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) |
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:30:00 -
[1741]
Constructive Idea: Take away the carrier's fighter damage bonus for all deployed fighters after 5, carriers retain the ability to field up to 15 fighters at reduced damage, or 15 drones at no penalty.
I am a sweaty nerd in a carrier, and I would be willing to live with this compromise. Not that I would fly without support anyway.
|
Jenna Trueman
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:30:00 -
[1742]
"What's being considered?" Lets just hope it stays there.
|
Grainsalt
Free Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:32:00 -
[1743]
Originally by: touchvill 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.
This speaks volumes...
Don't tell us you are nerfing something without good cause... There is intent in the dev post, but no reason apart from a few numpties whining away becuase they got gate camped...
Anyone who flys a carrier in 0.4 is fekked by this nerf (you know why).. I fly with a support gang anyway who would love to have fighters assigned, but in REALITY (that funny thing we all play in this game).. It is not feasable as the rest of the game does not support increased complexity when it comes to drones (fighters)... Seriously, CCP get your head screwed on right before you make dumb suggestions like this.
And if you really want to nerf something (which it is).. at least give a boost at the same time.. Carriers are horrificly easy to kill solo.. That is not the issue here.. Making a ship that is easy to kill, then introducing a useless "triage" module and then spanking us further is just beyond a joke. ---
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=554257
|
Sir JoJo
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:33:00 -
[1744]
time to wake up and maybe respond CCP i know there much hate in this thread but theres also alot of nice ideas in it,
68 pages and no real respond to the horror and shockwaves u send trough the entire community?
|
Carcusian
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:34:00 -
[1745]
worst idea. ever. period.
There is nothing in carriers and moms that requires CCP to step in and "balance" anything other than, maybe, the ewar immunity of moms that fly empire side. After all, titans cant use their DDD in empire, no reason moms couldnt be tweaked similarly. but i dont fly a mom so i dont know.
On a technical level, making it so a carrier caught offguard cannot effectively put out more dps than a freakin BC is dumb dumb dumb. Not to mention the fact that you want it to be more "logistics" but immediately limit the number of shield and armor bots you can put out.
"Balancing" a carrier or mom simply requires good tactics. Both can be neutralized VERY effectively, even with small gangs. So long you know what you are doing.
I guess thats my beef with this lame idea, that is clearly from a QA guy and not a more seasoned game designer/dev. Eve is attractive precisely because you have to use your damn head to succeed. And this nerf, and thats what it is, removes the need for newer or fledgling players to have to use their noggin. LAME. I'm all for making life a bit easier to atract a newer playerbase, but do you really need to hand them easyness on a platter? You've already started them with more skillpoints, and reduced prerequ's for advanced skills.
Look, as with any changes in Eve, we would all adapt-or-die/quit/threaten to quit. CCP has a vision for how they want the game to be played, and are not shy about tweaking stats and ships that cross the line into being overpowered or near exploits of sorts. But this isnt about balancing something thats overpowered, its about taking a class of ship that costs TONS of time and isk to train for, fit, buy, fly... and making it easier for players without a "desire to learn" to be able to kill them. Not to mention the fact that of ALL the freakin ships/things in Eve that require tweaking and are more accessible to the playerbase, why start with this one...
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:38:00 -
[1746]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 22:39:01
Originally by: Jenna Trueman "What's being considered?" Lets just hope it stays there.
Hopefully it goes beyond this. Hopefully CCP realizes that perhaps they are losing touch with the playerbase and take action to rectify the problem. Or perhaps they will communicate more effectively next time and let us know the root problem they are trying to address rather then giving us bits and pieces of information.
Get more developers back to playing Eve tbh.
|
Daliyn
Minmatar Real Enterprises Nex Super Vos
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:39:00 -
[1747]
Why change something that doesn't need changing? Shouldn't we be allowed to use the ships that we have poured our time and effort into obtaining, in any way we see fit? If that means sitting at a gate camp, or mining in an asteroid belt, or taking part in major fleet ops and actually dealing some damage. It may not fit your perceived use for the ship when the idea for them was originally conceived, but it is no less a valid role if that is what the person wants to do with it.
