did not intend or never thought about when you created it. Nerfing any ship should never be an option, for it is the creativity of the players to use what's at hand in new and creative ways that makes the game fun and intersesting. People who complain that they can't beat another player in a better ship only need to train and work towards getting that ship or better still find ways to beat them with what they got. Carriers are not unbeatable. If they were then none would have ever been blown up. Even titans can and have been beaten and not by other titans. I don't understand where the mentallity that if you have only played eve for a week you should be able to kill everything in the game comes from, but it is ubsurd and should be treated as such. Someone said there are carriers solo ganking ppl on gates. Well I can tell you that alot of people would love to find these pilots cuz that's an easy payday for a small experienced fleet. I fly a carrier and I would never sit on a gate alone...that's just asking for trouble. I think alot of the people complaining can't fly a carrier and don't understand that they do have some serious weaknesses that can be easily exploited. If they spent the time to train for one instead of crying about them they would quickly find that they are not at all a pwnmobile but rather a big pile of isk waiting to go pop if they are not careful.

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.