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) |
military man
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:22:00 -
[2551]
i hate this idea! having more then 5 fighters out is one of the main ideas to train for a carrier... don't change anythign about the carrier or motherships..
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:22:00 -
[2552]
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe.
That sounded well and good and this thread -full of anger and disillusionment as it was- was winding down. Then the changes went on the test server and in my 2 years here 99% of what's gone on the test server has made it into the game -admittedly it can end up heavily modified but the point stands. Those of us who have been around for a while know that what gets to the test server is coming our way soon, it might get nerfed or buffed but it's coming. This means two things: A) those bastards lied to us when they said it was just an idea, it was a fully coded change being uploaded to the server B) it's not just an idea up for discussion, it's happening regardless of what we say, they just pretend to care
Thanks for emphasizing how much of a lie that was. "just an idea" my ass!
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Hyuuga Veralis
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:24:00 -
[2553]
Originally by: Haakelen Advanced Spaceship Command 5. Capital Ships.
And don't say 'get a dread'. Dreads are different animals entirely.
Yes, dreads are the capital ships that are made for offense.
Carriers are not.
If anything CCP screwed up by letting carriers be more offense than logistics for too long and people got used to it. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made. |
Menellaix
Angel of War Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:24:00 -
[2554]
Originally by: Manfred Sideous
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended12/04/2008 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 12/04/2008 5:35:45 PM Remaining Playtime: 171d:18h:33m
Originally by: Stradivarious
Subscription Status: Active Cancellation Pending Expires: 27. October 2007 Total Charges Made: 51
LOLOL! Although, I can think of a few counterbalances to this which would be quite nice. Stuff like:
- Carrier get a Inate Warp Core Strength bonus like the blockade runners.
- Fighter prices are reduced by 50%.
- Bandwidth is used to reduce the number of fighters to 5, but fighter get a 25% damage bonus and you can still control 10-15 drones.
This "nerf" could be countered with so many nice features....if only you all knew how to negotiate.
|
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:25:00 -
[2555]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Originally by: from blog
Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe.
... Then the changes went on the test server ....
you said the magic word TEST!
|
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:25:00 -
[2556]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
With bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Thought I should reply to this
Eris; carriers are not a 'win' button. I think the proposals do help refocus the carrier on its role as understood today; a support ship in the middle of a fleet. However, in order to remove the power the carrier gets from its fighters some balance is needed.
Firstly, I would sujest working on fixing and improving the drone interface so that the carrier pilot can watch the readouts on his assigned drones and recall them for repairs should they get to damaged. This turns the carrier from a big drone boat to more of a fleet control vessel; fitting warfare link mods and calling targets. The same goes for the mothership. I will miss my 15 Ogre II's sure, but if I was compensated witha sensible and inteligent drone interface, I would be OK with that.
The second key change comes from logistics modules. If you want the carrier to be a support ship, then it must be able to run it's tank full bore, and still have the cap to sustain practical levels of gang repair. Right now, it is hard to get the range and impossible to sustain most remote repair modules, even in Triage mode, without burning out your cap. Some well thought out changes here would be good.
Thirdly the carrier's ship bays, and the mothership's jump clone vats need to be looked at. They could both make AMAZING tools for a gang or fleet; the ability to refit in space, rearm and redeploy pilots as a situation changes, allowing gangs to opperate deep in hostile territory without the normal support provided by stations or POSs. In other words, make a carrier like a mobile forward opperations base, as WELL as a gang or fleet command post.
Befor discussing far reaching 'nerfs' to game mechanics, current mechanics need to be improved to encourage players to use the ships in the way you intended from the start, rather then FORCING them to do as you see fit through 'nerfs'. All this does is provoke anger from the community and foster a sence of resentment against you and the development team
I would be amazed to hear a Dev comment on this post; I doubt I will but please consider talking to your player base more!
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:28:00 -
[2557]
So where's that Dev Blog?
And why do we need to wait for one for an answer?
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:28:00 -
[2558]
Originally by: JonVe So where's that Dev Blog?
And why do we need to wait for one for an answer?
It takes time to put lipstick on a pig.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:30:00 -
[2559]
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: JonVe So where's that Dev Blog?
And why do we need to wait for one for an answer?
It takes time to put lipstick on a pig.
OMG you owe me a new laptop after the Mountain Dew I just spewed on this one from reading that. That's awesome!
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:30:00 -
[2560]
Originally by: Menellaix
Originally by: Manfred Sideous
STOP POSTING THIS TRAP
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:33:00 -
[2561]
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
... Then the changes went on the test server ....
you said the magic word TEST!
And you edited out quite a few words that while perhaps not possessing otherworldly powers were very important.
Like where they say it was "just an idea" and 48 hours later BAM it's completely coded and being implemented on said test server. Thus they lied to us. Furthermore, the fact that they have time to implement it but not to discuss it with us is insulting and irritating in equal measures and then there's the part where those of us that have been around for a while know that 99% of what goes on the test server goes live in some form.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:33:00 -
[2562]
Originally by: Mundem Pashdale Edited by: Mundem Pashdale on 23/10/2007 23:29:50
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
With bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Thought I should reply to this
Eris; carriers are not a 'win' button. I think the proposals do help refocus the carrier on its role as understood today; a support ship in the middle of a fleet. However, in order to remove the power the carrier gets from its fighters some balance is needed.
Firstly, I would sujest working on fixing and improving the drone interface so that the carrier pilot can watch the readouts on his assigned drones and recall them for repairs should they get to damaged. This turns the carrier from a big drone boat to more of a fleet control vessel; fitting warfare link mods and calling targets. The same goes for the mothership. I will miss my 15 Ogre II's sure, but if I was compensated witha sensible and inteligent drone interface, I would be OK with that.
The second key change comes from logistics modules. If you want the carrier to be a support ship, then it must be able to run it's tank full bore, and still have the cap to sustain practical levels of gang repair. Right now, it is hard to get the range and impossible to sustain most remote repair modules, even in Triage mode, without burning out your cap. Some well thought out changes here would be good.
Thirdly the carrier's ship bays, and the mothership's jump clone vats need to be looked at. They could both make AMAZING tools for a gang or fleet; the ability to refit in space, rearm and redeploy pilots as a situation changes, allowing gangs to opperate deep in hostile territory without the normal support provided by stations or POSs. In other words, make a carrier like a mobile forward opperations base, as WELL as a gang or fleet command post.
Befor discussing far reaching 'nerfs' to game mechanics, current mechanics need to be improved to encourage players to use the ships in the way you intended from the start, rather then FORCING them to do as you see fit through 'nerfs'. All this does is provoke anger from the community and foster a sence of resentment against you and the development team
I would be amazed to hear a Dev comment on this post; I doubt I will but please consider talking to your player base more!
EDIT:
There are many excelent comments in this thread. I love the ones about fleet and combat carriers; give the players the options they want instead of the solutions you want. Eve works when people work together (most of us are in corperations or alliances, for pitty's sake!) so why can't the Devs work with the community a bit more?
Fire the guy with the stupid idea, hire this guy, he at least has SOME clue as to how to deal with people, and the function of his ship.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:34:00 -
[2563]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Update - We've been working hard to address your concerns. There will be a new dev blog up very soon which should hopefully clarify things a bit. Hang in there, guys and gals.
|
aquontium
Gallente Fourth Circle Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:35:00 -
[2564]
Fighters are expensive drones, easily popped. Limiting to 5 (unless you triple their damage output) is stupid, as a carrier is in no way a solo pwn-mobile. If you take the most blessed one (midslots = 5), then by the time you fit 2 sensor boosters and a scram and a webber, your cap recharge is stuffed for all intents and purposes. You still take 30 seconds to lock most things you meet, and small gangs can run away. Big ones use logistics and wipe out your capital ships. Uff.
Having spent a long, long time skilling for capital ships on my main, and then longer, much longer, to fly them well, I hoped that they'd be more use than a T1 freighter. You'll let them go through jump gates now I hope? Capital ships cost 10x the price of a battleship and kill only with 1.5x more impunity. They cost a few million to move systems and rely on having another pilot weak and immobile for ten minutes. Farming complexes, then T2 BPOs and farming static complexes has engorged the wealth of the Eve universe. The way to fix 'capital ships as battleships' is to reduce the economic disparity between the top and bottom of the social scale. All they can do for offence is 'hit things bigger than moons' or 'deploy bees and sit around uselessly' and for defence 'rep'. Triage mode is the most useless thing since.......actually, all comparisons fail, everything I think of is more useful. They can't even run the L5 missions you put 4 jumpgates in! Instead you need 3-4 battleships (command ships are painfully lost to neut towers). Station warfare is a case of bumping off the undock path (surely you can make this more intelligent) and for the stations with 30km dock range, almost impossible.
Speaking on behalf of most carrier pilots, I can safely say that we're not interested in putting a billion isk of ships plus half a billion or more in fittings to the front line for them to be blown to pieces by dreads without being able to defend themselves, and by any competent few-battleship fleet. 1 non-capital remote repper shouldn't be able to keep a tier-1 battleship alive against a capital-class ship, and with your proposed changes, it can - indeed a carrier can't break most battleships tanks. Additionally, it takes a minute or two to warp off and has the maneuverability of a toilet.
What's left to break with carriers?
PS. WTS: Thanatos pilot, Thanatos.
|
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:37:00 -
[2565]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
... Then the changes went on the test server ....
you said the magic word TEST!
And you edited out quite a few words that while perhaps not possessing otherworldly powers were very important.
Like where they say it was "just an idea" and 48 hours later BAM it's completely coded and being implemented on said test server. Thus they lied to us. Furthermore, the fact that they have time to implement it but not to discuss it with us is insulting and irritating in equal measures and then there's the part where those of us that have been around for a while know that 99% of what goes on the test server goes live in some form.
I know but for me test mean test and idea mean idea
and they can always rollback any change made
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:39:00 -
[2566]
Originally by: Hyuuga Veralis
Originally by: Haakelen Advanced Spaceship Command 5. Capital Ships.
And don't say 'get a dread'. Dreads are different animals entirely.
Yes, dreads are the capital ships that are made for offense.
Carriers are not.
If anything CCP screwed up by letting carriers be more offense than logistics for too long and people got used to it.
Sigh, please fly or be involved in capital warefare in ANY way before replying.
Dreads cannot hit battleships when they are sieged, their tracking is to slow.
Dreads can only lock 2 targets after the latest nerf to dreads about 3 months ago.
Some Dreads like Pheonixes will not do any damage to smaller ships due to sig radius penalties against citadel torps.
So yeah, offensive, a ship that can sit there but can't shoot anything.
|
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:39:00 -
[2567]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620312&page=1#11
Originally by: Wizzkidy
Originally by: MotherMoon but it's not on the test server... omg, why, why are people so dense!
Umm.. it was about an hour ago when I jumped in my carrier.
anyone else can check?
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:39:00 -
[2568]
|
GC13
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:42:00 -
[2569]
I've been striving not to wade into this, but...
This will make an unbelievable hassle for carrier pilots with the current interface. Being able to easily observe the HP of all of your fighters in space will be a big help, though not enough. A simple right-click option "Share fighters with" for gang members that would automatically delegate fighters to them (and anybody else with this option enabled by the carrier pilot) as fighters beyond the five the carrier pilot could control himself were launched would spare the carrier pilot huge amounts of agony micromanaging the incredibly unimportant aspect of who gets fighters when they're re-launched after a shield boost in the bay.
Of course, the ability to automatically instruct your fighters to return to the drone bay for repairs if they needed it would be nice, but then would come the whining about such and such. You'd still need to launch replacements while the old one recharged shields (after that change is put in) though.
And of course, in addition to that (hopefully) new suggestion, I'd like to re-iterate the question: what is this fixing? I was unaware that gank squads of forty carriers without support were a problem. All this time I thought the effort was to push carriers to the front line, and now this that again provides a disincentive to do so? Seems to be a better solution would be to cut fighter range down to normal drone control range, meaning that unless you're right in the fight you'd delegate your fighters to someone who was. Wouldn't that help? (And while you're at it, you could cut the cap cost of capital shield/armor transfer down by 20%...)
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:42:00 -
[2570]
guys, guys, guys, I really don't think they are going to nerf the carrier in this manner anymore.
Grab a beer, do some homework, build a few industrial ships to sell in agil, camp a gate, and just chilllll.
|
|
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:42:00 -
[2571]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
Fire the guy with the stupid idea, hire this guy, he at least has SOME clue as to how to deal with people, and the function of his ship.
Thanks mate; I would send my CV to CCP but they'd not reply! Their best resource is the player base and it seems they've forgotten how to best use it
Vote MUNDEM for Dev!
|
Moridin920
Gallente Capital One
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:43:00 -
[2572]
This idea does not deliver. =/
Having said that, welcome to the game design department, Zulupark, hopefully your next idea to balance out carriers + moms a little bit will be more successful.
To be honest though, you say not making it an uber-solopwnmobileohgod machine, which is great, but that idea would totally defang them. I doubt a carrier could even kill my Dominix with that change, at least not without it taking 100s of millions of isk in losses from me killing its fighters (I can tank its heavies no problem =/).
I think carriers + moms shouldn't be able to kill 10 man battleship gangs, fine. But they can't. I do think a carrier should at the very least be able to kill 2-3 battleships by itself, because as people have already mentioned, they are capital ships and the investment of time + isk into them should pay off in that way.
Or, if you insist on defanging them, give them some insane support bonuses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience our piracy may have caused you, but, we are pirates and, sadly, this is our way." |
Hyuuga Veralis
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:45:00 -
[2573]
This might be crazy, but I'd bet that the Iceland guys are asleep for the most part.
Honestly, who stays until after midnight just to listen to people scream about something you won't likely address until the next day anyways?
That said, barring any changes in the moros I forsee lots of those being used since carrier pilots who just want the ability to kill anything smaller than a cap can use the wtfpwn drones. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made. |
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:46:00 -
[2574]
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620312&page=1#11
Originally by: Wizzkidy
Originally by: MotherMoon but it's not on the test server... omg, why, why are people so dense!
Umm.. it was about an hour ago when I jumped in my carrier.
anyone else can check?
checked, its there
|
bldyannoyed
Un4seen Development
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:50:00 -
[2575]
Edited by: bldyannoyed on 23/10/2007 23:51:07 Have they considered how much more of a nerf this is to the Thantos?
Atm a Thannys bonus only applies to fighters under its direct control.
By being forced to delegate its fighter damage bonus is rendered effectively useless.
Rather like a Nidhoggur in that respect actually.
|
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:52:00 -
[2576]
Originally by: bldyannoyed Edited by: bldyannoyed on 23/10/2007 23:51:07 Have they considered how much more of a nerf this is to the Thantos?
Atm a Thannys bonus only applies to fighters under its direct control.
By being forced to delegate its fighter damage bonus is rendered effectively useless.
Rather like a Nidhoggur in that respect actually.
Holy crap! I forgot about that! And I'm over half way through Gallente Carrier 5
|
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:52:00 -
[2577]
but wait a minute....
is on the test server what they implemented is the bandwidth... or THIS idea?
what if the bandwidth make it look like THIS idea
|
Traxio Nacho
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:52:00 -
[2578]
Quote: [19:05:18] CCP Gangleri > Everyone that is crying about their Carrier, take a long deep breath and compare your carriers ability to kill small targets with a Dread. Which is bigger and more expensive.
I believe the words **** you very much CCP comes to mind
To be honest to any dev actually bothering to read this you might as well go the whole hog and sell the company to EA, because if you still go through with this after feed back then I think you've finally crossed that line......
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:55:00 -
[2579]
hehe,
This is sweet! When I got to battle with my carrier mates, I am going in a shuttle and posting my killboard on here.
:ship destroyed: caracal :delivered the final blow: Sharupak in his ****in shuttle! Thats who!! word!
Seriously though, this type of thing could really give small ships a boost! You would want to assign your fighters to smaller faster ships because they are harder to hit. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:56:00 -
[2580]
Quote: CCP Gangleri > Everyone that is crying about their Carrier, take a long deep breath and compare your carriers ability to kill small targets with a Dread. Which is bigger and more expensive.
The issue is not killing SMALL things. I have light drones for that. It's killing ANYTHING
Deep breath already taken. See earlier post to Eris
|
|
|
|
|
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 |