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)
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.23 10:51:00 - [2011] Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 10:51:06 12 months ago... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets quadruple their HP's CCP boss: GO! 6 months ago.... CCP dev 1: We still have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets remove the ability to assign fighters from POS. CCP boss: GO! Now.... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are being used at the front lines. CCP dev 2: Lets remove their fighting ability. CCP boss: GO! 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.
Tulas Flint Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 10:58:00 - [2012] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then. Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes no u didnt coz all the players which do it every day post here !!! see sig this is the first CCP Epic Thread - gratz to ur first award (hopefully ur last one Zulupark!)
Edmond Parh Universal Exports	Posted - 2007.10.23 10:58:00 - [2013] Is it not time for CCP to post a reply to this massive PR disaster and admit it was wrong to publish an idea that should never have been let out the box. At least i hope thats how this will go, because if you are going to rip up the goal posts and move them that far, after so many of us have spent so much time and effort just to get into the ships then please dont be surprised by the response.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.23 10:59:00 - [2014] Originally by: R0ger Wilco Originally by: Kerfira ... You have a spy in CCP dont you ? Originally by: R0ger Wilco and OMG 77 pages of mostly protests CCP if you still go through with this it will be one of your most clueless buisnuss decisions ever, bye bye Carrier pilots and the acounts that they use for cyno alts. Actually come to think of it this is actually a fix for lag since so many people would leave so I guess if that is your goal you are spot on. ...and they STILL haven't told us what problem they're trying to solve 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.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:00:00 - [2015] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then. Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes This 'fleet fight' was most likely when he got ganked by a mothership in 0.3..... 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.
Logicycle	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:10:00 - [2016] Originally by: Lucifer66 Edited by: Lucifer66 on 22/10/2007 17:39:43 I vote to fire zulu and use the money you would be paying him to buy more servers. A much better use of resources. LOL
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:11:00 - [2017] Originally by: Kerfira This 'fleet fight' was most likely when he got ganked by a mothership in 0.3..... And got owned in his bs in 0.2 sec CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:16:00 - [2018] Edited by: Druadan on 23/10/2007 11:15:40 78 pages and what do we get? A thread trying to find out what bribery we'll accept so they can push this change through. Unacceptable.
UGWidowmaker Caldari The Ankou The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:17:00 - [2019] officiel reply ? OMFG I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
Seriya Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:18:00 - [2020] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 10:51:06 12 months ago... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets quadruple their HP's CCP boss: GO! 6 months ago.... CCP dev 1: We still have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets remove the ability to assign fighters from POS. CCP boss: GO! Now.... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are being used at the front lines. CCP dev 2: Lets remove their fighting ability. CCP boss: GO! This made me laugh, and makes a good point I think.
julius tel'kash	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:22:00 - [2021] nerf of the carrier and MS =dead of this class ship nomdidioux c'est qu'il veulent nerfer le seule truc potable du jeux ces con(-_-)
ER0X Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:23:00 - [2022] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: ER0X To the crux of the matter. In spite of previous dev blogs stating that drone boats would be un-nerfed That un-nerf was largely directed at the smaller drone boats anyway, due to the need to limit their use of large drones via reduced drone bay sizes (i.e. you can't currently give a cruiser the ability to carry multiple wings of medium drones without giving it the ability to field a wing of heavies). The larger drone boats already hit the number-of-drones limit with the largest drones they can mount before they hit their drone bay size limit, so bandwidth was never going to make as much difference there. I previously stated to you that I would not debate the finer points of capital ships with respect to this Zulu blog. Since this appears to be the basis, or hinge, of youÆre argument I shall indulge you. ItÆs an extremely bold assumption on your part given the evidence. IÆm only going to treat the final statement with examination as the context of the piece points towards the final statement. The statement reads; æIt's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentiation between ships.Æ This is a æUniversalÆ statement that also contains an æExistential quantifierÆ condition. In laymanÆs terms that means æfor allÆ and æthere existsÆ. That is it states æfor all specialized drone shipsÆ will receive a un-nerfing. Crow barred onto the end of this we also find the condition æthere existsÆ a differentiation in ships. This latter condition if taken in isolation could mean a variety of different things but for consistency we have to read it from within the context it is placed. It is a nested condition. This suggests to me that there will be a differentiation within specialised drone ships. Not that there will be a un-nerfing of one specialised drone ship over another. This appears to all as how you have interpreted this. If I am not mistaken the Carrier class ship is a specialised drone ship and by definition is subject to the above Universal declaration? The Mother ship is also of the Carrier class, albeit a higher tier, and therefore should be subject to both the Universal, and to differentiate between the other specialised drone ships and the carrier, the Existential quantifier held within the statement. Best presented in the subtle difference between the Ishtar/Dominix/Thanatos No? Although I may not have directly stated the fact but the subtext of my posts on this matter have been in reference to this one Oveur Blog and is the main argumentative reasoning in refusing to accept the vacuum created by a further Blog by Zulu which omits OveursÆ previous context and makes an assumption of over powered without definitive proof. Finally in what way are any of these ideas presented either in ZuluÆs Blog or by you a Un-Nerfing?
Harkonin	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:26:00 - [2023] What to say? Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots. Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us. And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find. Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway.
Hysidee Black Avatar	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:33:00 - [2024] This has completely baffled me as i cannot see any logic behind it. A few months ago, CCP changed carriers etc so that they couldnt hug pos's and this in turn would encourage pilots to get more front line action in there vulnerable carriers. Now with this proposed change, it seems like they want carriers back as a pos hugging mode?!?!?! its all i see them doing if this comes into effect, as why delegate 10 fighters and control 5 at the front while risking your ass when you can just delegate all 15 and sit 50metres from a pos shield in relative safety??? Also, competeing with a domi in terms of dps i can control is just plain dam stupid, i'd prefer to sell my carrier and buy 10 or so domi's if this is the case. CCP please think before you type rabble such as this!!!
Amaron Ghant Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:34:00 - [2025] Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:28 Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:06 Originally by: Harkonin What to say? Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots. Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us. And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find. Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway. There's no point posting this crap. Personally if I were the DEV in charge of deciding to implement or not, I'd say implement and BE DAMNED after reading some of the drivel posted here. I'm against the proposal, so don't screw it up for me by posting inane drivel and personal insults. Get the brains you all say you were born with into gear and post well reasoned points as to why carriers and ms should be left alone. Otherwise it'll happen, you know it will.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:40:00 - [2026] Why are so many people crying about lowsec camping Motherships and why is this accepted by so many people as a valid reason for nerfing Carriers and Motherships? How is a Mothership camping 0.4 different from 20 BS / CS doing it, except that the Mothership costs a lot more? * throw a bigger fleet at the 20 BS/CS and they will run or die * throw the firepower of 20 BS/CS on the Mothership (e.g. 5-6 Dreads) and it will run or die (OK, the Mothership won't die if you cyno in a Titan and DD ... now that makes it a lot more powerful and unbalanced, eh?) It's really silly. Yes, the Mothership is powerful and it is supposed to be, it costs 25b+fittings (often 60b+ total). Now stop whining and nerfing the game because there has to be a best combat ship in the game. "...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007)
Sixty Six	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:42:00 - [2027] Nothing really good about this idea. Carriers aren't overpowered now, carriers after this change will be just defenseless logistics ships which make useful haulers. Suddenly totally unappealing to fly them, CCP please think again or put some kind of capital into game which is not totally boring...YAWN!
Crovan Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:43:00 - [2028] After reading and thinking a bit more, there are a couple of things I would like to add. First, as has been stated, and as I would like to reiterate, the carrier is not a solo pwnmobile. I very nearly squeal with joy when someone reports a lone carrier somewhere. What that tells me is I need 5-7 people in the appropriate ships to go murder it. Arazu or two and a load of damage BS, maybe with some logistics drones or remotes in case someone takes a pounding from the drone auto-aggro after the Arazus dampen the carrier to buggery. That recipe + Gatecamping Carrier = Capital loot! As Max Teranous stated in the thread regarding what people use their carriers for, any pvp alliance or corp worth their salt would need no more than 10 people in the right ships to take down one of these things. It's about tactics and approaching the situation with the weaknesses of the ship in mind. As I have previously stated and will freely admit, the issue of motherships camping in lowsec is another problem entirely. The inability to tackle one is problematic, making the would-be commiters of matricide neut down their quarry below jump capability, while continually bumping it and subjecting themselves to smartbombs. At best, I think this situation requires a minor change, namely the aggression delay or capital scale scramblers I mentioned earlier. I have heard very little feedback (granted all of it positive thus far) on what I feel are constructive and effective counters to the issue of invulnerable lowsec motherships, while at the same time preserving the ability of carriers and motherships to govern their own drones. As as been asked already, what happens, with the proposed changes, when the ship to whom the fighters are assigned pops? It was not that long ago that multiple fights were stopped down in IAC space (literally had GMs calling time out in local) so they could chase down errant fighters. Do we really want to mess with the mechanics any more? My first impression was that these changes were designed to prevent the "UberDeathMachine" carriers/moms, but apparently there was also the issue of making them more specialized in a logistical role. In that case, again the answer is not a neutering of offensive capability, but rather a re-examination of the recent changes designed to make the carriers a logistical tool (read: triage modules). Also, it seems strange to me, as well as to the others who have pointed it out, that one year ago, CCP was stating a desire to get these ships on the front lines. Now, they are there, and steps are being taken to remove their capability to effectively do so? Between the mixed messages from CCP, the general outrage of the community, and my own shock at the incredibly counterintuitive nature of these proposed changes, I really don't know what else to say. I can understand if the role that carriers find themselves in now is not the ideal role that CCP had envisioned. The fact is, though, that it is reality, and only an adaptation to that reality will be productive. Forcing this drastic of a paradigm shift will only lose you subscribers and make the players feel that anything they work for in the game can be taken away at the whim of CCP. Whether or not carriers are what they were invisioned to be, people have spent, collectively milennia of game-time training for them. Assuming carrier training takes 1 year to complete, start to finish, each player has also spent over 350 USD in game time for the ability to fly these ships, let alone the ISK and training opportunity cost. Dismissive remarks by people with gold borders are not productive. Granted, neither is wide-eyed flaming by the players, but I have to admit I can kindof see their point. Also, Er0x, I am so stealing that sig.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:43:00 - [2029] I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
Crovan Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:45:00 - [2030] Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom So would a Rorqual...
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:46:00 - [2031] Originally by: Isabel Sweet And about knarfis said....motherships are not intended to use only 5 fighters alone. Because simply, in laggy environment new assignment of fighters is impossible. And yes LAG EXIST. We are dealing with it, reds are doing that, goons are doing that, no matter how hard are we smacking eachother. We are battling with 1-5 minutes of lag each time and somehow we are still liking that. Exactly. After 1 hour of nothing happening, me being able to lock 1 target and even shoot at it - I still somehow manage to convince myself that it was fun. And then, instead of fixing lag, CCP "fixes" carriers/motherships. Go figure.
Rake Mizar Freelance Assassins	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:49:00 - [2032] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind. In what way? You define a solution to a problem that nearly 80 pages of people say do not exist. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one! I think we've been as 'gentle' in our response to him as his proposal was to those of us that have invested 6 months to several years working towards fielding ONE ship. It has been said elsewhere, but how can you expect your community to trust you when you even suggest changes that are so sweeping. Hundreds of pilots have made it clear that if you had told us from the beginning that carrier pilots could only control five drones/fighters at one time, we would have trained something else! From a PR standpoint, you guys have hit rock-bottom and continue to dig. Get back to your roots, be more open with what your concerns and issues are. The carrier pilots are a segment of your most loyal customer-base. They have been with you a year to several years. Think of the experience in game that we have. Collectively, we know this game better than you, so please listen to our response before you implement a solution that is going to nullify so much of what we have worked for. WTB: T2 Exotic Dancers
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:51:00 - [2033] Originally by: Crovan Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom So would a Rorqual... I can picture it now... the carrier blobs getting replaced by Moros and Rorqual blobs
Harkonin	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:52:00 - [2034] Edited by: Harkonin on 23/10/2007 11:54:31 Originally by: Amaron Ghant Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:28 Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:06 Originally by: Harkonin What to say? Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots. Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us. And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find. Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway. There's no point posting this crap. Personally if I were the DEV in charge of deciding to implement or not, I'd say implement and BE DAMNED after reading some of the drivel posted here. I'm against the proposal, so don't screw it up for me by posting inane drivel and personal insults. Get the brains you all say you were born with into gear and post well reasoned points as to why carriers and ms should be left alone. Otherwise it'll happen, you know it will. I have to say that I have not insulted any 1, I write my oppinion about a change that touches we all in the thing we like more, our character developement and capabilities. CCP Zulupark as got an important position in this company and is moving towars a direct war to we all customers. Getting into a position of this level means that u have to think 2 times what u are trying to do because u will touch the way of playing of many people. Do u want reasons? I can explain they again but i think that u have 2k posts telling which are those reasons. Well, there is another choice. Since i have the power because i am the "Game Design team" and some people dont like to lose months and months of training in a close to useless ship after my "BRIGHT IDEA", then i will get the shortcut of applying my "BRIGTH IDEA" because I dont like some comments in the forum. Just dont post your ideas if u dont want to get answers like those.
Hotblue	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:54:00 - [2035] I just had a thought, when this change comes, why not let carriers and mom's into high-sec. They are after all quite good at hauling and really they have less offensive capability than a BS anyway.
ER0X Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:55:00 - [2036] Originally by: Crovan Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom So would a Rorqual... Indeed it would Welcome teh Sig
Crovan Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:56:00 - [2037] Edited by: Crovan on 23/10/2007 11:55:55 Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: Crovan Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom So would a Rorqual... I can picture it now... the carrier blobs getting replaced by Moros and Rorqual blobs After a quick run through EFT, a Rorqual with max skills and 5 Ogre IIs would out-damage a Thanatos with 5 Firbolgs by 9 DPS. Factor in the increased tracking of Heavies over Fighters and the Rorqual becomes the next solo pwnmobile. Please leave our carriers with more useful solo offensive capabilities than a Rorqual.
Trishan Green Men Incorporated	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:58:00 - [2038] I know the chances of this being spotted are pretty much nil but nonetheless.... I'm getting the sense that right now eve is in a point where small gradual changes don't work. Or won't work until all are in place, making them appear as not working. The changes for the carriers come with a "we've been talking about them", and hopefully not but probably from a "we need to do something about the carriers". I think CCP should really sit down and start looking at the whole picture, instead of looking at small pieces of the puzzle and fiddling at what they don't like. Sit down, review your whole design plan paying special attention at the points of friction between player fun and expectations and CCP vision, and address the possible concerns holistically. Originally by: CCP Zulupark What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. Fine. We got a who, what, how, probably a when, but there's a why missing. Why is there a why missing? And what exactly did you think you'd accomplish by posting this as it is? Its a humongous stick for anyone using caps, with no carrot whatsoever. You already could predict how many people would be against it on the forums. So either it was done out of naivety, an attempt to get people accustomed to it so that it doesn't create too much noise during the rev 3 launch, or just as a bargaining token to get to some middle ground (a la module compression nerfs) I don't like any of these posibilities, frankly. Eve is supposed to be dark and dangerous. But it's also supposed to be fun for the players.
Soulita Gallente Inner Core	Posted - 2007.10.23 12:01:00 - [2039] Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42 Originally by: Rake Mizar Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind. In what way? You define a solution to a problem that nearly 80 pages of people say do not exist. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one! I think we've been as 'gentle' in our response to him as his proposal was to those of us that have invested 6 months to several years working towards fielding ONE ship. It has been said elsewhere, but how can you expect your community to trust you when you even suggest changes that are so sweeping. Hundreds of pilots have made it clear that if you had told us from the beginning that carrier pilots could only control five drones/fighters at one time, we would have trained something else! From a PR standpoint, you guys have hit rock-bottom and continue to dig. Get back to your roots, be more open with what your concerns and issues are. The carrier pilots are a segment of your most loyal customer-base. They have been with you a year to several years. Think of the experience in game that we have. Collectively, we know this game better than you, so please listen to our response before you implement a solution that is going to nullify so much of what we have worked for. All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable. But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well. And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us. Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs. Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder? Also please do not think most people in EVE would disagree with the planned carrier changes. Many do not post here because of the flamefest that is let loose for anyone in favour of the changes.
nyogen Gallente Ninmu Seijaku	Posted - 2007.10.23 12:07:00 - [2040] OK, I didn't read all 70 pages. And no I don't fly a carrier but when I told my dear friend who is flying a carrier that I could bbq his archon in my drake post the proposed change he stopped talking to me So, for the love of friends and family and social life please don't nerf the carriers, I want my friend to talk to me again

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.