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)
Robet Katrix Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:30:00 - [1861] you dont get it do you? this is EVE. everything affects everything else. this will have consequences far beyond just carriers. capyards will be sold, demand drops it changes EVERYTHING.
Reptzo	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:30:00 - [1862] When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response???
Knarfis Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:31:00 - [1863] Where are u people coming up with this stuff?? Where do any of u get the idea that this change is going to "nerf" capitals so bad that they will become usless?? This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. Let me say this again, This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. It effects the fact that when the change happens, the capital pilot actually has to have others around him/her to use all of the fighters that said capital possesses. If u have enough people around to except all of the possible, delegated fighters, then how is the ship "nerfed"?? The other thing this change does is not allow the carrier to do everything by it self any longer. It never should have in the first place. So again with what I just said, please explain to me how this change is going to kill this class of ship??? Please **SIDE NOTE; Verone, in your first post you hit it right on the head bud. Something i tried to say myself in my first post but didnt have the room. Good job bud.
Xilimyth Derlin OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:33:00 - [1864] Originally by: Reptzo When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response??? When they have some constructive information. Up through post 1735, whomever said there's only 5% in favor (or neutral in my evaluation) wasn't very far off. Either way, even in terms of unique posters, (heh, as if it wasn't obviously) is well past the majority vote. I'll hopefully finish the actual count tomorrow (complete with statistics and a compilation of ALL suggestions on both sides) after work. ------------------------------------------- Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here!
Perpello Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:36:00 - [1865] Originally by: Aerick Dawn Officer fitted, pwnmobile, wtfpwned us bigtime...no wait...not one kill? http://www.morsus-mihi.net/kb/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=59463 Eris didn't share the location of the win button.
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:38:00 - [1866] OK GUYS PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION TO HELP CCP GET THIS MESSAGE ANTI-CARRIER NERF PETTITION
Reptzo	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:38:00 - [1867] Edited by: Reptzo on 23/10/2007 02:39:21 Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Originally by: Reptzo When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response??? When they have some constructive information. Up through post 1735, whomever said there's only 5% in favor (or neutral in my evaluation) wasn't very far off. Either way, even in terms of unique posters, (heh, as if it wasn't obviously) is well past the majority vote. I'll hopefully finish the actual count tomorrow (complete with statistics and a compilation of ALL suggestions on both sides) after work. Constructive information???? They have had like 2 days to respond, and obviously they had time to think about it before. The blog was about as uninformative as it gets. They know what they meant with what was typed, maybe they should try to tell us? All i really want is for them to say, YES we are doing it anyway, or NO it wont be as bad as you think, here is what we meant (answers go here). All i want is for them to say something other than we are being biased and nonconstructive. Sry, forgot to thank you for putting in the work to summarize, and the anger is not at you, you had a valid point.
Bon Hedus Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:43:00 - [1868] Originally by: Knarfis Where are u people coming up with this stuff?? Where do any of u get the idea that this change is going to "nerf" capitals so bad that they will become usless?? This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. Let me say this again, This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. It effects the fact that when the change happens, the capital pilot actually has to have others around him/her to use all of the fighters that said capital possesses. If u have enough people around to except all of the possible, delegated fighters, then how is the ship "nerfed"?? The other thing this change does is not allow the carrier to do everything by it self any longer. It never should have in the first place. So again with what I just said, please explain to me how this change is going to kill this class of ship??? Please **SIDE NOTE; Verone, in your first post you hit it right on the head bud. Something i tried to say myself in my first post but didnt have the room. Good job bud. Ok, you obviously haven't read any of the "constructive" posts on this issue. 1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag 2. Fighters cost 20mil a pop... giving 100mil in assets to someone to care for in a fleet battle is throwing isk out the ship window 3. I can only use 5 drones with out gang members... screw any type of protection for your carrier... might as well self destruct 4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to 5. Long lock times, worthless to try and rep non-cap ships in a fleet battle 6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls 7. Carriers aren't broken 8. Carriers can be damped into uselessness by noobs in a t1 frigate (singular frigate) 9. Carriers and Moms take a long time to get into, have a very high cost (time/isk wise) 10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet 11. Many others that if you read, you will find listed in the multitude of posts in this thread The only thing that really should be done is to ban Moms from low sec. Have them as 0.0 ships only. -------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
Vandalias	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:44:00 - [1869] Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support. O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/ This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2! Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game! "Type : Large 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructer I Quantity : 1" So someone caught a terribly fit carrier probably out ratting somewhere and you're using at as an example of how carriers suck? Guess what, that pilot sucked, his fitting sucked, it says nothing about the ship itself.
Princess Layla	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:51:00 - [1870] Carriers are worth 1.2 Bil isk, and they cant kill battleships, for shame .... This dev blog guy claims he has no nerf bat. OMG, then I don't wanna meet one of the those guys with a nerf bat, seriously.
Beth Dei	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:52:00 - [1871] Originally by: Vandalias Originally by: Beth Dei http://www.kos-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15272 21 ship fleet killing a carrier... Whats wrong with that? That's my point. Not a thing. That's what happens today when you bring a carrier without support. Nothing needs to be changed.
Vandalias	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:54:00 - [1872] Originally by: Beth Dei That's my point. Not a thing. That's what happens today when you bring a carrier without support. Nothing needs to be changed. Fight appears to be 11 vs 28 at a POS. Other side had a carrier of their own. Thats an example of what happens when you don't have even odds more than anything.
Tejada One Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:55:00 - [1873] what about gallente DRONE boats? does that mean those chars they have to give up thier bonuses/dps of drones or thier ships just so a ganged carrier can do damage? that doesnt make any sense and puts a disadvantage to gallente chars in a fleet.
Athlonman Amarr O.E.C	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 - [1874] This definitely must be the worst idea CCP has come up with yet. A well tanked battleship can withstand 10 fighters engaged on it. Now your saying my 1B ship with another 500M+ of gear and 1B in skills cann't solo a battleship? Crazy....I didn't train and spend all that money to get a glorified logistics ship. Looks like its time to move to the Moros until it gets nerfed. And I must agree with most of the posts in this topic, the issue is LAG not fighters. Having to have multiple players to control fighter groups is gonna cause more lag and will be expensive for me...lots of POS sitting delegating fighters FYI...this is becomming rediculous.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 - [1875] Originally by: Vandalias Fight appears to be 11 vs 28 at a POS. Other side had a carrier of their own. Thats an example of what happens when you don't have even odds more than anything. Yes, but if you'd believe a dev blog, then a carrier without support can shred a battleship in "0.2 seconds". This just goes to show a carrier without the required support does nothing but die.
Reptzo	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 - [1876] Here, a carrier killed with nothing larger then a harbringer, and no heavy assualtes, or cmd ships http://masmikillboard.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3704
Perpello Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:02:00 - [1877] Another example of the direct nber deathbringer - this time, an Aeon mothership. Well, the Aeon died but surely it brought death to a fair portion of the attacking hostiles with its uber fighter spawns! Nope, not one attacker died. http://www.killboard.net/details/191140/ Zulupark's 0.2s uber death bringer ratio should have killed all those attacking hostiles in under 10 seconds and the Aeon should have been victorious! If I were Tyrrax, I'd petition for a replacement Aeon, because it didn't live up to Zulupark's predicitions. And it didn't have an Eris win button either.
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:06:00 - [1878] Originally by: Perpello Another example of the direct nber deathbringer - this time, an Aeon mothership. Well, the Aeon died but surely it brought death to a fair portion of the attacking hostiles with its uber fighter spawns! Nope, not one attacker died. http://www.killboard.net/details/191140/ Zulupark's 0.2s uber death bringer ratio should have killed all those attacking hostiles in under 10 seconds and the Aeon should have been victorious! If I were Tyrrax, I'd petition for a replacement Aeon, because it didn't live up to Zulupark's predicitions. And it didn't have an Eris win button either. gasp! Say it ain't SO! Yeah.... I know. It was so. Eris is full of it. My carrier has never been anything remotely close to a win button. EVER. good game
Dazenil Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:11:00 - [1879] Edited by: Dazenil on 23/10/2007 03:12:16 It took me about a minute to kill a 1.5 mil Rat with 15 fighters - and perfect skills. And iv tested that - on the apocalipse day or something. and they say 0.2s for a BS - err - wrong. so comeon - Carriers should be boosted - not nerfed! --------------------------------------------- No Pain - No Gain There is a man inside this vessel, who is something far worse... than anyone here has ever encountered. Should you survive this da
oDDiTy V2 Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:16:00 - [1880] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism. Takk PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me This, and your other reply are absolutely sickening. So you're taking the one person's opinion that you want to hear (because you guys don't want to admit you are absolutely wrong with even letting this idea come into existence, let alone become a dev blog), and playing down everyone's replies as biased. You later state you are TRAINING for carriers, this means that you too have zero experience in alliance combat as a carrier pilot.
dastommy79 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:19:00 - [1881] Well i have been debating wether to train a carrier first or dread. After reading this horrible idea its Advance weapons upgrades lvl5 for me. I dont need to list reasons why this is stupid. Its blantenly obvious no idea if i spelled that right I driks alots
WarGod The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:21:00 - [1882] MAKE SURE YOU ALL POST ON HERE!! =) You Know!
Blazde 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:22:00 - [1883] Edited by: Blazde on 23/10/2007 03:23:08 Good god 73 pages noone will read my post Regardless... Yes I LIKE this direction, carriers shouldn't be the 'new battleship', we already have battleships to be battleships HOWEVER it's another nerf on the old mothership which are now becoming near useless. Motherships need a very serious tank buff (preferably just lots and lots of hitpoints, but some other factors like the impossibility of scrambling them in lowsec need adressing). I standby most of the points I made in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=582481 two months back. _
Fred 104 New Justice	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:26:00 - [1884] Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 22:20:56 Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16 Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses. Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way. You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better: 1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships Please do reason your way out of that one. Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back". Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground. IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort. I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG flailing arms it's a mothership! Run! trips cause pants drop ARGH! crawls away in panic" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down. What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. "Argh a mothership!" Response: So what? Can't do anything "But..the name..it's size..the amount of fighters it has!..it's intimidating!" Reponse: Uh..nope, not anymore. yawn someone get a dictor, we'll take it down in a sec. "completely disillusioned...oh...but I thought...I..oh .." Response: Yeah well you thought wrong, wouldn't be balanced if such an awesome ship could fend for itself now would it. How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins? For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period! Post of the year tbh. PLEASE listen to this person.
Marlona Sky	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:29:00 - [1885] Ok. Everyone can relax, I figured it out. Zulupark is new and got his MMORPG terminology mixed up. Zulupark, when they told you to figure out a way to boost carriers/fighters to be in balance with the time/isk/skills put into the ship class, that means to make it better, not worse. Nerf means to make it worse. And that is what your proposed change would do, make the ship worse off than what it is. Its ok, just rethink how to BOOST the carrier class is what they said to you. /me pats Zulupark on the back. Its ok, you had the entire eve community ready to cancel their subscriptions over the mix up. We can all laugh about it now. Maybe they should give you smaller project so the next time you get mixed up again, it doesn't cause such a panic.
Teufelhunden	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:29:00 - [1886] Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say.
Dazenil Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:31:00 - [1887] Originally by: Blazde Edited by: Blazde on 23/10/2007 03:23:08 Good god 73 pages noone will read my post Regardless... Yes I LIKE this direction, carriers shouldn't be the 'new battleship', we already have battleships to be battleships HOWEVER it's another nerf on the old mothership which are now becoming near useless. Motherships need a very serious tank buff (preferably just lots and lots of hitpoints, but some other factors like the impossibility of scrambling them in lowsec need adressing). I standby most of the points I made in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=582481 two months back. The "NEW" Battleships - huh? - No: We will have new Bs - T2 BS. The carriers - are something different - they cant use jumpgates - they cost more - they are support ships... I dont think you understand. =\ ---------------------------------------------
UPS Truck	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:31:00 - [1888] Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say. Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it.
Fred 104 New Justice	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:33:00 - [1889] Originally by: UPS Truck Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say. Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it. God I hope not. I know it's a total whine, but I really honestly would want my SP back. I didn't train all that crap cause I wanted to fly a glorified Oneiros.
Reptzo	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:38:00 - [1890] Originally by: Fred 104 Originally by: UPS Truck Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say. Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it. God I hope not. I know it's a total whine, but I really honestly would want my SP back. I didn't train all that crap cause I wanted to fly a glorified Oneiros. Yah, but the Oneiros can actually use more then one remote repper for a worthy amount of time, lock more then 6 targets, so it is useful in large groups for the logistics role, cause, well, its a logistics ship (who would have thought). Most carriers cant run remote reps for an extended period of time in battle, making them useless at helping, since they take forever to lock, and throw away capacitor using capital remote reps/transfers.

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.