EVE Search - Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Sonisha	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:49:00 - [1711] I Enjoy In Eve The Ability To Be A Solo Player, After 4 Years, And Now Being Able To Fly A Carrier, Its Time To Nerf It. Personally I Think This Would Be A Bad Idea. The Carriers Design IS To Be A Drone Carrier, Fine. If You Happen To Like Being In A Large Corp, This Steps On The Little Guy That Has Worked To Get This Far Then Go Waste 4 months of training the skills to level 5, Then Thats A Big Black Mark, And Once Again, Makes Me Wonder Why It Was Worth It, And If Indeed Its Worth Carrying On. Long Live 'Eve, Be What You Want To Be' Type Game Play Instead OF Be Nerfed Because You Like Solo. A Carrier Is Big, Armoured, No Guns. Take Away Drones Control, Solo Carrier Pilot With Only A Guiding Weak Cruiser = Why Bother. There Are Plenty Of Carrier Destroying Dreadnoughts And Other Carriers Around To Deal With Them, Why Change? Not An Improvement In My Opinion. Also Then Limiting Level 5 Missions To Non-Solo Players = Boring, No Point In A Carrier At All.
Xilimyth Derlin OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:50:00 - [1712] CCP Dev Team: I know MOST of the player base posting here have not been constructive, have flamed the heck out of you, insulted you, and have generally been unreasonable, BUT they just want an answer on the time they've invested. Tell us something for those that already have them AND those like myself that are working towards capitals. I'm up to 4 and a quarter pages of material from this to balance and plan where I go after Capitals III is finished... and info definitely will help ^^
Ricky1989 Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:51:00 - [1713] I vote this the biggest and crappest nerf in this century! Love Ricky1989. "I Can Make A Mess Like Nobody's Business"
dastommy79 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:51:00 - [1714] OH FFS THIS IS THE DUMBEST IDEA EVER Do you even know what its like being a cap pilot these days. Capitals need an F'n boost not a nerf. Fire this guy please I driks alots
Snakebloke Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:52:00 - [1715] Originally by: Sonisha I Enjoy In Eve The Ability To Be A Solo Player, After 4 Years, And Now Being Able To Fly A Carrier, Its Time To Nerf It. Personally I Think This Would Be A Bad Idea. The Carriers Design IS To Be A Drone Carrier, Fine. If You Happen To Like Being In A Large Corp, This Steps On The Little Guy That Has Worked To Get This Far Then Go Waste 4 months of training the skills to level 5, Then Thats A Big Black Mark, And Once Again, Makes Me Wonder Why It Was Worth It, And If Indeed Its Worth Carrying On. Long Live 'Eve, Be What You Want To Be' Type Game Play Instead OF Be Nerfed Because You Like Solo. A Carrier Is Big, Armoured, No Guns. Take Away Drones Control, Solo Carrier Pilot With Only A Guiding Weak Cruiser = Why Bother. There Are Plenty Of Carrier Destroying Dreadnoughts And Other Carriers Around To Deal With Them, Why Change? Not An Improvement In My Opinion. Also Then Limiting Level 5 Missions To Non-Solo Players = Boring, No Point In A Carrier At All. I couldn't agree more... ------------------------
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:53:00 - [1716] 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. I finally found her posts and just lolled really hard, bit touchy arn't we? Wasn't the eve motto adapt and live with it? Well u guys made a really REALLY bad move, now adapt allready and admit it was a really REALLY bad move. If u guys try to shove this down the playerbases throats cuz ur too proud to admit u were wrong.. well only thing i can say is good luck on the fanfest, i bet u will be very popular there Oh man, when i first read about this i was angry, now i just think it is insanely funny and can't wait to find out how the fanfest is going when u haven't given up on this idea when it starts. Just a shame i can't be there CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Avos Sova	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:59:00 - [1717] It's getting near 2k posts in under 2 days time, I wager CCP hasn't had time to decide on a proper response since this was more on an introduction to a new dev more then anything else. I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:01:00 - [1718] Edited by: Elmicker on 22/10/2007 22:02:22 Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia you need look further then your own win button WTB: Carrier that is a "win button". Have you ever flown one, Eris? Quote: ...explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. Well, we could, if you told us what your goals are. So far all i've heard is "carriers are imbalanced". This is not a goal, this is a reason. However, that's not to say that this reason's right. Carriers are balanced, as you might be able to tell from the 70 pages of 99% negativity with added verone.
XoPhyte Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:02:00 - [1719] Originally by: Bon Hedus It keeps sounding like the underlying problem is people camping low sec with MS, or dropping MS into low sec. So ban MS from low sec. You don't want to ban them from lowsec, there ARE reasons for carriers and motherships to go to low sec. However you may want to limit their firepower in those areas, only so as to let smaller corporations get their feet wet before coming to 0.0.
Manas The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:03:00 - [1720] This hysterical overreaction, RAMPANT CAPITALIZATION, and personal attacks on Zulupark is one of the saddest things I've seen. One of the neat things about Eve was that even a new player could get out there and play a role in PvP. But now, a frigate or cruiser in a high-end 0.0 fight is called "lag". I prefer Eve with 100s of ship designs and module choices, all with usefulness for those trained for it. If it takes nerfing to prevent the overemphasis of one ship type, then so be it. It's better for all to have variety in fleet battle composition and strategy. Titan DDD was the start of mistake that is causing the onset of the "End Game" ships and Capital Ship online by enfeebling everything that can't withstand a couple DDD blasts. I shudder to think of the coming days of a 4 Titan packs with 15 Mom support. To play top end 0.0 warfare, either you are in a Titan, Mom, Carrier or Dread, or you are grinding to get there. Battlecruiser specialist? Why aren't you in a Dread yet? Kaboom. I am an ex-ECM pilot, ex-NOSDomi pilot, and current fulltime carrier pilot, so let me say: Suck it up fellow 0.0 Elites and accept a challange for the sake of a better game. -Manas Fulltime carrier pilot, nerf or not TGRAD info
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:04:00 - [1721] Originally by: XoPhyte You don't want to ban them from lowsec, there ARE reasons for carriers and motherships to go to low sec. However you may want to limit their firepower in those areas,... This. Carriers in lowsec are fine. They're ridiculously vulnerable and have to put their fighters at risk of sentry fire. Motherships, however, need their EW invulnerability tweaking. Perhaps changing it from an absolute invulnerability to a 10 or 20-point WCS while in lowsec. Same vulnerability to all other EWs as a carrier.
Wodanonline Pringles Inc. STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:05:00 - [1722] with that response of a ccp member it is finally confirmed they do not play their own game.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:05:00 - [1723] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Malachon Draco ...something needs to be done or otherwise we will end up with 100 carriers vs 100 carriers in a few months time. And what is wrong with that??? It would be an epic battle, were it not for lag.... Is it really any different than 100 bs vs. 100 bs? When all is said and done, it's 100 ships vs. 100 ships. A 100v100 battle between carriers would be very boring, since no-one would die (except a lot of fighters). If any of them wanted to achieve something, they'd need huge support fleets, battleships and down. Lag is a problem, but first of all, this isn't done because of lag (according to CCP), and secondly lag caused by carriers is not different from lag caused by other ships. When you reach 200+ fighting on grid, the node grinds to a halt anyway.... Well, aside from the server melting due to up to 3000 fighters being assigned in such a fight, nothing I guess The server melts anyway when there are 200+ on grid fighting.... whether they're in carriers or not doesn't really matter However, you're right on the spot on what THE big problem of 0.0 warfare is. It's lag, caused by blobs. THAT is the problem CCP should work to fix. 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.
Ailok Konem	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [1724] Hi, I personally if they start messing around like setups too much and start nerfing everything then the game will be any interest to ppl and players will start to leave like star wars galaxies online did. Also if carriers are nurfed then there's no point in having them if ur too busy controlling and delegating ur drones when ppl fly off or die, I rather get myself a titan and blow everyone up in the vicinity, But hey if the carriers get nerfed and everyone starts using titans maybe the dev's could nerf the titans to one big fat laser that only works with if ur ganged. And while u'r at it CCP u might as well disable the super weapon.:) I could see the titans being nerfed in the future after the carriers when no one uses them. Just my opion, at this rate I doubt anyone will remain an interest in the game if everythings getting nerfed.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [1725] Originally by: ER0X A Solo Carrier can kill a few BS before it dies in battle with its damage out put as is. I think this in terms of balance is a fair trade. Fair enough, I hadn't appreciated it needed it's full fighter output to achieve that. Of course, one thing we've not seen is how these proposals will tie into the bandwidth proposals for drones in general. Specifically how fighters bandwidth is to be balanced with normal drones. How about we relax the number-of-drones limit, and give carriers sufficient bandwidth to be able to use heavy drones as their solo defence? What sort of number of drones would we be talking there? The bandwidth usage of fighters is then tuned so that solo, the carrier is less effective with them than with heavies, but with support to bolster it's number of active fighters, it far exceeds it's solo ability? Maybe not workable, but an idea. The other idea would be to make them sacrifice something to run their full fighter set solo, some sort of mini-logistics mode (with no fuel or movement restrictions) that allowed you to select the extra fighters bonus, or the remote repping bonus, but not both at the same time. If you chose to activate the remote repping bonus, you would have the option of farming out the fighters to your support ships to get back up to full usage. If you're caught solo, the remote repping bonuses aren't going to help you anyway, so it's no loss to turn those off to give yourself a fighting chance with a full wing of fighters. If you're in a fleet full of carriers, you're going to have to sacrifice one or the other, at least partially mitigating the massive-spider-tank-with-hundreds-of-fighters syndrome. And if you're in a mixed fleet with support that you can farm the extra fighters out to (or "bind" in to boost your control limit as per my earlier suggestion to avoid the micro-management of delegation), you get to use both and realize the advantage of the mixed fleet. Again, just an idea. Originally by: ER0X To recap what we have here is two capital class ships one ordinary capital ship the other a super capital ship. Both will have the same solo damage out put as the other. There is no consistency here from the established ship hierarchy. There is a clear distinction between a Moa for example and its variant the Eagle. Where as here with this class of ships the proposal will mean there is no real distinction at the base level. This is definitely one point I can agree on. Whatever limit is imposed on the carrier, the mothership should have a higher one, for all the reasons you've given. Originally by: ER0X The argument is that these ships become more powerful when inserted in a gang formation. Any number of ships added together in a gang becomes a far more potent combination than one ship alone. Of course, some ships are better at force multiplication than others, and carrier/motherships are designed specifically to be good at this. And they should be. The problem is that right now they're most effective at multiplying each other, rather than the sort of ships they're really supposed to be supporting., for a whole host of reasons. My heart isn't set on this method, and if it's not going to work, fine. But I really would like to see some way of making carriers better at boosting non-capital ships than they are at boosting capitals. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Soloun	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:07:00 - [1726] Considering the pure cost diff in training and ships, not to mention fighters, a carrier SHOULD rip a BS to pieces 1v1. If you plan to balance it perhaps reduce max number of active fighters, perhaps, but not back to 5. Thats a good way to unbalance things.
UPS Truck	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:07:00 - [1727] Originally by: Manas Suck it up fellow 0.0 Elites and accept a challange for the sake of a better game. Destroying carriers won't make EVE a better game. Carriers/fighters/drones are being used as a scapegoat to blame for lag.
touchvill D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:08:00 - [1728] I don't fly carriers, however I am very supportive of these pilots who are getting the last year of their training being nullified to nothigness. Look at this. BoB has killed 170 carriers and lost 40 (210 carriers dead) 5 Mothership killed and lost 1 (6 Motherships dead) Razor Alliance has killed 89 carriers and lost 13 (102 carriers dead)and killed 1 mothership and lost 1 too (2 motherships dead) Morsus Mihi has killed 67 carriers and lost 37 (104 carriers dead) and lost 1 mothership (1 mothership dead) Tri have killed 115 carriers and lost 7 carriers (122 carriers dead) and 1 Mothership killed (1 Mothership dead) That's just the first 4 alliances which came into my head, I could also have used, Goons, AAA, RA who also kill a lot of capitals. Look at the sheer ammount of carriers and motherships dying. They are very killable as seen, they serve a great purpose and have evolutionised fighting. Why mess with them, they are used they are lost and they can be the difference between making an ordinary battle an epic battle. I don't ever intend to get a capital ship, I certainly don't see them as I win buttons. Anyone who does should maybe stop 1v1 with them whilst flying a thorax. ---------- I once had a pic for a sig, but I ate it!
Ailok Konem	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:11:00 - [1729] I also agree to Avos Sova, make more ships , give players the option to select a ship that will neutralise a carrier and its fighters, without nerfing a carrier. More fun that and less disapoinment even if the new ships are t1 still it gets the cap ship pilots thinking... Gosh.... i got to get myself a signature.
Blood Ghost Occam's Razor Combine	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:11:00 - [1730] Claiming Post 2000! Why have capital ships been chosen to be changed? IÆd consider them to be the least important thing on mind when compared to lag, blobs and useless ships types (bombers anyone)?
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 - [1731] I wonder where all the ISK people spend on carrier skills and ships will go when carriers/motherships are removed from the game? What happens to the economy when first of all a major ISK sink is removed (skills), and secondly a huge mineral sink is removed (ships). 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.
Ailok Konem	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 - [1732] Originally by: Avos Sova It's getting near 2k posts in under 2 days time, I wager CCP hasn't had time to decide on a proper response since this was more on an introduction to a new dev more then anything else. I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using. I agree ..see prev post
George K'ntara Gallente PALE RIDERS REBORN	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 - [1733] I am not a 0.0 pilot or player at this time, but I don't think this idea is a good one. I eventually want this character to fly a carrier or mothership and I want the benefits that those ships currently have to be there in a couple years when I get the isk and skills to be flying one. Couple of points could someone from CCP more clearly and in a really detailed fashion explain what they think the problem is and what role they originally intended for carriers and MOMs and why they think its broken now. If fighters are overpowered why not nerf them and also make there building costs lower? Shouldn't you wait till after the drone changes come out in November to see what effect that has on balance and fix the desync issue's first before radically altering the role of a class of ships?
Nebrin Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:13:00 - [1734] Tell me the value of spending a billion isk on a carrier, let alone 30 billion isk on a mothership when you can only control up to 5 drones? Its rubbish, you put the time and cash into a big ship like that to add some serious firepower to a fleet battle. Even then, most Battleships can tank a carrier. So should you limit the firepower a battleship can field because people in cruisers get killed and have no chance? The logic behind this change is non-existant. You train out of cruisers into BS's because you want a bigger, more powerful ship. Same reason why you train into Capital ships, to have bigger and more powerful ships. Remember, your spending about 10x the cash of a BS to get your carrier, let alone the billion isk to get all the skillbooks to get into it.
Keav Spitfire Inc	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:13:00 - [1735] Originally by: Avos Sova I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using. Sorry Avos, but I think there are plenty of ships already and there are even more coming with Trinity II, I don't think that's the answer to the current state of play. I don't think anyone will disagree that lag is the biggest issue at the moment, but after that I would rather see the eve universe fleshed out a bit rather than just constantly throwing more ships into the mix, especially if done without enough thought. I agree with you about not making sweeping changes though. I strongly dislike ships being altered once they are in the game, the test server is for getting the balance right, I despise even minor changes once a ship is in game and people have learnt to fly/fit it a certain way. My 2 isks worth.
Valea Wrath Of Khaine	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:23:00 - [1736] Originally by: Vandalias Carriers have value other than the ammount of damage they can bring to the field. They had better, since they only do as much damage as a gank fitted battleship right now, and with 5 heavy drones we are looking at about as much as a gank fitted ferox.
Xilimyth Derlin OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:25:00 - [1737] Originally by: XoPhyte Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin A RL friend just brought this up.... What are the chances that 'ok, fighters get dropped to 5 per carrier non-delegated'.... BUT the carrier gets bandwidth to launch defensive drones in addition to the fighters? Again, after a year of solid training and billions in isk why should a carrier be nerfed to less DPS then a battleship? I'm not saying I advocate it... just bringing up outside ideas. Heck that was my entire point in a previous post I should've included in that response O-o. (Relating to a non-delegated fighter bonus for the carrier itself bringing the dps back beyond 1000)
Capital Commander The Capitals' Club	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:27:00 - [1738] Lots of wasted effort... A small or mid-sized Corp has bought SB's, put 8 months training to be able to field some firepower. If Capital ships weren't 15 - 20 x more expensive than BS's, that might be fair; Then you might want, to rebalance the game, reduce skillpoints to those who have more than 35 mil, make Veldspar the same value as Morphite. In that case you'd see more whining that you see now; but that would for sure make a "rebalance". It would just hit more players. (which would be fair)
War Bear Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:29:00 - [1739] 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. You can take one for the team if you want but don't pretend that you have any right to speak for the majority of carrier pilots out there. This thread alone speaks volumes against "the greater good" bs idea being spewed out by an ex QA guy. Between the costs of the ships themselves and the costs of time\isk training for them you're going to have some seriously unhappy players so don't expect them to bend over and just take it up the tail pipe. This isn't about some imaginary "in win" button as you put it. It's about buying a product, using it for a while and then having it taken away or changed for something inferior while being told "sorry but /gofuk". I like Eve. I like CCP. I swear though that for every one thing they do really well they seem to come out with some utter crap to balance it out. Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song
Crystal Starbreeze The Ankou The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:29:00 - [1740] Edited by: Crystal Starbreeze on 22/10/2007 22:30:15 I'm going to try and put a useful comment however i fear that the devs will probably not even see it as it will be buried amongst 65+ pages of justifiable complaints on this proposed nerf. Here is the crux of the issue. People took alot of time and money to fly a captial ships expecting their investment to pay off. This nerf is, well, seriously screwed up. What is the initial investment in time and money. Using eve-mon, a new character with +4 implants and all the skills you SHOULD HAVE to effectively use a carrier/motheship and survive in front line battle, you are looking at a minimum investment of around: Carrier: 452 days (1 year 3 months give or take) of training. Total cost for ship and skills add up to around 2.5 billion isk for your first carrier, skills, proper tech 2 equipment and capital mods, fighters, drones, etc. Mothership: 640 days of training (1 year 9 months give or take). Total cost for ship and skills is easily 35 billion isk plus if you aren't a noob and equip officer mods on such an expensive ship as you should. Hell i think the real cost is probably closer to 50 billion isk as was said somewhere in this thread. Skills times may vary and my estimates are what I feel are necessary to fly a armor tanked carrier after some experience in carriers. Some skills are useful for other ships but mind you i have no offensive weapon skills (other than drones and the base skills given at character creation) I would love someone to explain why the above investment in both time and money does not make it worthy of killing battleships. IS the time and money worth a ship delegated to POS hugging defense, not offensive in anyway. I dont know the figures but i would estimate half the population had capital ship dreams and is eithr there already, close to it, or making their way there. By nerfing this you affect a large portion of the population making a ship worthless in the "real world" of EVE. A nerf of this magnitude would make the above investment worthless. I agree with people that this nerf would make a carrier nothing but an large dominix. In fact a dominix would probably out dps the carrier and is more viable for armor repping support due to the carrier lock times. Delegation of fighters will not work except in planned circumstances like defense. No longer will you see Carriers jumping offensively or "on the front lines" as CCP wants. I hope this makes it a little more clear why this Idea is very very bad and should just be filed in the circular recycler. In fact even proposing such a nerf has made me lose a little more respect for the developers. The path they have taken as of late, does not improve the game, rather make it more and more undesirable to play. Dont make the same mistake Sony did with SWG, please. CCP listen to your users and DO NOT implement such a nerf. I stole this image because it was fitting, Sorry!

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.