| 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) |
Airdorn
Gallente
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
   |
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:00:00 -
[241]
Why has CCP been beating around the bush here for the past 4 years? Just go ahead and make all the ships exactly the same in all respects.. We can modify the paintjobs of that 1 common ship model, but that's it.
That will solve the problem of over/under power, "ship of the month", whining about ships being overpowered, etc.
|
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:00:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 21/10/2007 14:01:17
Let's do some simple math:
My two carrier alts can launch/delegate ten fighters each (20 fighters total) at a cost of ~2.5b isk, including hull, mods, drones, etc.
One mothership pilots can launch/delegate 20 fighters total, at a cost of 15b isk, only counting the hull.
Same amount of lag, and a hell of a lot less risk, especially in laggy situations. Plus, they can remote rep eachother, giving either ~4 capital repair systems, instead of 2.
Why have motherships at all?
|
Ahistaja
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 -
[243]
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
However, if CCP is unable to fix fighter lag... I wouldn't mind this change. I think people would get used to it after a while. Keep in mind drone interface is being improved in Rev3, so at this time we're not seeing the whole picture. At the very least least this change reduces lag in 100-capital megafleets, which is the main problem in this game at this point IMHO. It also puts more emphasis on non-capital ships, which is welcome, and puts more demand for skill into fleet combat for both assigner and assignee's side (which should benefit BoB and MC as opposed to the dumb goon nublets, amirite?)
Also, while it's being cried as big mothership nerf... with the increased importance of supportfleets, it would simultaneously be a buff for the usefulness of Titans.
Furthermore,
 Quote:
Have you considered the assault ship to have a fighter control role? Give them a damage bonus to fighters or similar under their control. This would be for the ishkur and one assault ship in each race.
This.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.
Keep up the great work CCP!
SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Perpello
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 -
[245]
Awful idea. 
Carriers will see no reason to take risk in direct combat.
At best, it will result in carriers returning to POS hugging but this time outside force field. At worst, pilots will simply feel their carrier has become an expensive battleship, think about time and money they wasted, click cancel account.
Seriously, the quicker you trash can this idea the better it will be for everyone.
A better idea would be looking into triage mode.
|
VCBee 263
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 -
[246]
Edited by: VCBee 263 on 21/10/2007 14:02:19
edit: bah..
Carriers suck. Just remove caps from the game alltogether.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:03:00 -
[247]
Hey look Zulupark don't feel bad no-one's going to make fun of you for acknowledging that your ideas are really awful and throwing them away. Please don't feel compelled to go through with them in an attempt to maintain face buddy. :)
|
Zaylc
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:04:00 -
[248]
this is the worst idea i've ever heard of. it would prob be best if you went back to your old department. no offense but this is total horse****
|
Gegina
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:04:00 -
[249]
I was gonna write up something constructive but then i took another peek at that dev blog so here is my reply to you mister Zulupark:
Hey! I'm with stupid!
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 -
[250]
I loled hard until I realised someone actually meant it seriously. 
If this is introduction of jump capable freighters, don't forget to increase hangar space and rename carrier class to something else.
|
|
|
Jamie Hara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.
Keep up the great work CCP!
SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one
Hey now, lets keep it civil in here. I've seen plenty of carriers and I fly one. Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters. Bring some friends,  . Fly a smaller ship if you want to solo. |
Cadela Fria
Amarr
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 -
[252]
I know they (CCP) said this wasn't a finalized idea yet, however I must protest now..this idea is going totally the wrong way!
Removing the amount of fighters a mothership can launch at a time? I'm sorry, but whats the point of having a mothership then?
Launch 5 fighters, then assign them, launch 5 more you say? In other words the mothership itself won't be able to utilize it's own fighters...right....
I'm very VERY concerned about this idea and the direction CCP are taking this. Being the owner of a carrier myself, going towards flying a mothership, I now feel compelled to stop training for a mothership, as there's no reason left to even fly one.
Please please, PLEASE scrap this idea CCP, for the love of the last few bits of fun we have left!
|
El'jonson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 -
[253]
Carriers and MS are fine, they shoulf kick ass and if someone is dumb enough to go 1 on 1 tough luck. As most of the carrier and MS pilots have pointed out its rare that they go into battle with no surport so making this change is a waste of time. What CCP should fix is...
1. The Lagg
2. Drone and fighter bugs and the control interface
3. If you want more people to use their carriers and MS in support roles fix and improve the triarge mod so that it isn't some sort of suiside handbrake
|
Crohok
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:13:00 -
[254]
can someone please explain me why flying a MS with this nerf ?
carriers are way less expansive if it's for doing remote rep and delegate fighters near a POS ... and no way to bring them in the middle of a laggy fleet fight if you can not control more than 5 fighter to defend a ship that costs billions...
|
Hatsim
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:13:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Hatsim on 21/10/2007 14:13:51
For the new Guy @ CCP... Simple fact that you can do with carriers and moms... Give them 5drones HIGHER DAMAGE so they dont looose the DPS. that way it reduce lagg from fighterblobs but maintains the damage and, While we are at it. assign fighters gets no bonuses from the carrier/mom pilot. making them assign and maintain the damage from drones.. simple and eazy to make them maintain the damage and reduce lag. SOABS
and yes the Fighters should not be like paperthin frigs. they should be like a HAC! LIKE A DEIMOS ^^ but with less DPS ^^
"imagine a dozen hornets pouring from the devil's mouth, Now imagine they have autocannons."
/Hatsim |
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:13:00 -
[256]
Quote:
Iæm posting here now because the last few days weæve been looking at the way capital and supercapital ships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
Yeah and I'm a little concerned with the direction CCP is taking lately. Recycling more and more ship models to cut on development time, pushing every aspect of the game to get more stuff destroyed so new stuff has to be bought, increasing isk flow and CCP's wallet. Nothing is being done to afk cloaking, nano coward pirates etc. If you're "concerned", please state the real concerns if any. The only problems I see with the number of fighters is the lag that cant seem to be fixed and loosing yet another few hundred mils worth of them due to a node crash.
|
Jamie Hara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:15:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters.
Fighter delegation is lag-inducing, boring, and broken.
I think it's more fun working with friends in gangs than going solo.
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Bring some friends,
CCP are meant to be encouraging small-ship gang warfare, not off-grid force projection and altasmic blobfests.
You don't have any non-capital pilots in your gangs that you can delegate fighters too?  This change is the least of your problems. |
Serrano Balthar
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:17:00 -
[258]
isn't triage mode supposed to do that ??
ohhh gueess it's completly useless mods ... look @ it and leave carrier as they are .
-----------
Igvar Thorn arn ! |
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:17:00 -
[259]
The whole reason The Establishment built our Mothership (and subsequent Motherships) in the first place, was to increase our power projection to be able to stand up to the much larger corps and alliances in the game. We're a corp of about 12-15 active people at most, we have no intention of getting bigger than this, because its the lifestyle we enjoy of good mates, playing the game, knowing you can count on them to watch your back in a battle. In most cases there's only 4-5 of us in a gang, so its quite easy to bump into much larger gangs than us where we're suddenly stuck. Whatever your arguements against how we use the Mothership, in the hands of a corp our size, its an invaluable tool for fighting much stronger opponents than us.
Whilst logistically speaking - should this change go ahead - we can still use these ships to remote rep our support ships, they otherwise become very difficult to micro-manage in battle as people have mentioned to keep track of your fighter assignments. It feels to me the massive amount of effort we had to make to build these ships ourselves is being thrown away. And considering how tiny we are, thats no small feat.
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:18:00 -
[260]
Edited by: Nyphur on 21/10/2007 14:31:38
I could do a better job than you, Zulu. Try harder.
This is the same logic that CCP has been using on titan balance and look how spectacularly that has failed. People move from one gimmick setup to another with their titans because nobody will field them the way you want unless there's a sufficient advantage to doing so. People will always do whatever is safest while still being effective when they use capitals. Every time CCP nerfs one broken titan setup designed to keep it safe while deployed, another comes along. If there's no way to give your titan disproportionately large safety while deployed, there's a lot of incentive not to use it on the frontlines as the risk is very high and that's a huge investment in a ship.
As dozens of people have already said, you can't encourage people to use a carrier more for logistics by nerfing the hell out of the fighter usage. Triage mode already nerfs fighter usage and boosts logistics, giving players who have trained the ridiculous skill requirements a choice of aiding their gang or fighting, the reason people aren't using it is that it's a massive risk. You're stuck in place for 10 minutes and can't even be remote repaired and in gang/fleet warfare, that means you're dead if the enemy call you as a target.
Some food for thought.. Why are you trying to encourage remote-deployability of capital offence when CCP's official design position lately has been to remove it? Remote doomsdays ad being able to assign fighters from inside a POS shield were removed for that exact reason. This change would just encourage people to skim the shield and assign fighters.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
|
|
Empire marketslave
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:19:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Crohok
can someone please explain me why flying a MS with this nerf ?
carriers are way less expansive if it's for doing remote rep and delegate fighters near a POS ... and no way to bring them in the middle of a laggy fleet fight if you can not control more than 5 fighter to defend a ship that costs billions...
you can assign A LOT of fighters 
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:19:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Jamie Hara
I think it's more fun working with friends in gangs than going solo.
You mean like carriers do now? I'd prefer not to be playing a game where I can go afk and noone can tell the difference.
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 -
[263]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
I can see how you might think that since everyone is talking about reducing lag and keeping motherships out of lowsec. But we all get understand. The truth is that this idea is about as popular as Michael Vick at a PITA rally and since you're new at this people are trying to give you new ideas similar to you're own that fix problems with the game that actually exist rather than inventing new problems that don't exist.
By bringing up ways to change carriers to help reduce lag and keep motherships out of low sec we are trying to give you the opertunity to say "errrr. yeah! That's what I meant to say!" so then we can all <3 you. If you make an effort to reduce lag in fleet battles by reducing the number of fighters and making them more powerful or banning motherships from lowsec then we will all be happy little customers and will think you're the best GM ever.
No one wants the dev team spending time fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you want a capital logistics class of ships, then develop a new one. Do not change an existing class into something other than what people trained for and purchased. It's just not right.
There are real existing problems with the game that need to be addressed. I don't think you would here one person complaining if you said you were adjusting how carriers work to fix an existing problem with the game. However the changes you are proposing fixes something that isn't broken. When you get into that territory I guarantee that you'll cause more problems than you solve every single time.
------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Kanitsu Hiyaboosa
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Bob Novak
2) Don't allow carriers or motherships to direct any fighters themselves. It doesn't make sense that a ship that is basically a giant hollowed out container for drones would also have all the infrastructure for controlling them at long ranges/across warp distances, engaging multiple targets, etc.
You do know that Fighters actually have pilots in them right? They are not automated robots like drones which is why a lot of the drone skills don't work on fighters.
|
Jasai Kameron
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 -
[265]
It's okay, Zulupark. 12 pages of personal abuse isn't all that bad. I still like you.
Hug?
But seriously, if you do implement this change you are going to have to sort out a lot of problems with Carriers and the game. Even notwithstanding how unpopular support Carriers are, you'd have to fix a lot of things like lag and triage mode before this idea becomes remotely feasible.
|
Perpello
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:21:00 -
[266]
This has to be some lame joke on the new guy, from the other developers. Get the new guy to propose an idea, get him to suffer for a while, so he feels at home in his new job. Bet they are all laughing their bottoms off right now. 
|
Easy Kill
Minmatar
Rens 911
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:22:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Kanitsu Hiyaboosa
Originally by: Bob Novak
2) Don't allow carriers or motherships to direct any fighters themselves. It doesn't make sense that a ship that is basically a giant hollowed out container for drones would also have all the infrastructure for controlling them at long ranges/across warp distances, engaging multiple targets, etc.
You do know that Fighters actually have pilots in them right? They are not automated robots like drones which is why a lot of the drone skills don't work on fighters.
Cursed eve forums, Kanitsu is my char.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:22:00 -
[268]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.
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?
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot?
No, but thanks for posting constructively
Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight?
Yes
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself????
For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? Bad analogy, my mistake, move along, nothing to see.
For you others: It can still defend itself, but let's be real, why would you ever get yourself into a situation where the last line of defense between you and an attacking fleet are you fighters?
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?
Who do we send mail to, to complain about your absolute mis-understanding?
I.E. who is your boss? who do i contact to try and get you to end this?
do YOU fly a carrier? have you spent NINE MONTHS. training carrier only skills? i highly doubt it
Do you not understand how much this kill large scale capital operations? this isn't balance it's stupidity.
if you HAVE taken part in a fleet fight or two, name them i call BULL**** that you have. cause you have no clue what your talkniog about
|
Bosjathfort
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:24:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Bosjathfort on 21/10/2007 14:25:18
Worst idea I have ever heard of... Fix the LAG that is generated by those fighters!! Nothing else!!!!
\\(^O^ )// o/ \o !!null |
gone fishing
x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:26:00 -
[270]
omg how lame think about smaller corps who doesnt have so much support.
If this is the way ccp want things because they think theese ships are overpowered take a look at the killboards around carriers and moms are dieng all over the place.
let these ships alone let em stay the way they are ang go fix your servers instead to reduce lag
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |