| 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) |
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
Black Sun Cartel
   |
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:13:00 -
[1501]
lol @ sig! Just want to re-iterate this one more time, we're up to 58 pages of general disgust about the carrier nerf. Obviously the eve community doesn't feel it needs a nerf so why does ccp...
for the love of eve! DON'T DO IT!
|
Northius
Spartan Industries
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:14:00 -
[1502]
This is more stupid than not practicing safe sex in a third world country.
Priory High Council
Support the NSPDP
National Society For the Protection of Discriminated Pirates
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Free Traders
Free Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:15:00 -
[1503]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 22/10/2007 16:15:57
disclaimer: I cannot fly capital ships, they are too expensive for my style of play and generaly not my cup of cofee. my views expressed in this post may be far off, but I take that as my own problem :-)
so here it goes:
It seems to me, that CCP is running into a brick wall. They are envisioning grand 0.0 battles for territory and resuorces, they are providing the tools to do this, but they are NOT providing efficient and effective ways to employ said tools to do what they have envisioned.
We have POSes, carriers, dreads, motherships, titans, outpost, sov levels and what not. All this happening in the past 2 years.
Yet we still have the same crap gang interface and mechanics (with one little tweak so far), same useless tactical overlay, same useless non-customisable UI.
We have the tools, but we do not have the means to use them. We lack gang/fleet mechanics and interfaces. We lack tactical overviews. We lack essential system information etc.
I mean today, the best way to organise a fleet is to:
x - support or x - sniper or x - carrier
in alliance channel and wait for invitation. I mean WTF !!!
All this leads to people using the tools given by CCP in the most brute force effective way. This boils down to more DPS than the enemy (usualy). Those trying to use tactics and information superiority are few and effective to an extend, but they pay the price of less flexibility (a trained squad cannot be changed for another one, because they don't know what to do and explaining takes too long).
And CCP wonders why DPS is almost always the holy grail? There are wastly underdeveloped features in this game. Sensoric warfare is crude at best. Fleet organisation the same.
With such kinds of holes, how does CCP expect the game to develop as they envision it ? The result are half-assed nerfs and half-designed features.
 Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx
Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Alcrista Somez
Amarr
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:16:00 -
[1504]
I dont think this isnt about Carriers at all.
Its about slightly lowering the "level cap" in response to younger players who dont like the fact that they cant catch up to players with more sp than them in terms of damage output and battlefield prowess.
Capping the damage output in fleet fights at a Tech2 BS is a way of giving new players a long term (18 months ish as a vague guess) goal interms of good attainable damage output, and also making sure that at that point they can still compete on the battlefield with players carting 50 or 60 mil sp.
I think CCP are worried that carriers and moms in their current role give a single pilot too much damage and so they are trying to tweak things so that the extra SP of an old character WONT mean lots of extra DPS.
So really its about addressing potential issues with eves skilling system as the old players get older and more skilled and the new players are ever further behind when they join the game.
Im not making any comment what so ever on the validity of this. Just saying that I think this is what the real issue is that CCP are trying to resolve.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:24:00 -
[1505]
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.
This is the kind of thinking I was looking at regarding this. As a capital pilot in training myself, I was looking forward to carriers (w/ Triage Module fitted). I watched and experienced on both ends how carriers were being used.
When capitals were first released, they screamed cooperative fleet ships. Requiring a cyno field to be placed to even move... the heart of this being that you needed to work together to get it in battle. But people just trained Cyno alts. $15 extra a month to .... you guessed it.... drop a cyno on whatever enemy they wanted, and overwhelm single targets on their own.
Yes, I understand that people have trained long for these and got used to this style of play, but even from the design of what CCP was trying to make capitals in the beginning, it doesn't match up.
5 fighter craft will still put out excellent damage, you just won't be melting the battleship instantly. And so what, assign fighters to the cyno alt or the gangmate you came to support (carrier wise) and you'll still do the same damage. Mothership pilots.... It's a mothership. Your multi-billion investment was built for a different purpose then nuking 2 man gangs. However, they have a new problem caused by this. Either way, delegation of fighters fixes this 'glitch' in capital-teamplay by design, and sadly obsessed players will still end up buying extra accounts for 'fighter alts' if they REALLY want to keep that ability.
Problems and Questions I have though:
- The fighter interface (and by design drone interface) is very clunky. I know the interface is being fixed, but it does need to become quicker to work with especially for quick delegation like a "Launch Fighters and Delegate to..." command.
- If carriers are forced into delegation of fighters, allow the delegated fighters to work if the carrier uses a triage module. Truly make it a support craft where heck, people will WANT to delegate all their fighters to maximize the carrier/mom's potential.
- Motherships should have a better role other then just super carrier (even though that's what it is..) The EMP Pulse is great, but nothing that a brave (or suicidal) bomber pilot can't do with a lockbreaker bomb.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:28:00 -
[1506]
Originally by: Zareph
Edited by: Zareph on 22/10/2007 14:28:14
Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. However, again, I've not seen one in action. From the way the blog post reads one carrier could take out a fleet. that seems a bit extreme.
THAt, THAT is what ccp should have aimed for. We would be having none of this problem if this was implemented
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
maria stallion
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:30:00 -
[1507]
CCP's reaction so far have dissapointed me.
However this change is just one of the many changes that allready have been made, that made eve much more borring(station services, sov wars, removing death star pos's, etc).
While they want to do the opposite they keep heading in a direction that won't solve the problem.
This solution to a none excisting problem has just gone to far as can be seen by the great amount of post made in this topic so far.
I would like to see that CCP and groups of players sit around the virtual tabel to discuss things that need to be changed to increase the fun factor in EVE.
No devblog where you need EVE-voice which 90% of eve doesn't use, just a normal chat so CCP can get a better view on how the mass of eve look at things.
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
|
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:31:00 -
[1508]
It's amazing how much incompetence CCP have displayed in this thread regarding their own game. I wonder if they have been playing WoW for the past 2-3 years.
Can we please at least get confirmation that the Moros will not be nerfed, so that we can train for that instead (forgetting about the 6+ months we trained Carrier skills)?
I wonder what the next step is. Nerfing everything bigger than a battleship? Then lowsec pirates will probably use officer-fitted battleships to camp gates with 2-3 carrier alts repping / gang boosting them. I'm sure that's gonna be the kind of gameplay CCP wants...
"...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007) |
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:34:00 -
[1509]
Originally by: maria stallion
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
(Can't believe I am going to confirm quote a BoBite, but...)
THIS. There is a serious disconnect between CCP and their players right now, and it's getting wider. Just go look at the economist dev blog. They aren't even on the same page as the people who play their game every day. They are very much going the SoE route, and all you MMO vet's should know, that's bad.
|
Alcrista Somez
Amarr
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:35:00 -
[1510]
Originally by: tropic112
Originally by: Alcrista Somez
I dont think this isnt about Carriers at all.
Its about slightly lowering the "level cap" in response to younger players who dont like the fact that they cant catch up to players with more sp than them in terms of damage output and battlefield prowess.
Capping the damage output in fleet fights at a Tech2 BS is a way of giving new players a long term (18 months ish as a vague guess) goal interms of good attainable damage output, and also making sure that at that point they can still compete on the battlefield with players carting 50 or 60 mil sp.
I think CCP are worried that carriers and moms in their current role give a single pilot too much damage and so they are trying to tweak things so that the extra SP of an old character WONT mean lots of extra DPS.
So really its about addressing potential issues with eves skilling system as the old players get older and more skilled and the new players are ever further behind when they join the game.
Im not making any comment what so ever on the validity of this. Just saying that I think this is what the real issue is that CCP are trying to resolve.
So what? Just because some guy just finished school does that mean he MUST have what some 50 years old dude worked for all his life ALOT faster? heck NO. work for it like the other one did......
Absolutely. Im just reading a lot of people arguing about what the role of carriers should be and trying to point out that I think as far as CCP are concerned its pretty irrelevent. Theyre just trying to lower what is effectively the level cap for solo DPS.
|
|
|
Yourbane
Minmatar
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1511]
I forgot one thing : i want my carrier to be HUGE , and i mean it, it is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to see a 115k armor craft just a tiny bit bigger than my maelstrom, make them three time their actual size, and the ms's 5 or 6 times, that will be a good nerf :p
And to whoever said it , no 5 fighters is crap dps, less than a good bs, and besides, fighters do die quickly if a bs is fighting them .
And about the sony swg thing, its not the only game sony ****** up think about planetside...
And if you want young/old player balance, just introduce gaming skill into EvE, because the only actual skill in EvE atm is fitting your ship right and go for cheap easy and uninteresting ganks. But i think we better forget about that part or all the old players are going to whine cuz a top Ace pilot pwnt their bs with a rifter xD ..
Opinions are mine as usual blabla corp alliance blabla
|
Kildar Divad
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1512]
If these changes to into effect, I'm selling my carrier.
I anticipate having to sell off all the carrier-related BPO's as well, as demand for carriers will drop substantially.
--
#include stddisclaimer.h
|
Queldonus
Minmatar
Contraband Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1513]
I will be doing the same thing as Emsigma is doing if I don't see this idea completely trashed. All 4 of my accounts will be cancelled! Why should we have to compromise since we actually pay to play this game! Why should everything be fair in life? Its not fair!
Hey CCP!!! WAKE UP!!! Your devs are trying to kill this game and all its fun!
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:40:00 -
[1514]
I loved this game for the entire time I played it, but it looks like EvE is going SWG. If CCP ignore this 59 page (LOL prolly 60 by the time I finish this post) then I am sorry it makes me very sad it really does.
I will have to say goodbye and thanks for all the fish
I am all out of cronsctrucitve criticism tbh mainly because I am really peed off and the fact that any normal logical person would see that making a very time intensive and expensive ship equal to that of a ship that costs a fraction of the amount of money and invested time is just not logical. So whats the point of posting constructive criticism when it gets dismissed as biased opinion.
|
Recluse Viramor
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:42:00 -
[1515]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: maria stallion
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
(Can't believe I am going to confirm quote a BoBite, but...)
THIS. There is a serious disconnect between CCP and their players right now, and it's getting wider. Just go look at the economist dev blog. They aren't even on the same page as the people who play their game every day. They are very much going the SoE route, and all you MMO vet's should know, that's bad.
=o
No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:45:00 -
[1516]
Originally by: Recluse Viramor
=o
No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
This should be CCP's new litmus test. If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid.
|
Jakoll
Minmatar
Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:47:00 -
[1517]
No No No No
Carriers can be ganked with Battleships as it is. For the amount of training and ISK the carriers damn well should be able to shred a Battleship in 2 secs.
You say balancing? We say nerfing. Why must you "balance the carrier into nothing more than a super logistic ship?
Only ones crying are those who dont fly cap ships Im sure. If they did they would hate the idea. Its perfect the way it is. If ya want something to do, add some launcher hardpoints to the rokh or change the color of an astroid or something. Nerfing the carriers is a BAD IDEA!!!!!
|
Cosmos Elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:47:00 -
[1518]
Limit carriers to 5 fighters, and then triple their damage.
--
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:51:00 -
[1519]
Iæm posting here now because 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.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you concerned with the direction its taking?
I see no reason for concern...
And how are they direct uber deathbringers? All people have to do is kill of the paper thin fighters and then POOF carrier is incapacitated. wtf is the problem here???
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Logicycle
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:51:00 -
[1520]
Edited by: Logicycle on 22/10/2007 16:52:04
If you nerf carriers, I cancel my subcription.
|
|
|
Crohnx
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:53:00 -
[1521]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Zareph
Edited by: Zareph on 22/10/2007 14:28:14
Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. However, again, I've not seen one in action. From the way the blog post reads one carrier could take out a fleet. that seems a bit extreme.
THAt, THAT is what ccp should have aimed for. We would be having none of this problem if this was implemented
I think this is what we all expected from them at the 1st time when we heard carriers are comming to eve....dock inside like in stations ,have some sort of corp hangar there...if not that maybe u could man fighters wich could only work in system where carrier is, they could run on fuel and when that is out well self destruct or something i dont know , theres tons of options here , just not the one ure suggesting.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:53:00 -
[1522]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Recluse Viramor
=o
No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
This should be CCP's new litmus test. If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid.
 That had me laughing out loud for a few minutes I have copied the quote and may use it later if you dont mind, its gold 
|
Turin
Caldari
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:54:00 -
[1523]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Nyack
hmm some of us actually has skilled full time on carrier skills i know alot of people (me included) that has:
carrier 5
jump fuel 5
jump calibration 5
capital rep 5
capital remote armor rep 5
fighters 5
personally only got 2 of the above left to skill.. all these skills dont effect much more then carriers and a few might apply to dreads but other then that i cant use these skills to anything but carriers...
Congrats, you are pretty well set to fly a dread as well.
Maybe he doesnt WANT to fly a dread, and ONLY wants a carrier / Mothership. Then those skills are useless. Stop being a stupid troll, and posting just to be a jerk about it.
_________________________________
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:54:00 -
[1524]
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.
Yes, I am biased. Carriers and motherships has been my goal for the past year. If I was playing WoW, perhaps my goal would've been to acquire an epic flying mount, or some kind of epic armor set. Regardless, it has been something to look forward to, and a personal achievement once I reach that goal.
That still doesn't change the fact that I believe this is an inherently flawed idea. For one thing, it really doesn't solve two of the major problems with eve today.
Problem one: Lag. This is THE biggest problem in eve right now. As previously stated, this change is not made because of lag, but because of balance issues. If nothing else, this change would make the problem of lag even worse, as it'd require more support on the field for the same number of carriers, there would still be the same amount of fighters out there to cause lag, and trying to assign fighters during lag is a near impossible task.
Problem two: Blobs. This is related to problem one. This change does not solve problem two, in fact it just makes it worse. You are once again forcing a larger number of support on the field for the same number of carriers. In addition, pilots that would previously fly their carriers and let others fly support would now be more inclined to fly second accounts, to control some of those fighters while their carriers are sitting safely hugging POS shields. This further increase the amount of blob in the game, further increase the amount of lag and the ONLY thing I can see that would be good for CCP in this scenario is the additional income of second or third accounts. This is, of course, assuming the carrier pilots will keep on playing.
THIS is constructive criticism. Please note that neither of the two problems is something I'm the first to state. On the contrary, both these points have been brought up numerous times over the course of over SEVENTEEN HUNDRED posts so far. It would be good if CCP acknowledged these points of constructive criticism rather than having representatives accuse the playerbase of bias.
In fact, how about you go ahead and admit that this suggestion was a horribly flawed one and that you are promising to NOT implement it, nor anything remotely similar to this. Then you may go ahead with writing a devblog about what the problem REALLY is about and thoroughly explaining why this is perceived as a problem and ask the community for suggestions as for how to solve this. I'm sure you'd get a whole lot more people agreeing with you if you did that. You'd also get a lot more creative criticism and input, and less enraged players.
- Palli
PS: I've already heard from a large number of players that are seriously considering quitting eve if this change goes through. I am considering this myself. Tonight, I will be going through all my accounts and canceling every single one. I will be going to Fanfest, and once there I will be taking this up with CCP. Depending on the outcome, I may or may not resume my subscriptions. And no, you may no have my stuff.
--
MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Reprimander
The Littlest Hobos
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:56:00 -
[1525]
What a joke.
Let me tell you what this will create - LARGER BLOBS.
Much like the ill-thought out cyno jammer HP level, which was supposed to reduce blob warfare but actively encouraged it.
Now, every carrier instead of being frontlined on its own merit, will want a nice buddy so it can delegate fighters and project its power.
It won't reduce lag (it will make it worse), it will encourage larger blobs, and as far as I can tell its completely pointless. What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
May the bigger blob win.
CCP, you should be trying to think of ways NOT to encourage massive blobs, not rushing out ill-thought out proposals to an unbroken system.
OMG a solo carrier can kill a BS... big ******* deal...
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:57:00 -
[1526]
Originally by: Prydeless
wtf is the problem here???
I think the main problem is that CCP hasn't got a clue to how their game works..... 
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.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:58:00 -
[1527]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 17:01:29
cancelled my 3 accounts ,and all of sudden , everything is fine , just thinkin how stupid i was to accept all those changes they made without cancelling earlier .
learnin from mistakes
strangestuff , i manage to cancel one account , the account management page is down ....
The Frenchy |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:58:00 -
[1528]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 17:05:46
Originally by: Alcrista Somez
Absolutely. Im just reading a lot of people arguing about what the role of carriers should be and trying to point out that I think as far as CCP are concerned its pretty irrelevent. Theyre just trying to lower what is effectively the level cap for solo DPS.
(EDIT 1: Bolded word in above quote)
Don't you think that's the problem though? The thing they ARE trying not to let get out of control?
This is a prime example of escalation getting WAY out of control. Right now the devs are considering EVE Online a growing concern, evolving it and trying to make sure it lasts as long as other venerable games like Ultima Online and EQ (go ahead and flame saying they're killing it at this point, I know people want to O-o).
The problem is, at this rate, if the solution isn't changed from BIGGER = BETTER = MORE DPS you're greatly increasing the problem that everyone's favorite counter is.... TEAMPLAY. "Oh you have a roaming nano-gang.... bring friends" has been brought up a lot, and the current capital situation just doesn't back up those arguments.
It's not a stupid change in any way. It's a stupid change for SOLO DPS yes.... but when have the devs ever said "Capitals = Solo".... even from the initial blogs and by design they wanted them to be team ships. They just need to work out that clunky interface is all.
|
Caribardi
State Outfitters
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:04:00 -
[1529]
What exactly is the percieved problem with carriers? I wasn't under the impression they were broken on the plus side to the point of needing a major negative change like this. Is there some data to support the theory? I think maybe the MS pwnmobiles in low sec are a bit much but it has been shown that a sufficiently determined force can give one of these fellows his due, albeit in an extremely cheesy manner.
Perhaps as more people have the skills and means to field carriers the amount of lag generated by the fighter clouds is causing problems. This would be one way to reduce it and perhaps give the architects a little breathing room for coming up with a more elegant solution. |
FuQue
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:06:00 -
[1530]
I've been following this thread for a while now, and I STILL don't know - what is the problem with Carriers as they are now, again? I think someone forgot to tell me.
"You're doing it wrong"
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |