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) |
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Jakiri on 21/10/2007 12:30:48
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Not particularly, as it leaves carriers (and to a much greater extent motherships) without much of a role in combat. The only time large remote repping battleship gangs with carrier support has really been useful has been taking down a fully armed pos, and you only need to do THAT if the cynojammer is up, meaning you can't be assured of carrier support.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Not particularly, individual carriers (and to an extent motherships) are already extremely vulnerable to attack without the change. One of our small roaming gangs managed to take an ISS carrier out at an online, fully gunned, large PoS. Dramatically lowering the ability of carriers, and to a far greater extent motherships, to defend themselves turns this from a small weakness into a critical one.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot? No, but thanks for posting constructively
I like the way that you go out of your way to reply to something like this, but don't reply to people who ARE posting constructively. You're not giving any incentive to give suggestions here, and not supplying any sign that CCP actually listen. It may well be the case that you are, but proving one way or the other helps to calm people down enormously. Don't be like your pet economist.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? 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?
That analogy doesn't work, as the similarities between aircraft carriers and carriers are fairly limited in scope (not even considering motherships). In addition, that's where they are now, excluding lowsec motherships, which are a different issue entirely.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
The fact that they can control more drones? I dunno.
If you made a battleship a fast frigate sized ship with sig radius bonuses, there wouldn't be any difference between them and interceptors aside from the cost.
If this change nullifies the difference between battleships and interceptors, what's the difference today???
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[122]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 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?
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot? No, but thanks for posting constructively
Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? 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?
There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Have you considered the assault ship to have a fighter control role? Give them a damage bonus to fighters or similar under their control. This would be for the ishkur and one assault ship in each race. ---------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz |
Cruel Fox
Singulerity Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:29:00 -
[123]
WTS MS cheap and CCP move mine skilz out of MS specialized area on both mine amar chars!!!
I have been training for something wich u r now taking away. NP. Move mine SP as well then. And if MS does not sell give me place to reproces it or place to insure and blow it up for a good fee.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 -
[124]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 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?
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot? No, but thanks for posting constructively
Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? 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?
There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Oh man a real-life analogy who doesn't love those. Hey thanks for this, now would you mind putting the person in charge of reducing the amount of lag fighters create on the line?
|
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 -
[125]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 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?
They never missed the point of the blog. You have your feedback on every point you asked there. (Majority answers below)
1. No 2. No 3. N/a 4. Lots of skill time/isk invested in making carriers/motherships useful for front line combat, this nullifys them having to be at the front line when they can delegate fighters at a POS and people can warp back and forth for repairs.
|
Sirmonkey
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:32:00 -
[126]
Quite possibly the worst idea i have ever seen.
Make a ship more of a POS jockey? Unable to put out more than a Dominixes DPS if caught alone?
Wake up CCP, you've crossed the line this time.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[127]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? 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?
Aircraft carriers of today travel with a group of ships to defend against various threats, not to delegate firepower to. An aircraft carrier traveling alone would still be able to launch all its aircraft even if it didn't have frigate or destroyer escorts.
To answer your other question, because sometimes things don't go as planned. Unless you make it so that capitals will be able to bring their support fleets along with them, they will still need to travel alone. On more than one occasion, we have lost and killed capitals that were traveling. Similarily, on more than one occasion, we have had carriers survive because they were able to defend themselves by means of launching drones.
Also, no, the last line of defense has often not been fighters, but rather light drones, and more specifically the ability to launch a large number of said drones before they can be killed off. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
GO MaZ
Spartan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Rodent
The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.
Agreeing with this. The original idea in the devblog would end up with carriers back inside / creeping outside the POS shields before fighters couldn't be delegated from inside a POS forcefield. How boring was that, having your entire capital fleet sat AFK at a POS getting kills while your support do all the work.
If you want to make capitals more teamwork oriented, don't do it by nerfing their individual damage output (and believe it, having to delegate fighters in a laggy battle is going to suck).
We already need alts / gang members to move capitals, making a change like this just means I run 3 accounts instead of 1, sit my carrier at a safespot / POS and use the other two for killing stuff. Note the 3 extra gang members for 1 person, I can't see that doing anything for the lag at all I think the best way to do this would be to nerf fighters' sig resolution so they hit anything below a battleship for severely (SEVERELY) reduced damage, say 10% of total dps output, meaning carriers / moms have to rely on gang members / smartbombs to kill tackling ships, or switch to drones (and get stuck with the 45km drone control range).
Oh also, increase fighter HP and damage and reduce fighter count to max 5 for carrier, 10 for mothership with drone control units giving a damage bonus equal to 1 fighter rather than spawning more
|
Kaakao
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[129]
With only reading the devblog (not the 5 page thread) this sound like a nerf that I really dont want to see.
---- wtb signature |
Arthin Mutin
Vigilantes Rubb
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[130]
I do not like this idea because.
1. I think carriers should be very offensive with some support capabilities or the option to go full support role (triage module anyone?) 2. Alot of carrier pilots spend alot of money on there carriers and i for one would not trust 100m of fighters to an alliance member i hardly knew. 3. Completely Wrecks capital fights for those Jumping in, For example
Force A has 20 carriers on a gate with 100 support Force B will jump into them with 20 carriers and 100 support, Force A will have all fighters assigned so they are ready to fight Force B will Jump in Cyno into the fight but due to lag and many other issues not be able to fully give out there fighters causing them to have a severe disadvantage.
This alone could potential break the game, it would cause capital gate camps to be unkillable, Who would jump caps into that situation you would lose the fight for sure,
|
|
Elliott Manchild
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[131]
Reason I have a MS is because I can use it on the frontlines and is alot better than a carrier. Your just making it so that carriers/ms wont even warp in. A few weeks/months ago you was going to stop fightings being assigned from POS. Now you gone totaly diffenret way and made carriers/moms useless in frontlines.
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[132]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 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?
1. No 2. no 3. No 4. Becouse it nullyfies any reason to train and fly a carrier/mom other than being a hauler. Wwe already got specialized logistics ships that has the role of a support ship, add a capital/bs class of them to the game but dont screw over carrier/mom
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Steve Dave
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:38:00 -
[133]
every other single class of ship in the game has the ability to focus its offensive weaponry on a target on its own choosing, in either its own defence, or to attack another player.
what is so different about carriers and motherships that they should not be able to do this?
all this leads to is an increased number of pilots in system, which in turn translates to increased load on the server, more lag, and more whining at CCP about the lag.
this is a bad idea
|
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 -
[134]
This is ******** what about all the people who have trained fighters to level 5 and advanced drone interfacing?
I know I only have fighters level 5 because it adds to my fighter damage when assigned to me and I can have 13-15 fighters out doing 100% more damage if i am attacked..with this change I can have 5 out to defend myself!! so 3 million skill points for 5 drones to do 100% more damage!
Now interfacing 5 omg whats the point the skill just got nerfed and is now useless, allows 1 drone interfacing unit per level but the carrier can deploy 5 drones anyway, why would you ever use this skill unless your sitting at a pos assigning fighters to others.another 3 million sp down the drain :(
so after paying out 1 billion+ for carrier and 1 billion+ for all the skills and training for 8 months your nerfing the carrier into a glorified dominix..without anyway to defend itself. Thanks alot.
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 -
[135]
I'm sorry to post again on the same topic, but that "If we changed a cat to be a dog, what would be the difference between cats and dogs now? None, I say!" argument is going to stick with me forever.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:41:00 -
[136]
Ok, you wanted a constructive response - you're getting one.
WHAT THE **** ARE YOU THINKING?! ARE YOU ON *****?! THIS IS WORSE THAN THE SODDING MINERAL COMPRESSION NERF!!!!
Fighter delegation is all well and good in theory, and is actually something i quite like as it nerfs lowsec solo moms. However, in a real fleet situation, this is impossible. Lag is the prime factor in this. Navigating gang menus and spamming up gang communication channels for fighter requests contribute too. It just isn't viable.
As for the drone limitations? I refer you to my above bolded comments. This makes carriers utterly USELESS. Like, why the **** would you bring a carrier to a frontline situation? Carriers and motherships are now dominixes. Nothing more.
In fact, here's a snipped from a carrier and a mothership pilot upon hearing about the change:
Quote: (@El-Diablito) I've wasted months of training @El-Diablito) for a ship I now have NO desire to fly (@El-Diablito) mother******* *******s (@El-Diablito) five drones (@El-Diablito) i'll have less dps than a megathron
Quote: (13:32:19) (@Rodent) El-Diablito cry more ******, I have 60b invested in a ******* dominix :|
Your entire logic in this is flawed; you spend MONTHS moving carriers away from POS-hugging fighter spammers, trying to edge them more towards frontline logistical support and now you nerf EVERYTHING about them. They're now ridiculously vulnerable to interdictors, and have absolutely no effective offensive capability.
Now: Here's the key thing. You have just made the only statement that has EVER united both sides of this war. Everyone is ****ed, and everyone WILL despise whichever asshat came up with this change if it comes onto TQ. Have a tip, free from me, abandon it now. Say you had technical difficulties or something, like you did with the cloaking change (which is coming when, btw?). Or better yet, just remove the eejit of a dev who came up with this back to whichever cupboard he came from. Lord knows what he'd try next.
|
Otto Bismarck
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[137]
If we take any two ships and this has been done before with Dreads vs POS.
Take a thorax with t2 fit is probably worth about 20mil. Take the same fitting and put it on a Deimos, which is probably worth 200mil.
Hands down the Deimos would win every time.
A T2 Fitted Nyx is probably worth about 20bil A T2 Fitted BS is worth about 200mil.
Why shouldn't a nyx completely wipe the floor.
Take any two ships make one worth literally 10-100x more and the more expensive one will most likely win. What about all the difficulties in the motherships construction aswell as the other costs involved? The risks to the baby mothership. There's no risk to a battleship builing in a station, yet your 15billion isk baby can be destroyed while in construction.
No I do not like the 'support' orientated plans for the capitals. Think of all the different types of players out there who have shelled out MASSIVE amounts of isk for there ships to use in the current form. If you want to make a new class of capital ship to be more supporty be my guest. However leave the motherships, carriers and fighters should all stay as they are.
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[138]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
Not taking sole credit for this gem eh?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
**** no. Ask your self this. Would you like the idea of buying a Ferrari and have it turn into a minivan after a couple months?
People didn't train for carriers so they could idle at a pos and assign fighters. Balancing ships is one thing, completely changing the role of a ship after people trained for months and spent serious amounts of isk to get in one is just plain wrong. I'd say atleast 95% of pilots who bought/trained for carriers would not have done so if this is what would happen.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Yes. But you're going about it the wrong way. In America we have an expression "Keep It Simple Stupid". Just change the "Can deploy x additional Drones per level" bonus into a "xx% drone dmg/hitpoint per lvl bonus" and everyone is happy. No hairbrained schemes about assigning fighters plz.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? 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?
To answer your question with a question:
Have you ever seen 5 rowboats take out a solo aircraft carrier?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it. ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Kai page
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[139]
If this happens my 200mil fitted domi with RR's and blasters will be more useful than a 40bil mothership because i can use same amount of drones, lock quicker and use guns.
40bil mothership won't lock anything before it pops and they will all convert to carriers and sit at pos's.
For inzi, best cat our there |
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[140]
Just because your new doesnt mean you need to try and impress people by thinking up stupid stuff.
Do you want motherships to sit at the pos now or to get into a fight? make your mind up. if you do this then i think ill just sell my mothership and buy another character and just use 2 normal carriers, save myself billions.
|
|
Karazack
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[141]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
1. no carriers are enough of support ships already and dont work well alone without a fleet to back them up and be backed up by them (common misconception there, you get the impression that the OP has no real clue about carriers in PvP)
2. no, not at all deploying bigger numbers of drones and fighters is the trademark of a carrier and the ships are still outdamaged by various battleships anyway, let the pilots do what they spend months of training for and dont degrade them to a glorified logistics ship which btw doesnt fit with the descriptions and concept of the ship class at all
the whole concept of launch, assign, launch more, assign more, launch 3rd wave is not practical at all in a real combat situation especially a laggy one (again you can once again get the impression that the OP has no real clue about carrier warfare, sigh)
3. Hm, maybe program a client that can handle lag better which should have been done since years instead of introducing more features that promote blobbing and thus lag like pos warfare 2.0?
4. Carriers are fine as they are (except for balance issues within the class, but thats another matter) and are finally used at the frontlines as compared to earlier when they were just sitting in pos shield assigning fighters
so first you nerf fighter assignment from safe positions (which was a good move imho) and now you want to force fighter deployment? that doesnt make any sense imho
|
Trustus
Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[142]
once again CCP change the game to fit the game for the little people and the smaller alliances and **** all the hard work we all have done.
This is NOT a good idea, the carrier main weapon is it's fighters. This will kill the use of carrier use.
/T
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:45:00 -
[143]
This seems like a terrible idea. Not against fighter/carrier changes if they are truly needed, but this is a bit like being a doctor and saying "Oh, a bit of a cut finger? I see. Well, righto, just lie down here, the arm will have to come off. Don't worry, you'll hardly feel a thing, and afterwards your friends will be able to help you cut up your meals and read a book, won't it be lovely?"
Before making any drastic changes please fix the fighter assignment system, there's a reason people hardly ever do it you know. Any time I've had fighters assigned to me they don't show damage they're taking, so I end up sending them back by instinct/keeping as much of a manual eye on as possible. Still doesn't always work
|
0mega
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".
This.
Carriers and motherships now not only have the same on-grid dps as each other, but as a drone-specced ship like a Dominix or Ishtar. For reference, here are some numbers using the all level V char from EFT:
5 x Einherji on an Archon: 500dps 5 x Ogre II on a Dominix: 475dps
Why would anyone bring a 1bn+ ISK ship onto grid to do the same damage as a 80m ISk fitted BS? I'm not sure exactly how much experience CCP balancers have with fleet fights, but it's worth pointing out here that remote repping isnt a reason. Most primaries will die long before a capital ship can lock them, let alone cycle enough effective reps. The end result is that 1bn carrier hulls and 15bn mothership hulls are now equally effective when off-grid and safe at a POS, where they can crawl back behind a forcefield long before anything can kill them.
I always saw CCP pushing risk vs reward, but I'm certainly not seeing it here.
|
Arthin Mutin
Vigilantes Rubb
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[145]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
nobody likes the idea save face and drop it now before every carrier and mothership pilot in eve quits or you kill a class of ship.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[146]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Oh dear lord, you're actually serious...
How can you NOT see the ridiculously huge problems with forcing everything to use fighter assignment?! Have you ever actually played eve?
A mothership or carrier with its fighters assigned out loses all defensive capability. In a laggy environment such as a fleet fight, co ordination of assignment and defense of the assinger by the assignee is IMPOSSIBLE.
Let's not forget the fact that fighters CANNOT HIT SMALL SHIPS. How is a mothership meant to defend itself against interdictors with all of 5 warrior iis?
|
Saint Luka
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[147]
Absoluetely aweful idea.
Quite possibly the worst i have seen from CCP too date.
No. -
|
xBlood
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[148]
Beyond a bad idea...for the reasons stated by the other 90% of eve who are saying no.
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[149]
Originally by: ZaKma You keep claiming you want to encourage small scale pvp, yet every single change you make keeps encouraging blobbing.
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. Every carrier / mom will be assigning fighters to their gang members. The current hardware can't even handle the current state of eve, let alone if every ship in a fleet fight has fighters assigned and starts sending them around.
This also directly nerfs carrier's firepower in comparison to other capital ships. If you do this, then let carriers fit capital guns and give them a damage bonus (obviously not as much as a sieged dread) and better tracking.
Also, this is not balancing. I don't care what you say. This is a fundamental change in how a ship works, completely changing it's current use and tactics. Doing such a change would be fine a week or a month after releasing them.. but not after so long.
This said it all for me
It's a dreadful idea.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[150]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
The last three pages have answered that question.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |