| 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) |
Aerick Dawn
Gallente
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
   |
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:38:00 -
[1381]
This is by far the dumbest idea you guys have had. The drone interface doesnt even report them being damaged when they are assigned still.
I love my alliance mates, but dude, I am not going to trust them with millions upon millions worth of my hardware.
Stupid idea CCP.
Also, mom pilots didn't pay 30+ billion isk for their ships to dole fighters out and sit outside a pos.
STUPID STUPID STUPID.
__________________
If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
mamolian
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:40:00 -
[1382]
Lot of new changes to adapt to.. none of which I'm particularly happy about..
CCP I'd like to list some epic failures, that have somehow wormed their way into this beautiful game.
The Interdictor.. I ******* hate this ship class with a passion.. I hold it singularly responsible for the way the game has developed.
Removing ability to assign fighters inside POS force field.
Proposed 20% refine tax on "mineral compression BPO's"
The Rorqual.. dont even get me started.. 
Proposed changes to max number of fighters controlable by carrier or mothership..
Proposed changes to interceptor scramble range.
Proposed heavy interdictor.
Black ops battleships, jump drive, jump portal  warp while cloaked.. (only saving feature being their going to cost a ****in ****load)
Proposed changes to cloaking.
-------------------------------
|
Z'kario
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:41:00 -
[1383]
such a stupid idea. wth did we dedicate all this training too
|
1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:43:00 -
[1384]
 Originally by: Okotomi Anki
Zulupark, we all pay your company 20 bucks per month to run the cluster. How much would you like us to pay You personally for just sitting still and doing nothing? Name your price, we will pay.
LOL
I'll gladly help pay for his nothingness :D
|
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr
Eve Defence Force
Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:44:00 -
[1385]
Hmm a few months ago CCP was
Quote:
"Well - lets get Carriers out of POS because we want them to be front line ships not just logistics boats"
In came changes, No more sitting in POS while assigning fighters, no more carrying ships with containers in them etc
Now - when carriers ARE being used on the front lines it is:
Quote:
Well actually we don't want them to be used like this so we'll take away your offensive ability and make you REALLY big logistics boats - oh, but you won't be able to do it as well as a logistics cruiser
Seriously CCP - you do this constantly but if this goes through it will be about the worst Time cost change you have made in terms of peoeple wasting skill training for a purpose that becomes obsolete.
NOS - yeah, can live with that (not too much time spent training)
Speed nerf yeah, can live with that (not too much time spent training)
Carriers - Heck no - that is at least 8 months of specific skilling for a specific reason
Make carriers unable to assign fighters, take away their ability to remote rep, make them DEPENDANT on suupport to stay alive, not the other way around.
Only way to make them useful logistics is to allow insurance of fighters, fix cap and triage and ensure that they can target friendlies quickly in a lag situation.
Personally I CAN fly a carrier, but am too damn scared to fly it anywhere on it's own without support as they are too easily taken down. With only Adv Drone interfacing III, Gallente carrier IV and Fighters III I am probably 6-8 months away from being a useful COMBAT carrier pilot.
Training time for these things is 2 years (more or less) and this change would make a Domi more effective in combat as well as more cost effective by a factor of 10+
Please reconsider.
|
Yttriun
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:45:00 -
[1386]
Sorry mate, dont agree with your idea. If I'm not mistaken eve and the majority of ships are based on our modern day navies, so let me ask you...can you imagine a carrier that can only feild 5 aircraft to defend itself without support? Utterly Ridiculous.
You guys need to stop nerfing the ships as a solution to imbalance and start creating other alternatives to enrichen the game, instead of always pulling back, drive forward and challenge the frontiers.
Fleet battles with multiple carriers ...even just watching is hell fun, so much though goes into the tactics its do or die most times...as it should be, bigger ships, bigger risks.
Bad idea, bad, bad, bad.
|
Lucifer66
Gallente
DEATHFUNK
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:47:00 -
[1387]
So is this what EVE has become? If you can't beat a more experienced player in a more skill intensive and expensive ship all you do is complain on the forums till they nerf that class of ship? Cuz you don't wanna work to get something nice yerself you just cry till the devs give you your way.
That's really sad. Stop and think about that for a minute...that means later when you can fly that ship you will be no better off for all that training. So quit sniveling about your weak skills and incompitence and train and learn how to play like the rest of the players do.
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies
C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1388]
Like i said before, if u want to reduce lag then make carriers and moms use 5 fighters but change their resists, hp and dmg to equal what they can do now.
simple
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1389]
Idea:
If you are dead set on the idea of creating some kind of mechanic to encourage players to delegate their fighters (ignoring for a minute your other motivation, namely an unwarranted dmg reduction), why not try some positive reinforcement instead of a nerf?
What about giving some kind of bonus to delegated fights?
One idea would be to allow some of the drone skills of the pilot fighters are delegated to to apply to the fighters.
Or maybe their leadership skills?
Haven't given it much thought, but might be worth looking at.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
beatit
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1390]
The biggest logistics ship is going to born!
And the Gallente carriers/mom ship become more weaker,"5% bonus to deployed fighter damage per level" make no sense as they just can deployed 5 fighters.
Caldari/Amarr carriers got a great resistances of shield/armor,Minmatar ones got a great bonus of logistics,
leaving the Gallente ones got a damage bonus.
|
Xaen
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1391]
Originally by: Idara
I have no valuable input beyond I'm just about finished my carrier training and I didn't pay 400m for a skillbook alone for a glorified Dominix.
Also, pimping the sig.
Also, proudly pimping the sig now.
--
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:52:00 -
[1392]
hey i just thought of something
if this goes through the minnie carrier will be the most Uber carrier in the game
you laughed at are pathetic 5% time per levl
then you said that the 5% amount was good enough
but now thats all we will be able to do  
|
Enosh Kerrim
Seraphin Technologies
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:54:00 -
[1393]
Its all in the theory, but usually the big fight about the major systems take part with lokal numbers of 600+ even launching ur fighters in a mess like that takes ages and if u have to assign them ( in case of a mom ) to 3 ppl u might finsih that after 2-3 hours. This is no complaining its reality.
Also theres no reason anymore just to field 1 of this supercaps anymore .Why risk about 15b + a lot of more isk (u need to build them in a pos and this is not for free)in a fight if 4 carriers would bring the same benefit even if they got nerved too.
You dont have to be a prophet to see what will happen no supercaps anymore in a direct fight and not even close to a pos to assign fighter to ur m8¦s.
The benefit of imunity vs electronic warfare is pointless then .
It would be nice if the dev¦s try to be a bit more cßrefull about what they introduce into this game and dont fix things that much if they find out ppl use stuff different as they were expected to.
In this case a lot of ppl worked very hard and skilled long time to use/build something , which maybe becomes now a hughe amount of minerals stuck in useless ship wating for beeing refined.
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:55:00 -
[1394]
Perhaps, to make this change more palatable you allow Carriers and Motherships the ability to carry Assault Frigates.
It would be a cool AF boost and Carrier MS nerf. A compromise to the players if you will.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:58:00 -
[1395]
Ok so you are going to reduce the direct damage dealt by MS and carriers DRASTICALLY.
You may aswell do the full monty and give all BS and BC only 2 - 4 weapon points so that BS are balanced again with MS and carriers. Comon you know you want to do it break your own game. 
Originally by: Karanth
Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Faridah
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:59:00 -
[1396]
Doh..
This topic is going at armageddon-day speed. I've not read all pages, but will try to put down some contructive ideas in here. The point of the blog was to get carriers into a more supportive role instead of just being the extra DPS needed to hammer down the enemy.
The way to do that is to encourage(sp) people to take on the supportive role, not put all sorts of obsticklses in their way when trying to do what you outline in your blog.
First, lets see why there is so few using them as support-ships today, which should have been done already by someone(tm) imo.
1: Carriers don't have the cap recharge to keep remote reppers going and the same time keeping 1 repper going for itself. I got maxed cap-skills, and to make this possible I got 3 CCC and 4*T2 cap-rechargers. Gives me a bit of buffer vs neut-ships. Maybe look at fitting req on the capital remote modules also... 
Ok, I only have cap remote repper 3, but you get the picture.
2: Dampening. Carriers today can be damped by a single frig and ALL your remote repair modules in high are rendered useless. We don't want to fit modules we never use and go the Smartbomb / drone control way instead.
Even when not dampened you can forget about repping anything smaller than a BS as it'll be dead a long time before you get lock. Get 2 damps on you and you are totally useless. Pray that your 'support' can beat the enemy without your help. (For going into triage mode see 4)
3: Buff armor/shield repair drones. We might field those instead of the fighters/drones.
4: Modify the Triage module. If we want to suicide our carriers we just rat with them in HED-GP.
There you go.. 4 more out of 10 carrier pilots will use the ship as support for dreads/BS in a fight.
Then reduce the number of fighters *slowly*, taking away half to 3/4 of a ships damage output is a serious wack with the bat. Try doing that to cruise missiles.
Doing just this:
1: Reduce number of controllable drones and fighters to 5.
Would lead to: 'Wait, let get my Dominix, because it outdamage a carrier anyway, and I almost gain ISK by loosing it.'
And carriers will just be used for afk mining-tanks and cosmic anomalties.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:01:00 -
[1397]
Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 14:01:53
I tried looking into the future a bit after this nerf, and what I saw in my crystal ball was this dev blog.
Originally by: Future Dev Blog
Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:03:00 -
[1398]
Comon CCP - just look how many guys/girls giving u an idea what to do , allmost half of eve , listen please
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Buxaroo
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1399]
To show you how much of a so-called "I-WIN BUTTON" a carrier is, just check BoB's killboard for last night. That carrier we killed had 2 Capital Armor Reppers going. We broke his tank in under 2 minutes and he still had craploads of cap left. Besides the ships you see on the killmail, there were maybe another dozen more smaller ships involved in the killing with dampening/scrambling him etc. And he had brought out 12-13 fighters....we popped nearly all of them and we didn't even loose a ship (I don't remember anyone saying they did). He had NO support.
So please, tell me where this "I-WIN BUTTON" is at? Even if we had only brought maybe 5 BS and a few dampening frigs, he would have died without support no matter how much faction gear he had. The point is that carriers/MS are already a setting duck and rendered useless with game mechanics already in place. There is no need to make this change.
Oh and this post is also to pimp my new sig :)
|
Gane Green
Gallente
Dominus Imperium
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1400]
Bad idea if i cyno into lowsec for logistics and the cyno pilot cynoes to close to the statin Im screwed.
80km out of station with nothing but only 5 fighters it would be a dead carrier.
15 fighters gives me at least a fighting chance to get the heck out of there but hell im sensor dampened to where I cant lock anyone anyway. My carrier is not a solo pownmobile its a glorified hauler that has protection.
No dice to this. Dont do it.
If god was a number he would be over 9,000!!!!!!!!! |
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1401]
Originally by: Sonos SAGD
Just to say it again if it hasn't been said
15 fighters will make the same lag if controled by 1 person or 3 people
CCp already said. This is NOT about lag. Strange how some people in past few months were able to swer that carriers didnt create lag, and nwo to defend their carriers they say new system will create as much lag as current one. CCP already said, this change is NOT about lag.
|
QuantumX
Minmatar
Sicarri Covenant
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:06:00 -
[1402]
U sir, Zulupark, should return to the testing department. These ideas are insane, you want to change a drone based dhip that by CCp's on info says are drone fielding machine into an expensive Dominix that can assign drones to toher players.
1. the IU for drones is crap and doing this quickly and effectively while jumping into a fight is impossible.
2. To be able to field 15 fighters in a carrier is a VERY heavy skill intensive activity, and most people dont go past 10 when in a fleet supporting setup. And well a carrier should be able to lauch 10 fighters AND use them.
3. Carrier ships are not solo pawning machines, a malus can make them ineffective for god sake.
4. Motherships cost 25billion+ and you complain it can kill a battleship solo, eerrr i hope it fricking could.
5. Mother ships and carrier being able to use only 5 drones, the same has a cruiser, again are you insane, limits are fine, but if you want to do this then just remove them from game.
Most nerf whines on these forums are about the use of capitals in low sec, i can see the point of banning motherships from this space, make sense, but logistically smaller corps like to use work from low sec, so just limit them to 0.1 or something. Even make the lauching of fighters in empire space a criminal act and have concorde respond or something.
As for fighters, make their sigs bigger to make them more vulerable, but for god sake make em 20% cheaper.
I'm not part of a big allaince, but carrier as an example are great for small gang PvP, which is said to be something ccp want more off, yet these changes again force to BLOB!!!
Try again, good sir, if these even make it to test, you going to kill all but major fleet use of these ships.
==========================
I came i saw i got blown up!
|
Viqer Fell
Minmatar
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:07:00 -
[1403]
Sorry to say but I have to agree with the majority of the 54 pages of this thread.
I agree that Capitals shoudl be more reliant on support but there are many other ways to change the carrier than the proposed knee jerk quick fix that you have come up with.
off the top of my head
1 - Take away the drone control module and make it an assault frigate only module that acts like a remote tracking link and limit the range to 5km.
2 - Make the carrier unable to lock other ships without a remote tracking link from say a logistics ship or a T1 Cruiser.
Give the ships linked to the Carrier a much higher gang bonus so the carrier cannot be defanged in seconds
Those are probably not very great ideas but tbh theyre a little better than simply gimping the ship and forcing you to become more reliant on giving your 200m of fighters to gang mates then relying on lag not to lose them all for you in minutes.
If the problem is the ships being solowtfpwnmobiles in low sec to use a phrase i dislike then make it so that dictor bubbles become "signature tuned" so they only bubble war targets or -5's (plus your own gang ofc).
How about making it so that carriers and moms can only launch fighters and drones when in Triage mode thus making it muc much harder for them to fight without truly committing to the fight.
This equates them then to Dreads which do ****ty dmg unless in siege mode.
There's a lot of good ideas in the last 54 pages and I just pray you dont stick your fingers in your ears and bring this change about whilst singing "la la la la la we can't hear you!"
Click here to visit our site
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:08:00 -
[1404]
Originally by: Ieu Duin
Capital ships should be the deathbringers. That is what the combat capitals should be. Just like capital freighters should be the "stuffbringers."
No, dreads are the "deathbringers". Freighters are the "stuffbringers". Both have the weakness that they need non-capital support to cover their weak spots. Carriers are supposed to be the "boostbringers" (including the damage boost from dishing out fighters), enhancing your non-capital support to allow it to compete on a capital-level battlefield, without replacing it completely.
The problem is that currently, the carriers boost each other just as well (if not better) than they boost non-capital support. It's this that renders the carrier-blob the most attractive support fleet, shouldering out the non-capital support roles.
Originally by: Yttriun
Sorry mate, dont agree with your idea. If I'm not mistaken eve and the majority of ships are based on our modern day navies, so let me ask you...can you imagine a carrier that can only feild 5 aircraft to defend itself without support? Utterly Ridiculous.
RL analogies really not the way to go here. Unless you want to give me a ship class that equates to the rubber dingy full of C4 that I can ram into your super-expensive warship while it's sitting in dock 
Originally by: Yttriun
Fleet battles with multiple carriers ...even just watching is hell fun, so much though goes into the tactics its do or die most times...as it should be, bigger ships, bigger risks.
They're cool for about 5 minutes, until the novelty of the bigger ship wears off and you realise that really it's no different from when you were pounding on each other in battleships, or cruisers, or frigs. Just the numbers in your stat boxes and the sparkle of your graphics have got a bit bigger.
It's the trap many, many games fall into that "bigger is better" always, and that trap leads to rolling obsolescence of the entry-level content. Capital and other top tiers should be something meaningfully different, not just an extra inch on the e-peen.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:09:00 -
[1405]
I fully endorse the proposed change.
-----------------
Friends Forever
Kill.
BoB.
Dead. |
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:09:00 -
[1406]
I cannot believe that after all the effort of training and skilling up to fly a mothership that you would not be able to effectively obliterate a ship that is 1/350th the cost. Now a mothership pilot is effectively stuck in his ship thanks to its inabliliy to dock, that pilot/character is effectively uselss for anything esle other than massive fleet combat and then only at the mercy of the rest of the people in the group for DPS. Why the hell would I fly a mothership if not to have a ****-ton of firepower at my disposal.... maybe the trade off is give me 9 citadel launchers then we are talking, but all the reward for the risk of building this thing is now effectively wasted.
If this change takes effect, I would like all of the skill points that I dedicated to the capital skills transfered to HAC / Recon skill as there is no point in training for spuercaps without having the reward of the firepower boost.... This is the sort of issue that causes long-term players to leave the game. Ask the SWG guys what happened when they nerfed their veterans... yeah game is a joke now.
|
RazorCRO
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:10:00 -
[1407]
Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: Okotomi Anki
Zulupark, we all pay your company 20 bucks per month to run the cluster. How much would you like us to pay You personally for just sitting still and doing nothing? Name your price, we will pay.
LOL
I'll gladly help pay for his nothingness :D
How about we pay CCP some extra money to give this guy his old job?
That would be more productive...
 |
John McFly
Ganja Labs
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:10:00 -
[1408]
Epic fail.
Minigin says I'm not allowed to post in limegreen. :-( |
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:11:00 -
[1409]
Damn, people like to whine allot.
Constructive suggestions:
1. Keep the carrier as it is but increase damage dealt by fighters assigned to a gangmate by 5-10%
2. Increase repamount when using repair/shieldboost drones
3. Increase scanresolution and targetingrange
4. Reduce damage dealt by fighters by 5-10% when the carrier fields them solo.
|
framolia
The Fated
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:12:00 -
[1410]
As someone who has just spent 6 months training for a carrier, I must say if this goes ahead, I will be utterly dissapointed!
May aswell give me a Jump Drive for a Domi.
Have some sense, send this guy back to his old job and save out Carriers and Mom's.
"My opinions are my own and not of my corp or alliance!" |
| |
|
| 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 |