| 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) |
Ztrain
Evolution
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:35:00 -
[2671]
 Originally by: CCP Nozh
In an effort to shift the role of Carriers and Motherships from being assault ships to fleet logistic ships, as well as reducing their solo fighting ability, we wanted to limit the amount of fighters a carrier or mothership could field solo. By allowing them to control only up to 5 fighters themselves, but delegate up to 15/25(Carrier/Mothership w. drone control units) we're making them rely more on support if they are to unleash their full combat potential.
Sorry but anyone that thinks a mothership costing 30bil or a carrier costing 800 mil shouldn't be able to fly solo and kill a battleship costing 60 mil is an idiot. You should need a large gang to deal with and kill a capital, "mothership" If you can't figure that out then I guess it must be a cultural difference with Icelanders. It's not the difficult of a concept to grasp for most of the rest of the world. An F16 should be able to shoot down an old world war 2 Zero etc.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet
I have never seen a 100% capital fleet engagement without support being around. Without support caps die period. Have the dev's played the game since t20? Sure doesn't seem like it.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat
They are extreamly valuable. You need cov ops to see enemy movements, Interceptors and dictors to tackle fleet and caps, You need Battleships to do gate fast gage engements and clearing. You need fleet to be able to jump accross systems to chase down enemy forces. Fleet is extreamly important to have even with a large capital force.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters.
Again a need that was developed by the developers that ride the special bus. Your supposed capital wing mans gonna have a cyno gen up his ass and won't be going anywhere.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list"
I'll believe it when I see it. So far you've claimed you've fixed a lot. Still waiting for when the stuff you've suppsily fixed will be noticeable. But in how many years you've been unable to fix lag? So until it's fixed your going to have issues delegating anything no matter how pretty your artists make it.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive.
Then you better fix lag again. But the changes you've talked about implementing if I'll have to work on delegating my fighters to everyone else. I'm going to be sitting at a POS shield. There's no reason for me to be on grid with the fighters. As it stands right now I can have my carrier pilots fighter skills and in the case of some caps a ship bonus giving my fighters more dps. If I have to delegate to others control skills anyways. The benefits vs the risk dictate sit at the POS under your new changes.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines.
Here's the ohh wait something that we forgot to tell you /cough we made up just a minute here ago just to make things sound not as bad. To be honest as it say's proof or STFU. If you want us to consider that as a point lets see some numbers. Last change you made to mom and carrier hauling capabilities you removed cans from carried industrials cutting their hauling capacity by nearly 25%. So by your history of nerfing you have a history of wanting carriers and moms to haul less.
Z
CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Cadela Fria
Amarr
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:42:00 -
[2672]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 24/10/2007 05:50:34
Originally by: New Devblog
It’s against everything that EVE stands for that one ship is able to counter “almost” every other ship, can do all roles, all the time, without drawbacks. And that must change.
Good Sir, I am delighted to see you start out remarking that a carrier is a ship capable of countering ALMOST every other ship.
While I believe this to be false in and on itself, atleast you said "almost". The ""'s I dont understand, but that's besides the point.
Let's assume for a moment that a carrier is indeed a great counter to many ships, which it is - However have you thought this through? Could, and are, Ishtar's not accomplishing the same exact thing? Kill anything from a frigate to a battleship with relative ease. Even other battleships can accomplish the same thing..In fact, I've seen a Thorax, a T1 cruiser, accomplish that of tearing a battleship a new one, purely on it's own, and I could keep going, but I digress.
All roles is your follow-up remark, to which I must reply: Sir, you must be kidding me...
I would like a carrier to accomplish just 1! of the following things:
1.!Effectively! make use of a scan probe launcher and scan probes, in a hostile PvP situation. (Interdictors, cov ops ships etc)
2. Do recon (Covert ops, reconships, any fast ship)
3. Do recon while using a covert ops cloaking device (Covert ops, reconships)
4. Sell various items in Jita (Any non-capital ship)
5. Setup a POS in Empire (Industrials)
6. REPAIR a POS in Empire (Logistical Cruisers, or anything with logistical modules)
7. Repair a ship in Empire (Logistical cruisers, or anything with logistical modules)
8. Participate in a roaming gang (All non-capital ships)
9. Provide direct fire support (No, drones are NOT -direct fire-) (Battleships)
10. Carry an outpost egg (Freighters)
11. Interception at the same efficiency as an Interceptor class frigate. (Interceptors)
12. Put a small, medium or large POS into reinforced mode, at the same or less time than a Dreadnought would do so. (Dreads)
13. Fire a doomsday device. (Titans)
14. Open a jumpportal. (Titans)
15. Lock a Pod before it warps off after it's ship was destroyed. (Interceptors)
16. Efficiently kill another capitalship, pure DPS wise. (Dreads)
17. Launch a interdiction sphere (Interdictors)
18. Utilize stripminers (Mining barges)
19. Utilize ANY turret based weapon (Self explanatory, direct fire combat ship)
20. Utilize ANY missile based weapon (Yet again, self explanatory, direct fire combat ship)
21. Compress Minerals (Rorqual)
These are just off-hand tasks that popped out at me without really thinking about it, so I could POSSIBLY keep coming up with more of them.
Now I would dare say that being locked away in lowsec and 0.0, IS drawback, a major one at that, but thats the price of such an expensive, big and demanding ship.
Carriers and motherships already require a LOT of teamwork to MAKE, TRAIN FOR, MAINTAIN and OPERATE. If ye nay believe me, I invite you to come see how we, MC, utilize ours, provided our leaders would 'OK' it.
My point being? That, in my opinion, your assesment of the carrier and mothership, is faulty and you need to start over. Hopefully arriving at the conclusion that I have, is that, you're wrong..These ships do NOT need to be changed.
With humble regards
- Cadela Fria.
|
Ztrain
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:49:00 -
[2673]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We've spent the last couple of days going back to the drawing board, looking at alternative solutions, reading and evaluating feedback and our conclusion is that to fully realize the goal of allowing the Carriers and Motherships all these multiple roles would require more effort than we can achieve before our code freeze in a couple of days. Our reasoning is, as stated before, simple. It's not the number of roles they can perform, it's that they can do them all without drawbacks such as the lack of need to refit for the occasion. This means that we wonæt change Carriers or Motherships damage abilities in our next expansion.
Listen to some of the idea's in this huge thread. I've read them and several of them are great and make a lot of sense. Obviously there are some who play this game that are a lot better at coming up with features then you are. Use those resources.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
We want to continue to allow the multiple roles, many of them at the same time, but there will be choices have to be made.
And this is where the accounts will stay canceled. Would you like to specify more or is this just going to play out all over again in 3 months when you show that you have no idea how to balance something that doesn't need balancing?
Originally by: CCP Nozh
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.
Sweet great! Sounds like a plan! Fighters have a hard time as is hitting smaller targets. Code the description of what's on the carrier and motherships themselves. Ability to deploy an additional "fighter" per skill level. Drone control units only allow you to deploy additional fighters and same for bonus. All other drones are caped to 5 based on your fighter skill. It's not that hard of a fix just get your ***** head programmers to code the descriptions you have on the ships.
Originally by: CCP Nozh
blah blah blah stuff coming in 3 months
To be honest that probably the best part of the whole blog if done correctly. Continuing on what you said in the last section....if you have staff capable of actually designing properly (not holding breath looking at past history) you could make for some wicked fun with this.
Give all carriers and Motherships 8 high slots. Remove their ship maintenance, corp hanger, and drone bay's. Make all of them high slots. So maybe one person doesn't care about logistics but wants tons of fighters because they use their carrier and mom as a front line support and loose drones a lot in DD's etc. Or some carrier pilots tend to be loot haulers from the battle field so they may only need one drone bay module instead of two but they'll want a corp hanger mod or two for the extra loot. Or you may have the carriers brining in tons of dictors to dispense to the cap tacklers if a major cap fight is expected. This idea has much potential if your capable of actually designing and implementing it properly.
Okay rant over. At this stage don't see enough to warrant re enabling my accounts. Your response is way too wishy washy Maybe if you fill in with more detail but at the present still don't think you can deliver what people want.
Z
CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:54:00 -
[2674]
Originally by: Idara
TEH DEV BLOG THEY PROMISED
Quote:
If you can do all that (and probably a lot more) extremely efficiently with a single ship, why would EVE need any others? The problem is not that Carriers and Motherships are overpowered in a single specific role, but that they're extremely proficient in very many roles. In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it.
Just LOL ... Who is this "Nozh" guy and what game has he been playing? This is utter bull****, there are plenty of roles that Carriers are not suitable for (sniping, scouting, tackling, roaming, hit & run, soloing, belt ratting, missions)... How can he be so arrogant to ask rhetoric questions like "why would EVE need any others [ships]?".
CCP is seriously out of touch, I don't know what to say.
Quote:
A few points you need to take into consideration when looking at this change:
* Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet
More completely unrealistic remarks - noone uses a Carrier or Mothership these days unless the situation is 100% safe OR there is plenty of support, they are expensive and easy to lose
Quote:
Our reasoning is, as stated before, simple. It's not the number of roles they can perform, it's that they can do them all without drawbacks such as the lack of need to refit for the occasion.
That's kinda funny ... The ship that allows other ships to refit in space should not be able to perform in multiple roles without refitting.
Quote:
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.
Someone has obviously never tried to kill smaller ships with a Carrier, let alone a single well-tanked Battleship.
*shakes head*
Quote:
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.
CCP, it's time to play with open cards and tell us what exactly you're trying to fix. Is it the 10.000 Carriers on TQ that you don't like? How many Battleships are there? What else should older players be using in your opinion? I'm sorry, but if the Battleship should be the final fighting ship in EVE, then EVE is a game with about 6 months' worth of play and not 4 years. I don't know what your more experienced employees are doing right now, but perhaps it's time to listen to your players who, you know, according to your PR folks are those who are shaping the game ...
"...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) |
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:59:00 -
[2675]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
Edited by: Grath Telkin on 24/10/2007 01:18:11
So Iæm not nerfed today but in 3 months instead?
It's called "meeting financial expectations for 2007". Next year it's more convenient to bleed long-time customers, since they will be doing more Hello Kitty Online type stuff over the year to lure in new players.
"...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) |
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:00:00 -
[2676]
Originally by: Gyle
Thats 16245 Euros a month in renvenue that will evaporate.
That's a lot of gourmet sandwiches, but most companies like CCP will probably fire some customer relations people first. :-P
"...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) |
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:02:00 -
[2677]
Originally by: Xune
Originally by: JonVe
Originally by: Cadela Fria
I second this sentiment...I dare you, come to our space CCP, bring 20 carriers...or 20 motherships if you must, I guarentee you, we will kill every single one of them.
I would pay to see this.
i pay to be a part of it !
I have ALREADY paid to be part of this. For over a year, with eight accounts.
I'm upset because this, which I *HAVE* paid for, will cease to exist.
|
Brungar
Caldari
Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:10:00 -
[2678]
In an earlier response i vented my frustration on having spent a year training up a character specifically for carrier pilot. And becoming pretty useless with an un-needed, ill-informed nerf, that reduced the usefulness to virtually nil.
I didn't realize that that was only a small part of the investment. Let's look at the larger picture of investment made by many alliances related to (super)carriers:
- cash invested in capital and component BPO's, as I expect their use to drop dramatically
- cash invested by alliance in securing an area of 0.0 for shipyard deployment, getting sov to defend them etc
- cash lost defending such space
- cash invested in capital shipyards
- time spent training the production skills
- time spent defending the above space
etc etc.
Silly me. I forgot the new EVE is about getting everyone back to Empire. Can you please nerf the drone regions some more as well, I'm not sure the message got through yet.
Do you have any idea how much this is hurting the people who have invested massively in making 0.0 an interesting place? Never mind the few billions invested in carriers ans skill books, that's just a drop in the ocean.
"War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:12:00 -
[2679]
Originally by: Helison
Originally by: Xune
Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 22:31:02
CCP Abathur
Im stillw aiting for a response about this here... nothing to say ? no ? not a bit ? no one else ? you are trying to fool us ?.
I want your response to this. Why did you activly lied to us ? just to keep us silent ? or did you simply not know which would be allso somewhat shocking.
Originally by: Xune
Originally by: Xune
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Abathur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 23/10/2007 18:40:56
Ladies and Gentlemen, this has to do with the upcoming drone and fighter bandwidth and is not related to the delegation idea. The test server gets updated daily and as Trinity gets closer to release you will likely see a lot of things happening there. We are also working on an updated new dev blog to outline our concerns and plans for carriers. Please do not jump to conclusions and be patient. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a false information!
This is a false information!
This is a false information!
This is a false information!
Bandwith of an archon is exactly 125mb
Light drones tech2 take 5 mb
ergo i should be able to start 10+3 Drones from carrier and 3 controll units since its NOT going over the Bandwith limitation of the carrier.
Actualy i can launche 8. which means 5 from my drone skill +1 each from Drone controll unit (tested without controll units 5 drones, with 1 controll unit 6 drones and so on)
So DONT lie into our faces saying its not the limitation or the removal of the drone/fighter add bonus from the carriers.
Ccp what exactly are your trying to do here ?
I just checked this on Sisi, and I have no problems to launch 12 Hammerhead II from my Carrier (with 4 drone control units).
I don¦t like the nerf myself, but please get first your facts correct before attacking Devs.
I tested it, 4 other people tested it and gave me the same feedback. A bug with the archon itself then ?
|
RAFAEL101
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:25:00 -
[2680]
So the plan is to make everyone into crappy carrier, pilots and the money spent on the carriers should be used to buy alcohol to wash away your disappointment. Heck why don't we make carriers shoot bunnies and crap crickets at the damn enemy, maybe that would make them die.
I think i speak for everyone when i say Goodbye! Just like AOL users when they log off.
One has to wonder if you folks play the same game as we do.
|
|
|
Sol Mortis
Caldari
Terminal Velocity Inc.
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:34:00 -
[2681]
I am a Recon/Heavy Assault Cruiser pilot, I am going to further specialize in these followed by command ships followed by battleships (specifically Black Ops) specialization. I do not ever intend on training carriers/capships except maybe distant distant future. Anyhow, I am just outlining this plan to reveal where my own priorities are.
I think this is a horrible change for carriers. I think it is a terrible idea though I didn't even have interest in cap ships myself before this change, and I am even less attracted to them now. Really, I don't see how you can justify lettings a person basically keep their weapons (number of fighters) but make them give them away to other people; fighters which are worth far too much money, and even if you make them cheaper it is messed up to give somebody's hard earned toys to other people. I am a Recon/HAC pilot, i don't expect to command flights of carrier fighters. Yet now people who have trained for around a year to be able to command carrier fighters are expected to hand these weapons over to anyone who hasn't such as myself. I know I would be ****ed if I had to give control of 3/4 of my Falcon's Jammers to my gang/corp/alliance mates who are tackle frigate or interceptor specialists.
Really, don't take people's toys away; make new toys to counter those toys. Something I have seen says "make fighters more vulnerable." Which I think is a great comprosmise. Specifically, make fighters more vulnerable to frigates and destroyers. Make fighters cheaper and easier to kill by frigates/destroyers; and a bit easier for cruisers; then they are the bane to battleships and not everything else. Use drone bandwidth to allow carriers to carry larger numbers of more easily expended fighters while giving the same amount of control to the pilot of the carrier/mothership; while also allowind frigates, destroyers and properly fitted cruisers to be more effective at combating the fighters. This way the caps ships maintain a great weapon against battleships and require cruiser/firgate escort to protect them from frigates/cruisers that will destroy their fighters. Thus both sides will need cruisers/frigates to counter the other cruiser/frigates that will counter the fighters which can counter the battleships which can counter, etc... you get it.
But really, forcing carrier pilots to give away their weapons is tantamount to forcing any other class' pilot to delegate most of their high slot turrets, missiles, whatever; or even a support/ ecms mids, whatever. please let users retain usership over their ships. come up with a buff to something to put cap ships in their place, it is clear to me that many currently "useless" lower end ships could use a purpose for existence; make them better. Especially assault frigates! But really I mean this to say balance without taking from people, give instead ( I know not always possible, but use when it is.
nuclear pope r4pe |
Ilvania
Minmatar
Teeth Of The Hydra
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:51:00 -
[2682]
 You are going to take away a carriers defensive capabilities for what? Mark this down as asinine idea of the month.
|
Gyle
Caldari
Knights of Chaos
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:54:00 -
[2683]
Edited by: Gyle on 24/10/2007 06:54:50
How about this compramise suggestion?
Give us some feedback guys
|
Gyle
Caldari
Knights of Chaos
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:01:00 -
[2684]
Originally by: Khamal Jolstien
Good changes. Keep up the good work CCP. Ships fill a role. ISK does not give you a free pass to uber.
noob
|
Mangold
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:06:00 -
[2685]
Yet another CCP nerf to incurage more blobbing.
Seriously, wtf are you guys up to at CCP HQ?
|
Gartel Reiman
Project F3
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:41:00 -
[2686]
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac
Few thoughts :
-Forcing people to do something is bad, you need to encourage them to do what you want.
YES! Absolutely, 100% yes.
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac
=> Instead of adding a hard limit on fighters controlled by carriers/moms, add a bonus to the damage/speed/anything of the fighters while being delegated. As it will be more efficient, people will delegate fighters to ensure optimal efficiency.
=>To ensure people don't continue using all fighters on their own, the fighters can receive a malus while not delegated (on same stats).
Then, it won't be too much of hassle to launch all, engage a target, and finally you can delegate group per group, not loosing precious fighting time to launch 5 by five and to delegate each before being able to launch more.
This also removes the problems about what fighters do when the mate you delegated the fighters to dies. And this allows the carrier/mom pilot to either concentrate his attention on logistic or on fighter control (at lower efficiency, but still a good one).
The result is exactly what you wanted : the carrier/mom efficiency is based more on its support fleet than its direct control. Drone loving gangmates (because they need people to care about them, they're expensive but very vulnerable) will be the new friends of the carrier/mom pilots.
If the idea behind the proposed changes was judged to be sound, then something like this would be a much better way to go about it. Remember one of the great devplog comments from a few weeks ago - inspire us with new options, bonuses and counters; don't just nerf everything interesting back into turgid oblivion. Let us keep the ability to deploy fighters, but encourage their delegation, and the use of a carrier as a more logistical platform.
|
special person
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:47:00 -
[2687]
i think if they do this nurf they should at least give a bonus and allow us to customize the fighters and put what weapons and such that we want give them a couple high mid and low slots instead of them doing there own set damage like a drone or something along those lines yes it may be a dumb idea but its better then just completely ruining the carriers/mothers 
|
Bad Brown
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:24:00 -
[2688]
I feel sick inside, kinda looking like time to pack my 3 chars up look for a game that doesn't constantly nerf me and my friends.
Another point when you CCP is spending 3 paragraphs trying to justify why there is need for change (if you need that many words to justify anything, there is something far wrong with what youÆre doing and you know it).
Anyway, IÆll justify my leaving in a few words: My mates are peeded and looking for a new game because they donÆt like training for a year to end up getting nerfed to worthless. I agree with them.
Thanks a bundle CCP
|
freeKojak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:26:00 -
[2689]
I have sold my carrier already 
|
Lazuran
Gallente
Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:28:00 -
[2690]
Originally by: Mangold
Yet another CCP nerf to incurage more blobbing.
Seriously, wtf are you guys up to at CCP HQ?
Secret plan to get us to move on to their next game when it's out. ;-P
"...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) |
|
|
Saladania
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:30:00 -
[2691]
Originally by: Crohnx
how come u ccp dont get it? THEY DONT NEED ANY NERF!
Start looking into other things like repairing POS warfare wich if ****** up , introduce sovereignty pos's , like system pos and constelation pos wich will prevent pos spam , JUST LEAVE THE ****ING CARRIERS ALONE , THEY DONT NEED NERF.
GET IT? U dont need to discuss this cause its nothing wrong , again leave the subject, drop it , still dont get it??
STOP ALL what u doing on carriers and put your efforts to POS warfare, scanning cloaked ships , how to remove isk farmers , those are REAL problems , maybe u get it now?
signed!
|
Aleric Vikyz
Shadow Of The Light
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:41:00 -
[2692]
The new Devblog did absolutely nothing for me. All it demonstrated was CCP's moronic belief that these changes are necessary and tried to justify that belief with examples that make me question whether or not CCP actually plays the game. It also did nothing to apoligise for the disrespect the player base has been shown by CCP here and elsewhere regarding this issue.
My accounts are still canceled.
|
Jon Engel
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:49:00 -
[2693]
How about you drop the advancements and work on the lag of drones, lag in any system where the population exceeds 50 or so, and then give us new ideas...
FFS, fix the lag!
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:53:00 -
[2694]
CCP if you think carriers are such pwnmobiles then please do the following:
1. Log into TQ
2. Form a carrier/ms gang with NO support in 0.0
3. Inform Tri or any other well known cap killer alliance where you are
4. Fight said alliance in your unsuported MS/carrier gang
5. Come back and tell us they are still overpowered
and that was a very poor attempt at dmg control Kieron. not sure what that was but it didnt work you can still consider me an ex customer if this happends.
|
Fruchten
Caldari
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:56:00 -
[2695]
Leave my F'IN carrier alone.
|
Aram Thracius
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:59:00 -
[2696]
that makes sense, but what do I know, I fly Coercers 
|
DarthMopp
Gallente
I.D.I.O.T.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:07:00 -
[2697]
Geez...though i am lightyears away from being able to fly a carrier i really really doubt that this is the right way to treat the customers...
Imagine collecting Money for a Ferrari just to see the engine being replace by one VW-Beetle sized as soon as you can afford it...
Perhaps all those who were planning to visit the fan-fest should return their tickets to CCP with a big pic of the carrier in a wheelcair...
Ah...for f..cks sake...its just a game...if my corpmates will cancel their accounts i will do the same...solidarnosc ! CCP can then get lost....time to take out the PKM again and kill some guys on the Battlefield(2).
"Alea iacta est"
|
Hatsim
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:10:00 -
[2698]
Olol Way to go CCP!!!! 4MORE YEARS 4MORE YEARS!! 4MORE YEARS 4MORE YEARS...
i think that CCCP Hellmar = george Bush! :D 4MORE YEARS 4 MORE YEARS
Do not hire Idiots to do your thinking do it yourself and be a man! 4more years 4more years
And to the man that made it all possible
"imagine a dozen hornets pouring from the devil's mouth, Now imagine they have autocannons."
/Hatsim
|
ER0X
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:21:00 -
[2699]
IÆve just read through the new dev blog. What jumps right out of the page at me in the first few sentences is. æWe expected such a drastic change to result in a lot of feedback.Æ Are you kidding me?
You set up the original dev blog for this æDRASTICÆ change, and entrusted it to your newest member to take the flack. It was presented to your clients hidden within a tone of chirpy cheery from an exuberant Zulupark in his/her blog and now when you realise the reaction from your customers the mood has changed to a more serious even sombre register which you now expect your clients to be respectful of? IÆm sorry but youÆve treated you clients as insubordinate idiots over the last 48 hrs and because of this there has been an erosion of client/designer trust which may never be fully restored. Not only that.
BUT!
The tone of the piece is still condescending which presents a picture that you still donÆt get it, we aint that stupid! There was no discussion! You made no proposals! You took no advice from your testers who are us! The feed back is that we think it will break the game! It will break the game for a variety of different reasons! Not good enough! ItÆs disrespecting your clients!
Finally what do you mean the changes on SiSi were an accident?
Did some one accidentally trip over, program the changes and load them onto the server on the way to the floor kind of accident or what?
|
Dionisius
Gallente
Critical Analysis
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:21:00 -
[2700]
I have a question for CCP, will there be any skilbooks that will give more bandwith to carriers?
Something like drone adv drone interfacing but giving you more bandwith allowing you to control one more fighter per skill level?
Will there be any skilbook that reduces de amount of bandwith from modules or even the drones?Similar to electronics upgrades but applied to drones categories?
Could you implement a skill for mothership pilots something around the lines of "Capital Flagships" or something to increase even a bit further their fighter/drone unit numbers, or in option their fighter damage/hitpoints?
_____________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |