| 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) |
Rodent
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: 0mega
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.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Tetsujin on 21/10/2007 12:08:38
Originally by: Tetsujin
Does this change come in conjunction with altering fighter code to reduce the amount of lag they create, or is this your theorized resolution to that problem?
Please answer this question as it is the most succinct version of what is on everyone's mind.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kali Ma
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
ISK invested has nothing to do with the destructive potential of what is brought and does not and has never scaled linearly with cost but rather obeyed something of a principle of diminishing returns.
While I don't agree with the changes, nor is your reasoning about them remotely appropriate.
|
HotSeat
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[94]
Sorry but you do not understand the issue in game ATM.
The problem is the number of fighters, and there effect on grid loading.
Your solution will do nothing too stop the problem.
Answer is simple, reduce the numbers of fighters, and give a equal damage bonus.
Let MS have 2x or 3x fighters of a carrier, no issue as there is not that many MS's anyways.
Convert Drone interface into a damage bonus as well, if you don't want anymore then 5 fighters per carrier.
Sov 4 is nothing compared to the Power of the Grief !! |
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[95]
Originally by: 0mega
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.
THIS.
QFE.
--
MC's Swedish squidshark
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[96]
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?
Ever occur to anyone that maybe a ship that costs 20bill should be able to instapop a ship that costs 60mill? Maybe it's a good thing that a 5man battleship gang can't roast a mothership. At least now it takes a gang of 10 bs/bc's(which personally I think is ******** as well) And as far as carriers go, well isn't it enough that a 1mill sp player flying a 20k isk maulus can render a 60mill skillpoint carrier pilot completely useless with one sensor dampener?
I have to seriously question the wisdom of nerfing any cap more than it already is. Requiring carrier/ms pilots to bring in even more support with them to use their ships might not be the best of ideas. Lag is bad enough already. Reassigning a fighter in a situation in the middle of a fight where you are facing a 200man blob will be impossible. And it will require a 200man support fleet to field a capital fleet with these changes. IMO it is already absolutely absurd that a mothership/titan can't tank more damage over time than a carrier, but to weaken their damage output too? really?
I'm shocked/disappointed that someone at CCP thought that this is a good enough idea to right a blog about and someone else agreed.
CCP - If you do this can I have my skillpoints back to allocate elsewhere since you are essentially making carriers a completely different ship than the one I spent months training for?
------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Turkantho
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[97]
Give us back TomB hell even Tux was better...
This is a stupid idea that will kill carriers on the frontlines, they will be back to be POS hugging ships, increase blobs and kill the last useabilitsy a motherships has, more drones.
Seriously why should I field a motherships that cost about 20x what a carrier costs, not to mention the logistics behind a mothership when it does the same damage a carrier does ???
________
Sometimes paranoiaÆs just having all the facts. |
Xthril Ranger
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[98]
I spent 18 months training for this and they change the role back to pos sitting again. And I really do not like the idea of sitting in a 30 billion ship without the possibility to defend myself anymore.
Guess I'll fit 6 command links and idle at pos.
.
you'll never jump alone
|
Mersault
Gallente
LFC
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 -
[99]
>Booo, may aswell sell up the carrier then...
signed
|
Caiman Graystock
The Caldari Confederation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 -
[100]
It seems like the caps won't have support fleets then, but supported fleets. Shouldn't the cap be the main offensive vehicle in the fleet, with those around it defending it and such? Nerf its defensive capabilities instead of its offence if you want it to be forced to work as part of a larger fleet, make it need secondary defence.
|
|
|
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:12:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Lazuran on 21/10/2007 12:12:34
Great, let's screw the gameplay up even more for older / more active players (who are more likely to have caps/supercaps) and sell it to our stupid customers as "good gameplay changes" when it's basically yet another way of reducing lag caused by bad programming.
The 10.000s of new players you wish to recruit with shiny screenshots will thank you, I suppose. I won't.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:13:00 -
[102]
I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name 
No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
Mining dude
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 -
[103]
can i plz get the skille time i ues for carriers back then?
|
Pattern Clarc
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 -
[104]
Originally by: clone 1
I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name
No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark
LoL
This
Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:20:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 21/10/2007 12:23:57
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
...
Yep. This kind of change will mean that front line carrier combat will become a thing of the past.
Originally by: Juno II
...
^^ 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
...
^^ 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. 
Pretty much what I'm thinking...
But if you do go through with this, make it so that the carrier pilot's skill applies to the fighters no matter who is controlling them(unless this was changed it doesn't atm).
(+edit) And change triage to still allow for delegation of fighters, still leaves the carrier with 0 own offense but at least the people he is supporting can have BC-grade dps extra.
---
stuff |
greywinged
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 -
[106]
Edited by: greywinged on 21/10/2007 12:21:43
Current situation in fleet engagements :
Launch drones, wait 5 minutes for them all to appear. Assume you control 12 of them.
Order them to engage your target, 5 minutes later they start fighting.
You carrier is useful after 10 minutes.
With the proposed changes :
Launch your first set of fighters (say 4) : 5 minutes.
Delegate control to a pilot : takes 5 minutes for the command to get through and the 4 drones to dissapear from your 'drones in local space'.
Launch 2nd wave of 4 fighters : another 5 minutes before they appear and you can order them around.
Delegate control to another pilot : 5 minutes.
Launch the final 4 fighters so you can kill something as well (btw - lol at your DPS) : another 5 minutes.
You probably managed to lock something by now if you're lucky so lets put the fighters on them...
After a total of 30 minutes you finally start doing some damage.
The 5 minute number is optimistic, in the last 2 fleet engagements where i took my carrier to the frontlines, i had to wait 20+ in one and in the second the fighters launched some 10 minutes after the fight ended.
I've learned to live with the module activation and command delays in such fights and can deal with it, but this is making things needlessly complicated for carrier pilots. It might work great in small fights where there's minimal lag and you can properly manage your drones, but in big fights this will eventually make me prefer a BS over a carrier so i can atleast do something...
Ofcourse the point is moot as there's no lag in eve, right? Launching them all before the fight and delegating them is not always an option and due to lag you still lose your flexibility during the fight, thats why a carrier is currently better off using the drones himself instead of delegating them.
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Ediz Daxx on 21/10/2007 12:22:30
What kind of stupid idea is this? So now all the carrier/moms will do is afk in a pos assigning fighters where as now they can actually take part of the fights since they can field all their fighters at once.
There is absolutly no interest in getting a carrier/mom if these changes stick, people would only buy them becouse theyre glorfied haulers and even thats gonna change with the new freighters with jumpdrive.. so all it really is gonna be i a AFK ship 1m outside POS shields assigning fighters.. what a brilliant idea CCP.
Can i have the time spent on training carriers reimbursed please?
______________________________________
This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[108]
Actualy i dont like this changes at all. Considering.
- The time you have to invest to use them effectivly. A lot of those who dedicated themself to Carriers or motherships spent a lot of time getting carrier 5 fighter 5 jdc5 and so on. After the changes we will pretty much " loose" a lot of invested skillpoints if the gang we are in is not able to use up all the resources we could provide. So no more small 2 People gangs with Carrier or mom support. No, more blobing.
- Considering the overall performance of eve is much more likly to loose Fighters if you have to spread them out even more then you do now. More people = more chanche of desinc lag, and so on. Causing the fighters to idle or simply be shot down before they can be send back for repairs.
- A lot of people complain about Carriers and Moterships are already to hard to kill. Now they will get impossible to kill, thers no reason to keep them in gride to the battle at all. Simply let them jump between safespots and take a short break if some one needs to be repped up. Ther will be no need for spider-tanks or alike. Dreads in siege cant be repped. And ther wont be any need for the carriers or moms in gride.
-Remote Ecm burst. While i havent seen them used much lately i guesse this changes, combined with the overall reduction in combat effectivity of Motherships will be used even less.
Titans and doomsday was a kind of crowd controll against lots of small targets till they got nerfed. And now we see again that a lot of people complain about carriers. Why ? well its easy to tell isent it ? They not reached the step where some older but less people are. So they do what they can best, cry for nerf. And we will see more of those cry¦s the further the game evoles. As soon as they reach the step we have now, they will think its unfair that ther now nerved Carriers and Motherships lose to >insert what ever you want< and cry for a nerv anew. Moterships and Carriers are not broken. Why should we break them now and spin the will of " bring 100 people more then they have and we win" anew ? its already bad enough.
Xune
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[109]
Bring back TomB 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
WrathOfOprah
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Rodent
Edited by: Rodent on 21/10/2007 12:20:15
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
This is your problem right there. To use a cliche, carriers are fine - learn to play. The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.
This. Ans I think most people will agree.
|
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[111]
In LARGE battles, it renders ATTACKING force carriers ALMOST COMPLETELY useless, due to lag... and DEFENDING ones slightly less effective due to occasional dropouts.
In smaller-sized battles, it adds a big hassle of bothering to reassign fighters.
In solo battles (or carrier-only/mostly gangs), it nerfs carrier firepower hugely.
You fix one issue of the situation (solo pwnmobile or mostly-carrier strike teams), while adding a lot of unnecessary hassle.
If you REALLY want to do this, start thinking of ways to remove the "fighter delegation" mechanism altogether, and replacing it with a "fleet commander fighter control" tactical screen or somesuch, where the NUMBER of fighters in space alloocated to "fleet command" is linked to the fleet size in the current battle, and fighters are EITHER completely autonomous OR the fleet commander can see every local grid locked target and assign up to 5 fighters per target lock on that target.
_
1|2|3 |
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:24:00 -
[112]
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Carriers are already used as support ships in fleetbattles, the fighters just actually give us a chance to do more then just rep other ppl.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No, i dont like it at all. it will make carriers sit at pos during the whole fight.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
I already think carriers are fine as they are. However i wouldnt mind if you made moms not able to enter low sec
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
It makes carriers close to useless
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?
You should have a look at killboards and see how many carriers get trapped when cynoing outside some pos or tries to undock and gets bumped. These changes will make the carrier defenceless against stuff like this
|
Mr Funkadelic
Tenacious Danes
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 -
[113]
This gota be the worst change ever made by ccp - Zulupark is defently my least favorite person right about now
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 -
[114]
stop ignore the fact that fighter create client side lag. they are nothing but big drones.
now wait for the new engine to come out and use a fighter again.
if there is no imporvment in the classic eve with the new code then you say all you want.
but these change would not be coming out before this.
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 -
[115]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Well then change my vote to a "No". Fix the lag. Fix the server load. We can talk about redecorating the house once the fire is put out. |
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 -
[116]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Righto then.
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?
It's a bad idea and the real-life analogy doesn't work, because you will simply force mothership-owning players to have 4 more "support" accounts running (for solo work, in addition to the emergency cyno char) all the time so they can attack stuff.
It will make no difference to their ability to insta-fry battleships, it will just be a lot more tedious for them.
And by the way, in real life we never see any kinds of military ships going to a fight solo, except a submarine with nuclear warheads perhaps. It's not a good analogy for EVE, where you don't have to join an Alliance to play or to fight.
Carriers and motherships are fine, just fix the bloody lag, please.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Treelox
Amarr
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:27:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships?
Now adays a handful of support ships, but none of them have anything to do with the Carriers offensive abillities.
--
Pirlouit nerfed my sig :( |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Inturist
Bring back TomB
and lose the interceptor change?
no way!
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Serenity2005
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[119]
Your nuts.....
|
Kelmantis
The Greater Goon
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[120]
I fail to see how this will change the lag problems with fighter drones etc. It is all well and good allowing them to be assigned it is just the fact it will take around 5 minutes for the assignment, then 5 minutes for the person who has them assigned to lock and then 5 minutes for them to attack which is the problem.
Fix the lag, then work on balancing.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |