| 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) |
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime
Praesidium Libertatis
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:37:00 -
[2611]
 Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Hyuuga Veralis
However now 9 out of 10 combat situations called for a carrier and not a dread, despite CCP's claim (awhile back) that if you want capital firepower, bring a dread.
Blame dread not carrier IMO.
It could be said that the Dread was overnerf'd. Shame we cannot creat battles where it's capital vs capital, to replace big blobs. It makes it hard on the smaller guys though 
|
Crovan
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:39:00 -
[2612]
Well, given that my corp and alliance is currently bleeding members like a hemophiliac at a razor blade factory, and given that I've had some sleepy time between my last post and now, and given that I just spent 45 minutes catching up on this thread, I have a few more things to say.
First, thanks for the promise of more news forthcoming. To be honest, I haven't cancelled my accounts yet, but I am ready to if this goes through (4 for those keeping score). Also, I have to ask the people suggesting compromises if they read some earlier posts stating that this could, in all likelihood, be a ploy to get the community to accept a less comprehensive nerf without grumbling. I think the reaction has been more vigorous than expected, to say the least.
Next, stop trash-talking the devs. Whether or not we were lied to is a separate issue, but the personal insults and whatnot are simply too much. Zulupark is likely just the new guy that CCP threw under the train for this nerf. They would never (I hope) allow a new dev to come up with, on his own, a change this massive in implication.
Yes, it is troubling that the changes currently on Sisi reflect what we have been told will be the carrier nerf. At the same time, live on Sisi and live on TQ are two entirely different kettles of fish. Plenty of stuff goes live on Sisi that may never see the light of day on TQ. It could just be that CCP wanted to give the players a chance to fiddle with the mechanics (however, if that is the case, tell us so). Or, it could actually be a screwup. It does happen. So before you go pounding those cancel buttons, wait to see what the outcome is. I think enough people have already done so to demonstrate that we are serious.
Also, I have to say that I fall in with the crowd that says accept no compromise. I have tried my best to offer reasoned discussion of why the perceived problem is not present the way CCP believe it is. The devs tell us they are listening. Give us some evidence of this fact. The comments I have seen on this forum and which have been relayed from in-game are not encouraging, and every flippant response loses you more accounts.
I, for one am awaiting the next blog. I have tried my best to be constructive, and if the reason given later is that the plan went ahead for a lack of constructive alternatives, then I will be gravely disappointed.
For a rundown:
Constructive ideas:
1. Capital ships should be subject to an aggression timer before being able to jump out of a system, just like sub-capitals are. This makes lowsec mothership camping a riskier proposition. I still maintain that camping lowsec with one or a few carriers is suicidal as it is.
2. Capital-scale warp scramblers. Allow something like this to be fitted to other capitals/supercapitals to allow mothership scrambling. Alternatively, place something like this at lowsec stargates (I would prefer to have it as a module).
3. Disallow smartbombs in lowsec. Really, the only purpose they serve in lowsec is for these mom-campers to instagib frigates and the like warping into them. It would also make them much more prone to bumping by smaller vessels, preventing them from warping.
4. Create a new anti-fighter shipclass. This ship could even be expanded to fill other roles, maybe just an overgunned, undertanked cruiser/destroyer. Maybe give it a bonus against fighters.
5. Capital guns on lowsec gates. A corpmate and I discussed this. Let the gate guns do real damage to these ships, but make them track like normal capital guns (i.e. unable to hit a moving battleship).
In the end, I think there has been a failure to demonstrate why there is a problem that needs to be solved, other than perhaps lowsec mom camping. The above ideas do not nerf the ship, but change the environment or game mechanics to make the solo camping mom a bit more reliant on a support fleet.
Please, give us an answer soon. Thug couldn't kill the MC. CCP is doing a good job atm
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:42:00 -
[2613]
When i enquired as the aim of the nerf to sisi, i was told by a QA member it was aimed mainly at lowsec motherships. The devs i was chatting to seemed totally oblivious to the problems with forcing a 2-3:1 support:carrier ratio has and the problems inherent in drone assignment, so i asked them if they'd ever used carriers in a TQ fleet engagement (only fair, they'd asked me if i'd ever used the drone ui or the fleet ui  ), and was told i'd "crossed the line into nonsense" and that they "weren't talking to me anymore".
I was gutted. Honestly.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:44:00 -
[2614]
Originally by: Elmicker
When i enquired as the aim of the nerf to sisi, i was told by a QA member it was aimed mainly at lowsec motherships. The devs i was chatting to seemed totally oblivious to the problems with forcing a 2-3:1 support:carrier ratio has and the problems inherent in drone assignment, so i asked them if they'd ever used carriers in a TQ fleet engagement (only fair, they'd asked me if i'd ever used the drone ui or the fleet ui ), and was told i'd "crossed the line into nonsense" and that they "weren't talking to me anymore".
I was gutted. Honestly.
post the chat logs
|
Alex Under
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:47:00 -
[2615]
You've already made these changes on SISI. When did this 'idea' from a dev blog suddenly become an 'implementation'? Having CCP say: "...this is just an idea we're thinking about...", nothing concrete and then have it on SiSi 2 days later makes me feel very much lied to. You've apparently already made up minds to change carriers 
Carriers don't need to be changed. How about you concentrate on fixing the other 999 bugs in the game first. 
How about you start with this thread first
--> http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp
What your proposing to change doesn't make any sense at all. There's no logic to it at all. Does CCP really want to lose it's players?
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:47:00 -
[2616]
Originally by: Reptzo
post the chat logs
Awwh, now, that wouldn't be very fair on the poor devs now, would it?
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:47:00 -
[2617]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Reptzo
post the chat logs
Awwh, now, that wouldn't be very fair on the poor devs now, would it?
LOGS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN
|
Idara
Caldari
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:48:00 -
[2618]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Reptzo
post the chat logs
Awwh, now, that wouldn't be very fair on the poor devs now, would it?
I see what you did there.
---
in EVE - Idara |
Fogy
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:49:00 -
[2619]
IMO you'r nerfing something that isnt the real problem.
A carrier is very vulnerable to dampeners.. 1 lachesis or arazu.. or even the t1 version putting it's dampeners on the it at the right time, is all it takes to make it a floating wreck. (ofc with the suport of some dps.)
The problem is with the Moms beeing abused by lovsec pirates.. i know thees guys wants theyr hands on the super cap's aswell, and a mom is basicly the top of what it's posible for them to gett, and for what's most usefull for theyr evil doings!
The problem is mainly with the EW invulnerability IN LOW SEC!
for all parties the best way to turn this around, is by making a RP nerf.. Turn off the EW safe stuff in low sec.. and the main problem is solved.
Turning the number of fighters usable by the pilote it self is like saying a dread pilote can only use 1 gun him self.. the rest will have to be controlled by other pod pilotes..
Face it CCP, this idea was broken befor it was spawned.. And on top of that, a HUGE insult to the carrier/mom pilotes who spendt theyr time from the release of the said shipps til now hoaning theyr skills for thees shipps.
I'm glad I havent spendt more than 2 weeks on carrier specific skills, and have allready canstled my carrier training to aim for a dread..
WTS Thanatos, 18 fighters, 2x capital armor repairs, 4x drone controll modules.
Cheers!
Fogy
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait
ps : nerf Zulu in the face 
|
Idara
Caldari
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:52:00 -
[2620]
TEH DEV BLOG THEY PROMISED
---
in EVE - Idara |
Goca
KAOS.
KA0S Theory
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:54:00 -
[2621]
Man, came into this late, seriously what are the requirements to be a dev? like 6th grade education, being deaf and only able to type but not read what others type?
104 pages, roughly 98%+ against this.. no use repeating what almost every single other person has said here about how stupid this idea is..
you would think CCP would step back from this ******** idea and distance themselves from anything this moron ever comes up with ever again.
sometimes you can chalk stupid ideas brought up by someone new as being a noob at things, but other times you have to sit down, take a look and think, ok this guy is gonna suck at this job and find someone with at least half a brain..
rant off..
oh wait, how's this for an idea that will be universally accepted by 100% of the posters here, fix the ******* lag.. ffs..
|
JonVe
Gallente
FireTech
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:58:00 -
[2622]
About ****ing time that we got the blog.
And not good enough IMO.
|
Vily
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:00:00 -
[2623]
blog confusing....
are they not doing it or doing it?
-
 |
Goca
KAOS.
KA0S Theory
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:00:00 -
[2624]
Originally by: JonVe
About ****ing time that we got the blog.
And not good enough IMO.
agreed, looks like a normal CCP whitewash,
a complete "we ****** up and have no idea how to fix this game so it is playable so we are throwing every stupid idea we can think of out there as fast as we can, so it looks like we are doing something"
would have been better...
|
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:01:00 -
[2625]
Edited by: Icome4u on 24/10/2007 01:01:48
To summon it up.
No they are not nerfing it like this now.
Yes they will nerf it in the future (but in a 'different' way).
Edit: i'm still waiting for my apology from CCP.
|
Idara
Caldari
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:02:00 -
[2626]
They aren't doing it now apparently.
They'll wait for the next round of subs to kick in (THREE MONTHS) before touching them again.
---
in EVE - Idara |
Bon Hedus
Amarr
O.E.C
Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:04:00 -
[2627]
yes they are nerfing it now... only 5 fighters unless you have support
Unbelievable, just unbelievable...
--------------------------------------
Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Vily
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:05:00 -
[2628]
account staying canceled
-
|
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:06:00 -
[2629]
My accounts are staying canceled until i see something satisfactory. You guys should do the same.
|
elohllird
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:07:00 -
[2630]
what a pile of crap ccp, a half hearted back track, dressed up with big words which bares no relation to the game or how people use carriers.
|
JonVe
Gallente
FireTech
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:07:00 -
[2631]
To 200 pages!
|
Arito Ka
Gallente
Teeth Of The Hydra
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:07:00 -
[2632]
Well, this is shaping up to be an interesting thread. Lets see if I can add something constructive.
1. I didn't think carriers were in need of "fixing" or being changed into a huge logistics cruiser.
2. If I did, there are a number of changes which would be better than this.
a. Changing the remote repairing ability of the carrier so that the modules are more effective on smaller ships and less cap intensive.
b. Since lag might still prohibit the above solution in large battles, either make an area remote repper so that support ships close to the carrier are gradually repped over time (since in most battles the carriers are damped forever and back) or make repair bots auto-agro on nearby gangmates that are taking damage (neither of these would affect other capital pilots, to prevent the same turtling that is happening now, but worse). This will allow carriers to have definite advantages for being on the field of battle, even if there is lag.
The changes in their current form will only result in carrier pilots being much more likely to hang out at a POS where the grid lag isnt so bad and assign fighters from there (which they won't like doing, but it will be better than the alternative), which will mean that using carriers as an offensive weapon to attack an enemy system will be even less likely than it is now, unless the attackers can get their carriers in-system and to a friendly POS before they are attacked.
It also doesn't fix the mothership in low-sec problem. Moms rarely gank people solo in low-sec with fighters or drones, because of their huge lock times. So they either need support to hold down the target, or they use smartbombs. If the mom is using support, this change won't affect them too much, since many of them use alts. If they use smartbombs, this does absolutely nothing.
|
Goca
KAOS.
KA0S Theory
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:08:00 -
[2633]
what I really want to know is, why do we always need this "balancing" going on?
so what if one ship shoots better then another?
why in online games after a couple years does everyone think we always need the balance stick to come.
seen so many great games that were sickenly unbalanced, but God they were fun, become boring repetitive balanced games.. that the devs thought were better right up until they had to close their doors because no one played the damn things anymore.
trust me get off the balance kick, unbalanced games are much more fun..
or say screw it and just make all the ships in this game fire one type of weapon and do the exact same kind of damage and all ships have the same hitpoints..
weee cannot wait..
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr
STK Scientific
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:11:00 -
[2634]
So Iæm not nerfed today but in 3 months instead?
Yes, but not like proposed earlier. You will have more choices to make. You can be all you can be, just not all at the same time. We will look at tracking of Fighters, Drones and so forth, including the addition of more Fighter types. We will look at new modules for a broader selection, and at moving basic functionality to modules, such as you have to fit the ship hangar to get the functionality, but offer something up in exchange(like, a slot).
That is at the core of the new proposal. You retain your abilities, power, and versatility, but at a cost you chose. After all, choice is what EVE has been about. You should know, you painstakingly trained yourself through all the different ship classes and their role-sets.
This is far from being an unnecessary ôrandom nerfö, we care a lot about EVE and we strongly believe weÆre doing everything we can to make it better. ItÆs against everything that EVE stands for that one ship is able to counter ôalmostö every other ship, can do all roles, all the time, without drawbacks. And that must change.
-Nozh
Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental.
Taken word for word. I can actually support it in the vision they have for it, though i disagree with how powerful they are, even when using the term "almost" like they did.
For your vision to become reality, you will need several things to occur:
1.)Fighters will need to be cheaper, they cost alot, and for somebody to give me thiers means they KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT i know what im doing. You want them to give them out more, the price needs to drop.
2.) Triage mode will need to be revamped, completely. As you so plainly state, they are not meant to be dreads, so the penalty that comes with Siege mode should not be duplicated on the carrier for filling its natural role.
3.)Revamp the interface, both in method and appearance. Let the owner see when his drones are getting boned, so he can call him home. Make the damn drone smart enough to go home to daddy automatically upon death/disconnect/desync/evevomit what have you.
And ffs, try not to present such a radical idea and have something like it show up on the test server a few days later, everybody knows carrier pilots are all Emo kids, and they get excited easily (j/k guys).
|
Druadan
Gallente
Aristotle Enterprises
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:12:00 -
[2635]
Edited by: Druadan on 24/10/2007 01:13:25
Originally by: Icome4u
My accounts are staying canceled until i see something satisfactory. You guys should do the same.
Indeed. This devblog is not an apology for the stupid idea, and it is not a retraction. It's a ''we're codefreezing in two days and won't be able to come up with an adequate bribe in time, so we're going to nerf you in three months instead.''
My accounts remain cancelled, paid up until December anyway, to see what ideas CCP come up with. A fighter/drone reduction is just unacceptable. If you must nerf carriers' abilities to fight smaller ships (I don't see why since they can't lock small ships for ****, get damped way too easily, and light drones are every ship's defence against small ships anyway), then do it a good way, not a ship-breaking way. We made note in this thread of how easily small ships lock down carriers, but apparently CCP weren't reading.
|
Neu Bastian
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:19:00 -
[2636]
CARRIERS they carry ships, or, in this case; drones. Fighters kill BS's too fast? then make them better suited to kill other capitals...or easier to kill, or both, and leave the BS to the heavy drones. Changing the amount of drones a carrier can use goes against the whole concept of the ship.
what about the guy who uses carriers to solo though missions? huh? HUH?
|
kateona
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:20:00 -
[2637]
CCP has let us down.........In a nerf that is total BS. A carrier that we bought and we trained for. Now has be to shared to make even a difference in the battle field. Its total BS that someone who spends over a year training for it now has to be limited to sharing it with other ppl to get the full benefit even if its on the frontline. I can see the issue with carriers not on the frontline but carriers that are in harms way in the first place are now getting nerfed bc ccp or whoever feels the need to nerf something they have no idea about. Learn the game then do your nerfs.....Playing in Jove space doesn't count.......
|
Sandslinger
NorCorp Security
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:23:00 -
[2638]
Originally by: Neu Bastian
CARRIERS amount of drones a carrier can use goes against the whole concept of the ship.
what about the guy who uses carriers to solo though missions? huh? HUH?
Carriers were never intended to be solo omfgsolowtfbbq machines
Solo through missions ? EVE is a MMO CCP will never promote solo playing styles. As neither they should.
|
Ezzaron
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:32:00 -
[2639]
Originally by: Neu Bastian
what about the guy who uses carriers to solo though missions? huh? HUH?
what about the guy who uses battleships to solo though missions? huh? HUH?
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:34:00 -
[2640]
Dev blog translation: In 3 months we will stealth nerf the carriers anyway.
"We donæt want Carriers and Motherships to be as effective against smaller ships (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battlecruisers) while being just as effective against the larger ships (Battleships and up) at the same time. "
This is total crap. So my 2 billion dollar carrier cant kill a 30k frigate.
|
| |
|
| 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 |