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) |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:18:00 -
[2071]
I would just like to know why tbh.
Regards Rusty
|
Vix Schwesa
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:19:00 -
[2072]
My name is Vix Schwesa, and I am a cyno-alt. Please think of me, and all of those like me that will be out of work, living on handouts of Long-limbed Roe's and Quafe because our former employers refuse to field a ship they can't properly defend.
Think of the cyno alts! |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:26:00 -
[2073]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Soulita The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
...
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
What would be the answer, I wonder? In order to prevent cap gangs, which do happen already, something needs to be changed.
And why is a carrier gang bad???
If people are too stupid to counter such a gang, they have no busines in 0.0 or low sec! People are incompetent and stupid and then they whine and whine and whine and then CCP is going to nerf good things only because of those ***!
What do you want next time? Nerf BS gangs? Nerf cruiser gangs? Maybe we should fly all in reapers or just migrate to Hello Kitten. Hmpf!
If there is a problem then it is LAG and AUTOAGRESSION of drones/fighters. Because in lag drones continue to fight but you have no counter against this because you cannot react because the server (ccp side) is lagging.
THAT they should change in a reasonable way. And exeactly that they do not change! Because the amount of autoagressing drones is still the same. STOP AUTOGRESSION of the drones/fighters and things are better already i think.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:34:00 -
[2074]
As for why this is happening, there are several interesting theories so far (more or less serious):
* CCP cannot handle the lag (which is caused by bugs in the drone/fighter code) and comes up with obscure reasons to nerf carriers instead of admitting it
* CCP employees got owned in lowsec by a mothership
* CCP are afraid that soon all older players will be in Capital ships and that will put a higher strain on the servers and scare off the newer players. It is worth noting that said older players usually pay for 2+ accounts and probably deserve to use more server resources.
* CCP's favourite alliance isn't the only one with plenty of capital ships anymore, so it's time to nerf them before they lose all their space.
* key designers have been taken away from EVE (to other projects) and noone in the game design team really knows the game very well. The whole ambulation stuff supports this theory...
* CCP wants older players to quit the game because they have amassed too much ingame wealth, many of them play the game for free anyway (by buying GTCs for ISK), so they are nerfing their solowtfpwnmobiles to **** them off. EVE is supposed to be a game for people who stay 7 months, right?
"...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) |
Arondor
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:35:00 -
[2075]
this is a colossaly bad idea... therefore it will go through EXACTLY as described... grow the BLOBs of battleships
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:38:00 -
[2076]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Hotblue
Originally by: Soulita Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42 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?
This is just flamebait, nobody who exists in a 0.0 alliance would ever agree with these changes, it makes owning carriers almost pointless.
The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
If you had ever lived in 0.0 you would know that there are never carrier/mom gangs without support already. CCP is claiming it's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. It's more like they screwed up early on and now want to change the role of the carrier, or they think this is less lag. Both of which are viable things to do, but first off they need to admit this, secondly think of a nerf that doesn't ruin the players' experience with these ships, which obviously this change would accomplish. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Heckelgruber
Amarr Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:39:00 -
[2077]
Apologies for any repetition of the ideas of others, I guess many are thinking the same thing.
- I disagree with the premise that carriers need a reduction in DPS or to have their roles clarified. - How would making them only useful as a logistics ships make any distinction in role from a logistics ship (apart from cost)? - Carriers die fairly easily if tackled by a well-setup gang, why do they need to be weakened? - If too many people are flying these without a fleet of support ships to protect them then perhaps it's because the risks of soloing aren't high enough. Why not look at increasing the death cost by lowering insurance payouts? - Carriers flying solo are easy to lock down with damps, making them harder to use effectively. Why not come up with a way of using gang size boost a carrier's scan resolution (or a bonus for targeting carriers with remote sensor boosters)?
Almost any change is better than this suggestion, I have never seen such resentment from the player base.
A year ago I was inspired by the idea of playing Eve because of the notion of one day getting to fly a carrier and control scores of drone fighters. Three months ago and unable to wait any longer I started another account JUST to train a carrier pilot from scratch. If a Thanatos has no more teeth than a well-skilled Domi with Ogre IIs then I don't see the point in continuing with that account at all.
Before you ask if you can have my stuff, yes you can. Although all I have is a Minmatar shuttle.
|
OMEGA 8473
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:39:00 -
[2078]
People calm down, you will not change anything.
Eve used to be a harsh and difficult game. It was not attractive to new players (so it was claimend). CCP made a business decision to change that and started with "enhancing the new player expirience" and give out ****loads of SP to new chars.
With all the changes made over the last year, CCP is trying "to level the field" as they want to attract new customers. That is why we are seeing these changes and more important that is why CCP is listening to all the "whiners". These "whiners" (as they are referred to by many in this tread) are mostly "Empire Dwellers" with no or little idea on how 0.0 functions. Just check your map, with Pilots in space and you will see, that approx. 3/4 of all Eve Players are in Empire at any given time. These kind of carebears (as they are referred to also) are the majority of the EVE Players (even if it is a silent majority.
Now take into account the new changes in Trinity: Graphics (ever zoomed out much in an fleet fight?) and PvE content mainly.
So what does this tell us? In my opinion they are slowly changing EVE into a more Mainstream, light game, mainly designed for the more casual (or one could say "not so dedicated") gamer, which more easily accesible content. Basically they are on the way of transforming EVE into Hello Kitty Online with Guns.
As a someone in this tread put it "customer rotation" is also a marketing principle. Obviously CCP changend their preference from the "long term subscriber" to the medium or short term subscriber, which will be easier attracted to a game which sets goals which are easier to reach (why train for a carrier, if it is only a better Domi which one could fly within two months).
And finally on a personal note: I spend nearly a year with this Char only training for a Carrier. He can barely do anything else, so I will have to terminate this char (yes you can have all my stuff for what its worth), if this change goes through.
Sorry for not beeing fully coherent in my post but I am pretty upset with CCP at the moment.
|
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:42:00 -
[2079]
What I really dislike about this dev blog was my first thought:
"Oh, seems carriers worked well enough for long enough, so now we are going to reduce their efficiency so that alliances are not as threatened from an attack."
It would be ok if that was done shortly after their introduction - but now that carriers in their present implementation helped the current alliances to get where they are - nerfing them is a direct favor of the established alliances since it reduces overall fleet firepower.
To me carriers always were logistics vessels, but the fact that they are being targetted and damped too fast made them almost worthless - by the time they can lock a smaller vessel to repair it said smaller vessel is already a smoking wreck. In the old version on opposing fleet had to chose between going after the carrier and ignoring the support, or killing off the support. Now they can do both at the same time - by killing the ships with the assigned fighters they weaken the support fleet AND the carrier at the same time.
And I utterly fail to see the advantage of the change - unless reducing overall fleet firepower is the goal.
Oh, it does probably create a demand for more alt accounts which might be the major motive for CCP to implement it.
For me it makes carriers totally worthless. If that is changed, I'd like to have my skill points back please.
Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn" |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:44:00 -
[2080]
Originally by: Crovan
You're talking around each other and past the actual issue :P. Also, I agree with Er0x, but mostly because I like his voice.
LoL. Well, we are and we are not Crovan. I say this because we both agree on the definition of what a Un-nerf is. We seem to have settled on it meaning æIt is the removal of a constraint or restrictionÆ. My friend here believes it is with regard to the drone bay size which, to be honest, is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
This would be especially true if prior to the implementation of such a scheme we first constrain a subject within ever decreasing concentric or spheres of operation. The example being; absolutely destroying the defensive capabilities of a particular specialised drone ship. It would be of no consequence what size its drone bay would be. This is where my friend and I part company in this discussion. Therefore to wield the nerf bat in such a manner as this to later reclaim the original schematic as a buff would be disingenuous at best.
In fact, the argument pro ænerfÆ itself is deeply flawed it makes far too many assumptions, so much so, to those experienced appears based in fairy tail. In addition the reasons behind imposing such restrictions are not exactly clear, why are we even having this discussion, hence my debate and positioning on the issue but as yet have heard no reasoning.
|
|
SasRipper
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:50:00 -
[2081]
Quality to the Game Design emm relation being ???? prior experience is clearly not required at ccp.
Fighters are already laggy & hard to control never mind assigning them to people.
The argument of there being used as bs killers is just foolish in 1v1 & 2v1 situations I would choose my bs every time. In a 3v1 situation I would choose my faction bs over my carrier in 99% of cases. Only when is 4 or more bs vs 1 would I choose my carrier.
I find it unacceptable that ccp constant lean towards the blob from constant hit point changes to dps nerfs & tank buffs. Also the fact is that you will force a carriers/moms to be used in gangs of 3+ thus encouraging the blob.
*snip* Sas has spoken this tread shall be locked. |
Argyle Jones
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:58:00 -
[2082]
A couple of times in the preceeding 79 pages of complaints against this brainfart CCP devs have replied that we should continue to post constructive criticism, and that we will be heard.
I seriously doubt that is true. Whenever CCP posts something in a dev-blog, it will happen sooner or later. When you proposed the NOS nerf, the eve player base came out in force on the forums and hundreds of replies with constructive criticism and (better yet) great suggestions for changing NOS were completely ignored as you went through with your own idea regardless.
I was well on my way to flying in a Hel class mothership. I have put all such ideas out of my head for the time being. I am only happy I haven't already bought one. Admittedly that makes me biased, but anyone actually playing eve should be considered biased...
As to criticising your so called 'idea':
- No-one is going to spend 30B+ ISK on a ship that can't defend itself.
- You can't make such dramatic changes once people have already invested their years and billions.
- Flying a glorified logistics boat just isn't fun. (Remember 'fun'? It's what we used to have)
- This change is in direct contradiction of your stated agenda to get carriers into the thick of the battle and away from the POS shields.
The list goes on and on.
/Argyle Jones
|
Par'Gellen
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:01:00 -
[2083]
Edited by: Par''Gellen on 23/10/2007 14:02:56 Zulupark, Interesting blog (I didn't read all 80 pages of this thread though). However, I think you are missiing the point. Think of it from the player's point of view. Who would really want to waste MONTHS of training time for this?
Speaking as someone who has flown a Thanatos on several occasions I can tell you NOBODY wants to spend that kind of time and isk on a ship that feels like a big paper bag with "SHOOT ME! I CAN'T DEFEND MYSELF!" painted on it. Ever watch a sci-fi flick where the lead fighter says something like "Go for the weakest ones first! Target the cap ships!" No.
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
All this fancy shmancy complicated delegation stuff has it's place, but the middle of a lag filled fleet battle isn't it. So far I have yet to encounter a ship of any size more useful than a good old-fashioned battleship. Nerfing the one's that come close isn't a step in the right direction. I regretted wasting all that time on the big stuff before I read this blog. Now that I know what kind of wierd reverse-logic changes you guys are tossing around the discussion table I'll never bother with caps again...
Cap ships are supposed to be scary, not silly. ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Serge
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:10:00 -
[2084]
easy solution to counter the proposed fighter limit:
Carriers / Moms delegate their fighters to each others so every ship gets max controlable fighters
needs how many carriers? around 3
does this prevent solo gank MOMs? no idea does this limit direct offensive capability of these solo gank low sec MOMs? jup does this limit direct offensive capability of carrier gangs of more than 2 carriers? nope does this add to making the game ever more unplayable? jup
in summary, this approach is plainly shortsighted imo
I might again point at excellent suggestions that have been raised: crovan's post --- Don¦t panic
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:13:00 -
[2085]
Originally by: Gnulpie
If there is a problem then it is LAG and AUTOAGRESSION of drones/fighters. Because in lag drones continue to fight but you have no counter against this because you cannot react because the server (ccp side) is lagging.
THAT they should change in a reasonable way. And exeactly that they do not change! Because the amount of autoagressing drones is still the same. STOP AUTOGRESSION of the drones/fighters and things are better already i think.
Don't know about you, but I watch my fighters like a hawk during fights, and they sure as hell don't wander round picking their own targets, turst me, I'd love it if they did in lag, but they don't.
|
klootoog
Mad Cow Productions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:23:00 -
[2086]
Edited by: klootoog on 23/10/2007 14:25:02 well i think all arguments against nerfing them have been given..
Just another linky to the petition "dont let mommy down"
[LINK] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601&page=17 [/LINK]
Proud member of Mad Cow Productions. Dont ask what Mad cow can do for you, but ask what you can do for Mad Cow... |
WhiteSnake
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:25:00 -
[2087]
Edited by: WhiteSnake on 23/10/2007 14:26:03 @ CCP wranler can you adjust your sec status so we can place a bounty on your head?
it is a pretty cool way to see how much loved or hated you are atm.
people that are against that idea place + bounty people that in favor with this idea place - bounty
both parts will give isk from their wallet, votes dont come cheap.
(my personal opinion is that you will gona be philty rich)
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:25:00 -
[2088]
Originally by: Haakelen Also,
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
But all this is all so utilitarian. Should we really operate on the maxim that carriers should be crazy-tanking damage-machines?
They're not. Fly one some time.
I may not have flown one myself but I've been in an alliance with plenty of them. So if they're not, why did I see things in alliance chat like "hahaha my archon is tanking all 20 of them"? Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? Why, when our gang of 50 jumped in on their camp of 20, did we lose almost all of our ships when they jumped in 6 carriers? Now, admittedly we did kill 3 of those 6 carriers... after MC jumped in 8 of their own. It's Capitals Online, folks.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Try assigning and reassigning fighters to people during a large fleet engagement, it's nigh impossible to do.
Large fleet engagements are not what this is about. It's "nigh impossible" to do much of anything in large fleet engagements except F1-F8. Tell me this, in a large fleet battle, do your fighters even get anywhere near the target before they're obliterated?
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Even without the lag and bugs that make the actual assigning of fighters fail the system of assigning fighters is inherently flawed. That's why you don't see people doing it. You end up assigning 100M per person worth [...] he's still liable to loose them simply because he's too busy controlling his ship to notice them enter warp or get hit by a couple officer smartbombs.
So basically you're arguing that this change shouldn't happen because your corpmates don't have the skill to handle it.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer I know you don't like getting ganked by motherships in low sec but breaking two ship classes is not the way to remedy that.
My argument has nothing to do with motherships in lowsec.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer If you want to see a viable method of forcing carriers to always have a support fleet see some of my earlier posts.
Let me see if I got your idea straight: you think that carriers should be able to launch 5 drones of one type per gang member at once, but they'd be under the control of the commander instead of the carrier pilot? That drastically increases a carrier's damage potential (counterproductive) while putting the expensive fighters in the hands of someone else who is likely to lose them (counterproductive by your own argument). Even if the principle of the idea weren't so completely flawed and exploitable, a gang with 3 ships (say, recons) and 1 carrier would have the damage of a current mothership. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from as a carrier pilot yourself... --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:27:00 -
[2089]
Originally by: Par'Gellen
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
I just think they should increase the building requirments! as in more mins etc I think Cap ships way too common atm! more of Cap fleets than real fleets.
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:32:00 -
[2090]
No, this is stupid. Carriers are not the ultimate own mobile right now that people think they are. If you do this you need to lower the requirements and the cost of this ship. Otherwise there is no point training for the damn things. And thanks for all the time I have wasted training to get into one. Idiocy.
|
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:37:00 -
[2091]
Originally by: Haakelen Cyan, if your goal here is to go against the status quo of more ships = victory
That is not my goal. I am arguing against more capitals = victory.
Quote: More ships cause lag. Nobody wants lag. There's no fair way to solve that 'problem'. CCP needs to make the server work better. It's their problem, not ours.
I think Jita has taught us what happens when CCP increases the server capacity, though. It'll just fill up to the verge of unplayability again. The only solution is what CCP has been desperately trying to do for ages: discourage large gangs.
Quote: Nerfing isn't the answer. It just hurts the game.
Does it? Seems to me PVP's much more fun now without The Mighty Nosferatu. I actually had a fight the other day where I lost simply because I was outdamaged and outtanked and not just because I ran out of cap instantly and couldn't shoot for 90% of the fight. That made me happy. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:40:00 -
[2092]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? Why, when our gang of 50 jumped in on their camp of 20, did we lose almost all of our ships when they jumped in 6 carriers?
Please just go work out the damage a carrier does yourself, it's not hard
Dragonfly Example:
Damage per Fighter = 75, Rate of Fire 6.38. Damage Modifier = 4.25 Damage Per Second = 49.9608 X Fighter Skill Level.
ThatÆs a max of 100 DPS per fighter. Assuming the carrier pilots has completely maxed skills thatÆs 1500 DPS (average would be closer to 900). ThatÆs not even 2 battleships.
So they could tank youÆre a couple of your battleships? There multi-billion ISK ships?! Bring a Dreadnaught or 3-4 blaster Megathron and see how fast you melt them then.
|
Flynn Tagart
Caldari Blood Eagle Federation Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:41:00 -
[2093]
CCP, I don't know why you had to promote an idiot to ruin the games great properties, and seeing as its said he has only spent 2 years at CCP, I believe that the players who have been here to bringing this game up to what it is are Senior to this Coffee maker. Anyone who has been playing since '03 are senior to zulupark (wtf kind of name is that seriously?) because they know more about the game than he does.
If you nerf the greatest properties of this game, then you guys might as well as merge with Sony, and call this Star Wars Galaxies: ALL SPACE VERSION/Without First Person since you guys are doing a hell of a great damn job of destroying a good game.
I did not spend up to 2 billion isk, just so a Battleship can be superior to me I am not saving for snake implants and Deadspace Hardeners just so I can lose them to a couple battleships, just because I only had 5 drones to throw at them at a time, and the drones not doing the job and being destroyed.
Zulupark, Go back to making Oveur's coffee, kissing his shoes shined, Maidening his office and house, and waxing his car. Oh, forgot, clean his toilet too. When your done with all that, go back to cleaning the rest of the real Game designer's houses and vehicles ________________ President of Blood Eagle Federation [B-E-F] Emperor of Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss [SFA] |
CopyCatz
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:41:00 -
[2094]
2 days, 80 pages, 2300+ posts and only 3 dev post that didn't give any insight on the matter...
|
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:52:00 -
[2095]
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Par'Gellen
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
I just think they should increase the building requirments! as in more mins etc I think Cap ships way too common atm! more of Cap fleets than real fleets.
OMG do you have ANY idea at all ??? Do you know what kind of farming it takes to get a carrier +skills + fits ? + 1 year at the very least to get it decent . If they're so common just get one instead of saying it should cost even more than its already ridiculously huge price.
Anyway here's my second thought about all this :
BUFF THE CARRIERS /MOMS, it is totally unacceptable that such huge ships have ridiculous amounts of cap/sec considering the mods they use for supporting, and its also completely unjustified that any random dampening cruiser can make the ship almost useless. oh yeah, and give us more high slots too .
NERF the dampeners, they should definitely have the same size-related problems as the ecms vs sensor strength.
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:53:00 -
[2096]
I agree with a post above, if you do this let me cycle my sp to something else or lose a sub, 2 if you count my alt. Sign The Petition!
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:53:00 -
[2097]
Edited by: Kublai Khan on 23/10/2007 14:55:53 I know alot of ppl won't like this, but I also know alot will like it.
So from what come out ppl agree that CCP are afraid of the "only" capital gangs and want to nerf them so other ships will be used. By far most ppl want the carriers to be front line ships tho, something too look forward to and a progression after battleships. I do see CCP's worries about this tho. But what is there that allows the "only" capital gangs that one have seen? Interdictors and their ability to go in, initiate warp and drop bubble and be out safe while the carrier gang can attack whats caught. If these ships were made into working like heavy dictors then there would be a bigger need for more support just to hold the enemy in place...
Dictors and the stupid hit and run method while leaving the bubble alive also make ppl less interested into comitting to battles that seems against their odds. If they had gone for it but are loosing, then most of them will die cause one guy could scramble 50 and all their pods would go down in flames as well. This is partly why speed setups are so interesting also as it lets ppl avoid bubbles easily. These ships removed lots of the tactics involved with pvping, its just drop bubble and gank everyone... It's booring compared to when we needed ceptors and cruisers to go in and tackle, ew and let the battleships deal the damage. Now you just need everyone in a battleship and 10 guys in dictors... Or as CCP worries about: 20 carriers and 20 dictors...
Scenario of how it can be today: we have a 50 man fleet wanting to jump into system A from B, this is a mixed fleet. In system A we have a 50 man fleet, mostly battleships at snipe range and 5 dictors. What will the fleet in B do? Jump in and go for it, maybe warp off to a planet and try and regroup and go back and hit the battleships? Well, they could, but chances are that most of their fleet will get caught in the bubbles dropped and ravaged by the sniping fleet.
Scenario of no dictors: Fleet in B can decide to jump in, either engage fight at the gate and send their fast ceptors and cruisers off to scramble the hostile battleships at range, while their slower heavy support kills the limited support at the gate. Battleships can hold cloack abit waiting for ceptors to close distance and start scambling and we could have potentionally a nice fight where the battleships juming in from B can warp off and come back again in if primaried because fleet in A didnt have support but brought only battleships.
CCP should drop this horrid idea of making capital ships useless for anything but booring POS warfare and rather give a bigger incentive for support to be on the field with the carriers and dare I say battleship groups. Make the carriers useless without their support. Interceptor changes are going in this direction allready, maybe some of the T1 cruiers could be given tackling bonus as well...
Find a new way for the dictor to work: For instance let it run a capital scrambler able to prevent jumping, let it bubble only work with the dictor on grid, or let it have a bubble that works the same way as the heavy dictors.
The current way that a few interdictors can do all the tackling job for a larger battleship or carrier only group, is at least partly whats causing the problem with the capital gangs. It's made the game very booring compared to how it was before for me at least. Instant scramble hundreds of ship by clicking warp, activate bubble launcher and fly off to let your huge gang annihilate everyone else is just stupid... At least mobile warp disruptors ties you down to one spot.
Incentives for support instead of removing Carriers from the game!
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:57:00 -
[2098]
Originally by: CopyCatz 2 days, 80 pages, 2300+ posts and only 3 dev post that didn't give any insight on the matter...
Dunno.... I think Eris' post provided us with more insight into how CCP works and how little they actually know of the game they run, than we really want
Because we don't agree with their 'grand' and 'informed' decisions (this coming from a dev who can't fly carriers and never has!), we're 'biased' and gets no cookies
Not only are we 'biased' when we expose their ignorance to how the game works, we also don't deserve to know what problem they're supposedly trying to solve is, nor do we deserve any answers.
I can really see only one reason for their behavior, and that is that they want us older players (12+ months) to leave
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.
|
John McCreedy
Caldari Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:01:00 -
[2099]
After 80 pages I guess you've probably stopped following this thread but nonetheless, allow me to start this thread by saying welcome to your new job, probably the most thankless in CCP
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
I'd say the answers generally are:
1. No, most people hate this idea vehemently.
2. As above
3. N/A
4. Because the role can be achieved more efficiently with a Logistics Cruiser which requires less investment in training time and ISK and can be replaced a lot faster than a Carrier can. Whenever making decisions on what to field, you have to look at the cost of performing that role. Why will I use a Carrier at a cost of 1 bn ISK or a Mothership at a cost of upwards of 30 bn ISK when I can use a Logistics Cruiser at between 1/10 and 1/300 of the cost? Is it worth the investment and training required for this ship if all I can ever hope to do is sit at a ss/POS and have increased micro-management because not only do I still have to look after my fighters but I also have to keep delegating them to disposable frigs?
These are the questions you should be asking yourself.
This proposed nerf, and let's not forget that it's only proposed at this time so give the guy a break, seems to be a typical knee-jerk response to the mob moaning about solo pwning Motherships in Empire. Well the answer to that is simple - stop them deploying fighters/Drone in Empire.
In summary, please try to understand that people are against it not because it nerfs their firepower but because it increases micro-management and prevents front line deployment which isn't going to make for a fun game for those of us specialised in offensive Carrier operations
Make a Difference
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:06:00 -
[2100]
Edited by: Coniglietta Magica on 23/10/2007 15:08:03 If you like your limited logistics carrier so much.. Add another ship to the game, don't **** everyone who has spent a year training to fly a "carrier".
Solution to mother ships in empire: Bandwidth jammers employed by factions, effectively limiting the available bandwidth to 5 drones. Sign The Petition!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |