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) |
Ixil
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[151]
well this is certainly an interesting turn of events.
it was stated earlier in the thread that if this change was implemented earlier as part of balancing then fine. I agree with that statement.
However this fundementally changes the role and how carriers/moms can be used
all it does is encourage more sitting at POS
This goes way beyond balancing and I see this as over reacting to e-o forum propaganda regarding drone lag (that both sides of a fight encouter).
ccp with this change all you do is neutre the dog so to speak
the approach that ccp is currently taking towards capitals atm needs to be looked at as whole, the time commitment alone is substantial to the eve pilot if they want to be properly skilled to fly capitals let alone the time and effort takes to build supercaps and caps
Needless to say I think many people will be watching what you actually do
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[152]
I usually don't post much on the forums, but this ... i just cant keep it for myself!!
Where the heck did u knock your head on? Are you INSANE? Sure does sounds like it !!!
I owned 2 carriers. Both lost due to been dampened and ecm'ed to hell and back. I didnt even had range to lock my own fighters orbiting ME because i had god knows how many damps on me.
Second loss i was able to lock the ONLY dictor keeping me there, he was OUTRUNNING my fighters 3:1 .. he didn't needed to warp off, he was just too fast for them.
Then i swapped for light t2 drones, tried again, guess what ? he was still too fast. could not hit him. Outside of nos range, web and scram nothing i could do. Some more ships came and again .. i was dampened, could not lock jack. i was sitting duck. (Note: i have drone navigation lvl5!)
finally someone opened a cyno and several dreads finished me off.
It's so unfair been unable to fight back..
Anyway, 4 months of 10hrs per day (average) of HARD WORK i got my mothership!
Yes, i worked for .4. MONTHS, mined, npc'ed, sold assets, compressed minerals, hauled them to 0.0, refined, freightened the mins, when to hell and back to get everything needed. 4 months ...
And now this .. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to stand in a battle field? so easy to be bumped out of alignment even with our own fighters.
Delegate you say? Try to join a 250 men gang, and search for MAGNELIAN or NEILY or THYAGO .. takes ALOT of time .. no go! then what? they jump after some hostile and what happens? do everything again?
So, who is going to pay the 150m+ isk of fighters we put on other people hands? most of them JUST DONT CARE if the fighters die. It's not THEY'R bill.
How about fighters speed? they even cant catch a MWD'ing HAC. What's the defense versus a dictor? none.
Mom's should not be solopwnmobiles, right, but taking away the fighters? How about when people see fighters, they get attacked right away? people do that you know? Most gangs can take on a carrier or mom because the DPS is killed.
This is the worse idea ever. Plz go back to quality control, you are useless here, you are just trying to show work. nerf YOU.
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[153]
Wow. This certainly ruined my day. Let's see..
ò The skills to fly a carrier take over a year to train and cost over a billion ISK (before the ship and equipment itself). Even before these changes it is arguable whether training for them is worth it.
ò The incentive to be on the battlefield is nigh inexistent. Sitting at a POS is not meaningful, enjoyable gameplay. A long-term achievement should be something enjoyable enough to justify the wait and grind.
ò Delegated fighters, as far as I know, do not receive Fighters skill bonus. Therefore carriers' and motherships' damage output is nerfed by 50% when all fighters are delegated. This is now unavoidable.
ò Motherships cost 15 to 30 billion ISK. They can't dock. Their jump range is pathetic. Their main use has been flexible support, ie. the ability to go into an engagement, kill stuff, and get out -- doing which they still take a reasonable risk of being bubbled by 20 million ISK ships.
Fighters cost 20m a pop, therefore a mothership in combat is risking 400 million ISK in fielding them. Battleships can be insured fully, leaving the loss of a T2 fitted one to about 50-70m. A mothership has to kill 6 to 8 battleships to make up for its fighters.
Remote ECM Burst is a joke. Remote repping capacity is the same as carriers'. Tanking isn't much better, either. The biggest reasons moms are tougher is because people invest a lot of money into pimping their fittings. Even with expensive ass setups, they can only tank the firepower of 7 to 10 close-range battleships. Most blobs that engage moms are much much bigger.
There are no capital smartbombs. Invulnerability to scrambling is losing its usefulness in the abundancy of cheap expendable interdictors that motherships have practically zero counters to. To even have some chance of taking down bubbles that are deployed too close by incompetent dictor pilots you need multibillion ISK officer smartbombs.
EW invulnerability is useful because you can't get damped. That, in turn, is useful for two reasons: 1. you can put your fighters on any target and 2. you can remote rep friends uninterrupted. With 50% to 75% less damage, reason 1 loses its appeal. Let's look at reason 2: it is good to be able to remote rep someone because that will decrease the likelihood of that ship being lost.
However, in order to do so, you need to risk your own ship. And guess what, motherships are quite expensive to risk. If their usefulness on the battlefield is reduced to repping other ships, the risk for doing so is unreasonable and does not justify their use. Carriers are just as good for the job, if even they are worth the risk.
Great incentives for having support for said ships already exists. Fewer and fewer supercapitals are seen daring to come out without a sizable support fleet. Many have been lost both with and without support. When without, fighters have made little difference (in fact, without support fighters are very vulnerable to concentrated fire). They do not autopwn battleships any more than other closerange battleships do. However, motherships move like slugs, so even if you have a scrambler fitted, it is no feat for a battleship to get out of range and warp out. This is to say that having support is already very much mandatory to their effective use.
I sincerely hope these changes will not go forward. Admittedly as a mom pilot my own interests are largely in question, but the points I've made should stand regardless. ---
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[154]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
This only makes one thing come to mind. Maybe the mothership just needs to be taken, and changed completely into a new ship. with new roles. Keep the carrier the same, and make motherships completely different? ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
Varrakk
Chosen Path Warp to Desktop
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[155]
There is no way we will bring out multi-billion vessels to the front line, without the firepower to defend ourself.
Sitting there in a Logistics ship, I wouldnt mind, only 100m to replace it. Motherships and even Carriers is way to expensive to risk. The mom's will now be hugging POS shields with their smaller counterparts.
I thought the direction for Carrier class ships was to give them an incentive to be on the frontline, to get us there. We need MORE ways to defend our ships, not less.
This one gets nominated to "Varrakk's Idiot Award of 2007"
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[156]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Are you asking this question because you don't know or because of a rhetorical impact?
In both cases, the situation is very scary.
Let me explain why: For me to log in and go and do something with my mothership (that I have about 6 months of training to be able to fly over the carrier skills) I need about 3-4 cyno alts to move me where to fighting is going, then I need an inudstrial char where I land to refuel me and most likely another carrier or a POS to change fitting at. Then I need about 10 people to be able to assist me when I cyno in so that I can actually defend me if there would be a single hostile battleship and a dictor where I happen to cyno in. This is a little bit to much for me to be honest.
Again I ask you, what are your interest in making these changes? What is it supposed to lead to and in what way will it make eve a better game for the majority of the players?
Apart from that I must say that if you ever tried delegating fighters while actually fighting you would know that it is nothing you do while in a second. Most likely it will take 5 minutes to delegate them and then I dont even think the MS pilot have enough time to re-assign again. ---
|
Sick Boy
Minmatar Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:56:00 -
[157]
Okej to answer your questions:
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? Answer: NO carriers and motherships are fine as thery are! Lagg is the issue with them in 90% of the cases, the whole lowsec gankage could be solved in another way. Longer locking time on motherships/carriers? etc it¦s duable. Hell even being unable to deploy more then 5fighters in lowsec would be good.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? Answer: NO and YES if you are doing it to degcrease lag issues and boosting the fighters as suggested by a lot. If you are doing it to balancing the carrier/mothership then NO it isent needed.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? Answer: to lowsec gankage. Make motherships and carriers able to only field 5 drones/fighters in 0.1 and higher. Same as before in 0.0.
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? Answer: NO if you were doing this to decrease lagg and whent for the whole 5/10fighters maximum but same dps and hitpoints as current i would buy it. But i think you are trying to alter something that dosent need altering tbh. Carriers and motherships are capital ships. And as it is today they are not so good on their own. (talking 0.0 wars here)
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships?
Answer: As stated a single carrier today in rl can field a massive fleet capable of a lot of diffrent roles from subhunting to nuking a country. they need their close range ships for logistics and closerange support (anti missile defense). So basiclly it¦s already the same as in eve today with haulers transporting fuel. hacs and bs to fend of fleets and frigs/ceptors to take out incoming dictors just as a example.
For you others: It can still defend itself, but let's be real, why would you ever get yourself into a situation where the last line of defense between you and an attacking fleet are you fighters? Answer: YES thats a way we are seing more and more with capital fights going on more and more were the carrier and mothership do sevral roles on the field from logistics(carrying ammo etc) fighting on frontline using it¦s own fighters and targeting systems, to instant repping of other crafts in it¦s range.
-just my thoughts...
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:56:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Tabouli Do not destroy this game pointlessly trying to fix gameplay mechanics that aren't broken when the true problem of server performance lies right in front of you.
Look, im quoting a Goon. Thats how ****ed off about the change i am.
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Ruffio Sepico
Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:04:00 -
[159]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 5 fighters to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury.
So exactly why would a solo bs attack a carrier/mom again?
What role a carrier/mom is deployed have to be up to the owner of the said ships. If they want to let them sit tucked away at a pos, or expose themselfs at risk on the frontlines, thats up to the player to decide isn't it? If you want a real world analogy about risk? Read up on the Doolittle raid in 1942...
As for the real world analogy. CCP is in no shape to play the real world card when it comes to EVE. There is so much that doesn't make sense of weapon systems in EVE compared to real world. Or maybe you want Carriers and motherships to be sunk by a few torpedos too?
Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
|
Loike
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:04:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Loike on 21/10/2007 13:04:03 Change the mothership bonus (3+ fighters per level) to a 30% damage bonus per level.
|
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[161]
If this makes it in...
WTS!!! 1 chimera carrier with mods and fighters.
So a carrier is more powerfull then a BS.. IT IS ALSO 10 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE U *insert bad word here* CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[162]
April Fools!!!!!
<sig>oh noez did I forgot a smiley face in my post?</sig> |
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[163]
Good change. It was a wise the decision from CCP to transfer you to the game design team. The lag those fighters and drones are causing is unbelievable.
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[164]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Yes but it will be crap compared to other ships which are far cheaper to get, far easier to get and take far less skillpoints.
As someone else put it, you dont buy a ferrari to get it turned into a minivan (without a reason even).
Problem with Carriers and Mom currently is the fighter LAG. Not their role. Try maybe fixing the actual problem instead of thinking up a complex solution to something which is no problem in the first place ?
Otherwise go and refund all those billions invested in mothership bpos, carrier bpos, skillbooks, equipment and spend training time because thats certainly not what ppl signed up for when this stuff was released.
Back in the days when everything was still t1 and you could literally crosstrain to whatever the flavour of the month was within a reasonable amount of time you could change stuff in an eyeblink and pretend ppl would care about it because they could quickly train up the flavour of the month again. Nowadays it takes ages to get carrier 5 and fighter 5 (prolly 4 months just from 4-5) so dont exspect ppl to be overly happy if the new guy turns up with "last night in the pub i had a brilliant idea" kinda suggestions nullifying all this in an eyeblink.
As others suggested reduce the amount of drones and boost existing ones so we are on the same level. These ships dont need a new role.
P.S. RL analogies are always sucky, carriers also have other weapons and sensors and they dont need to jump via cynofields , through gates or can creep into pos fields. So for the love of god dont mention RL. Thats what ppl always get nailed for in Ships&Modules when they try to explain why something needs to be buffed or nerfed based on rl physics or rl values.
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[165]
It's obvious that any Eve player with a brain thinks this is an idea either completely without merit or game destroying. The only question remaining is whether this thread will be longer than the one about the mineral compression nerf.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:06:00 -
[166]
can you spell "BULL****"?
well if you want to read it, just look at the defblog you produced.
if you want to balance a ship and at same time cut it's damage to 1/3 (carriers) or 1/5 (moms) you have to boost them in another way.
the first thing you need to make repping your gangmates viable is EW-IMMUNITY (already in for moms) as well as a FAST LOCK TIME and RANGE. Current capital repair module's range is crappy compared to how big fleet battles are. Last but not least you'll need to be able to tank effectively. caps can't tank but not good enough to make them viable as a "repair" platform. Give them capital hardeners (75-80% insted of 50-55%) or something else.
tbh before you nerv ships to oblivion which were one of a few (if not the last one) which could stand its own against 2:1 or better ods you should fix your servers so you can bring your own 1000 ppl to kill their 2000ppl.
and as long as we are on it: its unfair you can't kill a pos in a frig within a reasonable timeframe... nerv poses!
|
Sandra Jones
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:06:00 -
[167]
Lets get this straight, you want capitals only be used in blobs? cause i dont see how a carrier could defend itself with those changes.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[168]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
No, the blog missed the point, it proposed changes but didn't state why anything was being changed.
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No carriers already require support. It's a carrier, not a logistical support ship.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No It drives carriers back out of the battle and gives the pilot less control of his ship.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
If you are desperate to increase the number of other ships along side carriers in combat hows about making those other ships fun and rewarding to fly.
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Are you an idiot? No, but thanks for posting constructively
Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes
Yes, the community can be harsh, they generally are when an idea is proposed by someone whose job it is to understand the game fails to do so on the same level as many players.
Had this been about the lag we might have been more understanding, as it is not, and since the change is both pointless and annoying are you surprised that people are wondering if you are either an idiot or inexperienced.
Such responses can generally be taken as us wondering why you thought this was a good idea in the first place, especially with so many other aspects of combat in need of fresh ideas and change to make them rewarding again.
All that said please don't feel we're not prepared to listen and discuss, I for one am very glad you brought this idea here first instead of letting us find out on the SiSi when a lot of work has already been done. But do expect, what you may feel to be, over the top reactions to suggestions that the average group of five players who don't even use the ship in question would have been able to figure out was a bad idea. Did you bounce this idea off a few other staff members before bringing it here? If so this is distressing news indeed.
We expect more. We appreciate having ideas and suggestions brought before us, but we really do expect the developers to have a greater knowledge of the game than the average player.
Some will give you the benefit of the doubt, we all come up with dumb ideas from time to time and believe them to be pure brilliance until someone points out the glaring flaw we overlooked, and I'm one of them. I just hope this is not indicative of your level of knowledge about the game.
|
Mitchman
Omniscient Order Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[169]
Sounds like a really bad idea. Go nerf something else, please.
New video: Pride, Honor & Retribution
|
Lucius Amarriantis
Amarr Ordo Occultus Deus Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[170]
Ok, to add my own views on the matter.
1. CCP - first and formost you need to implement a cut off point in your game design policy. A point after a feature is released where you state it has now gone past the point of large scale change. Minor tweaking to a game feature/ship/mechanic sure but large scale change - no. Carriers and motherships have now been in the game for some time, they have been trained for to excess by some. People have sunk an absoutely frightening amount of isk, time and effort into these ships. If you cannot have the forsight to create a game element balanced enough to avoid having to completely change it years later - then dont implement it at all.
2. Stop Interfering - take this as you will but you are the game developers - the creators of the mechanics, the ships, the art and what backstory there is. You really do need to stop trying to push gameplay on people - if something seems to be overpowered then DEVELOP a new feature that allows people to TRY and counter it. you really do need to start thinking more along the lines of ADVANCEMENT/NEW FEATURE > NERF
3. Exactly where are you getting the information to come to decision such as this. When you make a statement such as
"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."
just how did youi ascertain this. Do you have droves of people monitoring the many hundreds of battles across the eve universe and making post match reports on it? Or are you basing these assumptions more on low sec gate campers? High end battles the likes of the current major war? Just how are developing the idea that carriers are widesweeping battleship pwnmobiles? I honestly dont think you have done your homework on this at all. Just to give an idea - a carrier with Racial Carrier 5, Fighters 4, Adv Drone Int 3 launching 12 fighters on an even halfway tanked command ship has absolutely no chance of popping it. how is this a pwnmobile?
To conclude - do your homework before making blatantly uninformed/misinformed second guess assumptions as to how you think battles are turning out - a carrier lasts no time atall already without a decent support fleet. Being this change in and you will kill the role of the ship completely.
|
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:08:00 -
[171]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
Or perhaps they didn't and that's why they are so against the idea?
If you're sure that no one "got" your idea maybe you need to express it more clearly?
|
General Apocalypse
Amarr Ship Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:09:00 -
[172]
R.etards for DEVS \o/
I hope to god that i NEVER meet Febdhal or this guy or I'm gonna put .45 cal bullet in their useless brain .
Thank you for destroying Amarr , BTW you missed the Revelation , geddon , crusader , harbringer and sacrilege . Nerf tohse then remove all Amarr ship from the game .
Maybe some DEVS need to take IQ test .
Fukc you CCP.
Originally by: CCP Morpheus nerf ccp plz
Originally by: CCP Oveur To the gankmobile!
|
john roe
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:09:00 -
[173]
ok, i only hope this's some bad joke from ccp side. you have already killed super caps, both titans and motherships. who's gonna pay 25+ B for a piece of junk like ms when 2-3 carriers for 2.5B top will do the same if not better job? i mean what were you thinking starting this thread? titan at least have DD to defend itself, but what will ms/carrier has? five drones? i mean like 1...2...3...4...5? bro, you wont be even able to kill a dictor with them bubbling your butt and small roaming gang will own you, and if you put this changes into the real i hope someone will own you on your alt account on trianq.
i'm telling ya, make those changes and you wont see mss on grid during fights. i definitely wont risk mine to lose to such crazy changes. will just laid down logged off and wait till super caps will be super once again.
ccp think. focus on bugs and lag not on making this game even more unplayable. seriously.
szanowanie. jr
|
Endaros
System-Lords Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:12:00 -
[174]
So if the lag of fleet combat wasn't enough, now instead of just trying to make drones respond to your order of attacking someone (and even then, needing to travel 80km to attack that target)... Now you want to assign them to someone who will undoubtedly have 5 drones of their own out already, and give your average tommy an extra job to do (engaging drones) while they're attacking primary, realigning, repping, managing EW...
Besides that, as they are, carriers are nothing without their support... I've been in dozens of gangs where we've killed lone carriers to no or very few losses just because they can't support themselves. I've been in a gang of 8 HACs and Command and killed two spider-tanking carriers! Carriers are not broken, so please don't try and 'fix' them...
All this just as my carrier training is drawing to an end... So far it's just been a glorified hauler, now it's going to become a glorified hauler than I can use on the front line! Next time I'll just save the ISK and train for a transport ship...
I know it's a clichT and everything, but my accounts are all going inactive soon due to lack of funds, and this is one thing that may make me rethink resubscribing... Upsetting really...
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:12:00 -
[175]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!! If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Ever try delegating fighters in a large fleet battle? I have. It's doesn't work.
From what your getting at the problem you're trying to fix here is solo motherships/carriers running around wtfpwning everything. Ok. I get that. I agree that is a problem in empire. But that's not the case in 0.0. You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away.
However in 0.0 small scale pvp is not broken. No need to fix it. I assure you, there aren't gangs of motherships roaming 0.0 with no support right now. Large scale pvp is broken. If you want to fix something, fix that. Less fighters that do more damage does help fix that.
You are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. How does that normally work out for you? ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Ixil
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:13:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Tetsujin
Originally by: Ixil
This goes way beyond balancing and I see this as over reacting to e-o forum propaganda regarding drone lag (that both sides of a fight encouter).
a. It's not "propaganda" you douche. b. I wouldn't call this an over reaction as much as a complete inability to comprehend the problem.
yes twice per day for that clean and fresh feeling but this topic is about the fighter nerf not feminine hygiene so stay on subject please
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:13:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Ztrain on 21/10/2007 13:15:14 Wow I can see that the new dev didn't have any skill in quality assurance so he's fitting right in the feature development department. He say's he's not going anywhere. Well that's obvious since a lot of the major development companies won't hire anyone with CCP on their resume lol. Hell I wouldn't want to hire anyone with CCP experience to screw up my project.
Anyways, don't really see the mother ship nurf being that much of an issue. It just makes a lot more sense to take capital components that would be wasted on a non dockable ship and put them in to more carriers. I just remember before when CCP was complaining about carriers sitting at the POS. They wanted them to be up front on the battle field. So now they go and change it to the point where they will now be POS sitting ships again. Showing yet again that CCP development staff have no clear picture of where they want the game to go.
Ether way these are just more changes that make dropping this game the moment Jumpgate Evolution or Infinity become available all that much no brainer. Game design was the only thing making the inferior code worth the play time. Now they don't even have that. CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 13:15:57 Quick Summary:
Change AntiBlob tools (STEALTH BOMBER FAILURES GALORE, HOW YOU GUYS SO EASILY FAIL THAT ONE AMAZES ME)
Remove the ability to use smart bombs effectively en mass with/around carriers, ups the damage they'll take)
Remove Massive Remote rep tanks (THIS AID's BLOBING, NOT NERFS IT)
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Fix your damn game's big problems and it solves a lot of the smaller problems
Details:
There's actually a far far FAR better solution to the mass of carriers used on the battlefield. For starters, get rid of this remote repping crap. It WAS NOT what people got carriers for originally.
Allowing Remote repping is the reason carriers are used on the front lines because it allows for a super tank. Remote Assinging drones just does not happen when it comes to carrier pilots. They're waaaay too expensive and people have no real control over what they do. Less not, it's a trust factor, and short of small scale warfare, it's hard to trust so many people.
Removing Remote repping makes a Carrier fleet far far more vulnerable on the battlefield and makes people think twice about using them.
Plain and simple truth is, you guys screwed these ships up from the start and are now back peddling to work your way out of a mess. The Fighters are what make the carrier. Fighters are stupid creatures that do nothing good for the carrier pilot, but under very limited curcumstances prove useful. Remote Repping is very dull and when it comes to POS, and very boring in general.
The irony of the Fix for carriers is that it's basically the same as the fix for everything in this game. Anti blob tools are needed. Fighters are just as much of a blob as a regular fleet. It's not that they're bad, it's that there's hardly any counter too them.
Also, When looking at carriers, look at smart bombs. The reason carriers are overly tough to kill on the battlefield is that smart bombs work too well. I bring 10 carriers, enemy Brings 10 carriers, support fleets the same.... what's gonna happen? Basically any carrier that attacks another carrier is gonna lose all of it's DPS to smart boms and make it rely on the support fleet to kill a Capital. HOW in the HELL does that make sense.
Plain and simple, Capitals tanks are fine, But their Gank is total and utter garbage.
Fighter's are not the Problem, it's the total lack of thought Capitals have altogether.
Those changes Listed would litterally see the end to Carriers. Fleets are too laggy, and Ships too easy to alpha for any remote ship to really do it's job on, LESS NOT IT'S DULL AND BORING. Running a logistics ship on random ops can be fun. Doing it day in and Day out wears really fast.
Summary:
Change AntiBlob tools (STEALTH BOMBER FAILURES GALORE, HOW YOU GUYS SO EASILY FAIL THAT ONE AMAZES ME)
Remove the ability to use smart bombs effectively en mass with/around carriers, ups the damage they'll take)
Remove Massive Remote rep tanks (THIS AID's BLOBING, NOT NERFS IT)
Furthermore CAPITAL SHIPS got way out of control for several reason. INSURACE is killing the economy. IT NEEDS TO HURT to lose a BS in a fleet battle more than it does in 0.0 or when war dec'd in empire. IT needs be Devistating to lose a CAPITAL ship.
You guys have allowed inflation (mainly due to insurance, and shear isk farming in 0.0/agents) to toally screw this game. Where large fleet battles used to not be sustainable over weeks of constant fighting, no-a-days, it's oh well, get another ship time, even with capitals.
Alliance 1 loses 20-40 capitals, oh well, they're replaced in week, lets do it again! This is the new motto of most major alliances. That's just total lunacy. Fix your damn game's big problems and it solves a lot of the smaller problems
|
Grotel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[179]
okay so yeah the idea posted in the dev blog is okay but how about this spin on it
normal carrier operation: assigns fighters to members 5 of its own blah blah..
strategic mode"name not decided" activate a mod that removes all speed or makes it travle very slow but gves it all its fighters squads to control sorta like a mobile command base keeps armour and stuff the same
migh help both sides of the argument out
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[180]
Originally by: pershphanie You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away.
Very much this.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |