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) |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:24:00 -
[1291]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
The player population is quite capable of recognizing an imbalance. At the height of the cyno in DD cyno out doomsday craze every single titan pilot admitted that it was imbalanced, and suggested change. This happened with nosferatus, this happened with the nerfed nanophoon, this happened with ecm. We players KNOW when something is overpowered and needs nerfing, even if we're using the said overpowered item.
The fact that 99% of all carrier pilots are opposed to this should be a pretty big freaking hint that you devs have no clue wth we want and should step back and think that maybe a change that 99% of the pilots that actually fly them are opposed to isnt such a great idea.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:25:00 -
[1292]
Originally by: verone In the end a carrier or mom can still front the same DPS in 0.0 fleet warfare
Wrong. You only get your bonuses if you control your own fighters, so they will lose dps, not to mention the massive dmg loss from the whole having to delegate repeatedly during battle thing,(by which I mean during lag, since anything above a small fleet and lag becomes and exponentially increasing problem) and of course delegation isn't exactly helped by the fact that you can't see your fighters' health, the fact that the delegation ui is rather cumbersome, the fact that you can't tell who's in what ship without asking (gang chat scrolling with "x f 2/5" throughout a fight pretty much render gang chat useless) and the fact that all that's assuming you can't even right click (something barely possible when in a fight involving a decent amount of caps and support).
Of course all the lag inhibits the ability to act and hence the ability to project your damage. Add these changes to the current system and what do we get? More lag. More people will be needed to use the fighter effectively and as has been stated, will need to have deleagtion sorted before a fight, which means more drones in space. Personally we never deploy fighters/drones until the last possible second when there's targets on grid. Why? Because they lag the crap out of us too and adding more lag to a system before it's absolutely necessary would just be stupid.
In terms of this being a balance to small scale warfare; a small gang with a bit of ewar can disable a few carriers without much trouble and fighters can be killed, avoided and kited. If they can't be that probably means you're so outnumbered in all round ship types that you're screwed regardless and they would have enough people to delegate fighters to. The only small-scale pvp I can think of this really affecting is where you have a tiny roaming gang of a few ships, go into someone's home territory and they decide to just throw a couple of carriers at you to fend you off. Again, you can disable them if you're cunning (though prob not kill one due to remote repping/support being on the way) or you can ignore them. This paragraph is a little muddy point-wise and I'm not sure what I'm trying to say beyond the fact that I really don't understand what's broken that this fixes.
Oh and lol at eris implying that a carrier is in some way a win button (after stating that she doesn't even fly caps)
Win buttons don't tend to go boom quite so easily and frequently.
[CCP, you know it's not exactly constructive to post un-constructively in a thread full of angry and generally emo people saying "be constructive, <3 xyz, have a cookie, tee hee hee"? Just friendly advice.]
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Finn Yr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:26:00 -
[1293]
ok 51 pages now last time this happened (100 pages plus, true) the database crashed shortly thereafter (yeah, or whatever the stated reason was)
let¦s stop this now - enough has been said
CCP needs to find some other way to reduce lag and if that¦s not what they had in mind, then please let them be more clear in the future.
50+ pages of protest should be clear enough
F.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:28:00 -
[1294]
Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:32:04 Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:30:29 Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:29:10
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
I don't feel it will achieve your goals for two reasons.
a) From my experience in 0.0, motherships and carriers assign fighters when they have the chance, and when they feel doing so will benefit gameplay and give our support fleet an advantage. However, if a change like is proposed were to be applied, the use of carriers and motherships will decrease rapidly because carriers and Moms could not jump into a system 'hot'. If a cyno goes up and a mom jumps in, the enemy fleet comes to them with 20 battleships and 2 dictors...."ooh thats unfortunate, i can only use 5 fighters to defend my 40billion isk ass, during this lag i will assign 5 fighters to 3 interceptors that have just arrived in system and...oh nm im dead". See what i mean? jumping in hot will become impossible which, unless a pos is erected, is necessary in fleet battles.
second point b) at the moment fighters are assigned to help DEFEND a system when it is known where an enemy is. To physically assign fighters during a LAGGY battle is death. Why is it laggy? Because more people have entered system than is necessary because CCP instigated a patch making Moms and carriers impotent.
This patch will not help lag it will make it worse, by concentrating more characters in one place at one time.
I feel i didnt explain that very well because im tired but basically, i have 3 accounts. If my main has a carrier or Mom that can use all the fighters..ill do so, with one account. However if i have a carrier/mom that requires i assign fighters...i WILL log onto my other 2 accounts. Of that i am certain.
I put it to you that this change WILL increase lag, not reduce it ------------------------
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:29:00 -
[1295]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Win button?? I dont have carrier neather i trained for it (hope i will some day) and i fight against em and with em as much as i can, and one thing is for shure.... carriera are NOT win button. They arnt even close to win button. do you ppl ever check killmails? Carriers get killed by small group of ships regulary.
Dont fix something that everyone is satified with. Fix lag, fix blobs, fix broken things...
|
Sin mez
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:30:00 -
[1296]
Edited by: Sin mez on 22/10/2007 11:29:53
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Please stop creating ideas based on a perfect world theoretical environment. Your (CCPs) idea of gameplay does not exist and neither does the impact you want your changes to have.
If CCP is not planning to admit their game is flawed at a fundamental level they are just as guilty as the playerbase in not wanting to take away their own win button. More and more it's starting to become obvious that the EVE of today is not the game CCP wish or think they are working with. |
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:32:00 -
[1297]
Originally by: Emsigma
My biggest fear now is that the community is gonna accept the upcoming rework of a carrier/mom nerf and accept it just because it is relatively better than this creation from a friday afterwork joke.
Likewise tbh.
|
Elliott Manchild
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:32:00 -
[1298]
I just don't understand how people think carriers are win buttons. Get a t1 frig with 3 damps and you can get a carirers lock range down to 10k and have a stupid lock time. Ok ms cant be damped but you pay for that it costs 15x what a carrier does in just the build price.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:33:00 -
[1299]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Mr Funkadelic
Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
Exactly, Thats like complaining your "conventional fleet" of t1 cruisers got "blobbed" by a fleet of hacs and command ships and promptly pwned.
As for support, POS tend to make pretty good support when there is lag involved.
No just saying that we didnÆt engage our Capital fleet there cause we knew it could happen what happened.. Drop a entire cap fleet on top of our Capitals in siege mode.
ThaT fleet didnt have any support and was capable of fielding +400 fighter drones... Now imagine that we had engaged a fleet with similar magnitude. ThatÆs + 1000 drones fighting in a POS + hundreds of ships in system. Capitals Online turned into Lag Online... Dam great...
Then we could all post the usual "CCP FIX THE DAM GAME" BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA....
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:35:00 -
[1300]
Originally by: Elliott Manchild I just don't understand how people think carriers are win buttons. Get a t1 frig with 3 damps and you can get a carirers lock range down to 10k and have a stupid lock time. Ok ms cant be damped but you pay for that it costs 15x what a carrier does in just the build price.
Don't forget that with the new inty changes every noob and his brother will be able to perma-scram a carrier outside nos/neut/smartbomb range (only takes a tiny bit of speed to outrun warrior II's) for what 20mil max?
|
|
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1301]
so we are back to carriers sitting at the edge of pos shields assigning fighters and pos gunners on standby if hostiles warp in and get lagged out..
carriers after ages finally actually used on the battlefield and now they are back to being a pos module...
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1302]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
(...)
with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
First, the carrier isn't and never was a I-Win button, back when i started playing around last year i was in a small pirate corp, the first time i ever saw a carrier, ginger's, instead of running away we decided on the spot we would fight him and for that we had,
- 1 2004 guy - Tempest - 1 2003 guy - Nighthawk - 3 early 2006 guys - Rapier/Prophecy/ Scorpion - 3 later 2006 guys - Taranis/Stilleto/Maller
8 Guys, and most of us newbies with no more than 1mil in our pockets and flying at best a t1 cruiser or a inty.
We fought for about 1 hour, lost some ships and in the end we didn't brought that carrier down but instead we had alot of fun.
Going foward we went into 0.0 space, The Horde at the time, we fought Insurgency, bs gangs, hacs, you name it, fun all the way, the only time i saw Dreads and Carriers then was in POS sieges and even so escorted by ALOT of bs and other support.
Talking of more than 200 or more vs other alliance fleets.
Now was that laggy, yes a bit, but lag came with Revs and the weird d-syncs.
Into 2007 we start seeing more cap pilots into the scene, and what do you get? The carrier in low-sec is more vulnerable as ever, lots of them fall at the hands of efficient and well organized gangs, but, lets look at eve videos and go back to the first carrier engagements, what do we see, yep more carriers down, take it back to these days what do you see, one corp brings down a Mothership, when all the voices screamed nerf it because its unstoppable, they showed it is possible.
Now my use of a carrier, and i'm still 90 days away from it, logistics and med/large fleet engagements. Now do i want to stay at a POS and assign fighters?, perhaps if the situation requires it but were do i rather use my carrier? Just that?Frontline?Just transporting stuff?
The answer to that question is where i see its fit to use the carrier.
You can best see the use of the carrier, combat wise, in the INFOD videos for instance, carriers droping fighters and mainly being used as repairing ships, supporting the main battleship fleet, lets not ilude people, the main combat ship still is the Battleship.
Now nerfing carriers that way what does that help?Nothing, instead of having i'll just bring 10 battleships more or even more carriers than previously and in battle the numbers will add to people:
a) Not fighting. b) Lagging to death in battle. c) Crash the node.
Where does that leave your "fix", in ruins, you just found another way to encourage blobage.
Verone complained of people droping Motherships on their small gang, fair enough, yet his small gang preys on the lone hauler or mission runner or ratter, so if the those people complain are you nerfing battleships too?Or intys?Or af's?Or cruisers?
And the other point is, if those same corps don't drop the hammer with MOM's, they will just use the next logical ship.. more and more Battleships, and instead of fielding 1 MoM against the 5 man gang, they will face the 10 or 20 or whatever is needed to win the engagement leaving you CCP and us players back at square one.
I've shared what little experience i have in 0.0 and lowsec, and i see nothing wrong with carriers as they are, more and more people much more experienced and old in game ate telling you the same, perhaps CCP should listen to them and not just at the people whining. _____________________________________ Hello, i like to shoot random people.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1303]
So ... basically aside from the lag issue (which they don't want to admit?), CCP are also afraid of keeping the Carrier / Mothership as the natural upgrade path of the Battleship since this would mean that more and more people would have them and use them as "larger battleships".
This raises a few questions:
- what else should we do? wait for T2 battleships? pimp our battleships with faction gear (and get owned by the next 1 battleship + 1 recon gang)? leave the game after 7 months (which is still what CCP occasionally claim that the average player does)?
- don't people lose enough motherships and carriers already? it's not like a carrier is easy to replace (well it's easier if you let people sell GTCs as much as they like..), not to mention motherships with officer gear.
I don't think "Capitals Online" should be a problem, just like "Battleships Online" never was for the past 3 years. Just introduce even bigger ships - I hope your visionary plans for EVE can go further than Titans and T2 versions of everything?
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?
|
Callistus
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:39:00 -
[1304]
Edited by: Callistus on 22/10/2007 11:41:13
Originally by: DeadDuck
No just saying that we didnÆt engage our Capital fleet there cause we knew it could happen what happened.. Drop a entire cap fleet on top of our Capitals in siege mode.
ThaT fleet didnt have any support and was capable of fielding +400 fighter drones... Now imagine that we had engaged a fleet with similar magnitude. ThatÆs + 1000 drones fighting in a POS + hundreds of ships in system. Capitals Online turned into Lag Online... Dam great...
Then we could all post the usual "CCP FIX THE DAM GAME" BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA....
What's your point? With these changes the attacking fleet would just bring a load of extra support for fighter delegation, resulting in just as much lag as there'd be if you'd brought an equivalent fleet in the first example.
Everyone agrees we need less lag, but this change (and Zulupark has already stated it) has nothing to do with fixing lag, if anything it'll make the problem worse. --------
|
Albatron St
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:44:00 -
[1305]
why dont you just let us go back in to the pos shields like it was before ...as we are at it
Its a useless nerf it will just get us more cap blobs... carriers are fine as they are, if you can see that.... why woud anyone fly mom over the carrier whit your nerf? Why dont you make reping fighters if you wont us to rep stuff on battleground.
there is alot off stuff wrong whit devs post like saying : ^WE want - WE‘re a little concerned -WE plan^ its all about you isnt it, your make this game for you, so you can play it in your office right ccp ? What about what WE wont !!!!your making this game for us - after all we are paying you for it.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:46:00 -
[1306]
Originally by: Tzrailasa
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia .... and I am training up for capital ships....
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
omg. The fact that someoen don fly a capital don make it un-eligible to have an important opinion on the subject. Why? Because there are two sides on this coin, the capital pilot and the guy being powned by capital pilots. If you have been in any of the 2 sides you have right to emit an opinion as good as anyone else!! In fact being on the under-sided side of the coin makes you eligible to a much more respectable opinion!
Grow up and realise the game it not only aboout you and your fellow elite capital pilots! You are a tiny minority of the player base. TINY!
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:47:00 -
[1307]
Edited by: ER0X on 22/10/2007 11:51:15
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Hold on a second Eris. This is either badly written or I am correct in assuming it's tense. It appears to me to be based within the perspective that there is an on-going discussion between the development team and the community with regards to carriers and wither they are overpowered or not. To my knowledge there has been no discussion between the development team and the community of carriers being over powered. At least not before this blog was released.
From the Blog I determine that the development team are trying albeit too hard to create a dichotomy unfortunately it is not panning out as at least 90% of observers in this thread are vocally against such propositions.
I must apologise if my previous post was too subtle for you to recognise it for what it is. IÆll try harder in future.
Let me firstly present to you the current state of play before my post appeared. We are commenting on a Development blog with regards to ideas and proposed changes to capital ships in particular. The changes proposed are in no way helpful to capital ships as they are today. We could actually divine from this statement since that is what it is in essence that these ships are about to be nerfed.
The guise is balance or to redress a balance issue. Now letÆs say that we manage to whittle away at these changes through argument and in turn this whittling is accepted by the development team. To all viewers of the EvE community this would be seen as a victory and not a small one.
If I can present to you for example. In order for any balance to be redressed at all there has to be firstly an agreed imbalance and secondly a contra argument highlighting the said imbalance. To any proposed changes with regards to balance. My previous proposals are serious in as much as it is a buff vs. nerf argument. The degree is all important. If we donÆt have a contradictory argument then we already have an agreement at which point it is a matter of degree in how much the ships are actually changed/nerfed.
I am saying that the devÆs wanted to change capital ships, why I have no idea. So they, apropos of absolutely nothing, pitch their argument real high(carriers are an I win button) and allow us to argue it down to the level they wished to change it to. Before this blog was issued there was no argument from either side of the fence on wither a capital ship was too powerful or not, (other than the obvious Titan) only discussions on reducing lag. I suspect the reason for this was that most players who encounter this style of play were already happy with the limitations imposed by previous changes.
Edit for spelling.
|
Bishop 5
Gallente The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:47:00 -
[1308]
This is just silly.
-------------
meh |
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:50:00 -
[1309]
Again, CCP look at a problem (Mothership LS camping I expect) and weild the mighty nerf hammer wrecking every cap owner for unlimited pointlessness.
If you have 3-4 carriers camping a gate, they are usually moved on within the hour by a superior force. 3-4 Motherships and this becomes a bit difficult to do.
So, what can we do? Remeber how Superman was normal in his own world, but the earth's sun gave him uber powers? Why not code in a diminishing strength to super caps the further they get away from 0.0?
0.1-0.2 instead of 3 fighters per level, they get 2. 0.3-0.4 indtead of 3 fighters per level they get 1.
The ability for motherships to be immune to all forms of EW in 0.0, but their defense to this is powered by the type of stars in 0.0, once they come into low sec, the light spectrum is ill suited to power these defenses and they become inoperable.
See where I am going with this? Subtle ideas to target the issues at hand (if there are any, tbh I dont see what all the damn fuss is about) instead of a carte blanche womping of an entire profession.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1310]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
NAh , no violence please
Atleast not till we reach 100 pages --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1311]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
omg. The fact that someoen don fly a capital don make it un-eligible to have an important opinion on the subject. Why? Because there are two sides on this coin, the capital pilot and the guy being powned by capital pilots. If you have been in any of the 2 sides you have right to emit an opinion as good as anyone else!! In fact being on the under-sided side of the coin makes you eligible to a much more respectable opinion!
Grow up and realise the game it not only aboout you and your fellow elite capital pilots! You are a tiny minority of the player base. TINY!
Not really. If i've been shot do I suddenly have a better understanding of how a gun works? How to fire one? The psychology of the person pulling the trigger? The affect of wind-speed on bullet trajectory etc?
Nope.
All you learn from being pwned is what you did wrong and how to avoid it next time, and, in the above analogy, the fact that guns can shoot bullets and that bullets hurt.
The changes chiefly and directly affect the pilots of the ships changed, therefore people with experience in the operation of said ships are better informed to comment. The effects on the game as a whole are a different story.
So sorry, but you're wrong.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1312]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Sin mez
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
/Signed. You just hit the thoughts of a couple thousand players!
/Even more signed.
I had a long rant here about that above but I decided it wasn't constructive so I deleted it. Instead look further down for a possible solution.
I can understand the problem that small-scale PVP gets ruined when your opponent suddenly drops a couple carriers on your head. It happened to me a couple of times and to friends in what would otherwise been enjoyable fights.
But nerfing carriers as a class and just make them a bigger Dominix albeit with a better logistic function is totally wrong way to go.
These new HACDictors that are coming, could be the first step to solve the problem. Give them a mobile cyno jammer module that only works on grid, but when activated immobilize the ship. It could have bonuses like 100% armor repair/shield boost when active but no offence ability and one activation should only last a few minutes but that could be improved with skills. Also making sure it takes fuel to activate would be a way to stop it being abused.
With that carriers would have to cyno in to another part of a solarsystem first before joining the fight or already be there, giving people time to react to a coming threat when they see the cynofield on overview.
Well thats my 2 cents idea. Now I'm gonna sit back and see if the Devs come up with something clever or if they are really itching to use that nerfbat anway. If they do then please remove carriers/moms from the game.
//Erem
|
Kataris Sarn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1313]
Edited by: Kataris Sarn on 22/10/2007 11:55:08 I do not think the issue is that there is something wrong with carriers and moms..I think rather there is something wrong with the weapons you give us. Bare with me here. In the RL Navy for a long long time the Battle Ship was king. The carrier by it's very nature changed the maritime navy. How do we keep that from happening in Eve?
Let us not nerf the carrier or moms how about we examine the weapon systems a BS or BC can carry. What comes to mind is trade off. Bring in the idea of point defense systems...small rapid fire guns that are made for taking out fighters...they of course take up high slots and due to their nature take up cpu....people would have to rethink weapon load outs and the point defence guns would not be able to cover any more than that ship it was on. So you would have carriers that are still a threat...but may be unable to quickly do what has happened in the past..and BS and BC and larger now have the ability to defend themselves..yet they no longer are able to pound the carriers or PoS down as fast because they are now armed with PDG.
I am new to this game...but I just cannot see taking the time to work up a carrier to only have my command of my fighters taken away....that would be like someone bringing a BS and only having command of 1 gun while others in his fleet command the others.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:08:00 -
[1314]
Originally by: DeadDuck
NO. Alliances field the biggest numbers they can gather at a certain time and they bring the ships they think is better to do the job... You dont see people saying "hey guys we just need 50 to do this job" the other 100 guys putting "x" better go mine or npc...
The number of players in fleets will not increase because of this nerf, because alliances already field the biggest numbers available of pilots online to go to battle. What will be reduced is the number ofd capiatls ships present in battle. Thats Why I'min favour of the nerf.
Wrong. Capital numbers won't be reduced, however their application will become more cumbersome and tedious.
Also not everyone and not even every major alliance shares that philosophy of getting 1000 people to do a job that only takes 50. Some value quality over quantity, don't like to lag systems unnecessaily by ganging extraneous people and many many times in alliance chats and on ts I've seen and heard FC's saying "no, we don't need any more people we have enough".
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:09:00 -
[1315]
So many people here, wasting so much of their own time, trying to explain something obvious to anyone who participated in a decent fleet engagement
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:10:00 -
[1316]
I fully endorse this change, But thats probably because I hate cap ships for anything other than logistics
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:10:00 -
[1317]
Originally by: Manas
As a fulltime carrier pilot, I am glad to see CCP is doing something to prevent 0.0 sovereignity warfare being too capital ship and supercap dominated. It was decreasing the ship variety in 0.0 battles and locking out younger players. Even after this nerf, carriers and MoMs will still be built everywhere, and be just as important to alliances.
Aye theyÆll just be as important just a lot less fun. Instead of being frontline theyÆll just sit at a POS or safe spot for hours û hardly the fair pay off for all the ISK and skill time.
|
creepervision
Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:11:00 -
[1318]
if this goes into effect bye bye 4 eve accounts and hello http://www.fl-tw.com/Infinity/. keep the nerf bat swinging ccp.
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:12:00 -
[1319]
Take a Thanatos ('best' carrier), then setup it up against 3 BS with standard small engagement gear which DOES include 1 large remote armor repper each. 1 of those BS can bring a neutralizer or 2 for good measure.
Let the carrier be able to deploy 10 fighters, which is pretty much max.
Now, let the fight begin... 15 minutes later.. Dead carrier.
ANY small BS gang with half a braincell can kill a lonely carrier, but here it seems some kid with 10M SP want to take down a carrier solo with his brand new Tier 3 BC. Get real, try the carrier before shouting nerf, and please don't calculate teoretical DPS from a carrier. The fact is it does less damage then a average BS in real ingame situations.
Yes it can tank, yes it can remote repp.. But fight? nah, BC and smaller outrun its fighters/drones, and larger ships tank every stupid fighter/drone a standard fit carrier can deploy, or/and just kill the fighters.
Try it on Sisi for gods sake!!!
If all the potential DPS from the fighters where used doing wrecking shots I tend to agree, but as it is now a stabber can tank 5 fighters by standing still (Tracking/sig ftl). So the theory must be that a Stabber can tank 1000 DPS. Errrrrr.. nerf Stabber.
A tempest can tank 7 fighters.. Same again, stand still and the fighters will miss more than hit. This is tested on Sisi with a Thanatos pilot with lvl 3 Carrier and lvl 3 fighters.
On the issue with motherships I might give the blogger some credit, but to force more people out to support it.. Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to give it +5 scram strength and let it be scramable. bye-bye lo-sec-solo-pwn-mobile. The main problem isn't the DPS from a MS, it's their imunity to scraming. Keep a MS in place and 10 BS should be able to kill it.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:12:00 -
[1320]
Carriers as they are now have ruined small fleet engagements.
This argument from Verone is pretty poor to be honest I expect better from a seasoned campaigner. Sure youÆll stand down or drive around it. Yeah right!
First of all we have to establish your definition of small gang/fleet?
5 hacs? 10? Maybe 5 hacs 5 intys? Maybe 15 assorted ships from command ship down to T1 cruisers perhaps?
I take it youÆd be using these in a roaming style where by any solo ship or smaller gang that happens across your path will be letÆs say æWIPED FEKKIN OOT!Æ Of course all this would happen within the same time frame as is reported of how long it takes a carrier to kill a BS. 0.2 secÆs << Laughable time frame.
IÆm also expected to believe that you would drive this gang around a carrier if scouted off guard. You know as well as I do that a gang like that would by the same token WIPE OOT! a carrier in less than 90 seconds. Trust me I know you know this cause we certainly do.
So your position on this has been flavoured by your gank squad running up against a brick wall and getting itself rattled? CÆmon man behave yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |