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

Check My IP Information

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)
hybridundertaker Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:20:00 - [181] this nerf sucks EvE +NLINE - T+TALHELLDEATH SUPPORTER
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:22:00 - [182] Ohnoes! People having to work together in a multiplayer game instead of solopwning? SURELY NOT! /sarcasm Swing away Zulupark, swing away... ============================================
Savesti Kyrsst Minmatar White-Noise	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:22:00 - [183] Originally by: Lucius Amarriantis 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 To be honest, this. Most changes need to be far more subtle than they are. Generally something goes from being mildly overpowered to significantly underpowered. You really need to brainstorm for subtler ways of fixing things. If you're struggling for subtle tweaks, allow players to anonymously submit suggestions under a multitude of subheadings (the vast, vast majority of these will be terrible, but some will be interesting for ideas). Your game is awesome, but drastic changes when they're not needed put people off. The major changes so far haven't been too bad - speed nerf was needed, and nos changes made things more interesting - though pilgrim needs a slight tweak now. This change - the problem is most people can't even see the need for it. If what you mean is "we're concerned about people dropping three carriers on a brutix in lowsec" - well this has been happening for a very long time and was 100% predictable. When you make changes, or see problems, you need to come up with possible minor tweaks, and criteria for making such tweaks. You also need to justify major changes. I fail to see the need to change tracking computers, tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors, and this proposed carrier change absolutely bamboozles me.
The Kan Gallente The Circle STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 - [184] 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? Dude, do you even PLAY eve? ever? About your idea: NO
Xthril Ranger hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 - [185] Noone will want to jump into another fleet anymore. The one set up in a defensive position with ready assigned fighters will have an advantagelong into the battle while the attacker try to get their fighters assigned. If noone wants to be the attacker there will be no fight.... . you'll never jump alone
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 - [186] DO NOT DO THIS CCP. SIMPLY PUT YOU WILL BE CUTTING YOUR OWN THROAT. KIA EVE Home
Ima Nutta Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:24:00 - [187] OK, this is either a really sick joke, or someone at CCP hasn't been taking their medication properly. You want constructive? How about this: Make the changes, but reduce the training time from at least 1 year (to be useful) in a carrier to say, oh maybe 3 weeks. That way we can have all the logistics ships YOU want us to have. Seriously though, what ever happened to the ideal of the players creating the gameplay? I really am disappointed with the almost continual marketing hype about how EVE is a sandbox and CCP doesn't decide the path the game takes. Seems like you guys are only interested in getting everyone to play they way YOU want. Why not spend less time ****ing off paying customers and more time in fixing things that are either broken or patently stupid. For example, why is it that a mothership should be able to sit at a low sec gate with impunity and nuke small ships and pods? Restrict super caps to 0.0 - that's where they belong. Leave carriers alone, they've been nerfed enough already. If you go ahead with these changes maybe you should have a buy-back scheme where all the players (like me) who have invested a lot of time and isk and real money (by way of subscription), can be reimbursed for all that effort once you make carriers useless. Carriers/mum's are big...that's the whole point. A few battleships should not be able to kill a carrier, a large group yes, but not a small group. And by limiting the number of fighters to 5 you are basically saying "leave your fighters at home" to the many capital pilots who don't actually get much of a chance to fly in fleet ops due to real life constraints or timezone differences within corps/alliances. While you're at it, how about having realistic insurance for capitals? Since you're gonna take away my only real means of defense, maybe you can drop my premiums by several orders of magnitude as well? When I first started playing EVE I was literally awestruck by what CCP had created. Since that time (almost 2 years) I've become so disillusioned by the number of nerfs that I'm wondering whether I should bother playing any more. I have several accounts with toons from different races. I trained up that way so I could try different ships, and get the full enjoyment out of the game. So far almost every ship I've trained for has been nerfed to the point that I'm not really enjoying EVE any more. I hear torps are gonna be nerfed again in rev 3...great, there goes my mission running. Oh look, nosferatu got nerfed...there goes the Curse I trained for....I'm afraid to train any other races ships for fear of the almighty nerf bat!!! My next question then is simply this: will there be a single ship that you want us all to fly so there is total "balance"? How about an Ibis?
Maltroc Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:25:00 - [188] Fire Zulupark ... What about the idea to take all the capitals out off game ? or Change all the 0.0 to 1.0 ? another idea is CCP do something for the money we pay and design new ships . Fill the universe with more dynamic . ---
Dan Grobag Caldari Oyster Colors	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:25:00 - [189] I like the change personaly, you just to want to fly solopwn mobile, get back in battle ship. Maybe make drone control unit give one more personal drone control too. That way you can't be damage and rep at the same time without support, and you still get damage upgrade with support And reduce triage cycle time please.
RaidStream	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:26:00 - [190] CCP, Do you actually play this game? or Are you just nuts? As it stands a week old noob in a t1 frig can hold down and neutralize one carrier's ability to fight while also neutralizing the drone capabilities of 2 others (yes, dampening maulus). The recent changes with restricting carriers from assigning fighters from inside POS shields seemed to indicate that you wanted to encourage carriers to be less of a supporting ships and to be further out on the front line. At the same time you limited their ability to cyno out and warp out for Moms. Mixed messages? I can't think of any sane thought process as to why you'd want to nerf caps and supercaps any further than you currently have. Perhaps this is part of the continuing strategy to maximize player subscriptions by reducing the capacity of experienced players in favour of allowing groups of noobs to have more of an impact on events? I understand this is just an idea, but you really need to listen to your player base. Ideas really should be driven by the desire to change and improve the game for all players, rather than increasing subscriptions of a bulk of newer players by disadvantaging the long term players. The long-term development of characters is what makes Eve unique, if you continue to minimize the impact of that long term training.. you may as well change the game's title to "WoW in space". No, just no.

pershphanie Deadly Addiction	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:26:00 - [191] Originally by: duckmonster Theres a magnificent amount of nerd rage in here from people who think its unfair they'll have to fight instead of fighterblob lagging the system into victories by default. If you could bottle these tears it'd be amazing. It doesn't go far enough however. CCP needs to get rid of fighter delegation all together and just have 5 fighters per carrier and 10 per mothership. This evens it out much more. Why stop there? Why not make carriers/motherships only able to use mining drones? Hmmmm. That doesn't seem to go far enough either. Since the changes make carriers/motherships a completely different ship anyways why not ditch the drone bays all together to prevent "fighterblobbing". Maybe ccp should just change every carrier/mothership in eve into a rorquel. ------>PҼſϚի<------
McSteve GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 - [192] This is a terrible idea.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 - [193] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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? The reason fly flying a mothership is the same as flying a titan... it shows how damned huge your e-peen is. It currently offers only one real advantage over the carrier, immunity to damps. The extra damage is hardly going to turn the tide, and the improved tank is not much to write home about. But the point is that YOU are doing that damage, those are YOUR drones, that YOU are in command of. Turning the carrier into the EVE version of a sword bearing squire really isn't doing much to the epic feel of these ships.
Drenan	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 - [194] Once again we look like reaping the whirlwind caused by CCP's apparent inability to predict the strategic implications of tactical class balancing on the game. Is there no-one employed at CCP who sits down and looks at the latest 'great idea' and says..."well if we do this, the impact on x will be y" etc., etc. The process is simple...before you introduce a new ship type, or 'balance' an existing ship type, you have to run an impact analysis to examine the knock-on effects of the change on the BIG PICTURE. It is also a good idea to factor in the capability of the game hardware to actually support the implications of a change. This is not 'rocket science'.

Jacques Archambault Forum Moderator	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:29:00 - [195] Just a gentle reminder to all people posting here - please keep your replies constructive and polite. Its understandable that this proposal from Zulupark will ruffle some of your feathers, and its fine for you to disagree and voice your concern, however please do so constructively. Ranting doesn't help anyone. -Jacques forum rules \| [email protected] \| Our Website!

The Economist	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:30:00 - [196] Edited by: The Economist on 21/10/2007 13:33:20 Edited by: The Economist on 21/10/2007 13:31:37 Just realised, these changes would make a max skilled rorqual with ogre II's not a bad option for fleets as opposed to a carrier (only about 30dps less compared to a max skilled thanatos with 5 fighters, and ogres are a hell of a lot cheaper, could tractor, salvage and remote rep during the fight too.... /me trains for a Rorqual [edit: misread] Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [197] Edited by: Elmicker on 21/10/2007 13:32:23 Originally by: The Economist ...a max skilled rorqual with ogre II's... A max skilled moros with ogre iis does 1109 DPS. Same thing on a maxed nyx with 5 fighters does 625 DPS. . (Though actually, that's an issue that should be looked at. A moros shouldn't really get its drone damage bonus unless its in siege mode)
Fenderson Finite Horizon Synchr0nicity	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [198] I am in favor of the idea of shifting the role of carriers/ms as much away from offense and as much towards support as possible. the idea you propose is not bad, but it feels incomplete to me. a better way to balance carriers would be to make fighters less effective against small targets, so that they can be effectively countered.
GO MaZ Spartan Industries	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [199] Originally by: Dan Grobag I like the change personaly, you just to want to fly solopwn mobile, get back in battle ship. Maybe make drone control unit give one more personal drone control too. That way you can't be damage and rep at the same time without support, and you still get damage upgrade with support And reduce triage cycle time please. Solopwnmobile? My thanatos, with a t2 / mild faction setup, 25% exile booster, passive repair gang mod (WITH MINDLINK) tanks about 3800-4200dps. That is 4-5 GANK battleships, and that's ONLY with 4 mids and 3 rig slots filled with cap mods so I can even run my reps - oh by the way, 3-5 nos and I can't even tank that much. As it is currently, if you go out without a support gang in a carrier or a mothership in 0.0 (even in lowsec with a carrier), you WILL die. Reducing damage output does NOTHING to this, it just means people won't ever use their carriers on the front lines anymore - welcome back to Eve circa 2006, when carriers spent their entire existence hugging a POS tower with fighters delegated to their army of alts in support ships
Yaay Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [200] Originally by: Jacques Archambault Just a gentle reminder to all people posting here - please keep your replies constructive and polite. Its understandable that this proposal from Zulupark will ruffle some of your feathers, and its fine for you to disagree and voice your concern, however please do so constructively. Ranting doesn't help anyone. -Jacques When developers post Crap like that, and the entire forum turns on them, i think it's more than a rant, i think it's a statement.

Jane Spondogolo NoobWaffe	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 - [201] How about just doing this;- Reducing fighters to 6 for carriers, 13 for fighters, and no delegation, then give them some sort of siege mode. If the siege mode makes the fighters and the carrier much tougher to kill, and made the fighters much nastier, but at the expense of the fact the carrier cant warp out, or retract the fighters during the siege cycle, then you'd have a situation where A) The carrier loses nothing in DPS, but gains some strength B) Much less fighters = much less lag C) Make it a strategic decision. Does one commit to the fight or not? If one does the fight promises to be brutal, but if you don't commit, well you have a fairly nerfed ship. Its a win win solution. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
Gragnor Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:34:00 - [202] The Problem ... we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. The solution Look at the ship bonuses and make them so attractive that they will be brought and used on the front line for logistics. That is, make the bonuses so attractive that to not use them would be criminal. Motherships are now quite vulnerable to bubbles, so to say they don't need forepower is to misunderstand that point. The motherships' firepower is its drones and fighters. Do not remove them; otherwise that ships becomes another very expensive piece of junk. The other point is that when you have 100 v 100 fights; lag is so bad that by the time the mothership has locked someone up - they are normally in a pod which kind of defeats the purpose of capital ship logistics!
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 - [203] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then. 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? I don't like it at all. I'm a pilot who flies for a non-territorial guerrilla warfare alliance and I see my carrier as a force-multiplier to allow our smaller gangs to compete with larger alliance blobs - utilizing a mix of front line firepower and remote repping. Our idea is to see 4-5 well skilled Star Fraction carriers helping our support gang of 12-16 battleships being able to stand against 50-60 random alliance rabble battleships and carrying the day. Its basically a way of putting more risk (and isk) on the table to carry the fighting in medium sized engagements. I put a tank and reppers and drone control units on my carrier for the reason I want it in the thick of the fighting and I personally dislike all this POS/Station hugging stuff that would be the norm in your proposal. Quote: 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? Absolutely not. I think you have to fight alternative solutions to reducing blob warfare and the lag that is a natural and unavoidable consequence of that. I skilled up to Gallente Carrier V for the statistics listed on the vessel and I don't think forcing my ship to be a POS hugging remote support vessel is a fair return for the investment. Quote: 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? Don't like the idea or the solution. I'd suggest this one gets thrown back into the waste-paper bin before too much time is wasted on it. You guys really need to be looking at the baseline problems with POS/Sovereignty/Cyno jammer stuff before you start looking to nerf individual classes to solve lag in uber fleet fights. Remember that you do have a lot of players that play the game to engage in smaller scales of battle and use your capital ships in more limited engagement. Please do not make sweeping game changes directly on the result of watching BoB and Goonswarm blob and lag jerk 193130131930139 carriers at each other. They are the noisiest people on the forums granted - but there is a whole other game out there with people skilling for and using this kit for their own battles and confrontations and I tell you not everyone will appreciate being forced to use a POS to make their hideously defanged "support carrier" because you guys knee-jerked on the results of some lunatic lagfest in deep 0.0. Quote: 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? You are addressing the problem of lag by nerfing a ship class rather than addressing the problem that recent game changes (POS/Sovereignty/Cyno Jammers) have forced incredible blobbing in and of themselves. Now you are making the situation worse by ignoring the fact that some players use these ships outside of huge fleet fights but would be forced all the same to suffer the same reduction in capability and flexibility as the blobettes would in their lag battles. This in my eyes has been a long term problem with CCP in that you love the idea of the huge alliance on alliance slug fests so much you romanticise the whole business too much and are prepared to do literally anything to make those promo videos true (even if that means hacking up ship stats and making changes that negatively impact the whole server just to benefit the few thousand players routinely doing these things). Hell, I offer myself as an example. I've got Carrier V, a couple of thanatos, specced for a Mothership - got a few billion in assets and whatnot and I fight for a non-territorial RP alliance that seeks small to medium sized skirmish warfare. I've never been in a battle bigger than 80 a side (and I hated that) - but this character has 68 million skill points and has played since the dawn of the server. I'm telling you as a long term player please don't nerf a ship class I trained for in good faith to serve the interests of laggy fleet battles. Star Fraction is recruiting
burning raven omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 - [204] Originally by: Ex0dus This idea would not only kill off capital combat almost completely, but would make carriers near useless. 5 Fighters? Seriously? This isn't great news for people who have spent the months of training and billions of isk getting into a carrier only to find out you want to make it useless and less powerful than a battleship. If people want to sit at a POS in their carrier it's one thing, but don't make them... how about this, i fly a mothership because i actually enjoy using it myself not so i can sit at a pos and think to myself ah this is a pretty pos bubble. (i actually play this game for fun, not to make other people happy).
Ediz Daxx FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 - [205] Originally by: Jane Spondogolo How about just doing this;- Reducing fighters to 6 for carriers, 13 for fighters, and no delegation, then give them some sort of siege mode. If the siege mode makes the fighters and the carrier much tougher to kill, and made the fighters much nastier, but at the expense of the fact the carrier cant warp out, or retract the fighters during the siege cycle, then you'd have a situation where A) The carrier loses nothing in DPS, but gains some strength B) Much less fighters = much less lag C) Make it a strategic decision. Does one commit to the fight or not? If one does the fight promises to be brutal, but if you don't commit, well you have a fairly nerfed ship. Its a win win solution. This idea is as stupid as the one in the devblog. ______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:36:00 - [206] Originally by: N1fty Ohnoes! People having to work together in a multiplayer game instead of solopwning? SURELY NOT! /sarcasm Swing away Zulupark, swing away... The lo-sec Mothership is a solowtfpwn mobile. The 0.0 Mothership and lo-sec/0.0 carrier are solowtfijustgotpwned mobiles. The carrier does around equal DPS to a close range battleship, has a tank that a five man gang can break if they have a few neuts and a ten man gang can break in short order without neuts. Better than a solo battleship, why yes they are. Solowtfpwn mobiles, no. Cost effective, at a cost of 10 to 20 uninsurable battleships, most definitely not.
Narciss Sevar Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:36:00 - [207] I don't think it's the entire forum. This is definitely the right route to go down, whether this is the exact changes to make i think would have to be experienced to know for sure. At least they're thinking the right way.
Arzal Caldari omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 - [208] bad.... bad idea....
arcantos Minmatar FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 - [209] WTS 2 x Thanatos // fitted + fighters WTB 1000 x Punisher to get fighters asigned to 40 mil sp chars .
Tempest Kane Amarr Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 - [210] This the most ****** thing you have ever done to super capitals and capitals in general.... oh wait.. no its not. Please stop giving us ships that cost 20-30bill then 8 months later turning them into 100mill Domi's, your taking the ** now ccp. Get a clue.



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.