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) |
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:32:00 -
[1471]
I'm reading quite a few people thinks fighters autoagro anything shooting at the carrier, and say this is an unfair advantage in laggy situations. I can tell you ignorants that fighters don't autoagro, and by the time you can command them to attack a new target in laggy situations they have returned into your smartbombs and died.
Train some skills or beg for them on Sisi, try a carrier and see what it can and can't do before wasting everyones time by spreading false claims.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:32:00 -
[1472]
There is a reason for why most fleet battleships are turret models, and it's not only because three out of four races have turret battleships.
This reason is because turret battleships deal direct fire, as in their damage gets applied straight away as opposed to missiles and drones that take time to reach their targets.
The only capital ship with capital sized direct fire capability is the dreadnought. This ship has horribly low DPS with its main batteries outside of siege mode. When it enters siege mode, the DPS is far higher, but it suffers a hit to its tracking abilities to make it next to useless against anything battleship sized or smaller. This make dreadnoughts not a viable alternative to battleships in fleets.
Titans deal direct fire as well, in the form of the doomsday device. This weapon, however, can only be fired once an hour. That, coupled with its huge cost makes titans not a viable alternative to battleships in fleets.
Carriers and motherships don't deal direct damage. Their fighters are slow (2.5km/s MWD speed), which means that they will take almost a minute to reach sniper distances. Taking the cost of said fighters into consideration, and factoring how easy it is to destroy one, carriers are not cost effective in terms of replacing battleships. They also lack the agility of the battleship, and the means to quickly travel to a new location without having to rely on support ships already being in place. This makes carriers not a viable alternatives to battleships in fleets.
Rorquals aren't viable alternatives to battleships in fleets either.
So, what are you worried about? Battleships will STILL play a huge role in warfare in the future. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Sara Leone
Gallente Freelancer Union Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:33:00 -
[1473]
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.
It might seem harsh Eris, but cherry picking a single post that you feel resonates with the reasons why the Dev team are looking to retask the carriers from maybe 50 pages of almost entirely negative comments does come across to the casual reader as biased, even blatently so. Not that I think the disrespectful tone of the above poster was needed.
My char is barely four months old and I cannot fly any carriers, however, to add my 2isk to the debate I am going to say this: It is time to stop radically changing long existing game tools in this fashion.
People have paid good money and put a lot of time in to train up to use these ships and the proposed changes are going to radically alter what they have been paying and training to do. Breaking their toys in this manner is not good leadership by the dev team it is outright dictatorship.
It might as you seem to claim, turn out to be for the best, and that under your guidance things will only get better, but nobody except the devs seems to really think so. Triage modules have been made available on the market, and yet remain almost entirely unused, why? because it seems that most people prefer not to use them due to the massive constraints they require. This should really be a clue to the dev team, huge logistic/remote rep ships are useful but not highly desired.
If you really think that such ships are needed and would be great why not create a new class of light carriers that have these specific abilities and seed the BPOs and see if they take off?
Maybe they will be great and do everything you guys want and the old carriers will rot in their hangers as everyone moves forward to the bright new world, but you know what I doubt it. And if you do press forward with these changes, at the very least you should Grandfather the current carriers and motherships so that long term players don't have their role and raison d'eve removed by an unwanted overnight nerf.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:33:00 -
[1474]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 22/10/2007 15:35:10 I really wonder sometimes if the devs play the same game as the rest of us, or even correctly hear our complaints. It's like the telephone game gone bad:
Players: Carriers and Motherships are causing too much lag, and their DPS is lag immune. Fix the lag. Some Guy At CCP: Carriers are doing too much DPS in the lag? Designers at CCP: Oh, well, the players must want Carrier DPS nerfed!
No, no, NO. That's not what we said, at any time. We said the carriers cause too much lag. You know what this change will do? NOTHING. They will still belch out 10-20 little lag monsters, someone else will just control them now. Wow, what a fix.
Seriously, CCP. Do you play this game outside of your sterile testing environments? Do you even hear what we say? Or do you even care? I hate to agree with a BoBite...but yah, CCP...destroying the fun of EVE one patch at a time.
"Hey guys, I have an idea. You see, despite the fact that carriers cost billions and take nearly a year of skill training, lets put their DPS in line with battleships that cost 1/10th the price and take two months to train for. YES!".
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:35:00 -
[1475]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
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.
Many of us HAVE provided constructive critisism, myself included.. For the sake of ease, here they all are:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#312 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#321 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=15#434 and the best one: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=35#1029
Not to mention all the posts by my fellow alliance mates, and various other posts I've made with other people in here, arguing why and how this is a bad idea. However! If you're telling me that you're just going to pass that off and say that's my bias talking, and that my post doesn't provide you with anything wortwhile..
Then, I guess I was sorely mistaken about CCP never taking on the guise of a hypocrite.. I mean no offense whatsoever, but it seems to me that I, and many others, have an opinion and have documented our reasons really well. Ontop of that, you have an opinion aswell, along with Verone it seems, which you have documented aswell. However, it takes no educated genius to see that because your opinion ligns up really well with mr. Verone, that you hold a very definitive and CLEAR bias towards him.
You write off hundreds, if not thousends of voices and where some are blatant yelling and unmannered, many are in fact, really well argued and touching very specifically on the reasons why NOT to do this, why it will NOT help gameplay on a larger scale. You do this, in favor of 1 person whom you saw fit to give a virtual cookie as a sign of reward for saying exactly, what you want players to say.
Your Madam, ARE being biased in the context of opinion which you define as "bias". Again I mean absolutely no offense to ye m'lady, but that performance was, from my point of view, absolutely ghastly, and you will have to excuse me if I don't sound as forthcoming in trying to support you or this idea.
The idea was a poor one from the beginning in my opinion and I clearly stated why. Where's the alternative you ask? There isn't any! I will not accept a compromise and I believe I have good reasons not to. Now with this sort of message between you and mr. Verone, I definitely have a problem with this whole ordeal, and I think you know why.
Goodday *tips hat*.
|
Saint Luka
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:36:00 -
[1476]
Whilst i did not play SWG i did have alot of friends who went through the whole "ordeal".
Developers bringing in changes against the wants/needs of the community.
What happened? Companies profits fell through the floor.
What happens then? Job cuts, node cuts, worse ideas untill the game itself falls through the floor. -
|
seven offnine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:36:00 -
[1477]
i agree with all person here that said it's a bad nerf.
caps and super caps must keep there firepower. it's bad to reduce by 2 ou more the fire power.
the principal interest of those ship is : 1/ they tank a lot 2/ thay have 30% more firepower than a good full DPS battle-ship
so, dont reduce firepower of those cap and super cap ship. if you do so, thay cant defende themself, and have no interest for players.
plz, dont nerf them.
maybe reduce to 5 drone, but give them 100% more damage.
|
Sebastien LeReparteur
Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:37:00 -
[1478]
Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 22/10/2007 15:41:55 Hi all,
My opinion is that is not the way to fix capitals. Capitals are CAPITALS and should in a way rule the battle field.
Capital blob create lag and that is what is overpowering them, assigning fighters only means that resources and ppl full corp/alliance won't even see a difference but smaller ones will get the short end of the shaft... again.
At some point if any ship class should be able to compete with any other ship there should be no price and skill difference between them.
The real issue is LAG and low sec Super Capitals. Limiting drones and fighters is like putting a band aid on a battle-axe wound.
Either: create a capital scrambler class ship for low sec and 0.0. Remove super caps from low sec. Instead of having a number of deployed boost them as was done to other drone ships as a per lvl multiplier. Fighters and drones are easy kills for trained interceptor and AF pilots.
If I understand well you say that Carriers are glorified Logistics
|
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:41:00 -
[1479]
Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
|
Hermaphrodiety
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:43:00 -
[1480]
Originally by: Cadela Fria ...
You're my hero! Because i just still don't find any words for all this joke...
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1481]
Originally by: Katashi I****uka I think if you want to make carriers more fleety:
Make fighter drone guns have a higher sig radius - therefore needing someone who can target paint.
Check, fighters are useless on Cruisers bacause of tracking/medium gun resolution.
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Make fighter drones move slower - therefore needing someone to web.
Check, fastest fighter (einherji) can reach speeds of approx 300 m/s while orbiting and shooting
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Introduce subsystem targeting for capitals allowing small ships like destroyers, frigates, and stealth bombers to selectively cripple large ships. These subsystems will have a small sig radius such that it would be difficult for battleships to hit these systems.
Check, warp scram(frigs), dampener(frigs/recons), dictors(destroyers), killing fighters (anyone with a webber)
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Make sig radius a bigger factor in damage calculations.
It's possibe I guess..
|
Tarnia Xavian
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1482]
Oh well. At least we'll still have our smartbombs and stabs for camping low sec. Our moms won't be a total loss.
|
Tash Murkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1483]
Originally by: Zulupark IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere.
You should start planning tbh. |
Lysteria
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:45:00 -
[1484]
Originally by: Neoromi Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
I can tank a singel carrier with 13 fighters and fighter lvl 4 untill i run out of boosters in my abbadon - So they aint really that evil O_o
So i think its total BS like you are saying
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:49:00 -
[1485]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 15:50:50 the other day , a smartbombing megathron melted my shuttle in 0.2 sec , ....... NERF !!!
sorry but i don t see why i should be constructive with such bull5hit idea
capitals and super capitals .. i wonder why they will be named super if the change happen .. lol , except super expensive compared to other ships ..
anyway ,someone in corp said adapt or die , fine but we have to adapt every ****in single patch with all the **** they are providing to us ....why can t they adapt for once ? they stop their stupid idea, listen to community ....
we are the one paying them , why should we adapt ?
The Frenchy |
Hermaphrodiety
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:50:00 -
[1486]
Edited by: Hermaphrodiety on 22/10/2007 15:50:32
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
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
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.
Telling us as a community to be biased but just listening to one single person, that does see EVE just onesidedly and thinks the same way. Then telling us, that we don't bring constructive ideas while we already wrote down hundreds of different ones, that point in different directions, is stupid.
Thanks for that, CCP. Open your eyes and start reacting in a way that is worth the EVE-community.
---------------------------------------------
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:51:00 -
[1487]
Originally by: Neoromi Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
This is all the 'reason' CCP seem to have:
Quote: ...the last few days weæve been looking at the way capital and supercapital ships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
No explanations what's wrong! No justifications! Nothing!
I dunno, maybe the Zulu-guy got hired from SWG after they implemented his game balance changes there.....
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.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:51:00 -
[1488]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie.... & stuff
Many of us HAVE provided constructive critisism, myself included.. For the sake of ease, here they all are:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#312 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#321 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=15#434 and the best one: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=35#1029
Not to mention all the posts by my fellow alliance mates, and various other posts I've made with other people in here, arguing why and how this is a bad idea. However! If you're telling me that you're just going to pass that off and say that's my bias talking, and that my post doesn't provide you with anything wortwhile..
Then, I guess I was sorely mistaken about CCP never taking on the guise of a hypocrite.. I mean no offense whatsoever, but it seems to me that I, and many others, have an opinion and have documented our reasons really well. Ontop of that, you have an opinion aswell, along with Verone it seems, which you have documented aswell. However, it takes no educated genius to see that because your opinion ligns up really well with mr. Verone, that you hold a very definitive and CLEAR bias towards him.
You write off hundreds, if not thousends of voices and where some are blatant yelling and unmannered, many are in fact, really well argued and touching very specifically on the reasons why NOT to do this, why it will NOT help gameplay on a larger scale. You do this, in favor of 1 person whom you saw fit to give a virtual cookie as a sign of reward for saying exactly, what you want players to say.
You Madam, ARE being biased in the context of opinion which you define as "bias". Again I mean absolutely no offense to ye m'lady, but that performance was, from my point of view, absolutely ghastly, and you will have to excuse me if I don't sound as forthcoming in trying to support you or this idea.
The idea was a poor one from the beginning in my opinion and I clearly stated why. Where's the alternative you ask? There isn't any! I will not accept a compromise and I believe I have good reasons not to. Now with this sort of message between you and mr. Verone, I definitely have a problem with this whole ordeal, and I think you know why.
Goodday *tips hat*.
Here here, very well said. Posts made by the DEVs in this thread, drive me to believe that this is already going into TQ.
Regards Rusty
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:53:00 -
[1489]
Originally by: Kamenwati I find the whines of the carrierbear pilots in this thread amusing.
I can fly a carrier, and totally understand why CCP is considering this (or something like it) nerf. Carriers should indeed be more "fleety".
A carrier with no support can get killed unbelievably easy. (I've lost 3) A group of carriers can die very easily too without a fleet.
They have to be in a fleet to be effective.
It just saddens me that CCCP has to cater to people that do not have the brains to counter which is easily counterable. 3 Arazu's pretty much wipe out 5 carriers.
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
Vaedian GER
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:53:00 -
[1490]
Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
|
|
Tash Murkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:56:00 -
[1491]
Originally by: Vaedian GER Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
They won't, they aren't that stupid. not ?
And then he stepped Down From the Heavens To judge the unworthy, To redeem the pure.
|
Voltron
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:56:00 -
[1492]
Originally by: Tarnia Xavian Oh well. At least we'll still have our smartbombs and stabs for camping low sec. Our moms won't be a total loss.
Next on the nerf list tbh.
Volt
P.S.
I still haven't had the carrier skill ripped from my skull and my isk refunded, whats up? I didn't pay to fly the uber logistics beast, if the change goes through I would like my iskies back so I can buy 4 battleships instead. It's great touching your own dink isn't it?
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
|
Queldonus
Minmatar Contraband Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:57:00 -
[1493]
I wonder why I would spend so much time training to max out skills to fly a mothership? I wonder why I would spend so much TIME and EFFORT in obtaining the isk to build a mothership? I wonder WHY CCP has to bring new people in with NERF bats to make the game a whole lot less fun? I wonder why you always have to change the game so that the little whinners in the forums get what they want?
Few things from a previous Beta Tester of this game.
I for one think that the way things are going with the nerf bat that this will be the end of the game. I personally will take all my accounts and leave this game due to the lack fun! Lot of people are posting in these forums and a lot of people DON't! (including myself).
Now lets look at the problem behind your logic! 1. there is no logic? 2. you want to create blobs of support to field a mothership or carrier. 3. this helps the large alliance blobs 4. this helps INCREASE LAG with fighters being assigned and gang server trying to keep up with it all. 5. now I can get ganked by a smaller fleet or Battleships and ONE dictor. 6. ITS A SUPERCAPITAL! 7. Carriers would become the new throw away battleship. 8. It seems these need for speed thing just flew right off the track and crashed with the new guy behind the wheel! 9. If really want people to complain and whin, well you did it now! 10. As a long time player of this game, I have to draw a line at where CCP has gone to far to take the fun out of this game and LEAVE IT!!!
|
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:01:00 -
[1494]
"Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time. "
Other ships also have guns and launchers relative to size... Super Citadel launchers on the way.... no... then leave it alone.
li
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m87/dv8_eve/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig.jpg |
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:02:00 -
[1495]
I'm a bit out of eve lately.. but i saw the news on a nearby forum and i just had to protest ^^
SERIOUSLY HERE !!! wake up man, consider the facts :
Cruiser : 1 mil sp . does little dmg Battleship: 4 mil sp . does much more Carrier: 18 mil sp (and i'm not done yet) . does more than the bs, but with fragile gankable drones, which are also stupid and can't answer orders in a timely manner, all that on a ship that needs 5 sensor boosters to prevent his ennemy from warping . ok its not a solopwnmobile, i do think its balanced.
Now think about it , i spent a year skilling a Carrier because i thought the Nidhoggur looked nice, and i eventually got my ship, which costed about 15 battleships . And you want to take the little firepower the carriers have from all the people who skilled those ships, to make them only fleet useful ... i know you want to balance but i'm sorry. it's too late, much too late to completely change a ship that takes a one year skilling process to get. As a strategist, i totally agree that if you could field a carrier instead of almost any other ship, it would be better (until it reaches more than half the fleet imo). But still, when that carrier dies, you don't just lose 30 mils for insurance and fits. you lose 1.5+ billions. Even losing a pair of fighter costs the same price as losing a fleet battleship, and i think the price of all that balances it.. Yes money is power, once again but that's nothing new ^^
And again, yes capitals and supercapitals are changing the balance in EvE, but it's too late, such drastic changes will just make a lot of people leave, and sell their carriers.( who would want of a 1.5+ bil ship that's only usable in fleets/ gangs, and is still pretty crappy at it . )
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:03:00 -
[1496]
Originally by: Vaedian GER Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
Yea , let's hope --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:04:00 -
[1497]
Zulu probably got pwned by miz or someone camping lowsec in a mothership and said omqzerz I SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO DIE TO A 30 Billion isk ship! NERF! And what is with this 'look past your bias of your iwinmobile'. What kind of nonsense is that!?!?
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:08:00 -
[1498]
Edited by: Emsigma on 22/10/2007 16:12:29 I just cancelled my 4 accounts and unless I see some kind of promise that this is not going in, they will remain in that state.
As Pallidum said; I am protesting with my wallet. That is Ç60 less for you / month! ---
|
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:10:00 -
[1499]
CCP Please please please please take a hint at what everyone is saying in this thread. Do not make the same mistake that sony made with starwars galaxies!
and
Everyone adpot the save capitals sig please!!!
|
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:12:00 -
[1500]
Edited by: Nagatok on 22/10/2007 16:15:48 goddammit CCP make a GOOD decision once in your goddamn careers
|
|
|
|
|
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 |