Carriers are still used in a support role along with all those other instances, so why limit the pilot to just one option just because, in your opinion, that is the only thing that you think carriers should be used for?
This proposed nerf fixes nothing and takes away a lot, as well as possibly increasing server load and just making the carrier/ms pilot's life harder than it already is.
|
Bren MacKay
Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:39:00 -
[1748]
Edited by: Bren MacKay on 22/10/2007 22:42:18 Not a good idea, and if it is just an "idea" horrible way to put it forwards and freak everybody and their Mom (awsome pun I'm sorry ) out.
In my Opinion:
Instead of nerfing carriers and moms into oblivion and ****ing loads of people off (omg! Bob and goons agreeing on somthing ). Dreads should be boosted dramatically, ie a large bonus to damage, say 50% (possibly even more) per level, and tracking, say another 50% per level while attacking capital sized ships.
At the same time, carrier "spider tanking" should be nerfed somewhat. Somthing along the lines of a limit of how many remote repairs/shield boosters on a ship.
This would cement the dread as an anti capital ship (along with boring pos sieging), not to mention cementing Fleet Battlships back into fleet combat to kill them, and allow groups of them to obliterate a larger carrier blob. However since dreads still have terrible tracking against targets smaller than capitals and cannot spider tank they are very vunerable to a conventional battleship gang.
This way carrier blob > bs bloob (kinda anyways, carriers wont do much to bs at sniping ranges) dreadnaughts > carrier blob and bs bloob > dreadnaught blob.
Carriers arnt actually broken or overpowered on their own (Carriers = solopwnmobiles? you've got to be kidding), its the carrier blob that is. (Moms need their E-war invuln to be taken away in lowsec though) and if it ain't broke dont fix(break) it.
Carrot > Stick (in this problem at least imo)
|
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:41:00 -
[1749]
Sorry,
This is a very poorly thought out idea.
Firstly, there are many situations where through no fault of their own the CV/MS will be temporarily alone or out of gang or lagged out. i.e. CTD's, intermediate jumps plus as already stated by others.
Plus as stated in the very first response if fighter control needs to be returned to the carrier how can that possibly work? I also have a fundamental problem with the idea that a capital ship should be unable to defend itself or even kill a single BS/BC. This seems illogical at best.
Lastly, this will not address a real problem, lag in fleet fights, if anything it will make thinks worse while we all fight with the delegation system instead of the enemy.
I feel sorry for Zulu as whatever else he does we will all remember him as the messenger who triggered the biggest flame-fest for some time due to the worst ideas to come out of CCP while they have been in a legal state of mind. Ever.
Please, please in the name of God leave Brit ... urr capital pilots alone!!!
Jiks
|
Dioh Kado
Galactic Fighter Syndicate Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:47:00 -
[1750]
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze Dont make the same mistake Sony did with SWG, please. CCP listen to your users and DO NOT implement such a nerf.
/signed
I came to EVE, because Sony has patched SWG to death. I like EVE ... but some of the Dev-Blocks gave me a very bad feeling
|
|
Refazed
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:50:00 -
[1751]
Originally by: Valea Constructive Idea: Take away the carrier's fighter damage bonus for all deployed fighters after 5, carriers retain the ability to field up to 15 fighters at reduced damage, or 15 drones at no penalty.
I am a sweaty nerd in a carrier, and I would be willing to live with this compromise. Not that I would fly without support anyway.
that would be a heavy nerf to gallente carriers. but pointless on the rest.
why dont we just do this: leave carriers and moms alone.
|
marshal123
Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:52:00 -
[1752]
I vote no to cap nerf!
and yes to firing the guy that thought this up
|
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:53:00 -
[1753]
ccp if u were looking to make a improvment to enrich the game then heres a 10 second clip for u
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
Shadow XII
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:54:00 -
[1754]
So what he's suggesting is not nerfing the current system, but making it a lot less efficient, making the same process take unnessecarily longer.
You're kidding.
|
Almarin Enchura
Serenity Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:57:00 -
[1755]
Originally by: Acacia Everto How about we give all capitals EWAR immunity? Wait, before you scream at me, hear me out.
EWAR immunity would require support craft with capital sensor linking modules, which each allow a capital to lock, and prevent the capital from losing sensor resolution/range. In this way, a capital would need support to continue to be effective, but if they lost this support they could still defend themselves, but are able to be jammed/damped and what not. Perhaps for each module your carrier/mothership would have a stronger lock, until a certain number when they would have full EWAR immunity. A mothership would obviously require more of these modules.
This makes people much more inclined to bring along support with this Capital Sensor Linking Arrays.
So, in short. All capitals get the POSSIBILITY of EWAR immunity. By default, on their own, they do not. But, with support using Capital Sensor Linking Arrays on them each adds a certain strength to the capital's sensors (and perhaps the ship's own slightly, to prevent easy jamming) until after say, 4-5 for a carrier it gains EWAR immunity. For a mothership, it would be more than a carrier. This ensures capitals aren't running without support and gives a new goal to gangs: to down the support, then you can then hold down the capital and destroy it.
It ensures capitals will be used more with fleets (not alts), without nerfing a capital's ability to defend its self. Isn't this what you intended? To make it necessary to work together to field a capital effectively?
This would make Carriers/Motherships much more dependent on their gangs, and also provide an incentive to gang up rather than fly it solo. One of the more frequent whines I hear from Carrier pilots is a Maulus can turn them off with a set of damps. This would certainly help the situation and make it need teamwork to effectively field a Carrier.
|
Furos
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:01:00 -
[1756]
I feel this change is a very poor idea. This change would basically make carriers/moms just as combat effective as a battleship with a really good tank.
Capitals are and should be more powerful than other ship types, otherwise why should we spend hundreds of days training and billions of isk to get one??!!
Capital ships are defined as warships with the heaviest firepower and armor If they are going to be just like any other ship then they really aren't capitals anymore. Maybe we should call them cargo ships
|
Vampir3 Un3xist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:08:00 -
[1757]
Edited by: Vampir3 Un3xist on 22/10/2007 23:10:10 Please CCP don't nerf carriers we have spend too many times to skill them.
If you made this nerf carrier pilot will probably use alt for delegating fighters and bypass your stupid nerf ! so this nerf is useless !
|
Amuko
Amarr Happy Little Roid Huggers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:10:00 -
[1758]
I like it.
|
Tishlaff
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:10:00 -
[1759]
About the point of Carriers replacing Battleships.
If CCP is going to start making references to Carriers requiring battle groups and so forth to operate, then it just makes sence to do away with battleships all together I mean the rest of the world did. The United States decommisioned all of its battleship class vesels in the last couple of years. So lets not make this a "lets compare naval vessels in the real world to our internet spaceships" kind of thing. If you wanted to do that all you would have to say is the carrier DID replace the Battleship. For the simple reason of point defence. The fact that a carrier could defend itself agaist Torpedo Planes, Guided Missles and so forth. As where a Battleship was not able to do this.
As it stands now with all level 5 skills and 15 fighters out a carrier does just shy of 1900 dps. And like nearly every other ship class is affected by EW. Now this isn't taking into account MOM's but that is an entirely different aspect of fighters, that needs to be addressed seperately without bluring the line of MOM's and Carriers too much. Thats relatively close to the dps of 2 Battleships. And with your own armor reppers going you can rep right around 1400 dps, with Capital Armor Reps. Now this isn't taking into account resists and so forth but you can see where a carrier is easily taken down when put against several battleships. Now this is where it gets interesting. Once again 1400 dps tank 2 capital reps, and this is right around the base of 1 captital remote armor rep. To reiterate 2 capital reps 1400 rep amout, 1 capital remote rep 1500 rep amout. The problem with Carrier and MOM's isn't the amout of fighters it can put out. Its the spider tank. As most people have said, the real issue CCP would have is that how do you lower the spider tank, and keep the ship good at a support role. That is where they should take the nerf bat. But then again how often do you see only 1 carrier in a battle group?
|
Wyliee
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:12:00 -
[1760]
i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
|
|
Liam Liam
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:12:00 -
[1761]
Wow nerf city ... c'mon devs get some imagination stop reaching for the nerf bat.
If carriers and other capitals are too powerful ( not that I think they are ) let cov ops type ships torpedo them with attacks like submarines do with real carriers. Let destroyers be the only ships that can detect and kill these torpedo cloakers... means that capitals will travel with 2-3 destroyers like they do in real life ( might also make destroyers useful again ). And let the destroyers dock in the carrier to jump.
If you have to change carriers change for the better not a nerf...
How about double yes double the damage a fighter can do and double it's tank as well. The first 5 fighters ( squadron )is the combat air patrol controlled from the carrier There are 3 other squadrons they have to be controlled by other players who dock in the carrier and fly with their own squadron of fighters.
So a carrier becomes a four man capital, the players of course own their squadron of fighters so if they lose them the carrier pilot doesn't cry ( well not too hard ). But if they're popped the squadron leaders respawn in the carrier and can take out another squad if they have one to spare. But if the carriers popped their spares go with it...( a little incentive to keep the carrier safe and not go chasing kill mails )
So your 6 battleships may well get owned by a carrier but the carrier used 4 people to do it. Also let the squadrons outfit their fighters for variety either different types of fighters or a couple of module slots in each fighter.
Carriers will no longer be solo pwn mobiles ( which I take it is your problem ) but will be team pwn mobiles not shadows of their former selves. ( It also solves fighter AI problems by replacing it with players )
Sign me up for a squadron captian ; P
|
0R1NOCO
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:14:00 -
[1762]
Edited by: 0R1NOCO on 22/10/2007 23:15:13
Originally by: Tishlaff The problem with Carrier and MOM's isn't the amout of fighters it can put out. Its the spider tank.
Isn't that hilarious, though? The real problem here is the "intended" use of the carriers, the logistics role.
Also, the guy above me has incredibly good ideas. Listen to him.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:15:00 -
[1763]
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why though? Not to sound 'mean' but "I like it" without justification is no more constructive then some of the flames going around.
Personally, I think it's a good direction, but they NEED to keep the carrier's defensive damage capability close to where it is if they do (be it a damage boost for directly commanded fighters or what not) or it'll have the potential to grossly cripple the ship.
|
Megadon
Caldari Deathshead Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:15:00 -
[1764]
You know Wrangler, this kind of thing is what I was talking about when I suggested that CCP was hiring people from Electronic Arts.
Electronic Arts wouldn't know asymmetric game play if it hit them in the forehead and to balance a game around asymmetric game play is simply beyond them because they are not sophisticated enough to grasp it.
or... they don't think their audience is sophisticated enough to grasp it.
Eve is slowly but surely turning into a simple rock-paper-scissors game, which if you've ever taken game theory, is NOT necessarily the same as asymmetric game design.
Personally, imo, this trend is ruining Eve.
I'm not against balancing supercapitals.
But I don't think nerfing individual gameplay is the best solution to this problem. That's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The last nerf you guys came up with for these ships I thought was a brilliant and clever solution to a sticky problem; i.e., the triage mode stuff.
You guys can do better than the proposed solution on the table. --------------
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:20:00 -
[1765]
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
1) This sounds like two alts. 2) "is there a limit to the system sec" In general? If you don't know, you shouldn't be in this thread spouting off a positive response to a bad idea when you have no idea about the problems and mechanics behind it.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:21:00 -
[1766]
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why do you like it???
And yes, .3 and lower, in .4 you cant assign drones.
|
Xeseldddim
Amarr Eve Corporation 16293456
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:27:00 -
[1767]
excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:29:00 -
[1768]
Total FAIL. Stupid idea.
Stop fixing things that are not broken. There are plenty of bugs to fix. Work on those.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:29:00 -
[1769]
Originally by: Xeseldddim excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
10/10.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:34:00 -
[1770]
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 22/10/2007 23:35:19 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters.. not only that but the fighters are going to be assigned to BS that already likely have heavy drones in their bay, ie not really increasing the DPS all that much. so the carrier turns into a boat that brings drones to the fight but cant pvp directly. if it cant pvp effectively then it isn't going to be in the line of fire. if its not in the line of fire with the rest of the gang then it ins't supporting the fleet.
your new fubar mom/carrier sits on the edge of the POS bubble doing nothing but staring at his drone/fighters in the overview and maybe repairs ships if and when they return.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |